House of Representatives
8 September 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 875

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

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

  1. 1) We protest against any proposed self regulation of the broadcasting and television media in Australia.
  2. The appointment of Mr Gyngell as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal because of his admitted bias.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no self regulation is implemented and Mr Gyngell be dismissed as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

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

Petitions received.

Private Nursing Homes: Pensioner Patients

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-

  1. Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
  2. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  3. That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a Means Test.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen, Mr Keating and Dr Klugman.

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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 because television and radio:

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the exisiting standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a ‘dual system of regulation ‘enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon, Mr Clyde Cameron and Mr Haslem.

Petitions received.

Mr Ignazio Salemi

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will permit Mr Ignazio Salemi to remain in Australia as a resident.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. That whereas an amnesty was announced for all illegal migrants and that whereas Mr Ignazio Salemi, an applicant for amnesty, has been denied amnesty.
  2. That Mr Salemi fulfills all the publicly announced criteria for amnesty.
  3. That a decision of six judges of the High Court of Australia recognises that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs may exercise a discretion to allow Ignazio Salemi to remain in Australia.
  4. That, although denying Salemi ‘s appeal, all six judges of the High Court agreed that he had been unfairly treated.

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

Petitions received.

Television Reception in Birchip, Victoria

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

That television reception in Birchip, Victoria, is very poor. Your petitioners humbly pray that television receptions in Birchip, Victoria, be improved.

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

Petition received.

Uranium Mining: Moratorium

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:

We are calling for an independent moratorium on the mining of uranium because:

  1. . There has been no exhaustive debate, in the Parliament or public, on the question of mining and exporting uranium.
  2. The suggestion has been made that Australia could act as a waste disposal dump for other countries.
  3. The Fox Report makes it clear that the mining of uranium will create few jobs and contribute little to national wealth.
  4. There is no safe method of disposal or storage of high level radioactive waste.
  5. The increased availability of plutonium will magnify the terrorist threat.

It is impossible and immoral to think of mining uranium only in Australian terms. Uranium mining contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war.

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

Petition received.

Replacement Constitution

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

That we believe that Australia’s Constitution is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratic constitution. This new constitution should be drafted at a representative, directly elected people’s convention, following extensive public debate, and then put to a referendum of the people. The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament, as a matter of urgency, will help to promote such public debate and will arrange for the holding of such a people’s convention and referendum.

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

Petition received.

Uranium: National Energy Policy

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. Agree to a five (5) year moratorium on the mining and export of uranium;
  2. Promote full public discussion of all the questions raised by the mining and export of uranium, leading to a decision by all the Australian people; and
  3. Develop a national policy which concentrates on energy conservation and the research and the development of safer energy sources.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

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

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Gambling Casino in Canberra

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

That the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra would debase the National Capital and increase crime in Canberra.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should seek to preserve the dignity of the National Capital by disallowing any ordinance to authorise the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra.

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

Petition received.

page 876

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 876

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING: ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Can the Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade say how soon the economic benefits from the mining of Australian uranium will be felt in the community?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I was very interested to read some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in his address last weekend when he said the economic benefits from uranium mining would not come for five to ten years. The economic benefits from the development of uranium mines would be almost immediate. The Peko-EZ company which has a memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth to mine Ranger is in a position to commence immediately. Of course, as soon as it commences it will have to start to employ people. The company has to prepare the site and the roads and that means that people would be put into work immediately in the Northern Territory. As the mine proceeds a work force of something like a couple of thousand people would be directly involved in construction work. Of course there would then be benefits to all those people who supply the services for the people employed. The economic benefits for the Northern Territory would be immense. The Northern Territory is suffering at the moment because of low prices for meat and minerals. The reconstruction of Darwin has almost been completed and a fillip such as the development of uranium mining would be of immense importance to Darwin and its economy. So it is utter nonsense to talk about there being no economic benefits for from five to ten years, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 877

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN BORROWING

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that Reserve Bank holdings of gold and foreign exchange in the last fortnight of August fell by a rather dramatic amount of in excess of $137m- that is following the $685m revaluation of gold holdings? Is it a fact that Reserve Bank holdings of gold and foreign exchange are now down to the low levels of about June this year? Is it a fact that the loan that the Government is seeking to raise in Germany, announced as $200m and increased to $2 50m, is part of a government program to defend the Australian dollar? Is it a fact, as reported from some German circles yesterday, that the Government has indicated that it is prepared to increase this loan to $600m and to perhaps as much as $ 1,000m? If so, is this part of a determined government bid to defend the Australian dollar? In any event, in the light of the continuing and dramatic drain on Reserve Bank holdings of gold and foreign exchange, will the Treasurer make a firm and unequivocal statement of the Government’s strategy for defending the Australian dollar so that the Opposition can consider the degree to which it is able to extend support for what is a most important objective in economic management?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I can only say to the honourable gentleman that no question could be couched in more hypocritical terms than that asked by him today because he is very much aware -

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

- Mr Speaker, the last time that the Treasurer used unparliamentary words you wanted to check with Hansard and he was able, therefore, to withdraw those words a few days later after you were able to check the record. He has just used some other unparliamentary words and I ask that you have him withdraw them immediately.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the right honourable gentleman to withdraw those words.

Mr LYNCH:

– I used the words ‘hypocritical statement’ or ‘hypocritical question’, Mr Speaker, and if those words are unparliamentary I withdraw them. In substitution for them may I say that I find it absolutely ironic that the honourable gentleman who was more responsible than anyone else for the pre-devaluation speculation during the course of last year should come forward with continuing questions of this type and should be very articulate on the question of the exchange rate in public dialogue throughout the general community. He knows full well that this is not a matter which ought to be discussed publicly by a Treasurer or by a former Treasurer. I believe that it is not a matter to be dealt with appropriately by means of question and answer in this House.

The honourable gentleman knows the facts. The borrowing program has been subject to a very clear and definitive statement by me. The Euro-dollar loan has been increased from $200m to $2 50m as a consequence of negotiations in the Euro-dollar market by a Treasury official who is over there at present. We have made it perfectly clear, against the context of the earlier statement about the Government resuming its policy of moderate borrowing on official account, that that Euro-dollar loan of $250m will be exceeded during the course of the year. The Press statement which I issued some weeks ago made the point that we would have in mind a figure of around $600m or in excess of it. The honourable gentleman should not loosely draw attention to any figure of $ 1,000m which is not in my mind or in the Government’s mind at the present time.

So far as the exchange rate is concerned, I invite the honourable gentleman to note first of all what action has been taken in relation to borrowings and, secondly, to note the action which was taken by the Reserve Bank in relation to the revaluation of gold. A statement on that subject was put out by the Reserve Bank some two to three weeks ago. Aside from that the honourable gentleman knows that the exchange rate is chiefly determined by a country’s monetary and fiscal policies. It is apparent from the Budget Speech that the Government will be continuing to pursue during 1977-78 monetary and fiscal policies which will ensure a progressive improvement in inflation and in the economic situation generally. As far as policy is concerned, I invite the honourable gentleman to read again page 34 of Budget Statement No. 2 where the Government’s forward view of the balance of payments position is set out. He will note that at present there are seasonal influences at work. These are not expected to be long term. I think that what I have said disposes of the honourable gentleman’s question, but I suggest to him that questions of this type at this or any other time are quite destructive of the country’s national interest. If he had any sense of responsibility, he would not be seeking to make a public issue of these matters.

page 878

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING: DEMONSTRATIONS

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to recent Press reports that certain leading figures in the trade union movement are predicting bloodshed in the streets unless demands to hold a referendum on uranium development are acceded to. Is the Prime Minister in a position to advise this House whether the Government will bow to these threats?

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

-The short answer is no. Everyone is aware that there is a violent minority within Australia which is opposing uranium development regardless of a decision of a democratically elected government which has examined the Ranger reports with great scrupulousness and care and has overwhelmingly followed the recommendations of Mr Justice Fox and his fellow commissioners. I have noted that, amongst other things, one union leader has said: ‘Violent uranium protesters, mad lunatic elements, want bloodshed, want confrontation. They are hypocritical as they say some countries can have uranium’- presumably they are the Communist countries- ‘and not others’. The aside was mine and was not part of the quotation. Such people who want violence are only a minority. I suggest that threats by the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to ban uranium development if there is not a referendum can only encourage them. I think it is sheer hypocrisy on Mr Hawke ‘s part to try to create confrontation between government and trade unions.

It is worth noting that on many occasions the President of the Australian Labor Party has suggested that this Government wants confrontation with the union movement. If the truth be known it has always been this Government that has protected the people of Australia against confrontation by minority union groups of one kind or another which have sought to deny their services to the people. Whether it is action by a few postal workers at Redfern, by air traffic controllers or by people in some other area, when it happens it is those people who seek confrontation with the people of Australia and it is the Government’s obligation to protect the public interest and the Australian people in those circumstances. Support of the kind that Mr Hawke has given is only pursuing confrontation and the kind of statement he made in relation to uranium will only encourage those who want violence.

I would have thought that he had learned by now in any case to stop pursuit of that particular policy. A point was made very ably last night by one of the better debaters in the Opposition when he made some comments about the President of the Australian Labor Party and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Since I cannot put it better than did the honourable member for Hindmarsh I shall quote a passage from what he said. He said:

I want to refer now to the proposal of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Already the proposal to the ACTU Congress is a dead letter. Even if the Government had been prepared to accept that proposal for a referendum, what position would Bob Hawke have taken in the referendum? Would he have been in favour of mining or in favour of the Australian Labor Party’s policy for a moratorium? He would have had to decide which hat he would wear on the occasion of a referendum -

I suppose he would have worn two hats and cut himself in half-

He would then have had to decide whether he would wear the Australian Labor Party hat and be in favour of the Labor Party’s policy or wear somebody else’s hat.

Mr Innes:

– Did you write it for him?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I did not write the speech for the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I think he is still quite capable of writing very elegant speeches on his own account. I suppose it is worth noting that it is not only the President of the Australian Labor Party about whom the honourable member for Hindmarsh sometimes casts some inadvertent remarks. There is a public responsibility in relation to these matters to see that Government policy, properly devised and properly performed, is carried through, and the Government of the people of Australia will do just that.

page 879

QUESTION

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerns the matter of seasonally adjusted unemployment figures which the Minister ceased to publish a year ago. I ask: Is the Minister aware that Table 1 of Statement No. 2 in the Budget papers contains figures derived from a seasonally adjusted series relating to persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed. Does this not mean that seasonally adjusted figures for the number of registered unemployed are available from the Commonwealth Statistician and are being used by the Department of the Treasury? If so, why does the Minister continue to suppress the publication of these figures?

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

-The decision to discontinue the publication of seasonally adjusted figures at the same time as the release of the monthly employment figures was the unanimous decision reached at the conference of Ministers of Labour from all States. That included, of course, three Ministers belonging to the honourable gentleman’s party. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has what it regards as a series under trial for seasonal adjustment excluding, as I understand it, school leavers. This matter was raised on at least one subsequent occasion at a conference of Labour Ministers. The unanimous decision again was not to change the stand which had been taken on the earlier occasion.

page 879

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOLD COIN

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-I ask the Treasurer a question concerning the currency, gold and the deficit. Will the Treasurer consider changing the Currency Act to provide for the Royal Australian Mint to stike a new Australian gold coin? Does he agree that there is a demand for such a gold coin? Does he also agree that perhaps $50 or $100 would be an appropriate denomination and that the sale of such a coin would, in fact, raise revenue for the Government and attract funds from overseas?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– As the interjectors made clear, that is a very good question. In fact, I welcome the question and the interest of the honourable gentleman in the matter. As a consequence of representations which the honourable member for Higgins has made, the question of the issue of a gold coin is under consideration at the present time. There are, of course a number of technical and legal questions which need to be carefully examined in relation to the production of such a coin, quite apart from the fact that the Currency

Act would need to be changed. As the honourable gentleman has made clear in his question, there would be a number of advantages, apart from the numismatic point of view. I recognise that there is a demand in the community. It is a matter of assessing how large and strong that demand is. The issue of the coin would be helpful to the revenue. I assure the honourable gentleman that his representations will be borne very much in mind. I shall be in a position to inform him of the policy situation, I hope, during the months ahead.

page 879

QUESTION

RESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. The honourable member for Wentworth, in his resignation speech on Tuesday, denied the accuracy of a report in the Canberra Times on 16 August this year. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Press Secretary has asserted that he had the authority to guide the journalist who wrote that report in the Canberra Times’! Further, has the Prime Minister seen the report? Does he believe the report in the Canberra Times to be accurate?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-As I understand the position, my Press Secretary wrote to the honourable member in relation to these matters. I have nothing to add to that letter which, I understand, was read into Hansard by the honourable member for Bendigo.

page 879

QUESTION

SOVIET MILITARY PREPARATIONS: SUGGESTED WHITE PAPER

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. He will recall that recently, in response to a request from me, he prepared certain information regarding Soviet military preparations. In view of the value of that information will he now consider making it available to the House in the form of a White Paper, an incorporation in Hansard or in some other fashion?

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

– The answer is yes. Precisely how that could be done is a matter for some consideration. My expectation is that in the course of the next two weeks I will be able to put down a statement on defence. Possibly the information which I provided to the honourable gentleman will be put by way of annexure to that statement. I will give consideration to it and inform my honourable friend.

While I am on my feet, Sir, could I have your indulgence and that of the House to say that it is the honourable member’s seventieth birthday today? Taking one look at the honourable gentleman I am sure that if he asked, in his usual courteous way, he would get an extension of time.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-by leave- I thank the House. I am the oldest member in number of years, but in number of years of service I think I am only third. Looking around, may I be relieved of the obligation of saying whether I am glad or sorry not to have the responsibility of being the father of the House.

page 880

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATIONAL INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

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

– I ask the Prime Minister: Whatever happened to the national inquiry into drugs which he proposed on 27 July in response to a telex from the Premier of New South Wales three days earlier? Why is it taking so long to set up the national inquiry when the New South Wales royal commission was established some weeks ago?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I appreciate the honourable gentleman’s sense of urgency in relation to this matter. It is one that the Government certainly shares. It is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I have written on behalf of the Commonwealth to Premiers because I want to make sure that, to the maximum extent possible, the States are happy and content with the terms of reference proposed by the Commonwealth. If the national inquiry is to be effective, clearly the full co-operation of the States will be necessary. I think that Mr Wran might have found it slightly easier to obtain agreed terms of reference because he had to agree only with himself.

page 880

QUESTION

COLLAPSE OF AUS STUDENT TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of continuing concern in the community, particularly among tertiary students, at the collapse of AUS Student Travel Service Pty Ltd? Can the Minister inform the House about any further developments with respect to that collapse? Can the Government ensure that all students who had purchased tickets through AUS Travel will be able to recover their losses? Will students be able to use the facilities of the Australian Union of Students to undertake travel they had already arranged through the company? Will the Government conduct an inquiry into the affairs of AUS Travel?

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

-The collapse of AUS Student Travel Service Pty Ltd came as a shock to many students around Australia. Certainly it caused some distress to students who were overseas. I am able to inform the honourable member and the House that, as a result of the co-operation by the airlines, stranded students overseas were able to complete their journeys.

The future is not yet quite clear. The House may know that at the request of the creditors a provisional liquidator was appointed on 10 August. The provisional liquidator has come forward with a proposed scheme of arrangement to trade the company out of its financial difficulties. Meetings will be held this week to consider that proposed scheme of arrangement. Of course, as the Minister for Transport, I shall have to satisfy myself that there are no breaches of the air navigation regulatons in the proposals. The House will recall that the Government was exploring, with the Victorian Government, a proposition to hold a joint inquiry. However in view of the proposal by the provisional liquidator the Victorian Government has now advised that it does not believe that a formal investigation would be appropriate. Therefore I do not think it is possible for the Commonwealth to proceed with an inquiry of substance at this time.

I know that many members of this House and, indeed, Ministers have received representations seeking an inquiry into this matter. It will be a matter of some disappointment that an inquiry cannot proceed at this time, but doubtless the provisional liquidator will inform the appropriate authorities if he finds that something improper has occurred.

page 880

QUESTION

TRAVEL AGENCIES

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

– I ask the Prime Minister a question in the absence of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who, I believe, is responsible for matters concerning tourist legislation. Has the Government yet made a decision to reintroduce the legislation to regulate the activities of travel agencies which passed through this House but not through the Senate in 1975?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-This matter is before the Government at the moment. I hope decisions can be made fairly shortly.

page 880

QUESTION

RESOURCES TAX

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources: Is it a fact that in the Budget Speech the possibility of introducing a resources tax was mentioned? Has there been a lot of speculation that such a tax would apply to all resources? Can the Minister state how far the proposition has progressed and inform the House of the present position?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– In the presentation of the Budget it was announced that the Government would be consulting oil companies that are producing oil in Australia- principally the two Bass Strait operators- about the possibility of a secondary tax being applied at some time in the future. Those discussions have commenced. When we presented the uranium policy decisions it was announced also that we would be looking at the possibility of a secondary tax being applied to uranium development. Of course, the likely application of that tax would still be a good many years away.

There has been undesirable speculation throughout the mining industry that a resources tax might apply generally to the rnining industry. I want to lay at rest this speculation. It is not the Government’s intention to apply a resources tax to other sections of the mining industry. There are good and sound reasons for looking at a secondary tax or a resources tax in respect of oil that has already been produced in Australia and in respect of areas in which profits will be greatly increased because of government decisions. There are also good and wise reasons for looking at the uranium industry in this respect as it is unique and its potential profitability could be very substantial.

page 881

QUESTION

COST SHARING ARRANGEMENTS WITH VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Health: Why was there no proper and adequate consultation with the Victorian Government before the Federal Government unilaterally altered the cost sharing arrangements with that State in relation to the hospital development program and the community health and school dental programs?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The question of the funding of the school dental program was discussed at the Premiers Conference in June. The Commonwealth Government in this year’s Budget is making available this financial year 14.8 per cent more funds than it did last financial year to assist the States with the community health program. Surely nobody could argue that the States should not make a higher contribution towards the conduct of those programs within their own States. The former Government introduced the community health program and tried to involve the community in the program. It obviously showed an inclination towards asking the States to accept a progressively greater degree of involvement in the program.

As regards hospital cost sharing, the Government is in no way retreating from its obligation to meet SO per cent of the net operating costs of hospitals, but we have imposed certain accounting disciplines upon the States to ensure that there is proper accountability for the expenditures which they are incurring in respect of hospital administration. We have seen in this country an escalation of health costs, rising at the rate of 30 per cent to 40 per cent per annum. We have seen the health component of the gross national product increase from about S.8 per cent in 1971 to about 7.5 per cent in 1976. There has not been any indication, in spite of the rise in costs in the health care field, that the condition of the health of the Australian people has increased one iota. So we are determined to ensure that in those areas in which we are involved there is proper accountability, particularly in respect of hospital operation costs.

Three State Premiers have been in touch with either me or the Prime Minister seeking to increase hospital bed charges in their States. We are not prepared at this stage to increase hospital bed charges because it would be inflationary and would disturb the very sensible Medibank arrangements that we made as from 1 October last year. I want to lay at rest any speculation that the Commonwealth Government is trying to force the States to increase hospital bed charges. The States are trying to impose that responsibility upon us so that we would be left with the odium if we were silly enough to say yes.

page 881

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: NORGARD REPORT

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will be aware that the Norgard report on the Commonwealth Employment Service proposed significant changes designed to improve the effectiveness of the CES. Can the Minister inform the House when we are likely to know what action the Government intends to take on the various recommendations?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I am happy to inform the House and the honourable member of the progress that has been made to date in consideration of the Norgard report. The report makes more than 100 recommendations and provides the basis for the development of the Commonwealth Employment Service over the next decade. Therefore it will take some time before some of the recommendations are implemented. However, action is already in train on several fronts, and I would like to mention a couple of them to the House. Norgard identified as a particular weakness of the CES the absence of an organisation within the Department to enable effective co-ordination and management of its operations. As was recommended by Mr Norgard, arrangements have now been made for a Deputy Secretary in my Department to assume direct control of the CES in both its operations and management. In addition a small organisation has been established in the Department which will act as the focal point for consideration of the other recommendations, for co-ordinating matters arising from them, and for maintaining the momentum which has been attained so far.

Much of the action will be required at the grass roots level. Each region has put together a team from regional management and CES officers themselves to identify the Norgard recommendations which can be implemented quickly and what resources are needed to implement them. They are now being reviewed with the object of establishing proper priorities. Finally, the key issues of the Norgard report will be put before the National Labour Consultative Council at its special meeting tomorrow along with other items, including industrial legislation. Following the consideration by the National Labour Consultative Council of the Norgard report, I will be making a submission to Cabinet. I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the Parliament subsequent to that during this session.

page 882

QUESTION

RETRENCHMENT OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question. It refers to the actual and potential unemployment effect of falling nickel prices. Is the Minister aware that already over 600 employees engaged in nickel mining in the Kambalda-Kalgoorlie area have been dismissed by the Western Mining Company? Has the Government made any efforts to prevent these retrenchments or any further retrenchments? In view of the need for most retrenched employees to relocate to obtain alternative employment and the high cost of moving from a remote area such a Kambalda, can the Minister explain to the House why the Government has made no attempt to advise those dismissed employees of their entitlement to financial assistance for relocation under the Relocation Assistance Scheme?

Mr STREET:
LP

-I am aware of the situation arising in the Kalgoorlie-Kambalda region as a result of the fall in nickel prices. If the situation outlined by the honourable member is correctthat is, if no attempt has been made to advise people who have to shift from the area of their entitlements- I shall see that it is redressed. Certainly, I am aware that the Commonwealth Employment Service in the area has been doing everything it possibly can to find alternative employment for the men retrenched and to offer retraining for those who cannot be re-employed with their existing skills. The Relocation Assistance Scheme introduced by this Government is designed to cope with precisely the sort of situation which the honourable member has outlined. I shall not go into details of the scheme. They are available. But that information will certainly be made available to those who meet the criteria to be eligible for assistance under the scheme. The Relocation Assistance Scheme has enabled some 400 families to be assisted to relocate to new areas where permanent employment is available to them. It has been a major help in such circumstances. It is certainly the Government’s intention to ensure that it is of equal assistance to those who meet the criteria in the Kalgoorlie-Kambalda area.

page 882

QUESTION

WITHDRAWAL OF HEALTH SUBSIDIES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Health aware of notices being issued by the Health Benefits Council of Tasmania that the Government intends withdrawing subsidies to public and private hospital patients and nursing home patients? In view of the undoubted concern that the sick and aged and, of course, their families must be experiencing, will the Minister make a clear cut statement on this extremely important issue?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I thank the honourable member for Franklin for that question. I am very much aware of the notices to which he referred and also of the activities of at least one other fund which has been indulging itself in an extravagant scare campaign that has been causing great anxiety and suffering amongst those people in the community who are sick and in need. I think that those activities should be deplored. I know that honourable members on both sides of the House have received hundreds of letters as a result of the campaign that has been conducted. If the funds have reserves to use in this manner, one wonders whether they should be investigated. I am also concerned about the report that the Government is intending to increase bed charges in the public hospitals. I have said this morning that the Government has no intention of increasing bed charges and thus premiums for private insurance. The Government has no intention to abolish the $16 a day subsidy to private hospitals. The Budget has made that abundantly clear.

The Government has no intention of withdrawing subsidies for private nursing home patients. In fact the Government has allowed for a greater increase in benefits that will apply to nursing home patients because it has a real concern for the care of aged people in private nursing homes, government nursing homes and charitable or non-profit nursing homes. As a result of the changes that we have made, nursing home patients in this country have entered a new era of security. They certainly have, because we have reduced the gap -

Dr Klugman:

– For two months.

Mr HUNT:

– We have done something that the honourable member was not capable of achieving while he was in government. Let me conclude by saying that the changes we have made should increase premiums by no more than 50c a week, but we are looking to funds to absorb that increase by using some of their reserves where it is possible for them to do so. We would expect funds to use their reserves and resources for legitimate exercises rather than for trying to scare the people of the community with a lot of ill-founded rumours.

page 883

QUESTION

PRICE INCREASES

Mr UREN:

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to Budget Statement No. 2 in which the Treasurer forecasts a June quarter increase in consumer prices of 2 per cent to 2½ per cent, which is equivalent to 8¼ per cent to 10½ per cent at annual rates. I ask the Treasurer: Following the logic of his statements, does this imply a full yearincrease for consumer prices of 1 1 per cent to 12 per cent and a first half year increase of 13 per cent to 15 per cent? Further, does the Treasurer agree that rates of increase in consumer prices of 13 per cent to 15 per cent in this half year would boost inflationary expectations rather than bring about their winding down, as claimed in Budget Statement No. 2?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The honourable gentleman is aware of what is set out in Budget Statement No. 2 and I want to repeat it to the House. Looking at the first half of the year and at the second half of the year we see that there are factors which are working towards putting further pressure on the price mechanism. I refer to the questions of any outstanding price impact of devaluation and at the same time any catch-up in relation to prices. They will work to put pressure on the price mechanism during the course of the first six months. Equally, as the statement makes clear, the whole thrust of the Budget policy- particularly the firm budgetary and monetary stance- is towards a fall in the rate of inflation during the subsequent six months. Therefore the expected pattern of change on that basis is for a slowing as the year progresses, the rate of change in consumer prices in the June quarter 1978 being of the order of 2 per cent to 2½ per cent.

Information which the honourable gentleman seeks has not been provided before by governments in the detail which he desires. I certainly reject any suggestions of the alarmist type that the honourable gentleman puts forward. I recall that he mentioned figures of up to 15 per cent. I think the simple fact I would want to stand on is this: These sorts of questions were raised by Opposition members when the Budget for 1976-77 was brought down. I said then in quite clear and unequivocal terms that there would be a significant fall in the rate of inflation. That fall, of course, is now a matter of record. I invite the honourable gentleman to look at the national accounts for the end of the year. He will see a very significant fall- 10.2 per cent on the basis of the adjusted consumer price index and some of the more broadly based deflators show a sharper fall. We have every confidence that as the Government’s policies take effect during the course of this year we will look towards a position of 2 per cent to 2½ per cent. I do not put in on any other basis at the present time than to assure the House that the Government has every confidence that there will be a further significant fall in the rate of this country’s inflation.

page 883

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Prime Minister aware of a claim that the Australian Government has committed itself to supply uranium before any of the customer countries have committed themselves to safeguards? Has the Government made such a commitment and what exactly is the position?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In a national broadcast a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition made a few statements which are completely and utterly false and which he must have known were completely and utterly false. It would weary the House too much to trace all the falsehoods in that statement. Therefore I have selected three, but I must say they are only three out of many.

The statement that the honourable gentleman mentioned that we have committed ourselves to sales of uranium regardless of a system in relation to safeguards is grossly misleading and grossly false. We have insisted that we will apply the most stringent safeguards. The policy announced last May is in fact the strictest safeguards policy of any country in the world.

Mr Anthony:

– Much stricter than he recommended in March.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is stricter, I am reminded, than the policy he mentioned a few weeks earlier. Our policy is one that goes beyond the recommendations of the Ranger Inquiry itself in relation to safeguards. It goes beyond it in these respects: The customer non-nuclear weapon states must be parties to the nonproliferation treaty involving International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and accept our additional safeguards requirements under the bilateral treaties which they must enter into with us; existing nuclear weapon states must agree that Australian uranium will not be used for military purposes and be covered by IAEA safeguards. All of these things must be pursued and pursued vigorously before there can be any possible export of uranium to a particular country.

It has also been emphasised that the safeguards will in no sense be diluted merely for the sake of making a commercial sale. If countries cannot meet the safeguards requirements they will not be eligible to buy Australian uranium. I think it is most unfortunate that on matters of such national and international importance which do involve great moral issues the Leader of the Opposition should resort to deception and misrepresentation, to scaremongering of the worst kind.

The second deception I would like to mention involved the selective quotations and distortions that are a result of that, and these would be clear to anyone who reads what I actually said in my broadcast some days earlier. The Leader of the Opposition in his statement omitted a key sentence to make it appear that I said I believed that waste disposal technology had been applied on a large scale. He omitted the key sentence to be able to draw that conclusion. I actually said:

The scientific knowledge and technology have been applied to the problem of waste. The technology is known. It nas worked on a trial basis and plans are now under way to adopt it on a much larger scale.

The words ‘It has worked on a trial basis’ had been left out of the Leader of the Opposition’s statement. The third distortion, untruth, that I would like to mention -

Mr Baillieu:

-Lies.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Well, honourable gentlemen use blunter terms but they are no less accurate than the ones I have been using. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Ranger Inquiry favoured several years delay in decision on this matter. That again is quite untrue. The Ranger Inquiry said on page 5 of its second report that a ‘decision on the options’ to delay or not to delay ‘depended largely on what was deemed to be the best strategy in relation to the matter of proliferation’. It is precisely on that ground, the principal ground, that this Government has determined that sales of Australian uranium should be made.

I really find it quite odd that somebody who claims not to want proliferation of nuclear weapons- I admit the claim and I could not conceive of anyone in this House wanting that to happen- and to have the common objective of wanting to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons should suggest that Australia should behave as though we were on the moon or on another planet and not part of this world. Countries are going to get uranium. They will get it under less scrupulous safeguards than if some of them buy it from us. If we do not sell we will have no influence in dealing with the great task of making the world a safer place. We will have no influence in relation to proliferation and other matters of real importance. The vital and important work that Mr Justice Fox is doing now on behalf of the Government and the people of Australia, as adviser on the way that Australia can best lend its efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, could not have anything like the effect that it will have. We will be in the market -

Mr Armitage:

– You have been speaking now for six minutes.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-And, Mr Speaker, I might speak for a few more minutes yet. If Australia were to remove itself from a position of influence in the various studies that are under way, such as the fuel cycle evaluation and other matters designed to achieve a safer worldand even more stringent matters relating to safeguards- then the work of Mr Justice Fox as adviser on non-proliferation would certainly be weakened. It could not be as effective and Australia’s voice could not be as effective. I find it very hard to understand -

Mr Uren:

– I take a point of order. The Prime Minister is abusing Question Time by making lengthy replies. In fact he just gave you your instructions, Mr Speaker, when he said that he is going to speak for a considerable number of minutes yet. Mr Speaker, you have said many times that replies by Ministers to questions should be brief, and I believe that the Prime Minister should follow that example. Also, he should not intimidate the Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has made his point. His point of order has no substance but I would comment on one matter. The honourable gentleman said that I had received my instructions. I assure him that no individual member gives me instructions; only the whole House can give me instructions and it can do so only on a motion of the House. I have the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the chamber quite impartially and I do so. As to the answer by the Prime Minister, I have pointed out frequently that I do not control in any way the length of answers by Ministers. I can call upon Ministers to make their answers shorter.

Mr Armitage:

– That is what we want.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent while he is in the chamber or he will shortly be out of the chamber. As to the length of answers, I can call upon Ministers to shorten their answers and I do so when their answers are too long. In the case of the Prime Minister, like the Leader of the Opposition, it has been the practice of this House throughout its history to allow latitude to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling, but in my 19 years in parliament there has never been greater evidence of the rights of this House being abused so much by a Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No point of order is involved.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, as I said on an earlier occasion, there has never been a member of this House who has abused the privileges so much as the honourable gentleman who has just sat down.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will not comment on a point of order. I call upon him to complete his answer.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I would have thought that the honourable gentleman, who has suggested that he has some interest in the matters of non-proliferation, would have wanted Australia’s voice to be as powerful as it possibly could be in international forums to make the world a safer place in respect of these matters. I point again to the valuable work that Mr Justice Fox has done and is doing on behalf of the Government and the people of Australia because we are indebted to the quality and value of the Ranger Inquiry and its reports. The way in which the Government made its decisions in these matters is full evidence of that. Having achieved a great knowledge and background in these matters through the many months taken by those two inquiries, Mr Justice Fox has now taken on another vital and important role on behalf of the Government and the people of Australia as special adviser to me and the Government on matters of non-proliferation, such as, how we can best conduct ourselves in these matters to make sure that Australia’s voice will be as strong as possible to prevent proliferation, to make sure that we use our influence to the maximum extent and to see that all countries pursue safeguards in the most stringent way and co-operate to reinforce each other’s safeguards. It is perfectly clear that the basis of the Government’s decision was to put Australia into the most powerful position possible in these matters. It is perfectly clear also that the work and advice of Mr Justice Fox would not be as effective if Australia buried its head in the sand and pretended that uranium did not exist in Australia.

page 885

QUESTION

URANIUM: PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT

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

-Mr Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister and, in deference to the latitude that you give him and me, I shall confine my question to one instance of deception, misrepresentation and selective quotation for which he is responsible. It concerns the single quotation- one line- which appeared in the documents tabled a fortnight ago from the Flowers royal commission in relation to waste disposal. The quotation read:

We are confident that an acceptable solution will be found.

I ask the Prime Minister: Why is it that several sentences, and I will quote two of them now, were omitted from his presentation of the Flowers commission findings to this Parliament? The first sentence is: .

We believe that a quite inadequate effort has been devoted to the problems of long term waste management and that there should be no substantial expansion of nuclear power until the feasability of a method of safe disposal of high level wastes for the indefinite future has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

The second sentence from the Flowers commission findings is:

There are promising ideas for the disposal of these wastes but it may take 10 to 20 years to establish their responsibility.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister: How is it that so selective a quotation was made and this deception and misrepresentation perpetrated in the House two weeks ago?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The quotation that I used from the Flowers report was appropriate to the context in which it was put and was accurately taken from the context in which it appeared in the papers.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Honourable gentlemen opposite could well wait a moment because the sentences just taken from the Flowers report by the Leader of the Opposition were in major part referring to the geological aspects of waste disposal and not to the scientific and technological aspects to which I referred in my talk and which the honourable gentleman so utterly distorted in his talk to the nation.

page 886

AGRICULTURAL APPRENTICESHIPS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Darling Downs.

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

-Mr Speaker, I wish to ask -

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-My question without notice -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! For what purpose is the Leader of the Opposition on his feet?

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

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have not called the honourable gentleman. I call the honourable member for Darling Downs.

Mr McVEIGH:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is Victoria the only State which provides opportunities for agricultural apprenticeships for the purpose of training our farmers of the future? Will the Minister inform the House whether CRAFT subsidies will be available to agricultural employers in the circumstances? Will he also inform us how successful the agricultural apprenticeships in Victoria have been and whether these apprenticeships will be extended to other States?

Mr STREET:
LP

-Victoria is the only State which has approved agricultural apprenticeships. I understand that between October 1974 when they were first instituted and June 1976 some 442 people entered agricultural apprenticeships. CRAFT subsidies are payable to employers of agricultural apprentices who are released for essential technical training, in exactly the same way and under the same conditions as employers of other apprentices. As to the success of these apprenticeships, I understand that the Victorian Government and the people concerned have been extremely pleased with the results which have been achieved so far. Decisions as to whether this scheme can be extended, of course, remain with the individual States concerned. They have to make that judgment for themselves. But under the responsibility of the Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee, which is chaired by a member of my Department, the other States have been made aware of the Victorian scheme. I hope that the other States, having examined the success which has attended the agricultural apprenticeship scheme in Victoria, will give serious consideration to extending Victoria ‘s initiative to their States.

page 886

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual report of the Public Service Board for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 886

QUESTION

FEDERAL AND STATE TRADE UNIONS

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

– I seek the indulgence of the House to clarify an answer which I gave to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr STREET:

– It relates to the Moore v. Doyle issue which the honourable gentleman raised. I carried out a check of the minutes of the conference of Ministers for Labour which I undertook to make yesterday and I would now like to clarify the answer which I gave. The matter of Moore v. Doyle was officially raised at the 17th Labour Ministers Conference in February this year. The relevant minutes have this to say:

The Chairman pointed out that the machinery remained in the Commonwealth legislation for those who wanted to use it, and suggested that the legislation stand for the time being, noting that legislation was not proposed by the other States concerned, and that South Australia was prepared to maintain the moratorium.

Following a check with the secretariat on issues considered by the Ministers at the latest conference in Perth last week, I find that the Moore v. Doyle issue was not officially raised. But shortly after the conclusion of the conference I had informal discussions with the Ministers and the Moore v. Doyle issue came up again. It was clear from those discussions that there had been no change in the position they had stated officially at the February conference.

page 886

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966 I present the annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 886

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971 I present the annual reports of the Pig Industry Research

Committee for the years ended 30 June 1974, 30 June 1975 and 30 June 1976.

page 887

COMMONWEALTH FIRE BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board 1976-77.

page 887

TERRITORY OF CHRISTMAS ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Territory of Christmas Island for the year ended 3 1 December 1976.

page 887

COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

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

Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 I present the annual report of the Council of the Institute of Marine Science for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 887

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1977.

Wool Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

page 887

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Uranium- Electoral Redistribution-Industries Assistance Commission Inquiry into the Copper Industry- Mr Ignazio Salemi- Alleged Cancer Cure- Immigration- Fraser Island: Compensation to Sand Miners.

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

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

– First, I refer to the last answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to me this morning. The quotation which I made from the Flowers Commission was not limited in any way, as he asserted in answer to my question. I was quoting from paragraph 504 of the report and I quoted the third and fourth sentences from that paragraph. I now quote the first and second:

We have described in Chapter VIII the problems associated with the management and disposal of highly radioactive wastes arising from the nuclear fuel cycle. Such wastes will remain active over immense time scales, and unless continuously isolated will present dangers to our remote descendants long after nuclear fission technology has ceased to be used as a source of energy.

I shall not say any more at this stage on that matter because I realise that the Prime Minister has formed the habit of allowing question time, on alternate Thursday mornings, to go on so long as to limit the time available to honourable members for grievances.

I rose to speak on another matter. The present Government and its backers outside have developed a standard technique to intimidate independent bodies whose advice or decisions embarrass it. The Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) was an attempt to intimidate the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If the Prime Minister cannot intimidate the Industries Assistance Commission he proposes to destroy it. Now it is the turn of the electoral commissioners, particularly in New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberal Party has orchestrated a chorus of denunciation of the proposed redistribution. The State president, Sir Kenneth Anderson, a former Minister, has stated that the proposals are unacceptable and unfair to the Liberal and National Country parties. The State Secretary, Mr Carlton, describes the proposals as outrageous.

The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the only New South Wales Liberal who has ever been Prime Minister, has been particularly vehement. On 23 August he said: ‘I will protest and I will protest very loudly about it’. The commissioners in New South Wales so far have done nothing more and nothing less than their duty. They have obeyed the law of the land. They have carried out the law. No law of this Parliament has greater authority than the one under which the commissioners have carried out the redistribution. More directly than most laws the Commonwealth Electoral Act can be said to have been submitted to the people and supported by them. This Bill was one of the twice rejected Bills which caused the double dissolution of 1 974. It passed into law at the historic Joint Sitting of August of that year.

My Government’s efforts to carry out the law and secure the redistribution needed to give effect to the law were frustrated to the bitter end. The coalition was determined that a Labor government would never preside over a redistribution. Indeed the Country Party’s determination to avoid a redistribution led directly to the double dissolution of 1 974.I believe it was also a factor in the double dissolution of 1975. Now the Liberal Party has had its own distribution. Simply because it does not have it all its own way, simply because the commissioners have, to this stage, done an honest, workmanlike job, the Liberals are squealing. If the commissioners were to carry out the law faithfully they had no choice but to make the kind of changes they have made. Of course the changes are substantial. They had to be.

There has not been a redistribution since 1968. That redistribution was carried out under the old law which allowed a 20 per cent variation from the quota instead of the 10 per cent variation under the new law. Further, the High Court has ruled that there must be two fewer divisions in New South Wales. It would not permit another election for the present number. If a distribution is not accepted on the basis of fewer divisions and more equal enrolment the next election will be for the State of New South Wales at large. The shape of the proposed redistribution has been determined not by any prejudices of the commissioners but by the necessity of the law. The obstruction of the Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Parliaments has led to gross inequalities between electorates. In New South Wales Mitchell, held by a Liberal, had by January this year 90,276 electors. I will be quoting figures which appear in a speech I made on 24 February this year. Sydney, a seat held by Labor, had 53,177; Chifley, a seat held by Labor, had 88,030; Wentworth, a seat held by a Liberal, had 56,0 1 9. With such gross variations it was inevitable that any lawful distribution must make drastic changes to the boundaries.

The disparity between divisions is as marked when their populations are considered. In 1976 my electorate had a population of 157,000. lt was the second greatest of the New South Wales divisions. Its enrolment of 8 1 ,250 was as great as the population alone of North Sydney which was 81,059. Enrolment for Mitchell is only 7,000 fewer than the population of Lowe about which its right honourable member is so vocal.

Among the Sydney metropolitan divisions, Sydney had an enrolment of 53,117; Reid 59,788; Grayndler, 60,178- all held by Labor M.Ps. Wentworth with 56,019, North Sydney with 58,568 and St George with 60,995 have smaller enrolments than Lowe with 6 1,392. Incidentally, since Grayndler is constantly mentioned as a small division, I point out that it has a much greater population than Lowe- 112,000 compared with 97,000. All these divisions with a smaller enrolment than Lowe are quite properly being expanded. Their members will have to seek the support of greater numbers than before. If re-elected they will have to look after greater numbers than before. None of them will have to look after more than the average number which members have to look after. But those members are not squealing as the right honourable member for Lowe is squealing at the prospect of having to make a greater effort at and between elections.

At the 1968 redistribution Lowe was given a smaller enrolment than Werriwa, Macquarie and Mitchell. By this year enrolment in Lowe had increased by fewer than 4,000, in Werriwa by over 22,000, in Macquarie by nearly 25,000, and in Mitchell by 32,500. In one electorate the population has increased by over 35,000, and in another by over 36,000. 1 quote these figures to show how selfish it is for an honourable member who has had a pretty fair go, who has had a long run, to complain at having to look after an average number of people. If he is re-elected he will have to look after 10,000 more electors, but he still will not have to look after any more than the average number.

All parties and many members can have grievances about this redistribution, as we can always have them about any redistribution. It is very easy to go about a nitpicking exercise. The right honourable member for Lowe claims he is disadvantaged. The Labor member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) could make the same complaint. The Labor member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and the Labor member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) could complain at the abolition of their divisions. The distribution commissioners should be allowed to do their duties without disparagment and harassment. It would be unlawful to hold an election before there is a redistribution. The commissioners have followed the law and have upheld the law to this stage. So far they have done their duty by this Parliament. They have prepared the ground for a more democratically elected parliament, a parliament more nearly reflecting the principle of equal representation than any previous parliament. It is not appropriate for members of Parliament to deter them from carrying out the law.

Mr GROOM:
Braddon

– I take this opportunity to make some comments on the current Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the copper industry in Australia which incorporates an inquiry into the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd in Queenstown, Tasmania. As members would know, during recent months there has been a good deal of trenchant criticism of the Commission and its approach to the development of Australian industry. I want to make one or two general remarks before I get on to the question of Queenstown itself. In some quarters it has been suggested that the Commission is bent upon destroying business confidence, and in particular the manufacturing sector of Australian industry. I believe that if there is to be criticism it should be criticism of the Industries Assistance Commission Act rather than of the body which was created under that Act. No one, I believe, can seriously argue that the Commission has not endeavoured, to the best of its ability, faithfully to execute its responsibilities according to its charter. I believe it has acted totally in accordance with the Act as legislated and has tried to balance the economic and social objectives set out in section 23 in an economically consistent manner, if not necessarily a socially aware manner. In other words, I believe the Commission has performed its task faithfully as it interprets that task under the Act.

My complaint would be that the Act has not placed sufficient constraints on or given a clear directive to the Commission to ensure that it has greater concern for individuals-whether those individuals are people, corporations or even individual industries, and whether those individuals are in the manufacturing sector, the mining sector or the rural sector. Therefore I would like to see less emphasis at this point of our economic history on the broad-based approach which was so clearly stated in the Commission’s 1975-76 annual report. In that report the Commission endeavoured to explain its approach. The report states:

Since industries in all sectors of the economy are ultimately competing for limited capital and labour resources, the provision of assistance to any individual industry or sector reduces the resources available for the development of other industries and sectors. The Commission’s approach to industry assistance has the aim of improving the well-being of the community as a whole.

Obviously there is a very broad-based approach by the Commission which has been evident in recent times. I think the Act, as it is at present, allows the Commission, unfortunately, to be economic puritans who place economic theories and projections into the future, which may be correct in the long term, before the immediate practical needs of individuals to be fed, clothed and housed and to have jobs now. I believe they are fairly important considerations.

I believe the Mount Lyell inquiry provides the Commission with a unique opportunity to show it has an economic heart as well as an economic head. The House is aware of the current crisis at the Mount Lyell company. It has been raised in this place on a number of occasions. As the House would appreciate, it results from a world slump in copper prices. It is a terrible thing that this company will be forced to close unless government assistance is recommended by the Commission. Failure to provide assistance to the company will bring about very tragic results indeed.

Queenstown is the main centre of population on the west coast of Tasmania and is the principal residential centre for the work force engaged in the operations of the Mount Lyell company. Its population of about 4,500 people is almost entirely dependent upon this company and its operations. The township of Gormanston, which is quite close to Queenstown- about live miles away- and has a population of 500 people, and also the township of Strahan on Macquarie Harbour on the west coast are very heavily dependent indeed upon Mount Lyell. The end of the Mount Lyell company will mean that these towns will be mere shadows of their present selves.

Most of the people in these towns, in particular in Queenstown, own their own homes. They have capital invested, which is most unusual for a mining centre. In this respect Queenstown is unique. Without this mine the whole area will become a quiet and gradual drain on government funds in social security payments and other forms of assistance in years to come. If we can see out the present slump in world copper prices, which the experts suggest will continue for perhaps 12 months or two years, these areas will have a future. There are still large quantities of proven copper ore in the ground at Queenstown.

It is essential for the Commission in its inquiry and the presentation of its report to consider these fundamental human factors and not only to look at and consider pure economic theory. I hope that the Industries Assistance Commission in its wisdom will view Queenstown and Mount Lyell as an exceptional case and will give proper recognition to the need to protect for a reasonable period- perhaps a year, two years or three years- the very hard working mining community of Queenstown.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-Today I wish to raise a matter of importance, not just to people in my electorate, but to every ethnic group in our community. In fact, it is a matter of importance to every Australian for we have a Minister in this Government who is pursuing a vendetta against one man, one Italian migrant who is serving his fellow Italians. Why is he pursuing this vendetta? He is doing it at the behest of a few members of the Italian community who are highly placed in the Liberal Party of Australia.

Let me briefly outline what has happened in relation to Ignazio Salemi. He came to this country to assist FILEF, an organisation which might be likened to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He came as a social worker, mainly to assist migrant Italian workers. He came on a temporary basis and when it was ap- parent that his work was unfinished he applied to ave his visa extended. This Government, with this Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), were not having any of that. They declared an amnesty for people who were in the country illegally. Mr Salemi asked to be treated on the same basis as those who were here illegally.

Then we saw the technicalities creep in. The Minister, or perhaps his stooges in his Department, said that Mr Salemi was not eligible for treatment under the amnesty because he was here legally. Since then the High Court of Australia has criticised the actions of the Government; so has the Ombudsman. But what is the result? Last Friday the Minister signed a deportation order.

I have presented several petitions to this House relating to Mr Salemi- petitions which contained some 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 signatures of Italians in the community. Because of that support I want today to spell out the full details of the actions which have been taken. I want to do that so the ethnic groups of the community can see what this Government is prepared to do. This Minister had the effrontery to say the other day that the real problem of migrants was ‘emotional poverty’. Never mind all those other problems; it is emotional poverty which the migrant suffers according to him. The Minister suffers from poverty of the mind. He shows a lack of understanding of ordinary principles of fair play, correct conduct and natural justice.

Let me give the facts about Mr Salemi. He came to Australia first in September 1973 to participate in the first migrant workers’ conference. He came because the committee of FILEF in Melbourne had asked him in his role as editor of a monthly publication entitled Emigrazione, published by FILEF in Rome. He was later asked to return to Australia for a certain period to assist in establishing a welfare office for the Italian communities in the areas of Coburg and Brunswick and also to establish a newspaper in the Italian language so that these people would be assisted in their integration into Australia society. Above all, they were to be assisted by being informed of the many rights which their new country afforded them.

So in February 1974 Mr Salemi came back to Australia and helped to establish a welfare office in Coburg. The newspaper Nuovo Paese was established in May 1974. In the area of Coburg and Brunswick there is a very large ethnic population. They came to the centre in their hundreds. They came with all their problems- with applications for pensions, insurance and workers compensation problems, unemployment and sickness benefits problems, rent problems, hire purchase problems, educational problems, problems with income tax returns and applications for Housing Commission homes. They came because at that centre there were people who could speak their language and who could understand their problems. They developed a pride in the centre for it was a free welfare agency which they had established themselves.

Even when the Labor Government, in cooperation with the State Government, started the north west one-stop welfare shop, commonly known as NOW, they continued to throng to the FILEF welfare centre. Perhaps it was for reasons of trust, perhaps it was for ease of communication, perhaps it was because they had a pride in their own efforts; but it worked. Co-ordinating it all was Ingazio Salemi. He has the journalistic touch to express things properly in the newspaper. He is multilingual, able to speak Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, French and English at least. He is the link between many of the groups. He is the real communicator between the migrant community in that area and their rights in the Australian community.

So successful has been his work that FILEF activities grew and grew in Melbourne. Branches have been formed in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Through it all the Italian community has begged him to stay. Well, most of them have begged him to stay. Of course, there are a few wealthy Italians who do not want him to stay. They do not want someone in their midst who is able to explain the rights of a worker to a worker. They have spoken to their colleagues in the Liberal Party. ‘ Get rid of this man’, they said and, for good measure, they added: ‘He is a communist’. One of these people approached me when the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) was Minister for Labor and Immigration and asked me to see what I could do about getting Mr Salemi out of the country because he was a communist, not because of the work he was doing.

Lest it be thought that I am making this up, let me assure the House that that very proposition was put to me personally by influential Italians who sought my aid. I know that when I say this I shall receive another very irate letter from Lady Braddon in Sydney, to whom I must apologise for having the temerity to refer to her as a wealthy old dowager. At her request I withdraw the term ‘wealthy’. But I venture to suggest that membership of the Italian Communist Party is hardly something which makes a man stand out in Italian society. After all, that Party is very close to being the ruling party in that country.

What if Mr Salemi is a member of the Communist Party? Is that good warrant for banishing him from this country? Have we banned communists? The Minister may think so. If that is so, he has a remedy. Section 14 of the Migration Act enables him to order the deportation of anyone who preaches the communist doctrine. Of course, there is one problem for the Minister and his Department: That section gives a person a right of appeal to a commissioner who is a judge of a court. Over the years all sorts of attempts have been made to develop a proper system of appeals in deportation cases.

The sort of argument that is being put up can easily be seen to be puny when one looks at the report of the committee on administrative discretions. What happened as a result of the presentaton of that report? Appeals are now being made in some deportation cases under sections 12 and 13 of the Migration Act by people who have been convicted of specified crimes within a specified time of their arrival in this country. So there is a right of appeal for people who have committed criminal acts. There is a right of appeal against deportation by the Minister on the grounds of being a communist. But there is no appeal for Mr Salemi. He is a social worker. The Minister hides behind technicalities, including the claim that there are plenty of journalists in Australia. What a load of tripe!

Let me trace the history of events. On 25 January 1976, flushed with success at being admitted to the Ministry- perhaps he will be the next to go- the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs announced an amnesty. Everyone who was an over-stayed visitor would be granted resident status unless he failed to meet normal standards of health and good character or if he had a serious criminal record. Salemi applied for the amnesty. He was told that he was not eligible because he had not entered as a visitor. That was incorrect, and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia described it as being an untenable reason.

After making three separate applications, Mr Salemi ‘s application was heard by a Full Bench of the High Court of Australia on 1 1 May 1977. Three judges were of the opinion that Mr Salemi had been denied natural justice; the other three judges said that he had been unfairly treated but that the concept of natural justice did not apply in the administration of the Minister’s decision under the Migration Act. Even in the light of that glaring criticism the Minister persisted and ordered Mr Salemi to leave the country. His case was taken to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of Ministers. He did investigate the departmental action and said that the fact that the Department did not advise the Minister of the implications of the High Court judgment was ‘unreasonable’, that it was unfortunate’ that the Department did not ask Mr Salemi for particulars, and that the Department was ‘wrong’? So here we have three statements by the Ombudsman to the effect that the actions of the Minister’s advisers were unreasonable, unfortunate and wrong. The High Court was critical, and the end result of all that was that the Minister proceeded and issued a deportation order.

When addressing a cultural studies conference in Goulburn last week the Minister said:

We have largely failed in the past to take adequate account of the non-economic factors which understandably mean so much to the quality of life of members of our ethnic communities, and which could, and should, add so much to the quality of life of Australians generally.

I suggest that in this case the Minister has demonstrated that failure. It is past the time for there to be a proper system of appeals. We have had the window dressing of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Proceedings) Act, which has never been proclaimed, which probably never will be proclaimed now that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) has received his reward, and which might allow such an appeal. We have provision for appeals for migrants convicted of crimes. We have a system, which is never used, for migrants who are alleged to be communists. Mr Salemi might be a communist. He is not being dealt with as one; he is being dealt with as a victim of the Minister. It is still not too late for the Minister to do the correct thing- to act like a Minister who has some responsibility for the ethnic communities. Let him withdraw the deportation order. Let him grant resident status. Let justice be done.

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

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

– I draw the attention of the House to what I call the Rarotonga rip-off, aided and abetted by a dark conspiracy between the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Sir Albert Henry, and a crook, charlatan, arch-swindler named Milan Brych. The whole purpose of this swindle is to entice to the Cook Islands for treatment Australians who either have cancer or who, for one reason or another, think that they may have fallen victim to this dreaded disease. Brych is a former Czechoslovakian refugee who conned the Medical Council of New Zealand, upon his own sworn testimony, into believing that he had undergone medical training in that country commencing in 1958. He became a member of the staff of the Auckland Hospital Board institutions, and from early 1972 onwards began to make false, grandiose and extravagant claims about his ability to cure cancer patients by a remedy so secret that he has never to this day disclosed it. He conned not only the Council but apparently also members of the medical profession in this country, to such an extent that Australian patients have been going to New Zealand for treatment by Brych from 1972 onwards.

Following a flood of complaints his background was investigated by the Medical Council during 1974. He was struck off the New Zealand medical register in November of the same year on the basis that he had fraudulently claimed to hold medical degrees. Following extensive abuse of the New Zealand legal system which culminated in long delays, the matter was finally resolved in April of this year when Brych withdrew his appeal against being struck off the register. In addition to the charge of fraud surrounding his assertions to having medical degrees, I believe that he was then also facing some 23 other charges laid by the Division of Medicine from Auckland.

Brych disappeared from the Auckland scene and has now set himself up in the Cook Islands under the patronage of his co-conspirator, Sir Albert Henry, at whose behest and insistence the Cook Islands Medical Act was specifically altered to allow for Brych ‘s registration as a medical practitioner. This dastardly act was done in the face of repeated warnings from the Division of Medicine in Auckland to the Cook Islands Medical Council and to their Minister for Health. It is of interest to note that Brych ‘s appeal against being struck off the medical register in New Zealand was dismissed on 5 April 1977 and that the Medical Act of the Cook Islands was altered just prior to that date. That is singular overt evidence of the birth of the conspiracy. To his great credit, the chairman of the Medical Council resigned in protest.

The facilities under which Brych is operating are almost non-existent. Brych was subsequently appointed by the Prime Minister and his Government as Director of the new Cook Islands Medical Research Institute, and he expects to start work in a new $400,000 centre next year. The Cook Islands Government has got plenty of coconuts- small ones at that- but no money. The only possible way in which this project can be financed is by ripping off money from Australians and Americans who are worried to the depths of despair by their terminal condition. The existing hospital in which he works has no automatic suction, oxygen or similar amenities at the bedside of the patient. There are no elaborate laboratory or X-ray facilities. It would be an over-estimation to say that the blood transfusion services are poorly developed. As is the situation with all cancer quacks, figures and facts are nonexistent, but the propagation of information, not only by himself but also by his medical agents in this country, is specifically tailored to ensnare a multitude of unfortunates into the mistaken belief that he has some miraculous method of treating cancer.

I am given to understanding that a file prepared by the Auckland police is now at police headquarters in Wellington for their study and for examination by the Solicitor-General. The whole purpose of this exercise will be to base a request for an extradition order against Brych to take him back to New Zealand to face criminal charges. As my good friend of racing fame, the late Ken Howard, would say, it is London to a brick that his co-conspirator, Sir Albert Henry, will refuse. This gentleman obviously sees Brych ‘s arrival on the scene as manna from heaven which will fill his Government’s coffers. He has levelled abuse at all his critics, foremost among whom has been our own Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) whom he has described as a person who would not know the difference between tinnea and foot and mouth disease. He is on record as saying that he does not give a damn what Mr Hunt says and he will not be dictated to by Mr Hunt or by anyone else. There is news in store for that gentleman. In the face of mounting criticism he has again gone on record as saying that he does not give a damn if Byrch does not have a certificate in other countries and that he had given him a certificate that is legal in the Cook Islands.

Australians are being ripped-off by this unholy alliance to the tune of between $7,000 and $10,000 a patient. An expose as to how Byrch’s fees are divided would, I am sure, make the most interesting of reading. I would exhort our own prestigious medical associations to conduct their own investigation for the purpose of searching and seeking out Australian medical practitioners who are actively promoting in this country Byrch’s activities in the Cook Islands and openly recruiting patients here in return for a financial kick-back. Only last month Sir Edward Hughes, President of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, returned from New Zealand. I understand he described Byrch as a complete and utter rogue, and he expressed concern, so I believe, that money may be leaving this country and finding its way into the pockets of this man. This timely and most interesting observation caught my attention and should become the immediate concern of the Commonwealth Government in the near future. Section 21 of the Health Insurance Act states:

Subject to this section, where medical expenses are incurred in respect of a medical service specified in an item rendered outside Australia, on or after the date fixed for the purposes of section 10, to an Australian resident, by or on behalf of, a prescribed person -

I emphasise the words ‘prescribed person’ - . . medical benefit is payable in respect of that medical service as if that medical service had been rendered in Australia by or on behalf of, a medical practitioner.

Although Mr Brych is not a medical practitioner in the ordinary accepted sense of the word, the dreadful anomaly is that he is, in fact, a medical practitioner under the definitive section of the Act. If honourable members will bear with me, section 2 1 of the Act which refers to a ‘prescribed person’ says that a ‘prescribed person’ means a person authorised to practise as a medical practitioner under the law of the place- in this case it is the Cook Islands- where the professional service was rendered.

Of course he is entitled to practise as a medical practitioner in the Cook Islands because Sir Albert had run roughshod over the advice of his own medical council.

Honourable members will recall that the same gentleman, Sir Albert Henry, by his own machinations and for his own ends and, no doubt, Mr Brych ‘s also, arbitrarily made him a medical practitioner under that law. Put simply it means that from time to time all the people of Australia are making a contribution towards this criminal who has battened on the hopes and aspirations of a number of Australians. This must cease. I call upon the Federal Government to correct forthwith this anomaly by amending section 2 1 giving the Minister discretionary power to preclude payment of benefits for services rendered by persons such as Mr Brych. If it does not move expeditiously an unjustified accusation of double standards could be levelled at the Government. I assure the House that there is no alternative but to continue with the payment of benefits until this amendment is implemented. I thank the House.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My grievance relates also to the matter raised by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). The honourable member for Melbourne has dealt in great detail with the persecution of Ignazio Salemi by the Government at the behest of others. He has pointed out the work that Mr Salemi has been doing for Italian migrants and Australia and the way in which he has been unmercifully hounded. I shall add to that by pointing out the quite unsatisfactory legislative framework within which Mr Salemi has had to work and also detail the actions of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the omissions and lack of action by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) consequent upon the report of the Ombudsman in this matter.

The interest of the honourable member for Melbourne in matters relating to deportation and the rights of migrants in Australia is not new. In fact, last year when the Ombudsman Bill first came on for debate in the Budget sittings the honourable member referred extensively to the power of deportation and to the rights of migrants under the proposed legislation. In particular, he drew attention to the report of the Bland Committee on Administrative Discretions about the attitude of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to the rights of migrants in Australia. I think he summed up the situation then by saying that the Bland Committee concluded that there was strong departmental opposition to a system of appeals for persons who are not already permanently resident in Australia. That seems to me to be a fair summary of the Department’s position. It reflects the entrenched conservatism in the Department about which the Minister has done nothing.

In responding to the concern expressed by the honourable member for Melbourne, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), who was then the Attorney-General, was at pains to put the House at ease about the exercise of ministerial discretion under the Migration Act. The Attorney-General, as he then was, pointed out that when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was absent from Australia he acted as

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He knew something about the portfolio and said that the Minister had interested himself personally in the signing of deportation orders and did not feel in any way constrained to act upon the advice of his officials. The Attorney-General went on to draw a distinction between so-called policy decisions and administrative decisions. He said that in the area of administrative decisions the decisions of a Minister would be subject to review under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. He should have known that that was wrong. It is wrong. It arises in relation to section 14 of the Migration Act. It does not arise in relation to section 18 under which the Minister has acted to deport Ignazio Salemi.

The then Attorney-General in his usual blithe manner concluded that the discretions of Ministers have always been subject to judicial review under prerogative writs. That too is wrong. If the then Attorney-General needed to be told that in any certain terms, he has been told it on two occasions this year by the High Court. In particular, he has been told it by his old chum, the Chief Justice of Australia. Earlier, in a matter brought by Mr Salemi himself, the Chief Justice reached that conclusion. More strongly, he reached the same conclusion subsequently in a case involving two Fijian nurses who had also sought an order against the Minister to stop their deportation. In that case the Chief Justice said he expressed the view in the case of Mr Salemi that the power to order deportation under section 18 is not qualified by the necessity to afford a prohibited immigrant natural justice. Every other judge in the High Court agreed with that view. If a Minister has a power that does not have to be exercised subject to considerations of natural justice it is a particularly grave power. We ought to hope that the Minister weighs very carefully all considerations before he exercises it.

I turn to the advice that the Minister has received from his Department and to the attitude of the Ombudsman to that advice. The Ombudsman was appointed this year. Professor Jack Richardson was appointed without the position being advertised. He is a man of known, strong partisan attachment to the coalition parties who has, at least since the time of the double dissolution in 1974 and the subsequent Joint Sitting, interested himself actively in counselling and advising the coalition parties. Nonetheless, he is an experienced teacher of administrative and constitutional law. He had the advantage of teaching me those subjects.

Let us look at what the Ombudsman said in relation to this very important matter of the deportation of Mr Ignazio Salemi. This matter has caused enormous concern amongst the Italian community, not simply in Melbourne but right throughout Australia because of the very selective way not only the Minister but also his departmental officials appear to have acted. We all know that ministerial discretions are not subject to review under the Ombudsman legislation. But the Ombudsman said that that did not preclude him from looking at the administrative decisions reached by officers of the Minister’s Department. The Ombudsman described in great detail what he thought an amnesty was and the grave consequences that flowed from it. He said:

A grant of amnesty is a positive and exceptional act of executive government giving rise to expectations of paramount importance to the classes of persons to whom it may extend. It is not to be expected, therefore, in the case of doubt, that the language in which the amnesty is expressed should be interpreted narrowly or technically to the disadvantage of persons who could reasonably understand it to apply to them.

He said it is not to be interpreted narrowly or technically. Honourable members should bear in mind what are the powers of the Minister. In the Fijian nurses’ case the Chief Justice said that where a person was a prohibited immigrant the Minister had no discretion under section 18, he had to deport. He said that his discretion related to the cancelling of temporary entry permits and the question whether, therefore, persons were prohibited immigrants. Whether a person is a prohibited immigrant is a question of objective fact. It is something a court will look at. A court can look at only the way in which the Minister has dealt with the question of entry permits.

It is on the record in the Ombudsman’s report that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has changed its position on this matter. It changed it after the honourable member for Melbourne made representations in May 1976. The Ombudsman refers to that particularly, that the initial advice given to the Minister was wrong and that in fact whilst Mr Ignazio Salemi may have come on a visitor’s visa and have subsequently been given a temporary resident permit that was the position it adopted after May 1976 and after Mr Salemi had first made his application to remain in Australia.

We ought to look at the conclusion reached by the Ombudsman. From reading the report of this case it is obvious that the Ombudsman has given very thorough consideration to the matter. He has called before him officers of the Department. He has not been put off by the fact that the Minister has signed the deportation order. He has gone on to draw very clear conclusions about this matter. His summary is this: that a person, overstayed after first entering Australia pursuant to a temporary entry permit and a visitor’s visa, and later obtaining a further temporary entry permit and being issued with a temporary resident visa, would have a reasonable expectation that the amnesty would be extended to him subject to compliance with the requirements of good health and character. That is the conclusion the Ombudsman reached, yet at every turn the Minister and his departmental officials have sought to hide behind technical details about the fact that Mr Salemi ‘s status was changed from that of a visitor to that of a temporary resident after he entered Australia and that, as a temporary resident, he was therefore not eligible for the amnesty. The Ombudsman thought otherwise and he said that section 15(1) (a) (ii) of the Act applied. He did not say what that was. That section reads ‘that the action was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory’. That is the conclusion reached by the Ombudsman in relation to the advice tended to the Minister. The Minister has remained curiously silent about the actions of his officials and about his proposed action in relation to this important report of the Ombudsman.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-In recent weeks members of this Parliament would have received letters from the Fraser Island ExSandminers Area Relief Committee seeking their support for adequate compensation following the Government’s decision to terminate sand mining in that area. I was previously acquainted with their intention and indeed I had some modest input into that letter. It was designed to enlist support for my representations to the Government to ensure that the requirements of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry’s final report would be fully met. Recommendation No. 2 in that final report called for the Government to ensure that appropriate economic and other assistance be given to the extent that adverse regional economic effects follow the implementation of recommendation No. 1.

In the area of compensation the Federal Government certainly did provide $10m to be applied over a three-and-a-half year period. It was designed initially to be a wage element in programs that would be supported by the State Government to ensure a continuity of employment for those who sought it. The State Government was not sensitive to the Federal Government’s insistence that it should share the responsibility of a decision that was exclusively the responsibility of the Federal Government. It insisted in the end that the money be passed over to the State Government which would determine its application. The position now is that approximately a score of ex-sandminers have not been able to secure employment. Very many of them have been given alternative employment in local authorities, forestry departments and other areas but they have been required to take employment at a substantially lower income- in most cases at an average of 30 per cent lower- than the incomes they previously received. Clearly they have been disadvantaged as a consequence. A number of these sand miners have been dismissed for a second time when local authority funds directed to programs to assist in this respect become depleted and it was necessary for those sand miners to be dismissed pending the introduction of the programs for the next financial year.

I do not propose in the few minutes available to me to canvass the rights or wrongs of the decision made on the environmental issue but the fact is that, as a consequence of that decision, very many Australians are suffering hardship and distress. They had, with reasonable expectation of continuation of employment with its attached income, committed themselves to expenditure in the way of buying homes and motor vehicles and attending to all the requirements normally associated with the establishment of family in an employment area. Immediately on the decision coming into effect they were seriously embarrassed in maintaining their commitments. Some husbands are working 1,000 miles away from their families, and are likely to remain so, to secure employment that offers sufficient return to meet their commitments. Others are in very serious difficulties. They were required to dispose of their vehicles and various other assets and are at risk of having to surrender their homes.

The question arises as to what extent the Federal Government should hold itself responsible for their condition. This House is painfully aware that there are at this time very many Australians who are equally distressed through a different set of circumstances, but this situation exists because of the Federal Government responding, perhaps quite properly, to what it believed was the insistence of the Australian society, that Fraser Island ought to be preserved for all Australians because of its unique characteristics. These may be argued, but that was the decision and very many well meaning people were most vocal and active in ensuring that the Government did come to that decision. It has been rather sad- indeed it may be an indictment of our society- that since the decision has been made very little, if any, interest has been displayed by those people to ensure that those who suffered the consequence of their ambitions should not be unfairly treated.

There is a strong suggestion that the mining company is the culprit, that because it elected to take a calculated risk on the continuation of operations it has a debt to those discharged sand miners and those who may have felt the impact of that decision. But it is not possible to persuade the people so affected that there is any substance to those assertions. They quite rightly point to statements that have been made in this House. On 20 May 1975 the Prime Minister of the day posed the question to what extent the Australian Government could purport to abort contracts which had been made in accordance with the law. He said:

The people who sought the authorisation from the Minister for Minerals and Energy had acted completely in accordance with the law-

He was referring, of course, to DillinghamMurphyores Minerals. That authority relates to a statement by the late Mr Connor in answer to a question upon notice on 21 April 1975 when he said:

On 13 December 1974, D.M. Minerals was authorised to finalise an export contract in accordance with the terms of a draft agreement submitted on 13 September. Under the minerals export control procedures established in February 1973, D.M. Minerals had consulted with officers of my Department prior to drawing up the draft agreement. The project was not considered new in that it had reached an advanced stage in planning and development and substantial exploration and development expenditure had already been incurred, some of which dated back to the early 60s; also, mining leases had been granted by the Queensland authorities laying down, amongst other things, stringent conditions to protect the environment.

Specifically in answer to the question put by Mr Hunt as to whether the Government intended to honour its undertaking to D.M. Minerals, the Minister categorically stated: ‘Yes’. So there is a firm belief in the community that the mining company was legally and properly engaged in an activity which brought with it an expectation for all involved of a continuation of operations over a period of 15 to 18 years. Those ambitions on the part of all concerned were abruptly terminated by Government decision based on what it believed to be a reasonable rationale in the interests of the people of Australia.

It is only proper that the people of Australia, through the Federal Government, should compensate those people adequately, as urged by the environmental inquiry itself in the recommendation to which I referred before. The sand miners seek recognition in terms of a severance pay or an income maintenance scheme for a periodperhaps six months’ equivalent income-or in some respect a special allocation of funds should be made to ensure that they are not left alone to carry the burden of a nation’s conscience, if indeed it was pertinent to the Fraser Island issue.

It would be remiss of me, as their representative in this Parliament, to slacken my efforts to ensure that in this situation justice should be done. To suggest that the mining company commenced operations with indecent haste to thwart the ambitions or the intentions of the environmental inquiry is quite mischievous. The company had been previously authorised, as was pointed out in Mr Connor’s statement to embark on this project. In actual fact on 16 March 1975, some few days before the announcement was made that an environmental inquiry would be conducted on Fraser Island, the company had expended $6m on pre-mining activities and the construction of plant for that project. A few days later the wet plant on the island was commissioned and operations began. So this was a long continuing exercise from 1961 which involved a total commitment of the project in 1973, on the basis of categoric assurances from the Government the company was authorised to proceed.

It strikes me as an absolute mischief to suggest that these people should be left to their own devices to resolve their own dilemma because the Government proves to be derelict in its responsibilities on behalf of the society that insisted this action should be taken. I would seek the support of all members of this House to apply themselves as best they can to see in this situation that justice be done.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I wish to endorse the remarks already made this morning by other Opposition speakers in respect to what is known as the Salemi case. This matter relates to problems of interpreting the law concerning immigration and, even worse, to the misinterpretation of what might be deemed to be Press releases of a Minister announced as being government policy. Let me say at the outset that during the last election the Government announced its policy on immigration with the famous line:

The policy will be guided by principles of humanity, equity and compassion . . .

We have had the benefit of a High Court decision. I must say the Court was certainly very divided. Out of a court of six judges three decided in favour of Salemi and three against him on technical grounds. The decision went against him because the Chief Justice based his decision on these very technical grounds.

Subsequent to that we had the benefit of the Ombudsman’s decision which clearly indicated that he felt Salemi was entitled to remain here. We would say that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKeller) should certainly act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s impartial investigation of the position. We passed the Ombudsman Act relatively recently. Under this Act people such as Salemi are able to receive impartial advice and investigation. About the same time as we passed the Ombudsman Act we also passed an Act which said that further justice would be available for the people of Australia to obtain a judicial review of administrative decisions. It is rather tragic and rather sad to think that the Government has not promulgated that Act because under section 5 of that Act a breach of the rules of natural justice can be the subject of reviewing a decision. In this case there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice. Why has Salemi been put in the position of receiving the benefit of the Ombudsman’s review and still being denied the opportunity to obtain a judicial review which could virtually reverse the Minister’s decision on the basis of natural justice?

If we apply the principles adopted in the Parliament this week that a Minister who does not take notice of what Cabinet wants has to resign, should not the converse situation apply in that a Minister who will not act in accordance with the obvious principles of a government should also be put in the same position? Has the Salemi case become a personal problem for the Minister? Is he concerned about Salemi ‘s political colour, the fact that he is a communist? This is not the way to good administration. For that reason the Minister bears the onerous burden of the remarks made about the situation, even by the Chief Justice himself. On page 9 of his judgment of 1 1 May the Chief Justice said:

It is regrettable that because the Minister does not wish to extend the amnesty to the applicant, and indeed has assigned an untenable reason for not doing so, he has given ground for a sense of grievance and disappointment . . .

The Minister was the subject of a barb from the Chief Justice. No government, surely, wants to live in that sort of atmosphere. Is it any wonder that Salemi himself feels that he, of all people, has been selected to be dealt with?

Let us look at the famous atmosphere that was developed in the climate of the last election as to who would come here and who would be allowed to stay. I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to statements that were made by Mr Justice Gibbs and particularly to the statements he made about the Minister’s Press statements. Honourable members will see that the Press statements are rather ambiguous, to say the least. A Press statement issued by the Minister on 25 January 1 976 stated:

The amnesty for prohibited immigrants foreshadowed by the Government may be sought by all visitors. . . .

Salemi came here as a visitor during the time of the Whitlam Government. When Clyde Cameron was the Minister responsible for this area he would have said: ‘Yes, I welcome Mr Salemi coming here; I approved of his coming here; I knew for what purpose he was coming- to assist the Italian community in the furtherance of its endeavours’. A Minister of the Crown at that stage knew why Salemi was here and extended his permit on that very basis. So there was no misunderstanding by the then Government. We now seem to be trying to suggest that because Mr Salemi did not come as a visitor but came apparently on the basis of a temporary resident he does not fit the amnesty guidelines. But a Press statement also said:

This is a genuine offer … to give security to the many people . . . living under a cloud in this country. . . .

What sort of clouds were they? If people lived under pink clouds they were not to be covered by the guidelines. Apparently if they were under any other sort of cloud they might have been all right. How can a law be run on that basis? How can we say to people: ‘We are offering you amnesty if you are living under a cloud 7 At that stage Salemi was under a cloud. He had not been given permission to stay here at that stage. Why would he not have been deemed to be a person living under a cloud? The Press statement said: . . in the case of people illegally in Australia and applying for amnesty, a medical examination was required . . . they will be granted temporary residence, which will give them legal status . . .

What was wrong with that? The only suggestion at that stage was that these people would get up to the temporary resident position, the very position reached by Salemi. It is argued: ‘Well, Salemi really cannot stay here because he came here not as a visitor but as a temporary resident*. Then the Minister in his statement came to this famous expression:

Most of those who have sought amnesty come within the guidelines . . .

I would say that Mr Salemi also came within the guidelines. The statement also said: but there have been applications from people such as ship deserters, stowaways, and students . . .

They were the ones who were to remain virtually under a permanent cloud. But Mr Salemi did not fit into any of these categories, and this is the point the Opposition is making. We can see from the High Court judgment that proper application was made by Mr Salemi. The High Court judge stated:

Each submission is based on the proposition that the plaintiff was a member of the class of persons to whom the offer of ‘amnesty’ was made. That proposition must be accepted.

This is an important point. We should also look at what the Ombudsman said. He said:

In my opinion … an average reader interested in the substance of the news releases could reasonably, and probably would, have expected the offer of amnesty to apply to all persons who entered Australia under a temporary entry permit. There would be no reason for the reader to suppose that the amnesty would be confined to a single category of prohibited immigrants who had entered Australia under temporary entry permits namely, those who originally held visitors’ visas and had overstayed.

I think this is the point. The Minister has got himself into a bind in respect of this situation because his Department has refused to give this man a resident status on the basis that Cameron gave it, on the basis that he could remain here to work. There are plenty of people in Australia who work here on that basis. There are medical people who work in the hospital in my electorate who may stay only for the period of the value of their work. This is not related to a period of time; it is related to the period of value of their work. If they wish their position can be reviewed on the basis of whether they wish to stay here or otherwise. But this is the point in law. How is it that the Government is just wiping its hands of the situation and allowing the confrontation to be between only the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Mr Salemi? No government administration can be run on the basis that the Minister’s mind and discretion is always right. In this case there has been a review by the Ombudsman. In this case there has been severe criticism of the Department on the basis that it has not adequately advised the Minister. The Ombudsman made that point after investigation.

So we have this outrageous situation: The Chief Justice has held that the Minister did not have to follow established principles of natural justice, and the law passed with the approval of both Houses of the Parliament has not been promulgated. The law says that if natural justice has not been followed we can review the Minister’s decision. Why is it that the Government has not promulgated the law dealing with judicial review of administrative decisions? Is it because of the Salemi case? Is it part and parcel of the connivance of the Government which does not want to get involved with the Salemi case, and that the obvious thing to do is not to promulgate this law? It promulgated the Ombudsman law. It fell in with that law on the basis that the Ombudsman has had a look at the complaint

The plea we make today to the Minister is to set aside personal prejudice. He should take the matter to Cabinet and get a decision as to what Cabinet wants. If he comes back and says that Cabinet is fully of the opinion that Mr Salemi and Mr Salemi only is not going to stay in Australia, it is an indictment of the type of government we are getting at this stage. We passed this Act in this Parliament. The matter has been reviewed by the High Court. The High Court indicated in this case that this is a most defective Act anyway because if fails to indicate the matters to be taken into account by an officer in deciding whether to grant an entry permit. The Act requires urgent legislative attention. That was the decision of Mr Justice Jacobs in the same case.

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the consideration of Order of the Day No. 1, Government Business, Grievance Debate, being continued until I p.m.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been much misinformation disseminated about Mr Salemi and I would like to take this opportunity to correct it.

Mr Salemi is a prohibited immigrant and has no fundamental right to remain in Australia. He has long since overstayed his authorised period of entry. He did not fall within the category of persons qualifying for amnesty in 1976 and I have not since been prepared to exercise my discretion in his favour. I will be saying more about that matter later.

He has sought, by appealing to my discretion, by seeking through the High Court to restrain me from applying the law to him, by misrepresenting his activities in Australia to people of goodwill in the community and by orchestrating appeals from members of parliament of a certain persuasion and by enlisting representatives of the community and of left-wing trade unions to sign petitions on his behalf, to restrain me from applying to him the rules that apply to many thousands of other prohibited immigrants.

Mr Salemi has no compassionate reasons for remaining in Australia. He does not have any specialist qualifications that would qualify him to enter Australia or to remain in Australia as a migrant. His stated profession is that of journalist, but we are not seeking journalists from overseas as migrants at the moment. He is not a social worker. He has no social work qualifications. It was quite erroneous for the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) to say that he has such qualifications. He does not come within the present guidelines for permanent entry- that is family reunion or skills in demand. Nor is he a refugee and there are no humanitarian grounds. He is, as has been admitted, an active organiser amongst Italian migrants on behalf of the Communist Party of Italy and his salary is paid from Rome. The Government respects the right of people to hold varying political beliefs. However, it has been the view of successive governments that it is not in the interests of Australia or of migrants in Australia that political differences in their countries of origin should be pursued in Australia.

It has been suggested that the High Court was evenly divided on the question of whether I have the right to deport Mr Salemi. The High Court did not question this, the principal question before the High Court was whether I had an obligation to observe the principles of natural justice. The decision of the court was that I did not have such an obligation but nonetheless I believe I have treated Mr Salemi ‘s case in great detail and given it full consideration, and given him in every instance the right to be heard in respect of matters at issue in accordance with the recognised rules of natural justice.

During the course of 1976 on three occasions I instructed my officers to tell Mr Salemi to depart. On two of these occasions I deferred the required departure date to allow representations made to me on Mr Salemi ‘s behalf to be investigated. On the third occasion Mr Salemi took the matter to the High Court. The High Court’s decision is very clear. However, to place the matter beyond doubt, on my instructions, officers of the Department have written to Mr Salemi since the High Court decision was handed down providing him with yet another opportunity to bring to my attention any elements of his situation that had not already been considered. Reports made on Mr Salemi’s behalf produced no new information.

Mr Salemi’s solicitor then appealed to the Ombudsman on the grounds that I had been furnished with incorrect information by the department. Although not obliged to do so, I deferred

Mr Salemi’s departure date until the Ombudsman had completed his inquiry. The only incorrect information given to me by my department was in fact given in good faith and soon corrected. It was not relevant to my decision. Before Mr Salemi arrived in Australia his entry had been negotiated with the previous government in order that he might work as a journalist on the establishment of a newspaper, Nuovo Paese. Mr Salemi however applied at an overseas post for entry as a visitor and stated that the purpose of his visit was ‘sightseeing’. That overseas post gave him a visitor visa and unfortunately failed to notify my Department in Canberra that it had given him a visitor visa instead of, as it had been instructed, a visa as a temporary resident. On his arrival in Australia he was given a temporary entry permit as a visitor for three months. This circumstance was not however relevant to Mr Salemi’s case. When his initial three-month temporary entry permit expired he sought an extension. This was granted in February 1975 and on this occasion the correct temporary entry permit, namely as a temporary resident, with permission to engage in employment, was issued. He thereupon ceased to be a visitor.

It has been alleged that the Ombudsman has reported that I was not properly advised. I believe I was fully advised on every aspect of this case. I have, since the ombudsman issued his report, been formally apprised of the ombudsman’s view. I have considered his views and naturally have taken them into account but they have not provided any reasons why I should vary my decision that Mr Salemi should leave Australia. The latest instruction to Mr Salemi, issued at my direction, was that he should arrange to depart from Australia by last Friday- 19 August. He did not so depart and therefore I have signed a deportation order against him.

I would like to take up a couple of other points. The complaint to the Ombudsman by Mr Salemi’s solicitor was a ‘shot gun’ complaint. He alleged that the administrative actions of the Department breached every element of section 15 (1) of the Ombudsman Act. Reduced to the simplest terms the Ombudsman discusses only two issues, namely whether Mr Salemi should have been treated as a person qualified to have the benefit of the amnesty announced by the Minister in January 1976; and, secondly, whether Mr Salemi’s application for the grant of amnesty was to be regarded as a genuine application- remember that point- in the sense that it was an application by a person having, at the appropriate time, an intention or desire to remain in Australia other than temporarily- in other words, to stay permanently in Australia.

The Ombudsman, in some 14 pages of his report reaches two conclusions: Firstly, that, in his opinion, the Minister should have been advised at least after the judgments of the High Court case became available that the news releases could reasonably have been construed as applying to persons in Mr Salemi ‘s position and that in failing to advise the Minister to this effect the action of the Department was unreasonable in its treatment of Mr Salemi. Secondly, that the Department had reasonable grounds for concluding that Mr Salemi did not wish to remain in Australia indefinitely and advising the Minister to that effect but that the failure of the Department to make clear the exact position renders sub-section 15 ( 1 ) (a) (v) of the Ombudsman Act applicable to the omission.

The Ombudsman’s report makes two recommendations which have been complied with, namely, that the Department advise the Minister of the opinion of the Ombudsman and, secondly, that though there were reasonable grounds on which the Department could conclude and advise the Minister that Mr Salemi did not, at the relevant time, have an intention to reside in Australia permanently Mr Salemi had not, at any time, been asked specifically whether he wished either to withdraw or abandon the application for amnesty which he submitted in writing on 1 April 1976.

It should be made clear that I was under no obligation to withhold any action I might contemplate because of the Ombudsman’s inquiry. Nevertheless I chose to permit Mr Salemi to remain in Australia until such time as the Ombudsman concluded his inquiry and furnished a report to the complainant. I do not wish to canvass the Ombudsman’s findings or his recommendations but I do wish to inform the Parliament that I was aware before the High Court case, and had been so informed by my Department, that the Press releases issued by me were capable of being misrepresented and in fact were misrepresented as providing Mr Salemi with a justifiable expectation that the amnesty would apply to him. In this context his legal representative’s pleadings to the High Court misquoted the amnesty offer as applying to people who entered Australia as visitors and had become prohibited immigrants, and not, as I had announced, to people who were, at a very specific date, 31 December 1975 overstayed visitors.

I should make it clear also that an application under the amnesty was an application for resident status- an application to remain permanently in Australia. Mr Salemi did submit an application. He told the officer who interviewed him that he did so at the instigation of the honourable member who has raised this matter in the present debate. He admitted to the interviewing officer that he did not want to remain permanently in Australia.

Mr Innes:

– Your interviewing officer is a liar.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– The honourable member interjects that my interviewing officer is a liar. I will remember that interjection in just a moment. The interviewing officer concerned verified by questions that Mr Salemi was not really applying for permanent residence. In accordance with the instructions which applied to the conduct of the amnesty she noted his response and because he was not within the eligible categories referred his application with her report to Canberra for consideration. It is a matter for some regret that the honourable member for Melbourne has taken this action and made this statement about a member of my Department. I shall quote from a letter dated 25 May 1977 which I received from Mr Giovanni Sgro, the secretary of the Italian Federation of Migrant Workers and Their Families, known as FILEF. The letter in part states:

But I felt that we had to defend Mr Salemi ‘s right -

Mr Innes:

– You are talking about a different interview.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– The honourable member should listen to the letter. It states:

But I felt that we had to defend Mr Salemi ‘s right to stay in Australia- and it is not so much Mr Salemi who wants to stay here . . .

Mr Sgro goes on to say in a later paragraph:

I bring to your attention the fact that Mr Salemi does not intend to remain in Australia permanently . . .

Later on he said:

I feel that it is within your power and scope to allow Mr Salemi to stay here for another twelve to fifteen months at least, and I can assure you that if we could find a replacement for him he would leave long before then.

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

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr INNES:

– Yes. In his speech the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) referred specifically to a claim that I had induced Mr Salemi to make an application for amnesty. This was said to have been admitted to the interviewing officer. The Minister then went on to explain that in a letter he had received it was stated that Mr Salemi wished to remain temporarily in Australia. This had nothing to do with the allegation made by the Minister that I had induced Mr Salemi to make an application under the amnesty. It is completely untrue.

Mr MacKELLAR (Warringah-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Yes. I quote what I actually said. If the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) had not been interjecting so loudly he would have heard. I said:

Mr Salemi did submit an application. He told the officer who interviewed him that he did so at the instigation of the honourable member who has raised this matter in the present debate.

That is the statement I made and I stand by it.

Mr INNES (Melbourne)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Melbourne still claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr INNES:

– Yes. I put to the House that I was acting on behalf of Mr Salemi who asked me whether the amnesty was available to individuals in the category into which he fell.

Mr MacKellar:

– Did you say yes?

Mr INNES:

-I indicated that he was.

Mr MacKellar:

– Then you were wrong.

Mr INNES:

– Finally in an answer to a telegram that I sent to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) the Minister admitted that the information in that letter, as has been indicated by people who have considered it since, clearly brought Mr Salemi within the terms of the amnesty.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I am the Federal member for Wills, the area in which Mr Salemi operates. I was responsible in the first instance for taking up with the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic affairs the question of Mr Salemi’s readmission to Australia after he had been out here at the special invitation of the Italian Federation of Migrant Workers and Their Families, known as FILEF, had gone back home and then had come back again. I know Mr Salemi, although I will not say that I know him intimately. I suppose that I meet him once a week. We see one another around the street, I want to make it quite clear that Mr Salemi at every point in time since he came to this country has acted as a responsible, common-sense resident, and is fulfilling a very important function in the Italian community in the Brunswick and Coburg area, which has one of the greatest concentrations of Italian people in Australia. I am not concerned with amnesties, ministerial authority or anything else. Why is it that in an instance such as this the Minister must exercise power rather than common sense?

I do not think that the debate is about whether Mr Salemi wants to say here forever. Who does? We cannot all say that this is where we are going to stay forever. And what does the Minister mean by ‘permanent residence’? The man has been here continuously for three years. He has lived successfully in the community. He has played a very effective and useful role, and one only has to look at the work of FILEF in this regard. Only 800 people went to it in 1975 but the next year 2,000 people went to it and it has been running at that rate ever since. I know the area intimately. I know that Mr Salemi fulfils a very important function. It is not a question of the amour propre of the Minister. It is not a question of whether he is a member of this or that political party. It is not a question of what the Ombudsman or the High Court or anybody else says. The common-sense decision for the benefit of a community which has invited hundreds of thousands of Italians to this country is to leave Mr Salemi here.

I shall take up a few points that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) made. He talked about left-wing people being on his side. I hope they are; I hope I am regarded as one of them. The Minister said that Mr Salemi has no fundamental rights, but I suppose from this Minister’s view of life nobody has any fundamental rights. However, I believe it is in the interests of Australians, the interests of Italians of the Brunswick and Coburg areas and in the interests of the general Italian community of Australia that Mr Salemi stay here. I had a lot of other things which I wanted to say but time seems to run away in this place. The Minister said that Mr Salemi is paid by the Communist Party of Italy. Forgive me if I am wrong but that is as I -

Mr MacKellar:

– I said that he was paid from Rome.

Mr BRYANT:

-The Minister said that he was a paid official of something. Anyway, I will not argue about that. As I understand it, the fact is that FILEF is financially supported by the

Italian Government. I do not know exactly what words the Minister used- I tried to take them down as he spoke- but I know the impression that he gave to the people listening in to the broadcast of proceedings and that is the impression that lingers. The Minister also said that Mr Salemi had no specialist qualifications but how many Italian journalists are there available in this country for the sort of work he is doing?

Mr MacKellar:

-Plenty.

Mr BRYANT:

-Are there? Well, where are they?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All fascists!

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right; it is all right as long as they are members of the Liberal Party or something like that. The fact is that he is a journalist, an effective journalist and a graduate in Arts from one of the Italian universities.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is a specialist communist.

Mr BRYANT:

– He may well be, but I could describe the honourable member in terms unflattering also. However, I will not bother because he is only taking up the time for debate. The facts are that Mr Salemi is employed by an organisation which is doing a very effective and useful job in this country to the great advantage of the Italian community and Mr Salemi is here at their invitation. Mr Giovanni Sgro, whom the Minister mentioned earlier, and whose letter the Minister read out, is a close friend and associate of mine. He has been nominated by the Australian Labor Party to be a member of that august institution, the Victorian Legislative Council. He is going to win the seat.

None of us can assert that people are here as permanent residents or anything else. So I ask the Minister: For heaven’s sake, just this once exercise common sense. It is not a question of clemency or humanitarianism; it is a question of sensitivity to the needs of the community. This matter has been running for years. I have handled hundreds of cases in my time as a member of Parliament on behalf of people who have been excluded from this country, refused residency or refused naturalisation on these grounds, and eventually I have won a lot of those cases. It is time for the Minister to show common sense and do a service for the community. He should forget about the current conflict over the terms of the amnesty. He should make a new amnesty. He has the ministerial authority and should exercise that authority on behalf of the people for a change.

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

-It is now 1 p.m. and in accordance with the suspension of Standing Orders the debate is now interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 902

DEVELOPMENT OF GLENBROOK ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of combined equipment, barracks store complex and transport compound; unit headquarters and medical/dental centre; command headquarters, senior non-commissioned officers, airmen’s and airwomen’s accommodation, messing and recreation facilities; renovation of existing building for officers’ mess and quarters; ancillary buildings; and civil engineering works including roads, car parks and external services. The estimated cost of the proposal at June 1977 prices was $8.3m. I table the plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 902

CONSTRUCTION OF ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, EDINBURGH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposal is for the development of new buildings, modifications and additions to existing buildings and all associated engineering services to provide living and working accommodation for No. 92 Wing, including Nos 10, 1 1 and 492 (Maintenance) and the maritime analysis and training squadron, and the aircraft research and development unit recently moved from Laverton, Victoria, to Edinburgh. Support facilities include a physical fitness centre, running transport section and barracks tradesmen’s workshop. Provision of extensive aircraft pavements and taxiways, a fire detection and protection system, additional water reticulation service and a central emergency power house is also proposed. The estimated cost of the proposed work when referred was $ 17.4m based on April 1977 rates.

The Public Works Committee has generally recommended the construction of these works with the exception of proposed recreation and common room and living accommodation for 24 Women’s Royal Australian Air Force personnel. In regard to these areas the Committee recommended that the living accomodation for the 24 Women’s Royal Australian Air Force personnel be redesigned to provide a common entry/living room for each four-bedroom unit. The Committee also recommended that the policy for providing Women’s Royal Australian Air Force recreation buildings separate from airmen’s and airwomen’s recreation centres be reviewed in the light of the new type of living accommodation which will be provided for the Women’s Royal Australian Air Force in future.

These recommendations are currently being examined in line with the new flat style accommodation recently recommended by the Committee for construction at Point Cook and Randwick and revised designs and estimates will be passed to the Committee for information. The items to be reviewed will form part of stage two of the development which is not scheduled for construction until 1978-79. This will not delay commencement of stage one of the proposed works. Upon the concurrence of the House with this motion detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 903

DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY AREA AT RANDWICK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposed works comprise: construction of living and working accommodation for the Army; joint services recreation facilities; and all associated engineering services. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $ 13m based on February 1977 prices. The Public Works Committee in recommending the construction of these works concluded that most of the Army units included in the development are in temporary, inefficient and low standard accommodation which needs replacing. The Sydney Harbour lands agreement between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth has resulted in the need for the Army to relocate some units at Randwick. The existing Randwick military area is the logical site for the centralisation of accommodation and associated facilities. The proposed development will enable considerable economies to be achieved and, at the same time, provide a better standard of facility.

The layout of the proposed buildings, roads and outdoor facilities is satisfactory and accords with the overall development of the site. The proposed buildings and associated works are suitable to meet the needs of the Army in the Sydney area. Upon the concurrence of the House to this motion detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 903

LOAN BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority needed to meet the prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1977-78. At the same time, the borrowing authority it will provide will, together with borrowing authority expected to be available under other legislation, enable the amount of borrowing needed to finance the estimated overall Budget deficit for the financial year to be undertaken. Honourable members will be aware, that for many years, there has been legislation for these purposes in the legislative programs of successive governments. In my Budget Speech I announced that the prospective overall Budget deficit for 1 977-78 is estimated to be $2,2 1 7m.

Except in so far as funds are available from accumulated cash balances or other miscellaneous financing transactions, this deficit must be financed by net borrowings. Such net borrowings must, of course, be within proper authority from the Parliament. The overall Budget deficit takes into account all relevant transactions of the three separate funds used to record the Commonwealth’s receipts and expenditures. These funds are the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. The amounts which may be paid from each fund are limited to the amounts legally available to it.

Underlying the overall deficit estimated for 1977-78 is an estimated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $901m. Details of the current estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions are set out, for the information of honourable members, in table 3 of Budget Paper No. 4, that is, Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending 30 June 1978. The prospective deficit is the item ‘amount chargeable’ to loan fund’. As payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot exceed moneys available in it, it is necessary either to reduce payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by charging to another part of the Commonwealth’s accounts some of the expenditures normally met from it or, alternatively, to supplement the receipts of the fund from some other source. Appropriate legislative authority is needed for such transfers.

The simplest and traditional means of providing appropriate legislative authority is a loan Bill of the type I am now presenting. This Bill will authorise borrowings for defence purposes in order that defence expenditures, which would normally be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, may instead be met from the Loan Fund. The Bill authorises borrowing for defence purposes but it does not authorise any additional defence expenditures. It will simply allow reallocation between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund of defence expenditures to be made during the remainder of the financial year, following the enactment of this legislation, defence expenditures which have already been authorised by Parliament in Supply Act (No. 1) 1977-78 or which will subsequently be authorised in appropriation Acts for this financial year.

In this regard I draw members’ attention to clause 8 of the recently introduced Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1977-78, which makes that Bill subject to the provisions of the proposed Loan Act. I should also mention that, as borrowings under this legislation will be for the purpose of financing defence expenditure, those borrowings will not require approval from the Australian Loan Council. However, the Bill includes a specific limit to the amount of such borrowings that may be undertaken.

I am sure that I do not have to elaborate on the point that, at this early stage, the estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit is inevitably a qualified one. The actual figure for the year will be affected by presently unforeseen developments during the year which will cause departures from current estimates of receipts and payments of the Fund. In setting a limit on borrowings for inclusion in the Bill these inherent uncertainties need to be recognised. The limit that has been included is $ 1,100m. This provides a relatively small margin over the estimated Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit of $90 lm. Borrowings under this proposed legislation will be undertaken within the framework of the monetary policy objectives, to which I referred in my Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 904

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to enable action to be taken to give effect to a decision of the Government announced in the Budget that all privately insured patients pay for pathology services provided by the Commonwealth Health Laboratories. The Commonwealth Department of Health operates 14 pathology laboratories throughout Australia. In addition the Capital Territory Health Commission operates laboratories in the Australian Capital Territory. At present these laboratories do not charge for the services they provide. As a result of the substantial changes made to the health insurance arrangements since October 1976, the Government considers that this ‘no charge’ policy is inappropriate as a significant proportion of the population is now covered by private medical insurance. The ‘no charge’ policy is inconsistent with the Government’s approach to universal health insurance and that is that those who can afford to pay for health services should do so while those on lowest incomes and most pensioners are entitled to medical and hospital services at no cost to them. In addition the existing laboratory policy creates an unfair source of competition for private pathology practitioners operating in the same geographic area.

The pathology services of the Commonwealth Health Laboratories are pan of the diagnostic services for medical practitioners and hospitals for which the Governor-General has provided under section 9 (1) (b) of the National Health Act 1953. The section would support charges being raised against the medical practitioner or hospital for pathology work done in respect of a patient, but does not extend to allowing the patient to be billed directly for those services. The Bill, by enabling the services to be provided directly to the patient, will also enable the charges to be raised directly against the patient. It is proposed that charges will be made to private patients of hospitals; privately insured outpatients of recognised hospitals; and privately insured patients referred to the laboratories by medical practitioners. It is intended that the charges will be introduced from 1 October 1977 and will be at the level of medical benefits for pathology services as listed in the current Medical Benefits Schedule. Patients will be able to recover the cost of the service from their medical benefits fund.

Following passage of the Bill, the GovernorGeneral will be asked to make an appropriate Order-in-Council under the section to impose the charges which it is expected will result in a direct saving to taxpayers of $5.3m in a full year and $3.3m for the financial year 1977-78.I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 905

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 6 September, on the motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-This is not an easy speech for me to make, and, as I proceed, the House will realise that it is not a very pleasant one. Nevertheless it is one which must be made. I am more than ever convinced that the financial strategy of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is fundamentally wrong and indeed counter-productive. I am not going to vote for the Budget which embodies that strategy.

There is no need for me to reiterate that the Treasurer’s policy has not worked out as he expected- his own statements in the first half of 1976 prove that clearly enough. In April and May of that year he was telling us that the upswing had started, and, even though it might take some time to complete, we would see its benefits soon.

It has not turned out like that at all. Unemployment- the main indicator- continues to climb, and the economy is still going backward. So far from laying the foundations for sound recovery, the Treasurer has contrived to erode still further the shaky base he inherited in December 1975.

Three reasons can be given as to why the economy is in worse shape today than it was then. They are:

Our overseas balance on current account has deteriorated further- last financial year we were $ 1,900m in the red, and the downward trend is steepening. We have great natural resources, our rate of development is minimal; our population growth is tapering off- and still we cannot pay our way. We are forced to expedients such as overseas borrowings and selling out our capital to foreign investors in order to avoid international bankruptcy. It is a shocking performance.

In the past two years we have allowed our productive equipment to fall behind that of the rest of the world. Our factories have been unable to install new plant or modernise old plant to an adequate extent. Our mineral development, compared to our opportunities, has been pitiful. Our primary industries are falling into disarray.

Morale has declined, especially in the younger groups, where unemployment has been heaviest. Perhaps the earlier phases of the recession may have sharpened the will to work; but the prolonged recession has tended to produce industrial sullenness, and the rebirth of the go-slow syndrome.

The Treasurer’s directions for the Australian economy are palpably astray, and in this present Budget he stubbornly refuses to face up to this. He has run us info a dead end, but apparently he proposes to crash on regardless. He must be made to change his course.

He has an obsession with inflation, and tells us that his whole policy is directed to this one overriding problem. However, inflation is not in itself a disease, but only a symptom of a disease- a symptom of some deeper disorder. To concentrate upon inflation alone is really a superficial and cosmetic approach, which evades dealing with the main disorder.

Fundamentally, the trouble appears to be that our old rate of personal saving, which was appropriate to the time when our population was growing much faster and our need for capital investment was much greater, is now too high for our new circumstances, especially in the light of restrictive Budget and Loan Council policies.

More saving means less consumption. Less consumption means restricted sales. Restricted sales mean less opportunity for profitable investment. So, as savings increase, the need for savings goes down, and there is no use for the surplus. It is not just a vicious spiral; it is a kind of double helix. In this sense, the unemployment which we are now experiencing is simply the smell of savings going rancid, because there is no use for them, and unless we find some way of dealing with this savings excess there can be no permanent solution to our present economic difficulties.

Recently I have been in Europe and the United Kingdom and I have had some opportunity of observing economic developments there. The Treasurer is quite right when he observes that the course which he is following is the one prescribed for him by overseas financiers. In their own spheres, these monetary authorities are following that same course themselves, though I think it is fair to say that none of them is pursuing it with the same degree of sanctimonious ferocity which our Treasurer exhibits.

Perhaps, then, I might be allowed to remark that it is no co-incidence that Europe and the United Kingdom are finding the same hesitancy in recovery as we are, though of course not to the same degree. For them, as for our own unhappy Treasurer, events have failed to follow the predicted course: Unemployment is growing; the trend of their economies is patchy, but it is still downward.

There are some signs that the governments of these countries will see the error of their ways and reverse their present restrictive policies before it is too late. Influential United States economists- not, of course, the bigoted monetarists who have so much to answer for- are already urging these changes behind the scenes. If so, Europe will fare better than Australia; but if the present line, which our Treasurer is so pleased to copy, is maintained there, then a major recession is inevitable overseas. The first place to look for signs of real economic trouble would be West Germany, whose meteoric rise over three decades carries within it the seeds of a possible corresponding decline if the savings ratio is left uncorrected.

Let me return to the Australian scene. There is no need to prove that the Treasurer’s policies are misjudged, because it is evident that they are not working out as he predicted. It is not so easy to prove within a few minutes that they could never work out, though I am sure that a deeper analysis would lead to this conclusion. But what is the alternative? I do not myself believe that there is any single alternative. Any attempt to base recovery upon one initiative must fail. Instead it is necessary to follow a number of initiatives simultaneously, not relying upon a single one, but utilising each in moderation. Basically I suggest a seven-point plan:

  1. Issue indexed annuities for purchase up to a reasonable limit and also savings bonds, indexed both as to interest and principal, non-transferable and repayable only on the death of the purchaser. In this way the Commonwealth could obtain all the capital funds it needs without entering the professional market. The securities issued would never come on to the market and, by their purchase, present unused liquid funds in the hands of potential consumers would be reduced and the danger of flash inflation would be diminished.
  2. Once the Commonwealth has secured its capital funds outside the market it would be in a position to force interest rates downward, using its banking and other powers for this purpose. A substantial reduction in interest rates would do much to revive the flagging economy.
  3. With capital moneys available from the sale of indexed bonds and annuities the Commonwealth could eliminate the socalled ‘deficit’ by charging capital works against loan raisings, and would have some $2,000m a year available for a proper measure of tax reduction.
  4. From the same source, the Commonwealth and States would have the ability to finance a modest expansion in the capital works program, directed principally towards providing the infrastructure for productive industry. This would reduce unemployment, not only directly but also by stimulating the private industries engaged in material supply.
  5. Measures should be taken to correct our present deficit of $ 1,900m a year on current account overseas. The only feasible way of doing this is to make locally some of the things which we at present import, thus absorbing our present idle capacity of men and machines. Instead of debating whether or not we should take this necessary course, it would be better for us to be considering how best we can do it- that is, with the least effect upon our export markets and the least impact upon local prices. So far as export markets are concerned, this means directing our import trade preferentially towards those countries which take ‘sensitive’ exports from us, and cutting down our imports from those countries with whom we have a negative balance of ‘invisibles’. So far as local prices are concerned, it will often happen that an increase in factory throughput will reduce unit cost.
  6. With the reduction in local interest rates some temporary action may be necessary to stem the outflow of capital funds overseas. The Commonwealth and the Reserve Bank already have the power to do this, and nothing more would be necessary than to overhaul the machinery and to see that it was in working order.
  7. While wages restraint is still desirable, no cut in real wages- which, of course, would reduce consumption- should be contemplated. Admittedly three years ago real wages were allowed to outrun productivity, but the imbalance should be corrected by productivity rises rather than by wages cuts. Margins should, however, be preserved and in some cases restored. The present margins between adult and junior wages, for example, are too narrow and this is responsible for much of the heavy junior unemployment. Plateau indexation has been a great mistake and its effects should be reviewed and in some cases reversed.

The above plan-call it, if you will, the Wentworth plan- has been sketched in outline; obviously within the 20 minutes allowed to me in this debate it cannot be set down in detail. Nothing in it is novel, in the sense that all seven items have been advocated by me ever since the Fraser Government took office and I knew the inevitable economic consequences of the Treasurer’s strategy. Some items in it have been adopted by various interests including, of course, the shadow Treasurer. But I do emphasise that I would consider them as a package- each of the seven to be pursued in moderation, and each fitting in to the others.

As I have said, I cannot vote for this Budget, but I have, of course, no intention of voting with the Labor Party, even if it has copied some of the ideas which I put forward originally. The Government’s economic policy may be wrong, but the Labor Party’s general policy is so much more wrong. And so, to Treasurer and shadow Treasurer alike I say: ‘A plague on both your houses’.

Indeed one of the reasons why the Liberals should change their economic policy is that, unless they do, they run the very real risk of turning the Government and the country over to the Labor Party. This, I believe, would be a disaster, not just because of economic factors, but because the Labor Party is part of the totalitarian left. This, perhaps, is the main reason why I speak out now. We must change our course before it is too late. And that is true not only of us in Australia. If I am right- and I feel confident in my diagnosisthe same Australian economic disease is also the European economic disease, which takes in Europe the same course as it is taking here.

If Australia does not change its course in time- if it succumbs to left wing totalitarianismthis could be, for us, an unmitigated disaster, but it would leave the world generally undisturbed. But if the disease is allowed to run its course in Europe, then the world would be changed, and changed dreadfully. If free men cannot run their own system, then the communists will take over the world. How many of us here would want that?

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget plots a disastrous course for Australia. It compounds the distress which presses too heavily on the economy and which has pressed on it too heavily for too long. It means a longer and deeper recession, inflation persisting at high levels, more unemployment, worse business conditions, interest rates wedged at unreasonably high levels, the Australian dollar inadequately defended, an unfair, unjust, regressive taxation system. It is many other things too, none of which is helpful to the nation. However, I do not have time to attend to all of those things.

The strategy of the Budget is intensely different from the claims made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in his Budget Speech. Just as the outcome last year was different from his mildly confident assurances in the Budget Speech, the outcome this year will be considerably different and much less pleasant than the mild assurances he has written into the documentation attached to some parts of his Budget Speech. The fact is that this year’s claims are just not justified by the detail of strategy outlined in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech.

We saw in the Treasurer’s Speech an elegant display of the irrelevance of facts to the

Treasurer. He says, if I can give a paraphrase of the main thrust of his statement, that the Budget will build on the foundations laid by last year’s Budget. Last year’s Budget was responsible for record unemployment in the first half of this year on a month by month basis when compared with the figures for any month in nearly half a century. It was responsible in the financial year just completed for inflation running at the rate of 13.4 per cent. That is worse than the figure for the preceding financial year, which was 12.3 per cent. Let us have none of that nonsense that the underlying rate of inflation can be measured by extracting and excluding from the consumer price index movement the cost of health services. That is the equivalent of saying: ‘We will exclude the price of food or transport costs’. These are legitimate costs which the community had to bear. They are costs which the community has to bear as a result of government actions. They should properly be included. That is why they are properly included by the Government Statistician.

An examination of bar chart 1 on page 8 of Statement No. 2 reveals some of the disastrous consequences of the Budget strategy for last year. We observe there in clear and irrefutable form from official sources exactly how the Government lost control of the economy, how it stranded the momentum of growth which was following through from the 1975 Budget. Bar chart 1 shows that last year’s growth was exclusively in the first half of the financial year; it slumped in the second half. The effects of the Budget of 1976 do not become apparent in terms of economic influences until the very last part of the calendar year in which they are introduced, and they become fully effective in the second half of the financial year, that is, between January and June of the financial year. That is when the slump took place, when the effects of the Government’s unwise Budget strategy began to bite in.

Panel (a) in that bar chart shows that private consumption rose strongly in the first half of the financial year and slumped in the second half. That is true, too, of final expenditure, gross domestic product and gross non-farm product. The Government damns itself. Everything to which I refer is extracted from the official documentation submitted by the Government with its Budget Speech. We note that industrial production fell back in the first half of 1977. All of these things are in conflict with the promises which were given to us by the Treasurer in the 1976 Budget. Let us remember what they were. He said that there will be-I quote him exactly-‘a gradual reduction in the rate of unemployment’. The result was that for the second half of the financial year we had the worst month by month unemployment the nation has seen in nearly half a century. On inflation he said: ‘annual rate of change in the single-digit area to the end of 1976-77’. We saw a higher rate of inflation for the financial year than we had in the preceding financial year. Again he said: ‘. . . a trade surplus of about the same size as … in 1975-76’. In fact, it was 30 per cent lower, which represents a dramatic drop. It was a drop of more than $400m. He also said: ‘. . . a current account deficit moderately larger than in 1975-76’. It was more than $400m greater. On every score, on every prediction, he was gravely astray.

He went on to say: ‘During 1976-77 no requirement for significant change in Australia’s economic policies will emerge’. What a remarkable understatement! We saw within a couple of months a substantial devaluation, followed in rapid succession on a daily basis by a series of revaluations. We saw a massive drain of our reserves. We subsequently saw another revaluation in the course of that financial year. In all of the predictions of substance he has made, the basis upon which the whole Budget strategy for 1976 was posited, he was gravely wrong, seriously astray. Last year he said:

This Budget will aid recovery and rebuild confidence.

That was rather a grim display of black humour. It compounded the problems of inflation, recession, the business depression, and it worsened the unemployment situation. I am quoting the Government’s own sources; I am damning it with its own voice. The annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia had this to say:

Inflation persists; and unemployment, particularly for juniors, is at seriously high levels; and capacity utilisation is low. Business and consumer confidence remain low.

On page 1 8 the same report states: the movement up from earlier low levels of output and demand began firmly, but slowed later in the year; growth in private investment was sluggish, and unemployment, which was high, when the year began, trended higher.

The report goes on to say:

  1. . rates of increase in prices and wages remained uncomfortably high at the end of the financial year.

At page 23 the report states:

Industrial production also exhibited some within-year fluctuations and, at end May, as measured by the ANZ Bank index, was at about the same level as 12 months previously. Production rose steadily but slowly up till February, then declined in the ensuing three months.

That is the sort of strength in the economy that we were assured was to develop in 1 976-77. That is the substantial ‘ base ‘ upon which the optimism for 1977-78 is supposed to be established. How can anyone in this community have confidence in a Treasurer who on every score has established beyond any doubt that his key assumptions were wrong? In every respect he is condemned by the official documentation prepared by his advisers in Treasury and attached to the Budget Speech in Statement No. 2 and also to be found in the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia. No government has been more severely condemned for the failure of its economic policies than has this Government. No Treasurer has been more trenchantly criticised than has the p resent Treasurer, Mr Lynch, by his own official Departments, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. This year’s Budget Speech contains the same phoney rhetoric and presents the same false promises. It is based on the same defective concepts and will add further to the problems of unemployment, sagging business conditions and high inflation. It will intensify the recession.

The projected outcome according to the Treasurer- again to the extent that we can rely on what he says; honourable members should bear in mind that he always tends to moderate the fierceness of what actually takes place- of the Budget is for a 2 per cent real growth in nonfarm product for the year. Last year there was a 3.5 per cent real growth on non-farm product. This year the rate of growth is expected to be 40 per cent lower. What will be the effect of that on the economy, specifically on unemployment? In January of the last financial year unemployment was 5.8 per cent of the work force. By June it had scarcely budged. It was still at the level of 5.4 per cent. That is, with a relatively stronger rate of real growth of 3.5 per cent there was scarcely any movement at all in the level of unemployment. The level of unemployment this year will worsen. It will show no detectable improvement if the rate of economic growth is some 40 per cent lower than it was last year.

The rate of unemployment in this country is far more serious than is indicated by the official figures. Page 24 of the annual report of the Reserve Bank states:

In an economy with high unemployment, measured unemployment could be understating actual unemployment because some persons, particularly women, drop out of the labour force when employment prospects are poor.

The situation is far more serious than is indicated by the official statistics for the financial year just completed. Imagine how much more serious it will be this financial year. Budget Statement No. 2 gives us no hope at all. It states: on balance the likelihood is for little or no change over this period.

That period is this financial year. That statement shows self-effacing restraint. Last year the Treasurer proposed that there would be some improvement and unemployment went to record levels for nearly half a century. This year- I repeat, with self-effacing restraint- he conceded there may be no improvement at all. Not only will there be no improvement, there will be a deterioration as measured by the official statistics which will mask the true depth of unemployment in the country. Unemployment in January and February will be approximately 7.5 per cent of the work force or about 470,000 people, most of whom will be young people elbowing their way around the work force seeking jobs which are not there. They will be young people with excellent qualifications coming from our secondary schools and tertiary institutions with grim job prospects. The Treasury documents confirm this. They say that over the year there will be a 2 per cent increase in the work force and at best a one per cent increase in employment. They exaggerate the level by which employment prospects will increase. The coming year will be particularly grim for Australians. It will be a particularly depressing year for young Australians.

I remind honourable members that last year there were confident predictions and we saw what happened. At the end of the year 13,000 fewer people were in employment than at the beginning of the year. More people were employed when we went out of office than are employed at present in spite of the fact that the available work force would have increased by some 3 per cent since then. Employment should be 150,000 persons greater than it is at present if there had been an absorption merely of the growth in the work force that would have taken place in the period since we went out of office. In spite of all the difficulties with which we were confronted when we came into office, because we were caught up as many other countries were in the slipstream of the most serious international trade recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we created nearly 250,000 extra jobs in the 3-year period. All this Government has done has been to create more unemployment opportunity.

We cannot stress too strongly, especially for parents of young people who are about to go into the work force and young people who are confused as to what the prospects are, that the outlook is the most discouraging that this country has seen in nearly half a century. In a publication entitled Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation the Department of Employment and

Industrial Relations suggests that there will be no reduction in the unemployment situation in 1978. It states:

At the time of writing, any rapid return to such conditions -

That is, full employment- appears unlikely.

It goes on:

There are a number of reasons why increased demand for labour is likely to lag behind any pickup in economic activity: the existing under-utilisation of labour capacity in the economy . . . any recovery in labour demand is likely to be preceded by a significant increase in overtime working.

That simply means that, before increased job opportunities are created, resort to idle capacity in industry and overtime will be taken up first. There will be a long lag, in the absence of government intervention and initiatives, before job opportunites are created. The document goes on to say that the level of disguised unemployment is high, that there are skilled labour bottlenecks and that employment in the manufacturing industry is very depressed and it is anticipated that there will be a continued decline in the employment growth rate in the manufacturing industry. Again, that is the official view of a government department. The state of the economy is one of extreme recession. It is verging on depression. The economic strategy of the Budget guarantees that we will move into depression in the 1978 calendar year. The report from which I have just quoted shows that with the exception of a few professions like the medical profession, dentistry, speech pathology and dietitians there are no encouraging job prospects for the young in the community. I speak with a great deal of passion and concern about that situation. I have a couple of young folk at home who will enter the work force in the next year or two. This report states by implication not only that 1978 will be a tough year for young folk but also that well into the 1980s in the absence of government initiatives it will be tough for young people in this country. This country will be caught in economic stagnation. It is a grim outlook indeed.

I turn now to the inflation front. I have indicated the enormous social and economic costs this country will have to bear as a result of the economic policies of the Government applied last year and reinforced and compounded with greater intensity this year. Inflation will be between 1 1 per cent and 12 per cent. Again I resort to Government documents, the Treasurer’s statements, to bolster that point. It is not something conjured up by a prejudiced Opposition. In statement No. 2 the Treasurer said that real average earnings will increase by about 10.5 per cent in the course of the year. In another part, separated by considerable verbiage, he said that this would lead to some decline in real average earnings. The implication of that is obvious to anyone who understands the simple principles of economic movements. It means that a 10.5 per cent increase in average earnings is not enough to keep up with the cost of living and that, therefore, the cost of living will exceed 10.5 per cent. On the best advice available to it from the Treasury the Government anticipated an inflation rate of between 1 1 per cent and 12 per cent this year.

I move on to interest rates. There are so many other tilings which one should deal with but time is too limited, unfairly so in such an important debate of the national economy at such a critical stage. The tight money conditions which will prevail this year are unreasonably and unjustifiably tight. They will apply the screws too severely to business. The spread of interest rates between private paper and public paper is too narrow. The Government is crowding the private sector out of the money market. How tight will the situation be this year? Inflation will be about 10.5 per cent. Real growth will be about two per cent. The demand for money in the economy just to hold the situation steady will be 12.5 per cent to 13 per cent. The Treasurer said that the rate of increase in the money supply, M3 as he calls it, will be between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. So there is a 3 per cent to 5 per cent squeeze on money supply on top of a particulary tough year in 1976-77. I do not believe that business can bear with that sort of thing much longer. I believe that in the course of this year quite a number of businesses will find that they are suddenly wrenched down into bankruptcy. They can no longer hang on by their fingernails. That is why the Opposition argues quite forcibly that interest rates have to come down.

Of course, the Government is hoping that the velocity of circulation of money will improve on the 1968-1972 average. It is already at an all time high rate. It cannot increase any more. This Budget is a recipe for economic disaster for the public and private sectors. It is a most depressing outlook for the whole community. It can be summed up by saying that we had a bad Budget in 1976-77 followed by a worse Budget in 1977-78. There is no justification for the Treasurer to claim:

The Budget will move Australia towards the goals of lowering inflation, the promotion of moderate, non.inflationarry growth, the creation of jobs and the reduction of unemployment

That is a grotesque proposition, if ever I heard one. Everything that the Treasurer says proves that that is untrue. All the things he has promised were promised last year. None were acheived last year and none will be achieved this year. Budget Statement No. 2 makes that clear. It is compounded by the problems of an unfair, unjust, regressive tax system and an Australian dollar currently under siege- an Australian dollar which, according to reports today, is so weakened that our overseas reserves are down to $2,70 1 m for the month of August. They fell by $350m in that month alone. That is the lowest level at which they have been for the whole of this calendar year, and that is in spite of the revaluation of gold by $680m in August. We find that there is a serious balance of payments deficit for the month of August. We discover that the import bill for August is the highest for any month in the year and the balance of payments deficit the worst since the great constitutional crisis of December 1975.

Accordingly, devaluation has not brought the benefits which were promised and the IAC is not at fault for these problems. The fact is that the Australian economy is in an extremely feeble state. Internationally the strength of the Australian dollar is under siege. It just does not seem to sink in to the understanding of the Treasurer that the economy is in a most critical state and that the Government’s policies are counterproductive to the sorts of things that should be done.

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade · Richmond · NCP/NP

– We have just been listening to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) who is the titular shadow Treasurer. After listening to him I think that he is probably one of the most irresponsible shadow Treasurers that this House has ever seen because in the last few minutes he has just displayed his desire to achieve a run on the Australian dollar by creating an emotional situation, and that seems to give him joy. He did it earlier this year and it had disastrous effects on the money market. Now he is trying to do it again. Apparently this is the only way in which he can get his name in the Press. When he does that sort of thing it shows a pretty low form. Of course, he is one of the most discredited

Treasurers that this country has ever seen. He is discredited because he brought down a runaway Budget, a Budget which was leading this country to bankruptcy, a Budget which he said in this House would be for a deficit of $2,700m. Yet within months of our coming into office it had increased from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion. It was quite obvious that there was absolute dishonesty in the presentation of the figures to this national Parliament, yet he tries to make out he was a great Treasurer. Heaven forbid that we should ever see that sort of behaviour again.

The shape of this Budget, the shape of last year’s Budget and, I suspect, the shape of many Budgets to come, have been dictated by the Budgets brought down by Labor Treasurers in the years 1973 to 1975. Those were the years of extravagance. Those years- 1973, 1974 and 1975- were the years when an indulgent Labor Government, lacking the courage and strength to resist the demands which all governments experience, laid the foundations for Australia’s present economic difficulties, difficulties which will take many years to solve. If anyone doubts the truth of what I am saying, he or she needs only to recall that each of those Labor Budgets saw increases in government spending in excess of 20 per cent, and in one year a massive and disastrous increase of 46 per cent. Is it any wonder that when the Liberal and National Country parties were asked by the Australian people to start cleaning up the mess the Budget deficit was running at over $4.5 billion?

It needs to be clearly understood what such a massive deficit means. A Budget deficit that is too large is highly inflationary. It is inflationary because it has to be financed in one of three ways, or by a combination of them. First, it can be financed by higher taxes, an option which few if any people would support. Secondly, it can be financed by printing more money, thus watering down and debasing the worth of all money in the community. Thirdly, it can be financed by large scale borrowing by the Government, in competition with other borrowers. The effect of this third course on interest rates, which are already far too high, should be plain to everyone. I believe that one of the most important things we could do to reactivate the private sector of the economy, to get it moving again, creating more jobs and generating more growth, would be to get interest rates down. There is some movement on interest rates, but there can be no significant improvement unless inflation is reduced. Lower inflation will be followed by lower interest rates. So if we are to bring down inflation and interest rates and make a real impact on the whole economic situation, the Budget deficit must be brought down to more acceptable levels.

We have made good progress towards that objective. In our first year we pulled the Budget deficit down from over $4.5 billion to $2.7 billion. This year it will be $2.2 billion. Contrast this with Labor’s performance. In the 1974-75 Budget Treasurer Crean estimated the deficit at half a billion dollars. It turned out to be five times that sum. The Hayden Budget of 1975-76 estimated a Budget deficit at $2.8 billion- which was bad enough- but when we took over from Labor it turned out to be $4.5 billion. We were left with what to many people might have seemed an impossible task, that of cutting the Budget deficit- which was at the heart of the problem- bringing down the inflation rate, restoring confidence and incentive to the private sector and attacking the massive and tragic problem of unemployment. I think it needs to be understood that there is no simple way in which all of these objectives can be achieved at once.

No one would dispute the statement that the fundamental cause of our problems is inflation. The key to solving our problems lies in controlling inflation. That is why the Government at the outset, and without deviation since, has firmly committed itself to bringing down the inflation rate. We will continue on the course we have set ourselves with the utmost resolution, because there is no other way we can solve the serious economic problems which we inherited from an extravagant Labor Administration. This will mean continuing stringent controls over spending. It will mean continuing denial of many of the worthy claims made on the Government for assistance. Of course we would like to see more money going into all sorts of areas- education, local government, roads, social welfare and soon.

I would especially like to see more things being done for the beef producer, who has been through and is still suffering difficulties which are quite beyond the comprehension of many people in the community. The Government as a whole is very much aware of the beef producers’ situation. Measures have been brought in to try to sustain producers through this period of low prices. Strenuous efforts have been continued to develop new markets and to improve existing ones. Carry-on finance has been made available and rural reconstruction assistance has been provided. But it is quite obvious that more has to be done, and more will be done within the constraints the Government must observe in the current economic situation.

I think there is general agreement on the need for the introduction of a classification scheme. This would be necessary before consideration could be given to the development of a national marketing scheme for the industry. I hope that the commercial trials of classification equipment now under way will provide sufficient information on which to base a decision to proceed with a classification scheme. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth will stand ready to play its full part in the implementation of such a scheme. It will be looking to other means of helping the beef industry. But it has to be remembered that nothing the Government does will have the same effect as a substantial rise in cattle prices. That is the only real answer to the cattlemen’s problems.

It seems to me that there is a need for a much wider understanding of the difficulties of primary producers and the consequences which flow to those who suffer in the community as a result of the difficulties of primary producers. A prolonged recession in the rural sector or in any major part of it must have serious long term effects. Those effects are felt not only by individual producers and their families but also by communities, districts, regions, and in fact the whole community. The rural industries today are becoming more mechanised, more capital intensive and more input based. Their fortunes are reflected back in the fortunes of other parts of the economy. A strong and prosperous rural sector brings tremendous benefits to the whole Australian community. A rural sector in difficulties creates problems for many other people in the community. I hope the community as a whole understands that the Government has a responsibility to take action to alleviate rural problems in the general interest of the community.

But I must remind the rural community, as I remind everyone else, that its basic problem is inflation. Inflation is the farmer’s greatest enemy, and that is why I want to see the Government stick to its guns in the fight against inflation and stick to the course it has set itself to beat inflation. It would be easy and popular to spend a lot of money on schemes to create jobs but this would simply increase the deficit, worsen inflation and, while appearing to reduce unemployment, only mask the real extent of the problem and in fact contribute to worsening it in the long term. Those people who say that the Budget fails to address itself to the problem of unemployment are wrong. In its concentration on reducing inflation the Budget addresses itself to the very heart of the unemployment problem because the fundamental cause of unemployment is inflation.

To take another example, it would be easy and popular to spend much more money on education, to provide a bigger increase than the 10 per cent extra allocated in the Budget, to spend more than the $2,37 lm set aside. I hope those people who are demanding more money immediately for education understand that so long as inflation continues the value of every dollar spent on education will be reduced, that we will not get a dollar’s worth of value out of every dollar spent unless the destructive and debilitating effects of inflation are controlled.

I think this Budget shows that while the restoration of non-inflationary economic growth is the Government’s primary objective, we are not pursuing that objective blindly or unfeelingly. Despite all our inherent difficulties the Budget shows recognition of those areas requiring improvement in the lot of our fellow Australians who most need it. Social security and welfare spending will increase by 12.7 per cent in 1977- 78 following an increase of 27 per cent last year. This year assistance to the aged rises 17 per cent and pensions remain fully indexed. Full indexation of pensions means a real increase in pensioners’ incomes. Special assistance to the handicapped is up 33 per cent. That we have been able to do this and to bring in major tax reforms while bringing the inflation rate down from 17 per cent to 10 per cent must be acknowledged as a major achievement and as evidence of the success of the Government’s policies.

The benefits of our tax reforms are real. Our tax indexation commitment announced before last year’s Budget saved taxpayers close to $ 1,000m in 1976-77. It will save a further $ 1,000m this year and, without the profound reform announced in the Budget, would have saved an additional amount of $900m in 1978- 79. But on top of this-and I repeat on top of the $900m- the radical movement in the flat rate of tax will return to the taxpayer a further $400m this year and nearly $ 1,000m next year. These are net figures which take into account the half indexation figures to apply for 1978-79. They are over and above what our commitment to indexation would have given, and indexation of course will be fully maintained in future years.

These restorations amount to an average of more than $700 being returned to each employed man and woman. But their significance is much greater than this. Ninety per cent of Australian taxpayers will now pay only 32c tax in the dollar on overtime, on working harder and on successfully building up their businesses. Those people at every level of income who wish to work harder will have a great incentive to do so. This is the only road to our goal of non-inflationary growth. If people increase their earnings by their own exertions Australia will benefit by higher levels of output and higher levels of demand. This will be a real demand increase, not a spurious inflationary demand increase which Labor is advocating with its spend now, earn later policies. It will be a demand increase spurred by improved productivity. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has pointed out, the economy is not solely in the hands of the government of the day. This is nowhere more true than with unemployment. Since our return to office numbers employed have increased by only1½ per cent. This increase has been insufficient to prevent the unemployment rate rising by 0.8 per cent to 5.4 per cent.

Mr Innes:

– It is 40 per cent higher.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That rise was made inevitable by the policy of the honourable member’s Labor Government. Workers are unemployed now because they are being priced out of work. Their labour is too expensive for the employers in the private sector to justify taking more people on. This is made abundantly clear in the studies undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For recent years, these figures show conclusively that Australian private sector wages have outpaced productivity to a greater degree than in any other OECD country. When a wage increase is granted the employer must bear the cost not just of the actual increase but also of a large additional increase as well. This additional cost, on top of the wage, is made up of the extra payroll tax, the workers’ compensation costs, the employer’s contribution to superannuation funds, annual leave loadings, holiday pay, sick leave, long service leave as well as the higher costs of overtime. The cost to the employer on top of the actual wage rise is somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent. I suspect that this extra burden on the Australian employer is considerably heavier than any similar burden carried by his competitors in other countries. When this is understood, the Government’s concern over the part being played by substantial wage increases in compounding our economic problems and in delaying a solution should be better understood. The Government has taken action only on those aspects of economic management over which it has control. Our role in wage policies is confined to submissions before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In fact we have made submissions but these have not been accepted by the Commission. Our employment policies have been affected as a result of the setbacks of the Commission’s decisions.

This Budget, like last year’s, keeps the reduction of inflation firmly in focus as our primary objective. The Budget recognises that lower inflation and lower interest rates are the only way to achieve stable self-sustaining growth. It recognises that a lower budget deficit is the only way to get inflation and interest rates down. This Budget will be remembered most for its profound reforms of personal income tax. It will be remembered as the Budget that returned the incentive for people to work harder. It will be remembered as the Budget which allowed the $12,000 a year worker to increase his earnings without running into taxation at 45c in the dollar. It will be remembered as the Budget in which the $15,000 a year worker saw his marginal tax rate drop from 45c in the dollar to 32c in the dollar. It will be remembered -

Mr Innes:

– The Prime Minister got $68 but the pensioner got $1.

Mr ANTHONY:

-The honourable member for Melbourne does not like remembering any of this. It will be remembered as the Budget which brought about the first major reform to simplify our complex tax system. It will be remembered as the Budget that put 90 per cent of taxpayers on a flat rate of tax of 32c in the dollar for earnings above the $3,750 a year which is tax free. It will be remembered as the Budget which raised non-taxable income to a level of $3,751. It will be remembered as the Budget that allowed the taxpayer with a dependant spouse to earn almost $5,500 before having to pay any tax.

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

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-This Budget will be remembered all right but it will be remembered not for the reasons that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) outlined. It will be remembered as the Budget that brought down this incompetent and disgraceful Government. The address just delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister will be remembered as something that contained a lot of rubbish, rhetoric galore, but nothing that you could eat.

I would like to refer to the sorry plight of migrants in Australia. It is a sad reflection of the attitude of Liberal governments to migrants over 25 years. Unfortunately for migrants in the postwar boom, they have been served by a Labor administration for only three years. The only concerted effort to update and provide migrant services and to attack migrant needs in a meaningful way occurred during those three years. Already in the 21 dark months since this Government took office many of those innovations have been destroyed. The closure of 3ZZ for blatant political right-wing purposessomething that the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) would know all about -is a classic example of the conservatives’ paternalistic approach to ethnic minorities. That approach is perpetrated in this Budget. In almost every area of spending beneficial to migrants, allocations not only have failed to keep abreast of inflation but also have fallen behind their often inadequate 1976-77 figure.

This is a national tragedy because migrants form a huge percentage of the lower income work force in Australia. Indeed, that is the very reason they were brought here. They are the hardest hit group in the economic recession induced by conservative incompetence. The policy of cutting inflation at the expense of wages and employment, which is failing anyway, hits most the people on lower incomes, either through depreciating their take-home pay or eliminating it altogether. Low income earners are incapable of providing a financial backup to tide them through survival on the miserable dole this Government pays its unemployed victims.

Last night I made a speech about uranium and during it I had incorporated in Hansard some figures relating to youth unemployment. I invite honourable members on both sides of the House to reflect on them because about 16.9 per cent of people between the ages of 15 and 19 years who were bom out of Australia, almost one in five persons, are on the dole or unemployed and not getting the dole. They have to fall back on social welfare if they can get it. But once again we find that there are cuts in the very areas which may give some benefit to these people. They are caught in a vicious circle created by a heartless government which is determined to make the working people of this country pay for the grave problems of the boss ‘s system. If company profits rise sensationally honourable members sitting on the Government side believe they have achieved economic wonders. They choose to ignore the hundreds of thousands of victims at the far end of the scale.

For a start, migrant education services have been cut by six per cent- to $ 10.2m- on last year’s Budget. Child migrant education programs have been reduced by $130,000. There are no funds at all for interpreter translator services. The overall reduction in real terms will adversely affect bilingual education course development which is so necesary if migrants are to retain a proportion of their cultural heritage. I need go no further than my own electorate to find primary and secondary schools suffering drastically from the ceilings placed on spending this year by the State Government as a direct flow-on from Federal cuts.

Small classes are a necessity in the multicultural inner urban schools and these are the most threatened facility as a result of the spending cuts. The opportunities for young children to survive, by putting their backsides on two stools at once, in the desperate economic climate they face are being severely limited by this Government’s education policy. At these schools migrants are amongst the worst victims. Fitzroy High School, for instance, which has a growing number of Lebanese students enrolled, has no Lebanese speaking staff member. This is an incredible deficiency and it is creating grave problems for these students. Teachers tell me that all inner urban schools suffer from a twoyear gap in the reading level. Students in second form, for example, are two years behind their comparative level. They see problems created by poor migrant education facilities as one of the factors contributing to this state of affairs.

Outside my electorate, I believe, the problems facing migrant students are being exacerbated by the demographic trend of migrant families to move out of inner suburbia or not to settle there as they traditionally did. This is due to the impact of inflation on property values. They are moving to Lalor and Deer Park. In many cases schools in these areas are even more poorly catered for in migrant education needs than schools in inner suburbia where the State Government at least has realised the problem in recent years and has taken some steps to improve it. That Government has not even come to realise fully the impact of this demographic change in the new outer migrant areas. Even when this realisation comes about it will take many years to achieve positive results because of the continuing cutback in funds from the Federal Government.

The lack of funds for the interpreter/ translator course is to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which recommended interpreter training at tertiary level and the establishment of a national council of interpreting and translating. This inquiry was established under the Labor Government when there was government concern about the plight, the needs, and the interests of migrants in this country. Had that concerned Government survived these recommendations would be operative today. Migrant translating and interpreter services would be operating under government sponsorship. Tertiary courses would be a part of our education system. But under this Government not one cent has been allocated for these courses. The Commission of Inquiry into Poverty need not have been held. The same inquiry urged State departments to establish centres where adolescent arrivals could participate in full time intensive courses preparatory to entering secondary education facilities, apprenticeship schemes or part time training courses. The cutback in Government spending will ensure that these recommendations will not be adopted.

So much for the pious determination of this socalled Government to look at the needs of the under-privileged in the community. All the Government can come up with is a range of further inquiries into migrant services. We have an inquiry, for God ‘s sake, into youth unemployment. We have had schemes related to the problems of youth, for Christ’s sake, which will take another 6 months to eventuate and by that time the people will have a darn in their tie and nothing to eat. They will never be employed if the trend continues. At the same time the sons and daughters of the elite will receive even more elitist educational opportunities thanks to the conservative attitude that the rich ought to become richer and the poor ought to become poorer. Compare the facilities at Geelong Grammar with those at Merrylands High School. The Press recently published a photograph of a migrant teacher at that high school attempting to cope with a class of 40.

Funds for welfare migrant facilities and welfare rights services have been reduced by 12 per cent in real terms from a miserable $800,000 last year to an even more miserable $750,000 this year. What an example of this Government’s lack of concern for the poor, the unemployedthe victims of its policies. If migrants were a business grouping and not just a body of industrial cannon fodder in the eyes of those on the Government benches they would be receiving special grants in aid, special industry assistance, allowances, special capital improvement grants, all to ensure their economic survival at the taxpayers’ expense. But migrants are not a business grouping. For being what they are, the hapless victims of this system, they must pay an even greater price because those services which make life a little easier for them have been further reduced.

Let us look at migrant housing. Funds to the States for this service last year were $500,000. This year they are $300,000, a 45 per cent reduction in real terms. Obviously the Government regards the depression of migrant conditions as more important than boosting the ailing construction industry. Once again Government action is contrary to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Promoting inquiries is not now and never will be necessary because the information is there already. We urge the Government to grant extensive government assistance to migrants in housing and welfare areas. In respect of housing and hire purchase the Commission of Inquiry said that the Government should set up a scheme to provide interest-free loans as settlement loans to unassisted migrants for basic household purchases without the need for them to enter crippling hire purchase agreements.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Why did you reduce the migrant intake?

Mr INNES:

-This little tinpot solicitor from Eden-Monaro, who would not get a feed in the small debts court and will not be here after the next election, yaps on the back bench.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member will not reflect personally on any other member. I will not ask him to withdraw his remark, but I ask him to remember that in future.

Mr INNES:

– The Commission of Inquiry said:

With the reputation of migrants standing high as good credit risks, a scheme -

Mr Sainsbury:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been severely misrepresented. I am not a solicitor, nor will I ever be a solicitor. What is more I know more about the construction industry than does the honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is not a point of order.

Mr INNES:

– It was a great speech, about the best the honourable member has ever made. He will never adorn the seats of this Parliament again, thank God. The Commission of Inquiry said:

With the reputation of migrants standing high as good credit risks, a scheme of this kind would seem to create relatively few risks, and would have the added advantage for the migrant of enabling him to establish a good credit rating.

The Commission of Inquiry also recommended that the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Housing establish various forms of building or housing societies within selected ethnic groups to ensure the availability of loan funds for housing in a manner that is within the grasp of individuals at that level. It also made recommendations in regard to assisting an aged persons program within the ethnic communities; long term accommodation facilities for single migrants with particular reference to single girls of all ages; power to local government authorities to control rent levels including amounts requested to be paid in advance as bond or rent; Federal and State housing departments ensuring an adequate supply of rental housing in cities like Melbourne and Sydney because of the desperate need of new migrants and others; and a review of regulations covering Commonwealth hostels and flats to enable them to be used for accommodating migrants encountering difficulties at any stage of their re-settlement.

The reports make numerous recommendations on migrant welfare but they are too numerous for me to mention here. This area is also extensively covered in the Bailey report on welfare and health and in numerous other reports which have been prepared for the Government in recent years. I refer to reports such as that on social policy and problems of the work force prepared under a social security research grant by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and reports to the Government from the Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby. In addition there have been numerous task force reports from each of the States available to this Government over the period that it has been in. office

Yet despite all this information, the result from this Government is the same- less finance for these services, or none at all in most cases, when the evidence clearly necessitates a massive increase in funding to meet migrant needs. Apart from the specific migrant programs cut back to give more profits to private industry, general cuts m the broad social security program and in areas such as health will hit the migrant community savagely. For instance, the cruel restrictions on payments to the States for hospital and community health service development will deny migrants equality of access to medical treatment. Changes in unemployment benefit procedures will delay payments, inadequate as they are, to the group most disproportionately represented in the unemployed ranks. I presume that Senator Guilfoyle s household has never had to survive for three or four weeks with no income and no money in the bank, unable to pay for the roof over the family’s heads, let alone to put food in their mouths.

Mr Yates:

– I rise to order. Is the honourable member entitled to make that sort of reflection upon a member of the other House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I think on balance that the honourable member is not out of order in his remarks which I did not take to be personal so much as general. Does the honourable member for Holt mean that the remarks were a personal reflection on Senator Guilfoyle?

Mr Yates:

– I am suggesting that it is not the custom for members of this honourable House to make reflections on the households of members of the Senate and to do so is totally out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Melbourne not to reflect on any individual member in either House.

Mr INNES:

– To the honourable members opposite, balancing the Budget, cutting here where the working people are affected and spending there where profits to industry will increase, is an academic exercise, if that term could possibly be used in respect of those members. They are playing with massive figures on a cardboard game, with the winner being the scheme able to put as much profit into private hands as possible. As unemployment races towards half a million, the Government shows its lack of compassion by making it even harder to get welfare and by making the poor suffer for even longer periods the deprivation, misery, ignominy and the shame that goes with poverty perpetrated by this Government. This shame is even greater for migrants brought to Australia on the false promise of a government offering a land of milk and honey, the perpetual sunshine of climate and social conditions, full employment at adequate salary, and consumer luxuries flooding every household.

Suddenly they are disillusioned by the reality of underpaid assembly lines in industry stripping initiative and motivation from families, inadequate housing, the desperate struggle for survival, adequate food, clothing and accommodationlet alone the promised luxuries- followed by the ultimate disillusionment, unemployment, with weeks of no income and then receipt of the shameful pittance which this Government expects the unemployed to survive on. In any period the unemployment benefit is miserably inadequate, but in a period when hundreds of thousands of Australians are unemployed as a direct result of the Government’s policies, the least the Government can do is to provide a benefit which will allow the recipient and his or her family to survive with dignity. I would have thought that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) would have fought tooth and nail within the Ministry to ensure that benefits were raised to a livable level, knowing that the proportion of unemployed coming directly or indirectly under his Department’s care. But no, as usual, he has shown callous disconcern for the plight of migrants. Once again he has allowed the big business policies of his fellow Ministers and of himself to rule. He has been grossly negligent in his lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of people in Australia for whom his portfolio makes him responsible. He has allowed their living standards to be further eroded by this Budget.

In concluding I mention one of the ironies of this Government’s economic and ethnic affairs policies. Having done absolutely nothing for migrants in the Budget the Government now intends, for Christ’s sake, to conduct an inquiry at taxpayers’ expense into the needs of migrants in the community. What hypocrisy! The situation is exacerbated further by the appointment of Mr Frank Galbally to lead it. This could be seen cynically as a pay off to Mr Galbally for his electoral contribution to the Government parties by announcing his membership of the Liberal Party at the appropriate time. He is still able to carry out a very lucrative lawyer’s practice. There are the reports and recommendations in respect of which I have made representations on interpreter and translation education and services, telephone services, housing and accommodation needs, ethnic radio, industrial relations, workers’ compensation, immediate and longer term post-arrival care, health, education, legal aid, police and court awareness and procedures, consumer affairs and a host of other matters. Thee is no need for inquiries. We need some action, Anyone working closely with migrants is aware of the problems. It makes me very angry to see this Government once again ignoring these problems and using an expensive gimmick as an excuse. I condemn the Government for its failure to meet migrant needs, both in this anti-working people’s Budget and through the unnecessary inquiry announced last week which will cost $120,000 of taxpayers ‘money.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Perth, I make the comment that there is a type of language used in this chamber which is parliamentary. I do not think anyone in the chair should encourage people lightly to depart from the use of parliamentary language.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

– I am pleased to support the Budget and I shall discuss some of the economic strategic aspects of it. I say at the outset that I support the basic strategy of the Government to control inflation, to reduce the deficit, to reduce taxes and government spending and to create the preconditions for a fall in interest rates. I certainly endorse the strategy adopted by the Government to protect the Budget vote which is apportioned to disadvantaged groups in our society. I must say that I deplore the attempts by the Opposition to preach gloom and despair. Members of the Opposition seem to have a vested interest in this kind of attitude. They totally misunderstand the basic strategy of the Government and its economic achievements since it came to office. I shall list some of these. The inflation rate has been substantially reduced. In the 12 months to the June quarter 1977 the underlying rate was 10.2 per cent per annum compared with 15.4 per cent in 1975-76. This is a very significant improvement.

My colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), a man whose opinion I respect in economic matters, yesterday issued a statement based on the latest quarterly estimates of national income and expenditure. He statedI agree with him- that on the basis of these latest figures single-digit inflation by June 1977 has been attained on a yearly basis. He went on to say that the implicit price deflator for expenditure on gross domestic product was 9.4 per cent. Without allowing for the increase in stocks and the statistical discrepancy the June 1977 on June 1976 increase was 9.13 per cent. As the implicit price deflator has been leading the consumer price index down over the last half year the latest national accounts foreshadow the best results for price stability for many years. I think that is really a very significant improvement in the key economic indicator in Australia at this time. Of course, we are criticised by the Opposition for the level of unemployment which presently prevails. We accept that the level is too high. But I think we should keep this matter in some kind of perspective.

Under the Labor Government unemployment rose by 126 per cent. Under the present Government the level of unemployment has risen by less than one per cent I cite those figures simply to suggest that the Opposition should not become too sanctimonious about this problem. The present Government is very concerned about the magnitude of the matter. That is why the control of inflation and of Australia’s cost structure is being given top priority. Also, during 1976-77 real gross non-farm product increased, productivity increased, company profitability increased and there were substantial improvements in business and dwelling investment. All these key indicators reflect the improved economic performance of this country during 1976-77 when compared with the performance of the previous Government. But of course we have a long way to go. We accept that.

The Government’s strategy to achieve its economic objectives is very well known. It was disappointing therefore after studying the speech on the Budget of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) to find that the Opposition still has not come to grips with a proper economic strategy of its own. In reading the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I was disappointed to find that it was not until I had read nearly 14 columns of Hansard that I found he came forward with a suggestion as to what his Party would do to ovecome Australia ‘s economic problems. I was even more disturbed to find that his suggestion was to further increase government expenditure. An increase in government expenditure of itself need not be a bad thing. It depends on how it is done and whether it has severe implications for the deficit. From the speech of the Leader of the Opposition it seems clear to me that by implication the Opposition is again recommending larger deficits, higher taxes, higher interest rates and all the adverse consequences which such factors bring to the economy such as rampant inflation and high unemployment.

I remember Mr Pierre Schweizer, the former head of the International Monetary Fund, stating as far back as the mid-1960s that this kind of strategy, which was so damaging to domestic and external currency stability, was almost inevitable in the industrial democracies of the Western world. His assumptions were very simple. Because governments wanted to stay in office and because opposition wanted to get into office, each political force promised all things to all men. There were constant promises of higher government spending, or lower taxes, or both. In other words the economic price of power was constantly being increased. To some extent this is presently the case in Australia. Certainly that is so with the Opposition. Again the economy will pay the price under the proposals of the Opposition. Again it is advocating increasing expenditure and increasing the size of the deficit, therefore suggesting that lower unemployment can be purchased at the expense of higher inflation. Pump priming of the kind envisaged no longer has the effect it had in the 1960s. The Opposition again fails to realise that this kind of trade-off does not apply when high levels of inflation and high levels of unemployment co-exist. They are not alternatives. There is a real causal relationship between the two which makes it imperative to overcome inflation if unemployment is to be cured.

The strategy of any budget in present times, if inflation and unemployment are to be tackled together, surely should be to exercise restraint on both the revenue and expenditure sides. One should have regard not only to the size but also to the nature of the deficit. The cumulative effects of large deficits in recent years has simply meant that money markets have been strained to the limit and that additional money has been printed by the presses of the government. One does not have to be a professor of economics to realise that too much money, chasing too few goods, creates an intolerable domestic price instability. This Government has made very substantial efforts to reduce the deficit from the record levels found in the Labor Government’s Budgets. But the deficit is still a problem. It is still too large. The Government should consider the nature and the timing of deficit changes.

In different circumstances I think it would be possible to put the view that more restraint could have been exercised on the revenue side of this Budget. After all, tax indexation has already provided substantial benefits. Such action could have brought the deficit to less than $2 billion and established the necessary prerequisites for very substantial interest rate reductions later in the year. It could also have provided for other substantial expansionary policies next year. That was one possible long term strategy to overcome our present unemployment problem. However, the fact is that the Labor Government created such impossible tax burdens for all Australians that short term relief became imperative on noneconomic grounds. I am appalled that the Opposition seeks to decry the very substantial and revolutionary tax reforms introduced by this Government, especially as such reforms, in proportionate terms, will assist lower income families more than higher income families. I think the Opposition’s criticism of this Government for its tax reforms is quite incredible when one considers that the Opposition, when in government, increased income tax collections by some 90 per cent

In view of the fact that the Government had no option but to suffer a reduction in its ability to reduce the deficit further by introducing these taxation concessions, in my opinion the Government has done very well to reduce the deficit by as much as it has since it came to office. There is no question that this is a very important economic commitment which the Government has had to make. Regarding the structure of the deficit, I suggest that the Government needs to keep its options open and should not become too doctrinaire regarding possible changes of emphasis in the composition of the deficit. I think that future restraint should be exercised more heavily on transfer payments, by adhering to the principle that resources in the welfare area should be more heavily concentrated on areas of need. This does not necessarily mean a further reduction in the deficit, but rather a change of emphasis to provide future scope for some capital expenditure as the rate of inflation is further reduced and as the Government has more expansionary options open to it in the context of its basic strategy.

The deficit should continue to be strictly controlled, certainly, because of the monetary implications of failing to do so. Its composition may be able to be changed in a way which would facilitate expenditure in areas with greater income- multiplier effects such as capital works. On the other hand, the Opposition adopts much more simplistic and dangerous view. It advocates increased capital spending at the cost of increasing the deficit, thereby maintaining high interest rates- a view totally incompatible with noninflationary economic growth. What I am saying is that the Budget strategy is the proper strategy for the present time. By keeping its options open in the way I have suggested, the effect of the inevitable move to lower interest rates which this Government has encouraged by responsible budgetary management will be further supported by the stimulatory effects of the tax cuts which the Government has introduced. I say this because the stimulatory effects of the tax cuts will occur only if consumers can have their employment expectations secured. It has become abundantly clear in recent times that consumer spending habits depend not only on inflationary expectations but also on employment prospects. For this reason it is important for the Government not to discard the possibility of following more expansionary fiscal policies in order to continue its stimulus to the private sector. There is certainly a capacity for the economy to absorb mild expansion without placing pressures on inflation.

Taxes in Australia have certainly been too high in the recent past. Tax cuts, justifiable on equity and welfare grounds, will not have their desired expansionary impact on the economy unless two things happen. Firstly, the tax cuts must be seen as providing a trade-off against further money wage increases. Quite clearly the labour market will not improve if the price of labour continues to outstrip the productivity of labour. Until real wage costs decrease, budgetary stimulus will not improve the unemployment situation. Secondly, the Government must realise that this factor is interrelated with consumer spending habits. The productivity of the existing labour force will not increase unless there is scope for overall production increases. That is quite natural. The tax cuts will not result automatically in increased consumption expenditure unless members of the public can assess their job prospects as being secure. This is largely dependent upon confidence in the private sector. We should remember very clearly that although disposable incomes rose under Labor in 1974 there was no comparable increase in consumer spending, as we might expect during times of high rates of inflation. This was clearly due to the fact that people realised that their job security as well as their real wages were threatened by high inflation rates.

Therefore confidence is the key. The tax cuts will have a stimulatory effect, if the Government, as a result of its budgetary management, moves towards a substantial lowering of interest rates- if this can be accompanied either late this year or early next year by some fiscal expansionthere would be a capacity to increase consumer and business confidence by providing non-inflationary growth. I simply reiterate my earlier point. The Government has a justifiable concern at containing the level of the deficit. It must not underestimate the scope for expansion which can come from changing the nature of the deficit by applying a more rational distribution of government resources. After all, we are confronted basically with a cost inflation situation, not demand inflation.

I would like to spend my remaining time discussing some of the welfare aspects of this Budget. At all times this Government has ensured that although tough decisions must be taken to reduce the rate of inflation the burden of such decisions would not be borne by disadvantaged sections of the community. In the area of welfare this Government has a fine record. Firstly, its objective of reducing the inflation rate has very substantial advantageous welfare implications for pensioners and all elderly, retired people. There are other more direct ways in which this Government has protected disadvantaged groups through its welfare programs. In the Budget last year the handicapped children’s allowance was increased by 50 per cent to $15 a week. The handicapped children’s benefit, payable in respect of handicapped children in institutions, was increased by more than 40 per cent to $5 a day. In the present Budget special assistance for handicapped people will rise by 33 per cent. That is achieved by providing income support of up to $ 1 5 a week for parents or guardians of handicapped children.

This Government is the first government ever to guarantee the preservation of the value of pensions and benefits, by adjusting them automatically every six months in line with changes in the consumer price index. In November, as a result of this initiative, the standard rate of social service pensions and benefits will rise to $49.30 a week, which means that the standard pension rate will have increased by 27 per cent since this Government took office. The Government has undertaken three-year programs for the funding of aged persons homes and senior citizens centres at levels of funding much higher than that provided by the previous Government. In all these ways- together with other initiatives such as the family allowances scheme and the increase in the tax threshold, which will relieve many pensioners from the burden of paying taxation which was imposed on them by the previous Government- this Government has demonstrated its concern for the disadvantaged groups in society and has made sure that the cost of reducing the inflation rate will not fall on those groups who suffer mostly from the effects of inflation.

There are two areas in the welfare field which concern me particularly and on which I urge the Government to take action. Firstly I refer to the need for income support for supporting fathers, equivalent to that provided for supporting mothers. I have already raised this matter in the Parliament and made representations to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in my attempts to have this anomaly rectified. The issue does not need elaboration because I know the Minister is aware of the problems of supporting fathers and is anxious to assist them as soon as circumstances permit. I simply say that this is a major anomaly in our welfare system. Society is prepared to act as a breadwinner in a fatherless house but is not prepared to finance adequately a household in which the father is required to give up his normal working duties to assume a dual parental role to keep his family together.

The other welfare matter relates to the problems experienced by some pensioners who are in receipt of a part pension and some additional income, whether it is derived from superannuation or from some other source, and who are entitled to receive certain fringe benefits. These fringe benefits are payable to pensioners whose other income is below $33 a week for a single pensioner or $57.50 a week for a married pensioner. Depending on the individual circumstances of each pensioner, fringe benefits can represent a very sizable addition to real income. In some cases, for example the frail aged who require frequent or continuous medical care and medication, the value of the fringe benefits may actually exceed the value of the pension.

These income limits have not changed since 1969. In the face of the increasing number of pensioners and the costs involved, and in order to maintain equity between pensioners and other non-pension low income groups, the previous Government decided in 1973 to freeze the then current income limits upon eligibility for fringe benefits. Because this eligibility for fringe benefits ceases completely at a specific income point, inequity arises in the sense that pensioners whose incomes were very close to the disqualifying limit can receive a superannuation increase which takes them past the limit and therefore lose fringe benefits which may be of greater value than their basic income increase. As long as fringe benefit eligibility is not tapered in the way that eligibility for the pension is, this sort of problem will arise for some pensioners each time there is a basic income increase.

Many thousands of pensioners who have sufficient other income from private superannuation payments to put them near the upper limits and who still receive fringe benefits may find themselves taken beyond those limits if their particular superannuation fund incorporates the indexation of benefits. Some sort of tapered fringe benefits test might reduce the inequities of the present scheme, but it would be difficult to devise and administer a scheme which tapered eligibility to services rather than cash, as is the case with pension eligibility. The services offered represent different values to different pensioners.

So there are difficulties in rectifying this anomaly. Perhaps the only way of doing it effectively would be to replace fringe benefits with an income tested supplement to the basic pension. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the answer or that now is the right time to implement a remedy. I simply want to draw the Government’s attention to this problem. It is probably the most important deficiency in our present pension system. At the moment, because of this problem many pensioners are having their welfare determined less by changes in their basic income levels and more by the absence of change in their entitlement to fringe benefits. I consider this situation to be quite wrong in principle. In practice, it is placing many pensioners at a considerable disadvantage. I should like the Government to address itself to this problem.

I support fully the economic strategy of the Government. I think the results achieved last year will continue to improve in the next year. I certainly regard the control of inflation and the Budget deficit as the major areas which this Government has to attack in improving the economy. I support the Budget wholeheartedly.

Debate interrupted.

page 921

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the sake of accuracy I should like to add to an answer I gave to a question asked this morning. This morning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) said that I had used a single line quotation from the Flowers report. The single line quotation, as he indicated in his question, was as follows:

We are confident that an acceptable solution will be found.

The sentence that the Leader of the Opposition read out this morning was not in my speech announcing the Government’s uranium decision. It is contained in two background papers. It appears at page5 of the paper headed ‘Health and Safety Aspects of Nuclear Power Generation’ and at page 4 of the document ‘UraniumYour Questions Answered’. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that only one line from the Flowers report had been quoted and that the quotation omitted several other sentences. The acts are quite different.

The quotation contained in the background papers came from paragraph 1 8 1 of the Flowers report. The sentences which the Leader of the Opposition claimed I had omitted came from paragraph 504 of the Flowers report- 1 1 1 pages later. As I was using a quotation from paragraph 1 8 1 , it is not surprising that the quotation that the Leader of the Opposition used, which came from paragraph 504-111 pages later- was not included in the original quotation. Obviously, the quotation from paragraph 504 was not a part of the quotation contained in the background documents.

As I have indicated, the quotation from the Flowers report which was contained in the background papers was not a ‘single sentence- one line’ as the Leader of the Opposition so misleadingly described it. It was an extensive quotation from the Flowers report together with a further sentence summarising the attitude towards waste isolation which had been expressed in the Rowers report.

Let me read the quotation which appeared in the background documents. It was as follows:

There are various proposals Tor the permanent storage of the solidified wastes under the ocean bed or in deep geological formations where they will be virtually inaccessible. Much research is needed (though still on a very modest scale compared with that on reactors) to establish the safety and the feasibility of such methods . . . We are confident that an acceptable solution will be found . . .

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the only sentence that had been used was as follows:

We are confident that an acceptable solution will be found.

The following additional sentence appears in the background documents:

The Commission goes on to recommend that there should be no commitment to fission power on a massive scale until at least one method for safe isolation has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

In other parts of the Flowers report, indicating a view very similar to that indicated in the Fox report, the Commission had indicated that the present state of knowledge certainly was not one which should cause people to put aside the further development of” nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I think that what we have seen on this occasion is yet one more example of the unparalleled capacity of the Leader of the Opposition for deception and the blatant way in which he tries to carry out distortions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is now debating the matter. He has explained the point of the incorrect quotation. In continuing now and making comments in relation to the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister is debating the matter and is going beyond the explanation.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the Prime Minister has been given more than a fair go. If he is going to continue in this vein, why does he not wait until the Leader of the Opposition comes into the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Graham:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I request an opportunity to make the situation quite clear. The fact is that the Prime Minister is casting some doubt upon the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition, which, I might mention, sir, is consistent with the pattern of the past 1,000 years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for North Sydney is not raising a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I have indicated that I think the Prime Minister has commenced to debate the point. I suggest that the right honourable gentleman has already made his point.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point of order goes not to the manner in which the Prime Minister is speaking but rather to his breaching of that Standing Order which states that a member may not make offensive imputations against another member of the House. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the last words of the Prime Minister did breach that Standing Order. I ask that you require the Prime Minister to withdraw those words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I pointed out to the Prime Minister that the words he used were taking the matter into the area of debate. The words have no association with his explanation; they are not relevant to the subject matter of his statement.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-May I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by summarising the facts. As has been mentioned, the quotation used in the background papers came from paragraph 181 of the Flowers report. The sentences which the Leader of the Opposition claimed had been omitted came from paragraph 504 of the Flowers report- 1 1 1 pages later. I do not think it is surprising, therefore, that the sentences quoted by the Leader of the Opposition were omitted from the quotation, because obviously they were not part of it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the indulgence of the Chair. I am quite certain that all honourable members will be able to understand exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did.

page 922

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I must say at the outset that I am very upset about what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said in reply to a question asked this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). I would say that the way in which he attacked the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here, was slanderous. What he said during the last five minutes does not do service to the Liberal Party and does not do service to the Prime Minister of Australia. I do not want to waste my time on the Prime Minister. I expect that the Leader of the Australian Labor Party will answer him in the correct manner at a time which suits the Leader.

This Government is bankrupt, both of ideas and financial expertise, and is not fit to govern our great country. Just over the last two days the honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) both have denounced the 1977-78 Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in this House, Not only the younger members of this Government are attacking their leaders- I do not wonder why having heard what the Prime Minister has just stated- but also the older and most respected members are doing so, and doing it openly. This Government is on very shaky grounds in its fight for survival. The Prime Minister and his advisers were contemplating a snap election. I am convinced, after hearing what the Prime Minister said in the last five minutes, that he is a very worried man. I think that over the next two months the Prime Minister will be saying less about an election. I think he is worrying about his survival.

Three weeks ago the Treasurer announced his Government’s alleged master plan for the nation’s economic recovery over the next year. Rather than being seen as an economic document, the Budget had the immediate impact on the media of increasing speculation about an early election. With the so-called revolutionary changes in the tax structure, the absence of increased duties on cigarettes and alcohol and a staggering increase in the price of petrol which is due to come into effect in the middle of next year, it was thought that the Government was preparing for an early election in order to avoid the reaction of the electorate to next year’s massive increase in unemployment, continuing double figure inflation and a further deterioration of the economy.

However, unforeseen by the Government, the media were quick to realise the hollowness and treachery contained in the Government’s Budget proposals. The day after the Budget was delivered the newspapers were questioning the accuracy of the Budget figures, especially those concerning the new tax structure, and they generally attacked the Government for the extent of its deviousness. The subsequent attempts by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to cover up only fuelled the growing belief of the Australian public that the Budget was a fraud and a serious impediment to Australia’s chances of economic recovery. Therefore, within a matter of days, the

Budget was totally discredited as a worthy election Budget, and so the chances of an early Federal election disappeared.

If it is not an election Budget, what is it? It certainly is not a serious attempt by the Government to restore Australia’s economic and social wellbeing. The fact is that this Budget is nothing more than a continuation of last year’s Budget strategy- a Budget which increased the number of unemployed by 90,000, prolonged high inflation rates, obliterated business confidence, savagely reduced personal incomes with the result of stifling any chance of a consumer led recovery, fanatically hacked away at public spending without any regard for its immediate effects on the poorer members of our community or its long term social and economic costs, and worst of all, a Budget which totally rejected the goals of reducing inequality and social injustice and of enhancing the quality of life of aU Australians in fact it actively sought a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.

It is obvious from an examination of this Budget that the Government is bankrupt of any workable economic alternatives. It is clinging to an economic strategy which has proven over the last year that it is not working and is not likely ever to work. The fact that the Government still clings to the same stale and unworkable policies is positive proof of the Government not being in command of the situation but instead being fixated to its one and only unimaginative and over simplistic recipe for economic disaster.

While justifying the 1975 coup on the grounds of their superior economic management skills, the Liberal-National Country parties have proceeded to prove without a doubt that they are the greatest economic mismanagers Australians have ever witnessed. As a result of their short but thorough term of mismanagement, Australia can no longer regard itself as a lucky country. In less than 20 months of conservative government Australian living standards have fallen by more than four per cent, thus placing Australia comparably worse off in many important ways than other Western democracies whose national wealth and resources are less than ours.

Worse than that, the last two Lynch Budgets have blatantly and unashamedly depressed Australian living standards in an inequitable manner, with the intention of giving more to the rich at the expense of the poor. The Treasurer calmly explains that the rich have to be given incentives so that economic growth can take place. If the rich are made more contented, he argues, then they will provide jobs for the workers. What sort of feeble-minded, nineteenth century reasoning is that? Whatever happened to our noble objectives of stamping out social injustices wherever they occurred in this country, of providing equality of opportunity for all Australians, of helping the disadvantaged to help themselves, and of providing dignified and adequate support for all those unable to provide for themselves.

The Treasurer obviously believes that such goals are extravagant and unable to be afforded in these times of economic recession. Instead he believes that the present unjustifiable imbalance of national wealth should be further aggravated by redistributing a greater share of the national wealth from the workers and social security beneficiaries to the top ten per cent of Australia’s income earners. The last two Lynch Budgets have had that as one of their primary objectives, and unfortunately it is one of the few objectives in relation to which the Government has had a degree of success.

In the 1976-77 Budget Medibank was slashed by $450m; health services were doubled; programmed expenditure on four education commissions was reduced by $172m; tuition fees for second and higher degrees were reintroduced; taxing of social security pensions and benefits was introduced; grants for senior citizens centres were terminated; expenditure on sickness and unemployment benefits was cut by $33m; subsidies for aged persons homes were reduced by SO per cent; funding for the Australian Assistance Plan was completely withdrawn; funding for the Aboriginal people was cut by 30 per cent in real terms; the Labor Government’s programs for urban and regional development were virtually destroyed; funds for the school dental service were frozen; the legal aid service was strangled before it had a chance to function; child care services were savagely cut back, and despite all these cuts in government expenditure, taxes were also increased by 25 per cent and the Government did everything in its power to curb wage increases, with the result that over the year average wages fell by $ 1 1 .50 a week.

At the same time as the Government was pruning back community services, welfare payments and wages, it was doling out money to big business. The coal industry which had made profits of around $500m the previous year was given the huge and totally pointless windfall from reduced export duties, resulting in gifts of tens of millions of dollars to large and prosperous coal companies such as Utah; shareholders were rewarded with further subsidised profits; and generous tax loopholes were created for Pitt and Collins Street farmers. Where are the members of the National Country Party now? Not one of them is here to defend himself. And the superphosphate bounty was restored at an annual cost of $50m, of which the Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet colleagues are potential beneficiaries.

Now again in the 1977-78 Budget the same warped reasoning, tainted values and insensitivity to the nation’s needs underlie the Government’s policies. In the same manner as it did in the previous Budget, the Government is serving notice to the world that one of the richest and most fortunate nations on earth cannot afford to provide for its people the minimum standards of health care, housing, public transport, urban development and social amenities enjoyed by all other advanced Western democracies; but at the same time it can afford to make inequitable and considerable concessions to a handful of people who are already on the highest incomes and who are very secure in their jobs.

Just as occurred in the previous Budget, real government spending has been cut, this time by nearly two per cent. Combined with the cut of approximately four per cent last year, this year’s level of government spending will lead directly to severely reduced employment opportunities, particularly in the already depressed building and construction industries. By January next year 430,000 Australians will be unemployed with the young continuing to bear the major burden of unemployment in 1977-78. In the opinion of most economists this year’s Budget does nothing about the unemployment problem except make it worse. It can only be assumed that once again the Government is deliberately using unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries.

As in the previous Budget, the only people who will gain from this year’s Budget are the wealthy. As a result of the so-called revolutionary tax cuts the vast majority of people will receive a paltry $3 a week, most of which will be immediately swallowed up by higher petrol prices and rising inflation. In comparison, the rich people, those on the highest salaries, will gain more in take home pay each week than the majority of taxpayers receive in their total weekly earnings. What a cruel fraud this proposed tax cut is. No wonder the Australian Financial Review, two days after the delivery of the Budget, was prompted to condemn it as a shabby confidence trick unworthy of any serious government.

As in the previous Budget, excessive concessions were given to those already well off, such as the mining companies. An estimated $800m of potential company tax receipts will be given to company profits. Meanwhile the Government repeats its failure to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence. Like last year there is no allocation of funds in the Budget for local employment programs despite the fact that unemployment is soaring at record post-Depression levels, especially in areas such as Sydney’s western suburbs, Townsville, Kwinana, Ballarat and Nowra. In fact the dramatic reduction in capital works programs will greatly contribute to the unemployment problems of many of these areas. The only assistance the Government offers is its Relocation Assistance Scheme which provides no direct employment opportunities. At a time when 40 per cent of unemployed persons are youths and the proportion is increasing the Government, in its wisdom, has decided to expand the special youth employment training program to include unemployed persons between the ages of 20 years and 24 years. This extended program will give only 20,000 young people employment assistance in 1977-78 when in one single month, May this year, 147,000 young people between the ages of 15 years and 24 years were unemployed.

Mr Morris:

– The Government is sacking people to put them on.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right. It is doing so in our area of New South Wales. With regard to apprenticeship training the Government admits that there is a continuing shortage of skilled labour and an increasing pool of unskilled labour. Yet it still neglects to provide adequate funds for training and retraining programs. The Government has reduced the allocation of funds in the Budget for apprenticeship training under the Commonwealth Rebate Apprenticeship Full-time Training scheme and the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme by $ 1 .6m, a reduction of nine per cent in real terms.

Despite all this evidence highlighting the Government’s failure to act to stimulate employment opportunities and the economy in general, it still attempts to pour blame on the union movement for its own economic incompetence. Although the number of man hours lost through strikes is at a 10-year low several Ministers have claimed that industrial disputation is responsible for inflation and unemployment and have threatened further industrial legislation to solve our economic problems. Any such attack on the union movement such as the recently introduced

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill is quite plainly designed only to divert public attention from the Government’s own failures and to provoke the union movement into confrontation with the Government. This is a situation which the Government obviously believes to be to its electoral advantage. Otherwise it would not pursue it with such force and determination.

As in the previous Budget the prospect of this Budget reducing inflation this year is very dim. Even though reducing inflation is claimed by the Goverment to be its overriding concern, the increase in petrol tax on top of unnecessary devaluations and the destructive changes to Medibank will guarantee another year of rapid price increases. In spite of the Treasurer’s assertions to the contrary the official Treasury figures released in connection with the Budget show that the underlying rate of inflation has jumped by 47 per cent in the last six months. All estimates are that the rate of inflation will be at least 1 1 per cent to 12 per cent in 1977-78. Once again in the Lynch Budget the Government has cut back spending on essential community services, a policy which will only guarantee further deterioration of the Australian quality of life and will place unbreakable financial barriers in front of those who are most in need of these services.

The Government’s twisted justification for these cutbacks is to put more money back into the pockets of the taxpayers. Yet the Government does not even practise what it preaches in this instance as it plans to increase its revenue gain from personal taxation by 17 per cent during this financial year. But, overlooking Government inconsistency as one often has to do when speaking about its policies, I shall use this opportunity to comment on the Government’s line of reasoning with regard to Budget cutbacks on community services. Firstly, in many cases Government saving on community services is a false economy. More money in the taxpayers’ pockets does not compensate for the loss of basic amenities which make for a secure and civilised life. These are amenities that only governments can provide such as adequate roads, railways, hospitals, schools, libraries universities, preschools, open spaces and a decent environment. More money in the pocket would not enable a family to buy any of these things but without these amenities a family’s quality of life is drastically reduced.

Secondly, prolonged government neglect of essential community services often involves more considerable and less obvious costs to the deprived individual and to the nation as a whole.

For instance, the longer we postpone essential services such as sewerage, the greater the ultimate cost and disruption of providing them. The longer we delay the building of necessary hospitals and health centres, the greater the toll in sickness, rehabilitation and absenteeism. The longer it takes to get to work, the higher the cost in industrial production and human efficiency. The more deprived and backward our cities and towns, the greater the rates of crime and mental illness. All this neglect and impoverishment diminishes the nation’s productivity, blunts its competitiveness as a trading nation and burdens its people with needless inconvenience and hardship far more drastically and far more expensively than industrial disputes. No government of any other affluent nation in the world would tolerate the waste of time, money and human resources dissipated by Australia’s substandard services and public amenities. But here in Australia the Fraser Government is actively promoting the further debasement of our services and amenities.

The brilliant alternative of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer to government provision of many of these services is for the private sector to provide some of them. This leads me to my third criticism of the Government’s reasoning underlying its policy. Without adequate government intervention many essential community services will become the preserve of the wealthy. As a result of the two Lynch Budgets, pre-school funding which covers the payment of pre-school teachers’ salaries has been progressively reduced from 75 per cent to 49 per cent. By next week this will mean that preschools will once again be restricted to those who can afford to pay the higher fees rather than be available to those who have greatest need of them. Next week pre-school fees are poised to rise to more than treble their present level. In the inner city area they will rise from $5 a week to more than $17 a week. This situation is deplorable but it is all part of a deliberate and twisted government policy.

Education, aged persons’ accommodation, social security pensions, benefits and programs, growth centres, community health services, migrant services, Aboriginal affairs, urban rehabilitation and housing are some of the vitally important areas of government responsibility which have also gone wanting in this Budget. The Australian is looking for some guidance. Aged persons’ homes have been hard hit. In one word, this year’s Budget is a disaster. On one hand Australians are being asked to accept savage cuts in services as the price they must pay to beat inflation and reduce unemployment while on the other hand the government is giving lavish concessions to big business in an all out bid to redistribute the nation’s wealth from the poor to the already wealthy. The result is a Budget which is a recipe for higher inflation and unemployment. This, in turn, makes the sacrifices of Australians futile. The simple, selfish, ill-conceived message of this Budget is that relief for the poor, the sick and the uneducated is a luxury that the wealthy do not wish to afford. We are waiting for the next election.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The speeches we have heard from the other side of the House are completely unconvincing. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) who has just resumed his seat seemed to be completely unconcerned about the level of unemployment He talked about extending the Public Service and extending the Australian Government services. It is a tired old approach that the Australian people have experienced. They experienced it for three years and then decided that they were absolutely sick and tired of it because they as individuals received no personal benefit. They were restricted in what they could do. The resulting huge additional take in taxation meant that they as individuals and as families had no capacity to be self-sufficient and had a limited capacity to seek employment.

If we look at the 12 months that have just passed and look at the Government’s record we see that the Government’s Budget last year finished the year completely on target. The Government’s commitment to reduce the deficit was within one per cent of the target. I am sure that any manager of any household in Australia would recognise that, to achieve a deficit within one per cent of an assessed goal, is a fine achievement and something that few managers could fulfil. But the Government has fulfilled it. The Government made a commitment to reduce inflation. It said that it would like to see inflation at about 10 per cent to 1 1 per cent at the end of the year. We started the year with a level of inflation of 15.4 per cent and finished the year with a level of 10.3 per cent. Figures now coming forward indicate that even within the last couple of months there has been a significant drop in inflation, so apparently we now have one digit inflation, which is something of which the Government and all members on this side of the House are proud.

If we look at the capacity within the community to go out, to explore, to find new challenges, we see that company profits are up by 23 per cent in 12 months. To many people company profits indicate that a few individuals alone gain the benefit of those profits. That is certainly not so. A small number of indiividuals do not gain the benefits of company profits. They are spread through the community. They mean employment, training and prospects for young people leaving school. Profits mean jobs, and this is one of the objectives of the present Australian Government. Hand in hand with increased profits goes increased overseas investment in Australia. We believe that at this stage overseas interests in Australia are running at the highest level since 1972. This indicates a confidence and a willingness by other people to show their confidence in Australia by putting their money here and by saying: ‘We believe that Australia has prospects. We believe that Australia has a future. We believe that the Australian people can see the way ahead and will accept the challenges of new and exciting prospects in all fields’.

But of course the Government’s major thrust during the last two years- again it is evident in the Budget- has been its commitment to controlling inflation. Without the control of inflation there can be no proper management at an individual or family level or at a government level. For instance, increased funds for State and local government go much further if inflation is low. If inflation is running at 16 per cent and if local government receives an increase of 20 per cent in its funding it has a real growth of four per cent, but if inflation is running at 10 per cent it has a 10 per cent real growth. That is what happens when inflation is reduced. The capacity of every individual or government is increased dramatically. That is why this Government places so much emphasis on controlling inflation. This means that the average proportion of a weekly wage that is expended on food and other necessary items is more stable and goes further. A commitment of a certain amount of money a week will provide the necessities and the luxuries with far less strain on the family. This is why the Government is committed to retaining and restraining inflation.

Linked with the constraint of inflation must of course be the constraint on the demand for increased wages, as people should recognise. The tax scales that have been introduced by the Government this year, to my mind, give rise to much thought. A $3 a week tax cut is equivalent to a $4.60 a week wage rise. Under those circumstances tax cuts are more substantial indeed than wage rises because the individual receives all of that money. Nobody is taking anything out of it. He can use it himself. I repeat that a $3 tax cut is worth a wage rise of $4.60. We should not fail to recognise that for many people in the community decreased taxation means- if one looks at the scales prepared by the Taxation Office- that people with dependants or with a dependent spouse will receive tax cuts of something like 18 per cent or 19 per cent after 1 February. That is highly significant. The people receiving those tax cuts are benefiting far more than if they had received a wage rise of a similar amount.

Decreasing wage demands have been one of the reasons why there is a greater stability in the Australian community today. People have seen the fallacy of pursuing increasing wage claims and of making increased demands on employers and government. It benefits them little. If there is a general stability it gives scope for planning and scope to look ahead and achieve individual goals and ideals. The Government has achieved its objectives in many ways but one of the significant ways has been by reducing the size of government and the size of the public sector. By extravagant use of taxpayers’ funds we saw a massive growth in the Public Service during the period in which our predecessors were in office. This Government has reduced the Public Service by 12,500 in this year and has made a further commitment to reduce it by 3,000 in the coming year. At the same time I am disappointed to find that State governments have actually increased their public services. There seems to be little commitment by State governments to hold the line that is consistent with the national approach. I am afraid that there appears to be a selfish approach. It is not a commitment to the things that we nationally consider to be important.

I think that the road back for Australia could be much more easy if the State Premiers, instead of crying out for increased government benefits on the one hand and reduced interest rates on the other, which are completely incompatible, reduced the size of their public services. I think that they would be more responsible and more realistic if they were to adopt techniques similar to the ones adopted by the Australian Government. I urge them to take note of what the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said in his Budget Speech and to look at the areas of payroll tax and workers’ compensation. These are the very factors that are denying opportunities to people in the work force. An employer must expend something like $260 a week for his employee to take home $140 a week. These benefits are of no immediate gain to the employee but they are costs to the employer. They are long term benefits. I am referring to workers’ compensation, payroll tax, long service leave and superannuation. They are fine things but the community must recognise that the employer is up for a far bigger bill than employees take home in their pockets. An extension of these concepts and an unwillingness to deal with them by State governments will only delay the resumption of job opportunities.

As I have said, the deficit is down by $500m in the Budget that was presented on 16 August. Each reduction of this deficit eases the pressure on monetary policy. The Government this year has successfully encouraged housing loans. It has said to the Reserve Bank that any creditworthy borrowers should not be excluded from receiving home loans. The Government has said that there should not be restraint on the capacity of individuals to establish their family home. This is an indication of the Government’s commitments along with programs about which the community knows-programs that have been delivered during the past year to encourage people to own their homes and to establish the security and the base for their children which will provide for the citizens of tomorrow an opportunity for wellbeing and an opportunity to look forward with confidence.

If we look at the new tax scales we find that an additional 225,000 people will be exempted from paying income tax. It is all right to talk about people at the upper end of the tax scales, the upper income earners, but let us look at the lower end. Let us look at the real benefits that will be received by pensioners and people in receipt of a pension plus small superannuation payments. This is where the tax scales will have the most benefit. What Federal member opposite has not had pensioners coming to him complaining about the Hayden Budget and saying: ‘Now you are taxing pensioners’? How many pensioners have they had come in? I am sure that they have had hundreds. I know that members on this side of the House have had such complaints. The Government has moved to resolve this problem.

Another real advantage of the new tax scales is that anyone in the community with the capacity to do so can go out and earn more money without being taxed so heavily. Overtime will become attractive because it will not be taxed at a penalty rate. The same applies to the earnings of people with second jobs. People will be able to take up their opportunities as they find them. In real terms people will get back a total of $ 1,371m in their tax and after February next year the amount will be $l,857m. The people of the electorate of Mitchell alone will be better off in this 12 months by $20m to $30m as a result of the tax scales. Last year they were $ 10m better off. This indicates the commitment of the Government to give people the chance to spend their own money and to make their own decisions.

In the area of government programs education has been mentioned as being an area in which there have been government cuts. The argument can be presented that there has been no increase in expenditure for education. But no increase in real terms means in fact that the Government could honestly claim there has been an increase in expenditure on education equivalent to the rate of inflation. It is not possible at this time of the year to put a figure on that amount because we do not know what the cost will be. But by the end of 1977-78 taxpayers and the education community will see that the Government, as it did last year, has honoured its word and will retain a capacity for a real stability in education. There will not be cuts and members of the Opposition know that.

An amount of Sim has been dedicated to the sporting bodies of Australia. I know that there are honourable members opposite who must be interested in this matter. Sporting bodies, whether they are national or State bodies, will now benefit from a sports policy that will encourage Australian athletes and competitors in all sports to compete again in world events in such a way that we can look forward, I hope, to greater prospects of success at the next Olympic Games and in other international competition.

An area dear to my heart is the handicapped people’s area. Handicapped persons are to receive increased benefits of 37 per cent this year. I have not heard any member from the other side of the House decry this increase. This is one of the things they have chosen to overlook. I bring to their attention the Government’s concern for people who have difficulties and who face difficulties. I am sure that handicapped people throughout Australia will be most appreciative of this additional benefit.

Assistance to State governments has been increased by 14 per cent. This increase is more than the rate of inflation which stands at roughly 9.4 per cent. The States will receive an additional 14 per cent to spend as they wish. The State Premiers can say what they wish, but until they accept responsibility, until they stop saying that the Federal Government is keeping them poor, until they say that they will increase the margin of tax they want so that they can carry out their own projects, I am afraid that their cries of poor mouth will be unconvincing. The people of Australia know that the States are being funded at a reasonable level. The States have some small prospects for raising revenue in their own areas. This Government has given them the opportunity to carry out programs that are important to them but not one State government has taken up this opportunity. In fact, the premiers of the Labor States have said: ‘We will never take it up’. What an irresponsible attitude.

There is to be an increase of 18 per cent to 19 per cent in funds allocated to local government to use as it wishes this year. These funds are not tied. As a result local government will have an important opportunity to reduce rates and to carry out works programs. Local government knows that the Government is fair dinkum in this area. It recognises that the Federal Government will support it in respect of tax sharing. It knows that it will get additional funds that will benefit the ratepayers. The total community in fact is starting to support in a significant way local authorities throughout Australia. It is interesting to note that there are peculiar and difficult problems in respect of job prospects in the Sydney area. The Australian people do not benefit from the fact that at the moment about 20,000 people are out of work because of industrial stoppages. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon), who was the last speaker on this debate, knows that this is true.

Despite the problems of the building industry there are irresponsible individuals whom we all deplore, who would hold the industry to ransom, who would prevent people from working, who would stop people with families from earning a weekly wage because they wish to establish their position of power. It is deplorable that work on huge projects right across the nation in every capital city is not proceeding. Only last week in Victoria the Builders’ Labourers Federation rejected an incredibly generous offer made by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and said that its members would stay on strike. A similar situation has applied in New South Wales where the State Government has not taken the matter up. I would have thought that the responsible Ministers there would have seen the building industry as providing an opportunity for jobs. But they have not taken up this opportunity.

Job opportunities in the western suburbs of Sydney have not been good due to poor planning over many years. The planners must take responsibility here. I am sure that honourable members would agree that provision has not been made for jobs in the planning that has taken place in respect of new suburbs in the western area of Sydney. Encouragement has not been given to industry to establish itself out where the people are living. It is unfortunate that over the l ast week or two the Premier of New South Wales, instead of encouraging industry into the western suburbs has suggested that it go to the Campelltown area. We know that Campbelltown is a growth centre but the greatest amount of unemployment in Sydney is in the western suburbs. This is the place where people want and should get jobs but they are being denied jobs because of the policies of the State Government. I think it is incredible that factories should be forced into the Campbelltown area when the prospects of a stable dedicated work force are there for the taking in the western suburbs. People who want to work- and young people in particular- are being prevented from doing so by some strange and unfortunate policies.

The difficulties of the last four years have caused a pause in the progress and the security of Australia. Now there is strong evidence that the Government’s policies are successful and Phillip Schrapnel and W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd recently indicated their confidence. We are moving ahead to an exciting and challenging future. Our huge resources of minerals and energy appear to have prospects that no country in the world possesses. For our young people the challenge will be unlimited and must be seized upon by them to achieve progress, security and wellbeing. The scope of our capacity to move forward can be limited only by Australians themselves. The role of organisations that are supposed to protect employers-to support them and improve their, livelihood and work conditions- is under question. The two roles of the President of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are also in question.

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, as the debate on this stultifying Budget goes on the anguished voices of the political oncers ring out in this Parliament and the hopes of the Australian people run out at the same time. We have listened to a buck passing exercise on the part of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who must be feeling very insecure in his own position. He comes from the western suburbs of Sydney, the most neglected pan of the country and the part which has been denied most by the Fraser Government’s enactments. No longer are there urban improvement programs, Australian assistance programs and Regional and Employment Development schemes to provide assistance to areas of that kind and the honourable member well knows it.

For the second year in succession the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has presented the Parliament and Australia with a Budget that reflects his own ideological dogmatism and that of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Nowhere in the Budget Speech did the Treasurer disclose the real effects of this Budget- higher unemployment, stagnant economic growth, continuing double digit inflation and the redistribution of wealth to the most privileged groups in our community. In an address to the National Press Club the day after he delivered his death knell to the aspirations of thousands of young and old Australians alike, the Treasurer had the gall to proclaim that his Budget was ‘tough on inflation without being tough on people’. Let him tell that to the 337,391 people presently unemployed, most of whom have been looking for work for at least six months. Let him tell that to the thousands of young Australians, and their parents, who are to leave school at the end of this year and who face not only a bleak employment future but the prospect of no financial support for the 10-week Christmas vacation- a decision taken in defiance of the High Court of this country. Let him tell that to the Aboriginal people who, in addition to losing their lands to the Government’s mining friends and the greedy aspirations of uranium developers, have now suffered a further cut of 16 per cent in real terms. Let him tell that to the housing industry which has stated already that this Budget will do nothing to bring that industry out from its present state of depression but rather will lead to the retrenchment of still further skilled tradesmen, many of whom will be lost to the industry for ever.

When I look at the official figures relating to the housing industry I note that for the June quarter housing approvals were down 17.3 per cent as against the June quarter in the preceding year. The official statistics show that in that same quarter, June this year as against the preceding year, the number of housing commencements was down no less than 1 1 per cent. The fact is that sales and construction activity are depressed generally and that large stocks are remaining. Any real estate agent will say that that is the state of the market. The architects and the builders will talk about the incidence of retrenchments that are occurring daily.

The Treasurer not only has distorted the reality of his Budget but seemingly he cannot even quote correctly. It is little wonder that the national Press and the people of Australia simply do not believe what emanates from this loquacious word spinner. I heard a new name for him today from a person who I think is a journalist. It was ‘the mouth from the south’. The Treasurer’s economic competence can be measured by the fact that the rate of growth of real national product following his first Budget reached only 3.4 per cent- a depressingly poor result. Yet in 1977-78 the Treasurer admits that real national product is expected to grow by only 2.5 per cent. This is a sobering thought for a government which boasts of its economic expertise. Competitive figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the average for the seven leading nations for 1977-78 is expected to be 4.5 percent. The best that can be predicted in our Australian economic scene is 2.5 per cent.

In addition, non-farm productivity is expected to fall from last year’s dismal 2.5 per cent to a mere one per cent. When added to the Treasurer’s prediction of ‘a more moderate rate of growth’ in consumption and the known buildup of stocks over the past 12 months, the economic outlook for the next 12 months indicates a deepening of the recession which the 1975-76 Budget of the Labor Government was designed to defeat. The economic strategy in the propaganda of the then Opposition, now imposed on Fraser and Lynch in government, is now being seen for what it was- a divisory tactic designed not to revive the economy but merely to legitimatise their seizure of power. Power without policy is what the Australian economy and the Australian people are suffering from. This Government seems to be locked into its own dogma. It is the victim of its own nefarious preelection propaganda.

Since December 1975 the Fraser Government has meandered from one economic panacea to another, all without success. We were told during the election campaign that the mere return of a Liberal-National Country Party government would provide such a boost to business confidence that economic recovery would occur automatically, but it did not. Then in May last year the Government announced the first of its public prunings ‘in order to revive the economy’. This was to give added stimulus to the private sector. When this failed we were to be saved by a consumer led recovery- despite the fact that the Government was attempting to cut real wages and in fact reduce household disposable income by 3 per cent in the calendar year 1 976. The consumer led recovery never eventuated. It has never eventuated. In August the country was to be revived by an investment led recovery- at a cost of $1 10m in foregone revenue and incentive to industry. This was so successful that to halt the flow of capital out of the country and to provide the basis of an export led recovery the Government devalued the dollar by 17V4 per cent, then it revalued, then it revalued again, and again, and still there was no recovery.

This present Budget provides nothing that will boost the economy, nothing that will utilise the 20 per cent idle capital of industry nor the 5.4 per cent of the work force now unemployed. These are record figures. We are talking about the highest level of unused resources we have known since the Depression days. There is nothing in the Budget to reduce inflation and to lift business confidence. On the contrary the continuing reduction in public expenditure will have contractionary multiplier effects on the economy, leading to reduced Commonwealth revenues and thus limiting whatever reduction in the deficit was sought. The OECD in June of this year, in its publication Towards Full Employment and Price Stability, said:

We stress the importance of continuing efforts to convince informed opinion that Budget deficits are not in themselves inflationary so long as they are no larger than needed to counterbalance an excess of savings in the private sector.

As all honourable members would be aware, private savings have continued to increase in the past 2 years, so the Government’s obsession with reducing the deficit should be seen for what it ismere ideological dogma. If we take public expenditure as a proportion of the gross domestic product- that is, the product of the cost of all goods and services- we find that on the most recent figures available Australian public sector spending represented 1 5.4 per cent of gross domestic product whilst in the United States, the bastion of laissez-faire capitalism, it reached 18.8 per cent, in Canada 19.3 per cent and in Germany 19.7 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently reported that real government outlays have continued to grow in all seven largest member countries in 1975-76 and that ‘some acceleration of government spending on goods and services in real terms can be expected during the current year’. Despite the lead shown by the OECD, this Government has again reduced its outlays. On its record of the past 21 months we can hardly expect that the Treasurer will be proved right and the major OECD nations wrong.

Let me put it to the House this way. The Government is saying that the private sector of the economy is lethargic and that the spontaneity is missing which would enable it to get off the ground, start moving again and take up the slack in employment and the like. Yet it makes no effort on its own account to correct this situation. It is virtually abdicating from the field by withdrawing public initiative which previously had been in evidence. Whilst the Australian Government is taking this negative attitude and putting its head in the sand, comparable countries around the world are realising that the only way in which declining economies can be arrested, that bad situations can be improved, is for governments themselves to take initiatives. For that reason I have spelt out the fact that comparable countries are spending more of their gross domestic product on things public. Yet the reverse is the situation in Australia. We know the net effect of that Local government expenditure has been effectively cut by 5 per cent. We have heard what the honourable member for Mitchell said previously and we know the fiddle that goes on in that regard. We know that indirect expenditure has been reduced. We can increase direct expenditure to local government but we have been able to verify that there has been a net 5 per cent cut in local government expenditure. We have heard about education spending -

Mr Bradfield:

– That is wrong.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Even the honourable member who interjects cannot quibble with my contention that there has been no growth in education spending. The promise of a 2 per cent growth nas been broken, so there will be less school buildings. This is the point I am making. We all know that health programs are down by 9 per cent in real terms. The Sydney Press last night dealt with the great crisis in the adequacy of hospital provisions in New South Wales and, of course, there are similar problems around Australia. We know that the provision for pensioner dwellings is down by 18 per cent and Aboriginal funding is down by 16 per cent in real terms. Expenditure on urban public transport has been cut by 25 per cent in real terms while expenditure on leisure and recreational facilities has been cut by 60 per cent in real terms. We heard, the pandering by the honourable member for Mitchell about increased aid to sporting bodies but in regard to total expenditure on leisure and recreational facilities there has been an assault There has been a slashing by 60 per cent in real terms while urban programs have virtually disappeared altogether.

What of the national sewerage program? In the previous Budget $50m was provided and in the last Labor Budget $120m was provided for sewerage. It was a great initiative. But this program has been totally abandoned in the present Budget at a time when we expect the Government to stimulate employment opportunities. There has been a great slashing of migrant services in terms of education, welfare, health and language training. We know of the way in which commitments to growth centres have been mutilated with promises broken in regard to the Albury-Wodonga, Holsworthy and BathurstOrange projects. Heaven knows where the young people are going to live. We know about the lovely situation which is represented by Canberra housing opportunities but we will never see planning and conditions like that elsewhere unless the Federal Government accepts its responsibilites in other parts of Australia.

We are finding this retrograde tendency taking place at a time when masses of young Australians, many of whom are highly qualified and well-trained, are unable to get a job while the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) is apparently prepared just to say: ‘They have some capacity as individuals in the area of private enterprise but we as Australians in our corporate sense are inept and inadequate’. That is what he is saying and the Government on behalf of the people is prepared to sit idly by and allow this situation to go on. The Minister is wiping his eyes. That demonstrates the hilarity with which he treats this subject and the indifference which characterises the attitude of the Government. If the Government is to get the economy moving there will need to be a real demonstration of concern for the Australian people and real initiatives from the Government. I could continue this great list of examples simply to demonstrate my assertion that the Government is abdicating in the face of a very great crisis.

The fact of the matter is that the Government has added 67,000 more Australians to the ranks of the unemployed in the last 12 months. Despite the fact that 806,000 Australians were unemployed for some period during 1976, despite the fact that the young are grossly over-represented in the ranks of the unemployed, despite the high rate of unemployment among migrants and the outrageously high level of unemployment among Aboriginals, this Budget offers nothing to alleviate unemployment. There are no wideranging job creation schemes, there is no stimulus to the construction industry, no injection of funds for capital works. Instead there are insignificant increases in retraining schemes, a reduction in spending on apprenticeship training and no increased assistance for technical and further education for vocational training notwithstanding the fact that the unemployment benefit paid to the young unemployed represents over 200 per cent more than the total allocation for all vocational training.

It is now clear, as plain as a pikestaff, that the Government’s ideological commitment to reducing the deficit, a commitment it locked itself into by political point scoring during 1974 and 1975, will put at risk the futures of thousands of young Australians. Despite the fact that up to 10 per cent of would be school leavers have stayed on at school for the past two years and the same number or more will do so again this year, nearly 100,000 additional young Australians will seek to enter the work force this December. What will they face? There will be job ratios in metropolitan areas of one vacancy to 50 applicants if they are lucky while in some non-metropolitan areas that ratio rises in some cases to one vacancy for every 600 persons. There will be average periods without work of over 18 weeks with precious little counselling in job preparation or assistance to cope with the continued rejection of job applications. The social and psychological effect on these young people will scar many for life. Their social aspirations and futures will be diminished, and they are diminished because this Government is more concerned with profits than with people. As this Budget is put into effect the bankruptcy of philosophical and economic panaceas will be demonstrated. The Government has run its race. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the sooner the people have the opportunity to judge the Government’s sorry record the better it will be for the future of this country and for all Australians.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-In a little over 18 months members of the Opposition who did so much to destroy the economy of this country have suddenly become experts. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who has just finished his speech will have the argument which he put forward put to rest by some figures which I have here. I am delighted that the Budget which has been brought down has been able to give relief to the Australian people particularly at a time when continuing annual deficits have caused massive borrowing programs to be initiated. Under the circumstances which have existed over recent years I thought that a Budget similar to that of August last year would be the best that we could expect. But we got something much more generous. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said, this Budget is tough on inflation and easy on people. Despite what the honourable member for Hughes said, spending is up 10.S per cent. With the relief which we have been able to give to the Australian people the deficit has been reduced to $2.2 billion. I want to talk more about deficits a little later on and illustrate to the Australian people the problems these deficits have been causing.

How disappointing this Budget must have been to the predictors of gloom when the Budget document became known. Still these peoplemany members of the media and of the Oppositioncannot swallow their pride. They will not admit their errors and give the Budget the praise it deserves. We have to cast our minds back only a few weeks to all these rumours and false predictions which were being made. There were the usual rumours, for example, that the Budget will be increasing the prices of cigarettes and alcohol. There were rumours about the amount available for medical research to be cut, an increase in the Medibank levy, cuts in support to hospital funding and pharmaceutical benefits to be abolished. One can go on and on. The means test was to be reinstated on pensions. Not one of these rumours was true. How disappointing it must have been to all the people who predicted these things. The Australian people do not deserve the unnecessary suffering which incorrect reporting and rumours of this type cause. I mentioned the Budget deficit of $2.2 billion. Over the last few years we have had quite massive deficits. Only recently in some of the conversations with people in my electorate they tended to say -

Mr Groom:

– They have a good member, too.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– I thank the honourable member for Braddon. People asked: ‘Is it normal that we always run such a large deficit?’ People forget and do not really understand the problems which a deficit causes. They think it is normal to have deficits of billions of dollars. I have taken out a few figures on Budget deficits which go back over the last 10 years and which show a distinct pattern. Let us go back 10 years to 1967-68 when we had a Budget deficit of $642m. I shall read out these figures. As I said, in 1967-68 the deficit was $642m. The next year it was $385m. The following year it was $191m. Then, in the year 1970-71, we got very close to a break even figure as the deficit was only $9m. In the next year it went back to $134m. Then the rot started to set in. We got away from this continual history of having moderate deficits and the deficits went up to $709m, $2,666m -

Mr Groom:

– When was that?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– This was when our predecessors came to office and started tampering with the economy. They started to play the Father Christmas act and to spend all the money which belonged to the Australian taxpayers. But there is still worse to come. In the following year, 1975-76, the deficit was $3,5 86m. Of course, the Opposition says that since we have been in power things have not improved. In 1976-77, the start of our reign, at least we got the deficit down by nearly $ 1,000m to $2,740m. Our estimate for this year is down another $500m to $2,2 17m. As those figures show, Australia has never known such massive Budget deficits. I tell the Australian people now that we just do not pull the money out of thin air. It comes through heavy borrowing programs. It comes through taxing the people. Taxing the people is exactly what the Opposition did when it was the Government.

The honourable member for Hughes mentioned unemployment. He mentioned how disastrous it has been since we have been in power. He said that we had increased unemployment. I forget the figure he gave. We have been in power almost two years and unfortunately unemployment has increased by one per cent. It is said that that is something which is unacceptable. The Opposition, in one year of its reign as Government, increased unemployment by almost 3 per cent.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– What are the figures? Give us the figures.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– I have the figures. When the honourable member’s party came to government unemployment was 99,300. In the year 1973-74 your party started off with an unemployment figure of 105,000 and almost doubled it to 201,000, an increase of 90 per cent in one year. If you do not think we have improved the situation I point out that we have stopped this spiralling growth of unemployment. We have not finished with it yet. We will improve it more and more until we get unemployment down. You people should not talk.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Do not improve it too much or you will have everybody out of work.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! I remind the House that interjections are out of order. I ask the honourable member for Barton and members of the Opposition to address their remarks through the Chair.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I turn to some other figures which once again illustrate that the economy has turned. We have turned back the disastrous trends which are found in the indicators by people who read the economy. We are turning from the disastrous levels which were seen in the reign of the previous Government. Much has been said about the fact that Australian manufacturing industry has become uncompetitive. This is one of the reasons for the unemployment which we have with us today. There are many figures which illustrate and back up the fact that Australian industry has become uncompetitive. This is one of the reasons why we were forced to devalue by 17.5 per cent in November last year. I add in passing that had we not devalued by 17.5 per cent the economy would be in worse shape today than it is. There has been a benefit and a stimulus to Australian industry as a result of that devaluation.

I turn to wage increases as a comparison with increases in the consumer price index. In 1 972-73 in the reign of the now Opposition the consumer price index increased by approximately 6 per cent. Average weekly earnings increased by 9 per cent, which is a reasonable figure. I have no objection to people earning money and having their wages and salaries increased as the consumer price index goes up. I do not place any restrictions on that whatsoever. I like to see people earn more and more money. I like to see Australian people have the opportunity to increase their living standards. In the following year 1973-74 the consumer price index increased by 13 per cent. Still within the bounds of reasonable tolerance the average weekly earnings went up by 16.3 per cent which is about 3 per cent above the increase in the consumer price index. Then we had two disasters. In 1974-75 the consumer price index rose by an unsatisfactory 16.8 per cent. Average weekly earnings rose by almost 26 per cent. This was where the trouble started. This was the final straw, the final nail in the coffin, which made many of our industries non-competitive with overseas industries. It made things harder for us to export our goods. It increased the number of imports.

The consumer price index, another indicator that I have mentioned in conjunction with the average weekly earnings figures, clearly shows that the present Government is making headway in its fight against inflation. Last August the Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, said that inflation was the number one enemy of the economy. He has always said that, I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), and others in their speeches on the Budget, say that the rate of inflation is on the way up again. There is nothing in any figures which would indicate that. The figures that 1 have show that the rate of inflation is on the way down. In about March 1975, before we came to government, the inflation rate was in excess of 16 per cent. For the March 1975 quarter it was 16.7 per cent. It held at about that figure. It rose to 16.8 per cent. From that time it started to fall. A perusal of the figures for the various quarters shows that it came down to 15.4 per cent in the June 1 976 quarter, 1 4.6 per cent in the September 1976 quarter, 10.8 per cent in the December 1976 quarter and 10.2 per cent in the March 1977 quarter. Although the Commonwealth Statistician has not put out the consumer price index figures for the June quarter this year, a recent study by my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) shows that figures in the price deflator would accurately indicate that the rate of inflation for the quarter ended June would be something like 9.4 per cent. He said that yesterday. It is back down to single digit figures. If that is not an achievement in a little over 18 months by this Government I do not know what is, and I do not know how any member of the Opposition can say that we have ruined the economy. The people of Australia know who ruined the economy.

I come now to some of the generous advantages in the Budget. The Budget was said to have been easy on people. I point out that this Government understands the plight of people in need in Australia and always wants to help, but one can never give people all they want. I can never provide all the things that my wife suggests we should buy. A country has the same problem. Nevertheless, within the bounds of these problems, this Government has been generous. Total expenditure in the 1977-78 Budget on social security is $7,248m. That is an increase of $8 17m on last year’s figure. This program has allowed pensions to continue to be increased in line with the increase in the consumer price index. That is a milestone for the pensioners of Australia who no longer have to fight for their increases. Through the generosity of this Government the pensions are automatically adjusted as the consumer price index rises. Let us look at some of the other areas, at the new pension rates and at what has happened. Expenditure on pensions and allowances has been increased in this Budget by $440m. Let us look at the new pension rates that will become applicable from November, which is not very far away. The single rate will rise from $47.10 to $49.30 a week, and the married rate will rise from $78.50 to $82.20 a week, I know that many pensioners in my area will certainly benefit handsomely from this increase.

Let us look at the expenditure on health. The honourable member for Hughes said that we had decreased the amount of money available for health purposes. Total outlays for health are $2,8 13.8m, an increase of 10.7 per cent on the 1976-77 figure. Education also got a mention. The total funds for education have been substantially increased. One has to read into the figures for education the fact that this Government has substantially increased the amount of money allocated to the various States. There is no way that one can look at this Government’s expenditure on education without looking at the same time at the massive increases that the State governments have had. Apart from universities and colleges of advanced education, the Federal Government supplies only a topping up process for education which is the responsibility of the States. This year it is estimated the States will get another 1 8 per cent in untied grants- money that they have at their disposal to supply to education if they wish. We recognise the fact- the statement has been made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick)- that in real terms we will supply the same amount of money this year for universities and colleges of advanced education. That is in real terms, in 1976-77 money values updated by the amount of inflation. He also made the statement that in real terms we will supply an increase of 10 per cent for technical education. That recognises where our future job shortages will be. In future the need will be for tradesmen. Apprentices in various trades rely on technical colleges for their education.

Let me come to taxation. Much has been said about taxation. The new tax scale is a completely revised one. It phases out many of the multiple steps in the scale and decreases the number to three. I point out that very little mention has been made of dependant rebates. We all have heard about the tax scales- the 32c in the dollar, and at $16,000 a surcharge of 14 per cent- but very few people realise that as from 1 February next year the Government will index dependant deductions. Previously a taxpayer could claim a deduction of $500 for a spouse. This year that will be increased to $555. The deduction for a parent or parent-in-law, which was $452, will be increased to $501. The deduction for an invalid relative will rise from $226 to $251. There are other increases in deductions. Apart from the adjustments to the tax scale, the Government’s generosity has been extended to people who have dependants so that those people can claim more money for their dependants.

I would like to mention the money to be made available for local government. Last year the Federal Government, mainly through its new federalism policy, allocated in general purpose grants for local government $ 140m. The honourable member for Hughes said that somehow or other we have reduced that figure. The figure which we have allocated for local government this year is $165m. That is an increase of 18 per cent and is well above the current inflation rate. I know that the three local councils in my areaHurstville, Rockdale and Kogarah councilsshould benefit handsomely from this increase. It should help also people in my area and throughout Australia, at least inasmuch as they will not have to pay substantially more rates. Regardless of all the untruths that the Opposition has put forward, this is a good Budget for the people of Australia. We have rounded the corner on the economy and the people and economy of Australia will go ahead in the future.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (5.35)-Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have been in this House together on many occasions. We have crossed swords on many occasions. I have crossed swords with many honourable members on the opposite side of the House, but it has always been a clean though fierce battle. You must know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how hard it is for me to stand up in this Parliament tonight and concentrate on the Budget after seeing things that I have believed in all of my life being pulled down before my eyes.

I refer to the disgraceful entry into this House this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He came in unannounced, without informing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), mentioned things that the Leader of the Opposition had said, then denigrated that man’s character. I do not see how we can expect to have law and order in this country if that is the way that the No. 1 citizen performs. I hope that he will have the decency to come back into this chamber and apologise for his performance. I am deeply wounded. It is only because of my breeding that I keep going, regardless of the unfairness of the battle. I thank my friend the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) -

Mr Bradfield:

– He is my friend too.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I am glad to hear that. My colleague, the honourable member for Sydney, reminded us that the 1977-78 Budget is similar to the 1976-77 Budget. I thank him for that reminder. I can remember when the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) came into this House in August 1976 and introduced the 1976-77 Budget. He made great promises for the future- greater concern for the needy, less unemployment, lower inflation. He became so enthusiastic that he claimed that there were already signs of recovery and that that Budget would carry us further along the road. I do not accuse the Treasurer of smoking opium but he certainly has been in a long sleep. He woke up in time to bring down the 1977-78 Budget, when he repeated his performance on presenting the 1976-77 Budget. He made great promises for the future.

I ask the people of this country: What were the great promises that we received in 1976 and again m 1977? We have 340,000 unemployed and the figure is still rising. There have been greater profits for the multinationals and tax concessions for those people who do not need them. But there has been a deliberately prolonged recession for a generation of young Australians, who have been cheated of hope and respect right at the time in their lives when they need these things most. Soul destroying circumstances are being thrust upon them by a government which is concerned only about multinational com- panies. More than one-third of the young people etween the ages15 and 19 years are unemployed, embittered and disappointed.

Where is the Government’s great concern for the needy? Since this Government came to power there has been a 30 per cent rise in unemployment and there is no end to this rise in sight. In June 1977, 86,000 more people were unemployed than were unemployed in June 1975. Where is the lower level of unemployment? Where is the lower inflation? The Government has no idea of what is happening to the ordinary Australian. I shall tell honourable members why it has no idea: It is because the Government is blinded by its hatred of trade unionists. It has brought into this House the most vicious industrial legislation that this country has ever experienced, all to meet a phoney crisis.

Mr Groom:

– What do you say about these radical trade unionists?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I shall tell the honourable member what I say. The Government should be doing things which will unite the country so that people willpull together. That is the only way to restore confidence. That is the only way that people will stop saving their money and will invest, so that more jobs will be created, so that there will be more confidence and so that the standard of living will improve. As long as this Government remains blinded by its hatred of trade unionists and as long as it tries to deceive the people by claiming that wage increases have brought about the disgraceful economic situation, this country will remain divided. No one will have confidence to spend. There will be no investment and no better way of life for the average Australian.

The way to restoration of confidence, the creation of more jobs and the improvement of living standards lies in humane and responsible balance between the competing needs. This Government thinks only of big business. All kinds of help are given to the multinationals but nothing to the average Australians other than greater and still greater abuse of their freedoms and more and more unemployment. What a way to ask for more co-operation! What a way to ask people to have more confidence! As the honourable member for Sydney said, we are destroying confidence.

What are the profit takers-the group the Government has helped most- doing to reduce inflation and unemployment? The following figures will give honourable members some indication of that. Australian Consolidated Industries Ltd made a profit of $8,657,000 in 1976 and $29,642,000 in 1977-a 242 per cent increase. Comalco Ltd made a profit of $9,977,000 in 1976 and $23,578,000 in 1977-a 136.3 per cent increase. But the biggest profit taker in Australia, of course, is the Utah Development Company, which is almost wholly American owned. It made a profit of $48m in 1974 and $137m in 1977. That company employs 3,000 people; so each of its employees returned it a profit of over $45,000-about 5 times average annual earnings. Yet this Government has the audacity to claim that the workers ‘ wages are causing inflation. What a lot of rubbish!

If that were not enough, the Budget Speech tells us that the Government has removed some of the coal tax. This will give these companies another $24m this year and $27m in a full year. What a performance! To make matters worse, as John Byrne, writing in the Australian Financial Review of 28 July 1977 pointed out, the Utah Development Company shipped more than $150m back home to the United States during the past year. What a performance! Why do not honourable members opposite hang their heads in shame?

The Government certainly has done a lot to assist big business but what has it done for the average Australian, except to take away thousands of jobs, to cut back on educational opportunities, to reduce health services, to levy for Medibank and to place the blame for the resulting economic mess on the trade unions? What a performance! True wage indexation with price restraint would have automatically checked excessive wage rises, without damaging living standards, without destroying the hopes of young Australians, without splitting the nation wide apart. The Hayden Budget was proving that. That is one of the reasons why we have seen the bringing forward of the farrago which has been called the Khemlani affair. That is why it was brought on by the present Government parties. That is why they had to get the Whitlam Government sacked.

What about the great divider, the Prime Minister? He is the greatest divider this country has ever seen. He blames wage increases for the Treasurer’s economic mess. He blames wages at a time when wages have fallen. Real household disposable income fell by 3.S per cent during 1976. Yet he still blames wages for the economic mess. I say that he is a victim of his own propaganda. But very few Australians have been fooled. The gallup polls should prove that to any honest observer. My friend who interjects is right in saying that in August 1976 and in August 1977 we heard the same Budget Speech. It expressed great concern for the needy, talked about reducing inflation and creating greater employment opportunities. How needy is Utah? How needy are the uranium producers? How needy are the petroleum people? They are the only people for whom the Government has done anything.

I am glad to see one member of the National Country Party in the chamber. The National Country Party had to get into the act. It could not do anything with the Liberal Party so it thought it would get a gimmick of its own. It said: ‘We have got a small business policy’. It forgot all about the in-fighting with the Liberal Party and came up with this gimmick. I do not know where members of the National Country Party spend the parliamentary recess, but they certainly do not go into the small country towns, because more small businesses in country towns are going out of existence than ever before in the history of the nation. If honourable members opposite do not believe me they should look at what Mr Eugene Falk, the Chairman of the Victorian Small Business Development Corporation, said. He made this claim:

The number of small business bankruptcies in Australia is increasing and is currently in excess of 12,000 a year.

That is what he told delegates to the annual conference of the Victorian Chambers of Commerce and Industry on 15 July 1977. That is not so long ago. He went on to say:

The number of small businesses being created is also declining.

The cumulative effect of this is that Australian small businesses face extinction unless urgent help is given to turn the tide.

Mr Falk said that with eight million Australians dependent in one way or another on small businesses it made good sense to do everything possible to help them during the present economic recession. That is what is happening in the country. That is the great gimmick adopted by the National Country Party. That is the great performance. The great defenders of democracy try to stop me from speaking in this House by interjecting, but they cannot do that. They know that for every lie they tell about the Labor Party I will tell another truth about them. That is what they cannot stand. That is what they do not like. The Leader of the National Country Party has given away the Country Party. He is no longer interested in Yarrawonga, but he does everything he can for Utah. First the amount was $150m, and there is to be another $24m this year, with $27m in a full year. He does not have much interest in the market for butter fat but he is doing everything he can for the market for uranium. He is not interested in fixing a decent market price for beef; but petroleum is a different matter, is it not?

Mr King:

– You did not listen to him this afternoon.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– The honourable member’s leader buried the Country Party long ago; it is now called the National Country Party. It is dying a natural death and its hour is near. Very few Australians will mourn its passing. I am glad to see that one member of the National Country Party is in the chamber. No others are here. I never ever thought that they were afraid of me. I think they might be hiding from Barry Cassell; he knows all about them. Honourable members should read what Barry Cassell says about them.

Mr James:

– What did he say?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– My goodness, it is too shocking to mention. I think it could be said that the Deputy Leader has not done much for the National Country Party, but at least he removed one of its problems. It no longer has to worry about campaign funds; it has got that sewn up. I am not here to judge and I do not want to say anything about the Deputy Leader, but I think it is a well known fact that he is mixed up with things not only in this House but many things outside of this Parliament. I do not want to condemn him; I just ask honourable members to judge for themselves what the reports indicate.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Did you get money from Utah, or did you not?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Did I get any money?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Did you get money from Utah?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-1 remind the honourable member for Griffith that he is not sitting in his right place. Interjections are out of order and he had better not do so even from his own seat.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I was just going to say that he is a good man at organising parties but in Parliament he is below average in performance. Of course, honourable members opposite get very cross when one mentions these things in the House. They are very shocked. Apparently one should not say some of these things. But what about when the late Rex Connor was a Minister on that side of the chamber. Innuendo after innuendo was piled on his innocent head. They were not so particular in those days, were they? I say that we all should pity the Prime Minister. He has his priorities wrong. He does some shocking things in this House, but at least he is trying to restore the economic situation. What chance does he have when he is assisted by many of these no-hopers, these desperadoes?

What about the family allowance? The Government made so much noise about what it intended to do for families in 1976. It said that it would replace the tax concession for children so that all wives could receive this great family allowance. Every other tax concession has been indexed but the family allowance has not. What does Mrs Joan Adamson, President of the Women’s Action Alliance, have to say on this subject? She said that by this move alone the Government was robbing two-child families of $50 a year, three-child families of $100 a year, and four-child families of $ 1 44 a year. That is the matter in relation to which honourable members opposite made so much noise in 1976. 1 thank the honourable member for raising the matter and for reminding us of these things. This is the matter in relation to which honourable members opposite expressed such concern during 1976 and 1977.

Government supporters interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Darling is entitled to be heard in silence and I hope that honourable members on the Government side will extend to him that courtesy.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I can put up with a fanamount. Honourable members opposite do not like me. Let us look at what Sir Charles Court said at the Premiers Conference. He said:

I say with as rauch confidence as I can that people are getting a bit tired of it.

That was reported in the 18-23 July issue of the National Times. He went on to say:

We have to go away from this conference today with something more hopeful for the community than what is being projected at present … I say with as much frankness as I can that the people are getting a bit tired of it . . .

It does not matter how we are statistically we still have to capture the imagination of the people and get them to respond. They are not responding at the moment whether as investors or ordinary consumers . . .

Of course they are not responding-

Inflation scares the daylights out of me. We have got to a situation where the stagnation we have is generating its own inflation . . .

These are not my words. Sir Charles Court said this. He went on to say:

My own assessment is that time is running out and that the public is getting tired of the present situation.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This afternoon we have witnessed an incredible performance. It has been my pleasure, or displeasure, to listen to the debate. I have not heard for a long time such whining, whingeing and crying over a Budget as I have heard over the Budget presented to this House by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) on behalf of the Government. The complaints that have come from the Opposition can only be categorised as pee-wee economics. Like pee-wees, honourable members opposite have run around the bush picking up any little tit-bits of food in order to digest it They have picked up any information and digested it. After digesting it they have then put it forward as their own considered proposition on the economic government of this country. This afternoon they have had a field day complaining and whingeing about the Budget. The tragedy is that they are so misinformed. Like that proverbial little bird they have produced nothing.

We know that any work to be done by a Budget is proportionate to the task which lies before it. The task that lay before the Government needs to be understood. I do not say this as an apologia. I say it merely by way of presenting the facts to the Australian people. The historical facts are these: A unique position and task were presented to the Government. It had to perform two tasks. It had to resuscitate the Australian economy and at the same time it had to transfer resources from the public sector to the private sector. That is one of those technical economic terms. In fact it had to transfer resources from the Government to households where people live and work, where they are born and where they die, where they are happy or unhappy. No government in Austalian history has had to perform two tasks at the same time.

Let me give examples going over 40 years. When Lyons succeeded Scullin in the government of this country Lyons did not have to perform the two tasks of resuscitating the economy and transfering resources from the public sector to the private sector. He had to perform only the first of those tasks. When Menzies succeeded Chifley he had only to transfer resources into a decent rate of growth of the Australian economy. The economy was running well. Inflation was only incipient and the public sector had not taken over. When Fraser succeeded Whitlam there had to be double tasks. I know that this House in its fair mindedness would appreciate the double task that lay before this Government. Let me give an illustration. Illustrations always make matters perfectly clear. When this Government came into power the country had gone through what would be described as a new experience. Economically it had gone through what was known as negflation. It had a negative rate of growth of productivity and at the same time it had a very high and a growing rate of inflation. A new word had to be coined, even in this place, to describe what occurred. In addition, Australian households were being robbed. They were being taken for a ride with every tax take.

History comes to our protection in describing the position. When Chifley went out of power every earned dollar that went into an Australian household had to surrender only 28c of that dollar to government. When Fraser followed Whitlam 37c was being taken out of every earned dollar in an Australian household. That position had to be reversed at the same time as attempting to resuscitate the Australian economy. These facts are totally and completely incontrovertible. So I understand quite clearly why, in trying to clutch at a multitude of disparate elements this afternoon, the Opposition has descended into what I call pee-wee economics, grabbing bits of the Budget’s information where it could but digesting nothing. Of course, there was another problem which the Government faced. A decent appreciation of economic events in Australia over the last 30 years has to acknowledge these facts.

When an economy resuscitates from a trough to a peak there has always been a time lag. The time lags involved in every such resuscitation since World War II have been variously between 18 and 27 months. I am referring to the 1951 period, to the 1955-56 period, to the events of late 1960 to 1963, to a small period from 1965 to 1966 and of course from late 1970 to well into 1972. We know that the time lag on this occasion has been longer than it has been in the past. The time lag has been longer because the task has been greater. Nevertheless there are clear signs of success in resuscitating the Australian economy. One of them is quite clear. For example, let us look at the matter of inflation. This is one of the great catalysts of depression throughout the world. The summary of the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on producing stability in an economy as between inflation and unemployment acknowledged that such a time lag was involved, and such a time lag in order to be traversed required that inflation be overcome.

Just as one example I pick out of the air, yesterday there was released in this country the quarterly estimates of national income and expenditure. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) would immediately appreciate the validity and the probity of the information in that document. If one calculates the rate of inflation from the quarterly estimates of national income and expenditure released yesterday one would know immediately the rate of inflation as disclosed by that document. The implicit price deflator, the total one, showed that the June on June- June 1977 compared with June 1976- rate of inflation was 9.13 per cent. These are single digit figures. If one refines those figures even a little more -

Mr Willis:

– Tell us about the consumer price index.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-As the honourable member would know and as the Reserve Bank makes it clear in its own documents, the consumer price index has been following the implicit price deflator down. The implicit price deflator has been leading the consumer price index down for a number of quarters. Let me go on a little further. If that calculation is adjusted for what is known as the statistical discrepancy and the increases in stocks, the June to June rate of inflation was in fact 9.4 per cent. So those in the Opposition who said that a single digit rate of inflation was not obtainable must accept that their facts are not verifiable in terms of the data produced by the national income and expenditure details released yesterday. We ask only that those facts be acknowledged. They deserve to be acknowledged. The time lag is there. We know it is there and that it is longer than it has been in the past. But there are some people who say that resuscitating an economy can be like making love to an elephant. If there is success there is no result for years; if there is no success you can be trampled m the rush.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How do you know that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh can make his own personal judgments from his own experience. We know that the first applies and not the second.

I would now like to say something about the taxation system that has been introduced by the Government. I can always have quarrels in detail concerning any taxation system. But if an economy is to be resuscitated by means of a taxation system immediately it has to be acknowledged that the philosophy of that resuscitation is that it has to be done predominantly through the household sector. Of course, there is an appropriate place for the public sector for the stabilisation of any economy. But the household sector has to, and will be and is, deputed to take a leading role in this respect.

Mr Willis:

-It is declining. Look at the Budget papers.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No, it is not. When the Opposition was in power any worker on average earnings who was working and decided to take an extra day’s overtime was up for $35 to $40 a day in tax. Under the new rate of tax which will apply from February next year a worker in this same situation will receive an extra $12 to $15 a day for the day’s overtime that he would be willing to work. It is no wonder that so many people said that they would not work under the old system.

Mr Willis:

– Why do you want them to work more overtime?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-To raise their standard of living, to increase their household income, to produce more goods for Australia so that the prosperity of Australians will increase.

Mr Willis:

– Why don’t you want to share the work around?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member complains about working for 80 hours a week. He works overtime every week and he complains about it. That is part of the case that is made on his behalf to the various tribunals. The new tax system is designed to help those who are able to work. In addition, we should look at the taxation multiplier, the multiplier which determines the amount which government receives by way of taxation for every one per cent increase that a worker receives by way of salary. Under the previous Government, for every one per cent increase in salary that was sustained by a person the increase in government revenue was of the order of two per cent. It was the highest multiplier in Australian history. This was not under Chifley, not under Scullin but under Whitlam, and under Whitlam as defended by the honourable member for Gellibrand. Under this Government, because of tax indexation, the only increases that were sustained occurred when there was an increase in salary that was a real increase in excess of the rate of inflation.

One needs to remember when a criticism is made of the taxation system that the Opposition, both when in government and through its economic committee, opposed the principle and the facts of tax indexation. One of the unstated assumptions of the Press when it has run criticism of the present taxation system is that the Opposition in government would have implemented tax indexation or that it was in fact in favour of it. It was neither. It argued against tax indexation. Its economic committee examined a paper against tax indexation prepared by Pat Lanigan, a former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. This Government has adopted the principle of indexation and has made it an integral part of its own taxation system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are listening to every word that has been spoken in this Parliament. It would be immediately obvious to you, therefore, that the tax system which this Government is implementing has the lowest multiplier as an inducement to government revenue of any system we have had for many years. It is of the order of half the multiplier to government revenue that existed under the Opposition. We do not want to criticise the Opposition. We only ask that in a spirit of fairness and in a spirit of honesty the Opposition acknowledge what has been done.

This afternoon it was my pleasure, or my displeasure, to listen to clever people from the Opposition. They are all clever and they spoke about the work force. They spoke about the rate of increase of job opportunities in Australia. In reading Budget Statement No. 2 they forgot one thing, namely, that the rate of increase of the employed Australian work force June on June this year will reverse the worst trend set in train by the previous Government beginning in the middle of 1974. History always represents some useful information. The period from June 1974 to December 1975 was one in which there was the greatest decline in the employed Australian work force at any time subsequent to the demobilisation of the Australian armed forces in 1944-45. The employed Australian work force declined by 60,000 in the last 18 months of the previous Government. In the first 18 months of this Government there was a further decline in the work force of the order of 27,000 and of course we are not happy about that. But my goodness, it is less than half the previous Government’s performance. But from June 1977 to June 1978, on the most conservative calculations in economic statement No. 2, the employed work force is deputed to increase by something in excess of 90,000 people. We want it to be more. We would like it to be more. But we ask only that what is to be accomplished by this Budget be acknowledged.

The trend has been reversed. Even on the most conservative target, even if there is to be only in excess of a two per cent rate of growth in the total Australian product, the reverse will be quite absolute in terms of the performance of the previous Government. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they be fair, that they always acknowledge the time lag that is involved in terms of economic events.

It has been my intention this evening to produce a number of hard facts which might displace members of the Opposition from the preconceived notions they have as to the way in which the economy is to be managed. I hope the hard facts will be acknowledged for the hard facts that they are. The rate of inflation is far less than the rate that applied under the previous Government. The rate of increase of the employed work force represents a total reversala complete reversal- of what was the previous Government’s abysmal performance. I can remember the honourable member for Gellibrand, who is constantly interrupting me this evening, defending the position when the work force was declining by 60,000 during the last 18 months of the Labor Administration. He was a very loyal member of his party. He was not to be obfuscated or confused by the facts. Loyalty to his own Party required- and it is a great quality to have- that he in fact defend what was occurring. I produce only some of these facts to make clear what is happening in Australia, what has happened and what is going to happen over the succeeding nine months. There is an old racecourse suggestion concerning a socialist government. I have all the racecourses in Brisbane in my electorate. The suggestion I mention also relates to tax. People say that if you have an enemy, give him a racehorse and he will spend the rest of his life working for it. If you have an enemy you should also give him a socialist government and he will spend the rest of his life working for it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-There would be many worse things than working for a socialist government. It certainly is better to be working for a socialist government than to be out of work under a Liberal-National Country Party conservative government. I have listened to my friend the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) for the last 20 minutes. I was absolutely astonished at the pre-Copernican obscurantism which he brings to the consideration of economic affairs. He is the last of the flatearthers. I listened to his statements about the improvement in the employment situation. You might put it this way: People are not being disemployed as fast as they were before or at the same relative rate that they were before. Translated into English that means that there are not so many going out of work so rapidly every month. To talk like that is to be totally insensitive to the social needs of the economy. The honourable member talked about the inflation rate. The inflation rate now is slightly different from the inflation rate that the present Government inherited but it is composed of all sorts of jiggery pokery with the tax systems, Medibank and various other things. I have watched with interest over the last few months the debate on the tax system. I am not quite sure what the tax system is and how it is worked out and it is quite obvious that nobody else does either.

I want to take up the issue of the continuing attack on the work force and on the Labor Government’s record. It is true that in 1975 the inflation rate was at a level which we of the Labor Party did not like. It is true that unemployment was at a level which we did not like either. But it is also true that these things were a sample of what was happening in the rest of the world. It is my view that governments ought to be able to do better in managing the economy. I do not believe that there are any objective forces outside the management of government if we apply our wit and our wisdom to them instead of outmoded economic theories. Let us consider what the economy was like that the present Government took over. Productivity per person was increasing. Some of the increases were dramatic and I will give some details in a moment.

Mr Hodgman:

– You went backwards in 1974.

Mr BRYANT:

-We would have to go backwards pretty fast to keep up with this Government’s performance. Household savings were at an all time high in proportion to the gross domestic product. We had high overseas balances. Exports were greater than imports. Our average weekly earnings and their buying capacity were amongst the highest in the world. There is no doubt about those things. I will refer to just a couple of these issues. Let us consider first the question of productivity. One of the most depressing features of the present Government’s behaviour- and frankly I cannot understand how the people of Australia stand for it- is the continuing attack upon the work force and the continual pressure on its living standards. The whole burden of this multi-page document called the Budget Papers and the Budget Statements is to lower the living standard of the ordinary average Australian.

Mr Yates:

– No.

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

-Of course it is. Let us consider the figures for 1973 and relate them to the figures for 1972. How many bottles of milk could one buy with average weekly earnings in 1972? One could buy about 100 more bottles of milk in 1975. In 1972 it took 26 weeks’ pay to buy the cheapest car on the road and in 1975 it took about 20 weeks’ pay. I could go through a whole catalogue of things but I do not have time tonight to educate honourable members opposite. Let us consider this question of productivity because it is the very burden of the Government’s complaint about us. I will read a few facts and figures that I have taken basically from my own electorate and places I know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! It might be advisable to allow the honourable member for Wills to make his speech without assistance from honourable members on my right.

Mr BRYANT:

-I am gratified for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am easily intimidated by the people opposite. It would be a worthwhile exercise for honourable members opposite to take a trip to Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Pty Ltd, a government owned company operating in this city of Canberra. The Government that I supported re-equipped it and it went into business again last year. I think my friend at the table, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley), unveiled a plaque there when he went out to open it. It is a magnificent industrial operation. The board of the Brickworks searched the world to find the most effective and efficient instruments for making bricks. Three years ago, before we started on that project, it took about 100 people to produce about 500,000 bricks a week. Now I think that company has a capacity to produce 700,000 bricks a week and employs 35 people. The Government and its supporters say that it is the cost of labour that is killing Australia. Those 35 employees turn out about 700,000 bricks a week if they are going at full bore. That represents $2,000 worth of bricks per employee, including typists and the manager. On average they get paid between $160 and $170 for that work. Yet the Government and its supporters have the effrontery to say that it is wages that are the principal cost.

I turn now to another example. I visited a container firm operating in my electorate. Over recent years it has installed new equipment. In one series of operations it increased production and the wage cost of the operation has fallen from $100 per hour seven years ago to $20 per hour now. That is a reduction in the absolute cost of production. It reduced the number of people in the operation from about 12 to 2.

Let us consider something with which we all are familiar and which is one of the characteristics of modern society. I am not saying that the Labor Government produced it but it is totally erroneous to suggest that in any way we inhibited it. Wherever possible we encouraged it and it is one of the factors that we have to face. The size of the workforce is going to decrease absolutely and relatively to the rest of the population to produce the amount of goods we want because the consumer capacity of the people of Australia is much less now than their production capacity. Let us consider Trans- Australia Airlines. In 1962 TAA carried 660,000 passengers and it employed 4,200 employees. In 1967 it carried 943,000 passengers and had 6,000 employees. Relatively those figures are much the same. But let us consider the dramatic change in the last 10 years. It now has 7,800 employees and carries more than 4,000,000 passengers. The number of employees per 1,000 passengers is falling continuously.

Even the much maligned seamen have done the same. I have some figures here but perhaps honourable members would take my word for it because there are a few other figures I want to give. Let us take coal. The situation is dramatic. Let us consider the productivity of the people involved in the coal industry. Underground 20 years ago each man at the workface produced about 2.8 tons of coal per hour per man shift. By 1975 the figure had increased to approximately 10 tons. If we consider the open-cut operation production has gone from 6.8 tonnes per man shift to nearly 30 tonnes per man shift at the maximum. That coal is worth about $45 per tonne, so let us say that coal worth $1,200 is produced each man shift. Those coalminers are probably getting paid $200 a week. The Government and its supporters have the effrontery to say that the real cost of production in Australia and the real threat to our stability and to the economy is the high cost of wages. I have other figures here relating to the workforce on the wharves and all the rest of it. Just consider the implications of the coal industry and the Utah organisation. Last year I think Utah made a profit before tax of $240m.

Mr Yates:

– Good.

Mr BRYANT:

-‘ Good’, says my honourable friend opposite.

Mr Yates:

– It did not make a loss.

Mr BRYANT:

-No, that is right. But who did make the loss? That company has 3,000 employees. Each of those employees produced $80,000 of the year’s profit for that company. Our friend from Queensland, Mr BjelkePetersen, objects to the demand that seamen be paid Australian rates of pay. Let us consider another aspect that is familiar to us all. We can do the arithmetic on it from the records available to us. The total return from Telecom Australia taking into account profit and interest was about $400m. Telecom has 80,000 employees so that is about $5,000 profit per employee. Yet Telecom will try to chisel people out of their tea money. Australia Post, which did not make quite as dramatic a profit as that, will stop the whole postal works by refusing to give people a reduction in their working time.

What I am saying is that the attack upon the work force for its incompetence in production and because its wages are extravagant is totally erroneous and against the facts. This country was handed over to honourable members opposite in a powerful economic situation relative to other countries. They had at their disposal one of the world’s most wealthy countries, as indeed we did. There are very few resources which we need to obtain from any other country. Even our engineers are high class, and some of them get into this House. The only people who seem to be slipping a bit are those who give us economic advice. We are bound not to change our whole philosophy from a money-oriented to a resource -oriented philosophy. I will not say tonight that I know what the answers are but I do know that the answers which are continually trotted out and the reasons given for the state of the economy are not correct.

Let us consider some of the things which we have done over the last few years. This Government has done them and we have done them. We reduced tariffs, the assumption being that this would bring into the country cheaper goods which would create competition and prices would come down. But they did not. We put up interest rates, but not to the level they are now, the assumption being that to make money dearer would put less pressure on goods and on the supply of things such as housing, that it would create more competition in one way or another and reduce prices. But it did not. In the last two Budgets we have seen a dramatic attack upon government expenditure, the theory being that if we reduce government spending we reduce the drain on the taxation system and the drain on the public exchequer; we reduce the deficit, we transfer funds to the private sector, and everything will take off. But this has not happened and it will not happen because the most erroneous of our convictions- I only associate myself with it in this House because I am pan of the apparatus of the Parliament- is that by doing these things the private sector will take up the slack in the area which is not as strong as it ought to be. That is a totally erroneous theory.

The belief that government expenditure is evil or wrong or has an insidious effect upon the community’s welfare is totally wrong. As I see it, the manufacturing capacity of this country per person related to our consumption is greater than we need. Some 20 per cent of our manufacturing capacity is not used. I know that our primary industry is remarkably efficient. In some areas of production it is more efficient than primary industry in the rest of the world. In some areas productivity per person is greater than it is in anywhere else in the world. I looked up some figures the other day- I have not been through all the figures for all time- and it is my impression that this is the only country which has produced more than one tonne of wheat per head of population in one year. That happened about seven or eight years ago and I think it will happen again this year.

What is the situation with regard to public expenditure? This is the very basis of the supply of all our social needs- education, health and all welfare services. However, the Government may well discard them all by saying that people ought to look after themselves, or that when they are sick let them pick themselves up, or that when they need education let them pay for it themselves- they can all go to Melbourne Grammar. The Government may discard its responsibility to provide those services in favour of having material things. In this country government sources supply nearly all of the power. They- provide nearly all of the water supply. Government is the fundamental owner, controller and developer of the communications system. In almost an absolute sense it is the principal supplier of transport, even to the extent of supplying roads for private trucks and others to operate on, supplying the railway system, the wharves, the maintenance of airfields and the ownership of principal airlines. Government utilities are the skeleton, the framework, and the very heart of Australian productivity. Stop the electricity supply and we stop the country. Stop the telecommunications system and we stop the country. Yet in the last two Budgets the whole operation of the economy has been grinding to a halt because of the prescription for stagnation that has been written into the principle which the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has applied to the Budget- the reduction in public expenditure.

I am not sure how we should go about overcoming the deficiencies in our economic system to allow us to take the great wealth that is in the country- and there is a very big money stock in the banking system- and apply it to the public utilities. However, I have some ideas. For instance, in the case of the Commonwealth Brickworks Ltd the Commonwealth guaranteed the loan and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia lent the money. Before the House or before the Senate there is a Bill which will give guarantees to private schools. The schools will borrow the money from the banking system and the Commonwealth will guarantee the loans. We do that already in the Territories. It may well be that this is a way to tap the great reserves in the banking system, in the trading banks and particularly in the savings banks, and apply those reserves to our needs. It is absolutely ridiculous that in a country which has adequate funds available in the system and is extraordinarily fortunate in the resources available to it, which has a first class adrninistative system and a very good monitoring system throughout the country in the form of the banks, private and public, and the branches of banking, we cannot do almost whatever we want to do wherever we want to do it. We have failed to take up the challenge.

We are in a time of total economic and social change. The world is different from what it was 10 or 15 years ago. I agree in many respects with the sort of things which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said about it. We have to change our way of thinking. That is why I address my remarks to the honourable member for Lilley. He is living in the past, as is the

Government. How on earth can we justify to successive generations letting the economy slow to a halt, letting people become unemployed and redundant, allowing our great manufacturing capacity to lie idle at a time when our railway system needs complete rehabilitation. If tonight we were to ask the Broken Hill Pry Co. Ltd to produce for us another 200 million tonnes of steel so that we could set out a rehabilitation program for the railway system, BHP could produce it without any trouble at all. It would not need to introduce new investment or anything of that nature.

One of the things that disheartens me about the present situation is the utter intellectual sterility of the economic debate. I suppose that I am a philosophic agnostic in this regard. I do not believe what I read in documents such as the Budget Papers about the absolute effect of the money supply or the absolute effect of interest rates or the absolute effect of deficits.

MrO’Keefe-Oh!

Mr BRYANT:

– I suggest to the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) that he do what I did and ask the Parliamentary Library- I will ask the Library for him if he does not know where it is- to prepare a list showing deficits, inflation rates, gross domestic products and increases in money supplies over the last 10 or 15 years in 10 or 1 1 countries which are equivalent to our own, and then find the absolute correlation. In most respects the kind of analysis that is necessary shows that the correlation is not there. I hope that we will turn our intellectual attention to this question. I do not think we can any longer tolerate our friend from Flinders, the Treasurer, running this country. I think the Budget is a prescription for stagnation. It inflicts sacrifices upon the people of this country who can least afford it, namely, the Aboriginals, the migrants in my electorate and the people who need State school education. These are the people who suffer the most grievous disabilities. The Budget means a transfer of wealth from the work force to the corporation. I think it is a totally immoral document.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to sup- f ort the Budget brought down by the Treasurer Mr Lynch). It provides for an estimated expenditure of $26, 656m which is an increase of 10.5 per cent over the 1 976-77 Budget. In the last four Budgets in this country under the three years of the Australian Labor Party Government we saw estimated expenditures of $12 billion, $16 billion and up to $22 billion in 1975. This is where the real problem of inflation occurred. There was a 40 per cent increase in budget expenditure in 1975. We are endeavouring to recover from the situation which was created by that Budget and today we are arresting inflation. The main objective of the Budget is the lowering of inflation. The Government in its 1 9 months of administration has brought inflation down from 18 per cent to 10.2 per cent. It has lowered the deficit of $4,000m to $2,2 17m. These are achievements and the people of Australia should be told about them and should know of them. We have done away with the extravaganza of the former Labor Government which set out to destroy the confidence and the economy of the Australian nation. We should never forget that.

Unemployment is too high but the Government is taking steps to generate employment opportunities. We must never forget that the real commencement of unemployment happened when Labor introduced a 25 per cent tariff cut right across the board. No homework was done. That cut was brought in overnight irrespective of the effect which it might have on the work force of this nation. It put thousands of Australians out of work. In my electorate of Paterson a serious situation developed because of the 25 per cent tariff cut. Goods came into the country which had been manufactured by a work force getting $A 1 2 a month, with no workers’ compensation and no social welfare benefits at all. Often the articles were inferior. The whole program of government has certainly reduced the inflation rate and that should be understood by all Australians. This Government has said that until a financial incentive can be provided to Australian workers the opportunities of encouraging fuller employment in Australia are not likely to be realised. Incentives have been given in this Budget to the work force.

There will be more take home pay. Let us have a look at the taxation incentives which have been given under this Budget. The new tax structure is a simple three tier system. It is based on a standard rate of taxation with the following features: There is no tax on incomes up to $3,750 a year. A standard tax rate of 32c in the dollar will apply to all incomes above $3,750. Incomes above $16,000 a year and up to $32,000 a year will attract an additional tax of 14c in the dollar above the 32c tax base for that portion of taxable income between $16,000 and $32,000. Incomes above $32,000 will attract an additional tax of 28c in the dollar above the 32c tax base. This means a tax rate of 60c in the dollar is payable for that portion of taxable income over $32,000. One may ask: Who benefits by this? Taxpayers at all income levels will pay less tax. Also, 90 per cent of taxpayers will pay tax at the standard rate of 32c in the dollar. The tax gains are set out in the tables which have been provided.

There is an overtime encouragement in these tax incentives. The taxpayer on $10,000 a year can now earn up to $6,000 a year more in overtime without paying a higher rate of tax. That is an achievement. The penalties of overtime are a thing of the past. This is something which this Government has achieved. It will mean more productivity, more take home pay for the worker involved in industry. Let us look at those who will not pay tax. No tax is payable if a person earns less than $3,750 a year or up to $5,485 a year with a dependent spouse. This means that 225,000 people now paying tax- many of them pensioners and young people- will no longer pay tax. But when does this apply? The new tax scale will apply to all income earned from 1 February 1978. I turn to tax indexation. Full automatic indexation which took effect on 1 July 1976 will be maintained. It will continue to cushion taxpayers from the effect of inflation on their earnings. The new rate scales will be indexed on 1 July 1978. The old tax rates will cease to apply on 31 January 1978. By 1 July 1978 the new tax system will have been in operation for only five months. Therefore, the indexation adjustments made at 1 July 1978 will be half that granted by the annual indexation guidelines. For example, if applying the indexation guidelines would have meant indexation at 8 per cent the new rate scale would be indexed by four per cent as at 1 July 1978.

Let us have a look at company tax. We have increased company tax and the rate is 46 per cent, an increase of 3.5 per cent. In 1977-78 company tax will raise an additional $200m. However, this will be more than offset by the $600m savings for the corporate sector as a result of the Government’s concessions to companies by way of an investment allowance and the trading stock valuation adjustments which were introduced in May 1976. Despite the new rate of company tax the corporate contribution to total Commonwealth tax revenues will fall to 13.4 per cent in 1977-78, compared to 14.4 per cent m 1976-77 and 15 per cent in 1975-76. Revenue from company tax increased by 12 per cent in 1976-77 compared with 1975-76. However, the increase this financial year will be only 6 per cent. In relation to the overall effect, under the new tax system the individual has gained relief from the oppressive tax rates which were fed by inflation and retained to finance the big government of Labor. Since December 1975 government spending has been pruned back. This has enabled the Fraser Government to halt the tax grab and transfer money back to the people.

The Labor Party alternative is more tax. The Labor record in government is one of massive budget deficits and an unprecedented 89 per cent increase in personal income tax revenue during its first two years of office. Labor failed to acknowledge the need for tax reform by refusing to introduce tax indexation, even though it was recommended by the Mathews Committee which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) established when he was Prime Minister. Labor’s proposals are based on the assumption of big spending government and the need for more tax dollars.

The shadow Treasurer recently foreshadowed increased indirect taxes under a Labor government. He conceded that higher indirect taxes and the old inequitable tax scale which the Lynch Budget discarded would be the source of funding for future Labor programs. By contrast, this Government has been able to give tax dollars back to the individual through its new tax scales. It has restored incentive for initiative and enterprise. The Australian, in a final summing up of the Budget, on 22 August stated:

Even at 32c in the dollar, the system benefits the great mass of wage and salary earners. The closest examination of the new scales today does not shake in the slightest Mr Lynch ‘s claim last Tuesday that the vast bulk of people will be significantly better off next year as a result. And the greatest percentage advantage is won, in fact, by people on the low taxable incomes of $6,000 a year and under.

The article concluded with this very important paragraph:

All this is certainly no small achievement. It is certainly not a disguised tax gouge, as some critics have tried to suggest. The shortcoming of the Budget is not what Mr Lynch has done- it is what he has not done in spelling out that achievement to the people.

The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) said that this Government has no compassion. The Government’s expenditure on social security items in 1977-78 is a big increase on the amount provided for the previous year. The total for the financial year ended 30 June 1978 is $7,250m. This is an increase of approximately 13 per cent on the amount for last year. The increase is thoughout the whole orbit of social security- special social service pensions, repatriation benefits, handicapped people’s allowances, aged persons accommodation, children’s services and unemployment benefits. This Government has compassion. It has proved that fact by its general treatment of pensioners.

Commonwealth expenditure on education will be $2,37 lm. This is $21 lm or 10 per cent more than the amount for last year. Yet educationists in Australia are screaming that insufficient funds are being made available for education. Late last year substantial increases were announced to student allowances and benefits. These increases were effective from the beginning of this year. Some living-away-from-home and boarding allowances will be further increased from the beginning of 1978.

The 1977-78 Budget indicates the Government’s efforts to assist the rural sector. In this House in the past few weeks the Opposition has moved censure motions because the Government is not giving sufficient assistance to our great rural industries which bring in 60 per cent of our export income. Those motions have been nonsense. This Government has a great regard for the rural industries and is assisting them. In considering rural assistance, regard is given to the overall economic policies and the need to restrain expenditure in the fight against inflation. The whole Budget is framed in that way. We will establish a rural bank. This has been achieved after thorough investigation by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and other Cabinet Ministers. It will now be finalised. Arrangements are being made with financial institutions so that legislation can be brought forward in this session. This will ease the mind of many primary producers who have asked for the establishment of such a bank for many years.

I have already mentioned income tax. The tax burden is reduced. The present income tax scales have been changed. I turn now to the situation confronting the beef industry. The present financial circumstances of beef producers give great concern to the Government. Beef producers in Australia are facing a great problem. In 1972 there were 16 million cattle. There are 32 million today. That increase was made possible because of the good prices being paid for cattle in those earlier years. We know that cattle producers are in dire straits now because of the low prices being paid for stock and because of the cost of producing it. I refer now to the marketing efforts overseas. This Government has done everything to increase the volume of beef exported. Despite that, producers are getting a low return for their commodity. Congratulations to the housewives of this country. We consumed 60,000 tons of beef last year. That indicates that the price of beef must still be at a reasonably economic level. The housewives are supporting the industry.

The Budget provides assistance for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. A total of $ IS. lm is provided for the cost of operation of brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns in the States and the Territories. In the States and the Territories $4.5m has been provided for compensation of reactor cattle slaughtered as a result of this campaign. The Government, through the Minister, is doing all it can to accelerate the commercial appraisal of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation’s objective classification scheme. I have had the pleasure of seeing this scheme in operation in quite a few abattoirs throughout Australia. The Government is pressing ahead with this scheme. I feel that it will be of financial assistance to those engaged in the cattle industry. Most of the cattle organisations are suggesting such a scheme at present. The final report will be brought in and I have no doubt that the scheme will be implemented as soon as possible.

I turn now to the guaranteed floor price for wool. An amount of $3 1.4m is provided as the Government’s contribution for wool research and promotion. A similar amount is expected to be contributed by wool growers by way of the levy on wool sales. The Government contributed $10m more than the amount provided in 1976-77.

I want to give the lie to the Opposition’s statement that no assistance has been given by this Government to primary producers. Legislation to amend the Phosphatic Fertiliser Bounty Act was passed during the last session of Parliament. The Budget provision of $40m would enable payment of a subsidy at the rate of $ 12 per tonne on standard superphosphate produced and sold in Australia. The scope of the bounty was extended to include crushed and calcined rock and phosphate materials used in stock feeds. Similarly, the Government has examined the operation of the Nitrogenous Fertiliser Subsidy Act and has agreed that payment of the subsidy be continued at the same rate that applied during 1977. The sum of $12m is allocated for 1977-78. This assistance would enable farmers to plan with a degree of confidence their fertiliser, cropping and pasture programs at a time when they face many difficulties in production and marketing.

The Government has helped the dairy farmers. The Budget includes an appropriation of $6. 5m for part of the Government’s underwriting commitments to the dairy industry in respect of the 1975-76 and 1976-77 seasons. The Government’s underwriting arrangements for butter, cheese, skim milk powder and casein have been continued for the 1977-78 season and have been integrated in the new stage one marketing arrangements which came into operation from 1 July 1977.

The Government will provide $47m during the year for the rural adjustment scheme. That amount, together with the States’ contribution of $8m, will give farmers access to adjustment assistance to the value of $5 5 m. The Government will provide $3 7m for debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation assistance account, $2m for household support and $16m for carry-on assistance to dairy farmers and beef producers. That will be funded jointly by the Commonwealth and the States. That indicates the assistance which this Government is giving to our great rural industries.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’keefe) treated the House to 20 minutes of pork barrelling, which is indicative of the attitude of the National Country Party to the national affairs of this country. It is not a question of my not having any regard for the farmer; I have an extraordinarily high regard for the farmer and have never been ashamed to say so. After listening to honourable members from the National Country Party it seems to me that they do not have a very high regard for the people whom they presume and pretend to represent.

The honourable member for Paterson made some curious statements to which I feel obliged to reply. He started to talk about unemployment and then blamed the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut applied by the Labor Party for it. I do wish that the honourable member would speak to his Party colleagues because everybody across the length and the breadth of this country knows that the National Country Party is a free trade party and does not believe in tariffs. Although it does not believe in tariffs, its members still use this rather spurious argument in this House.

The honourable member for Paterson spoke about the rate of inflation. I remind him that in the last quarter of the Labor Party’s period in office inflation had been reduced to 0.8 per cent. If the honourable member wants to do some arithmetic he will find that that represents 3.2 per cent for the whole year. He made great play of tax relief. He said that single people earning $3,750 a year should not have to pay taxes. He said this about four times. He must be tickled ink to think that people who earn about $64 or 65 a week should not pay tax. Of course they should not pay tax. They could not even live on that income. I do not see that it is any great feather in the Government’s cap that it can now state that those people ought not to pay tax. That is only fair, reasonable, proper and just.

He then went on in similar vein to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I asked the Prime Minister a question about tax concessions in the House the other day. Of course, as he usually does when he is asked a question which he cannot answer, he went around the world. He was almost a Marco Polo. He did say that the tax concessions would help people who wanted to work overtime. The honourable member for Paterson said the same thing tonight. Do they not realise that almost 400,000 people in Australia are out of work, that almost 400,000 people are existing on unemployment benefit and are looking for employment?

We have the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Paterson lauding the fact that people are now being encouraged and, in fact, persuaded to work overtime, to work over weekends. While the honourable member for Paterson was saying this his colleagues sat there and said: ‘Hear, hear’. I heard an honourable member say in this House today that people would now be encouraged to work at two jobs. Where is their sincerity? They bring in a tax scheme which they claim will assist people to keep somebody else out of a job. Is that what they mean to say to us? I and the people of Australia heard them say that they will pay people to keep other people out of work.

There is another point on which I should like to take issue with the honourable member for Paterson. Words fail me to describe this because this question of a rural bank is so specious. What a lot of window dressing and nonsense it is! The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has branches in every country town and in every suburban area now, as honourable members opposite would know and as I know. It is only a matter of extending those facilities and we would already have a rural bank. The Government does not have to set up another bureaucracy, to buy more buildings and to employ more staff.

We have experts in the Commonwealth Bank now. If the Government wants to make funds available to farmers at a cheaper rate of interest, why can it not do so through the Commonwealth Bank? But no, that does not suit honourable members opposite. They have to pork barrel the farmers again. They have to window-dress and to say to the farmers that they will set up a special rural bank. What a lot of stuff and nonsense that is! The sooner the farmers of Australia see through these frauds who pretend to represent them in this House the better off the country will be. Certainly those people who work in and live off the land will be better off.

There has been an obvious fiddling of the books in presenting this Budget. The lack of understanding of the Budget by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister is causing back bench supporters of the Government to speak in a confused way. They do not know whether to support the Treasurer, whether to support the Prime Minister, or whether to tell the truth. The socalled income tax relief is a fraud. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) admits this. He admits his fears concerning this by giving an assurance that a guarantee will be given that no taxpayer will be worse off after the new scheme commences.

Mr Groom:

– Who wrote this?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I wrote this, but I was indicating what the Minister for Primary Industry had said. If he is so sure, as honourable members opposite appear to be, that the tax scheme is going to benefit everybody, why does he have to say that he will ensure that nobody is disadvantaged by the scheme? He knows, as we know, and as honourable members opposite are starting to find out as they read the Budget documents and the facts start to filter through to them, that it is a fraud, that nobody in Australia except people in the higher income groups will be better off and that because the Government has not indexed the family allowance people in the lower income bracket will be worse off.

The honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) pointed out earlier today how much less a week people will be bringing home. So the so-called income tax relief is a complete and utter fraud. It has been exposed as such by speaker after speaker from the Labor Party. Today our proceedings are being broadcast and we do have a large listening audience. The people of Australia are starting to realise just how fraudulent this whole scheme is.

The Budget delivered on Tuesday, 16 August, was the anticlimax of the century. Like a damp squib, it fizzed for only as long as it took knowledgeable people to read it. This Government’s theory that the community is gullible enough to swallow anything is not shared by me or the community. The principal section of this Budget which could have added stimulus to the private sector is the civil works program, which stands this year with an allocation of approximately $375m. This is one item which cannot be plucked out of the Budget and treated as a one year only item.

The Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) does believe that it is possible to extract figures and say that expenditure will increase this year over the expenditure last year. By their nature and magnitude, the construction of many projects will extend beyond one year, possibly over a number of years. The planning and documentation of a major project takes a number of years. Therefore, it is necessary to consider trends over a number of years rather than each year in isolation. The works for which the Minister now claims credit were planned during the reign of another Minister and, indeed, another government.

If one compares the amounts allocated this year for works under the control of the Department of Construction with amounts for previous years one finds a winding down of the works program rather than an acceleration. This year, for example, it is expected that $93m will be spent on works. Last year the amount was $7Sm, so there has been an increase of $ 18m. However, if we add to these figures for last year, which are just figures on paper, an amount equal to an increase in building costs over the year we find that the $7Sm at current prices becomes approximately $90m. Therefore, the real increase in funds allocated in this area is a miserable $3m.

Let us return to the last allocation made by the Labor Government- the program for 1975-76. In that year the Labor Government allocated $130m for current works. At today’s prices it would be necessary for the Government to allocate approximately. $ 190m just to keep up. Of the other two areas of allocation, the Darwin Reconstruction Commission is, of course, winding down as the task which confronted the Commission is being completed. At the expiration of the Commission’s operations at the end of this year these funds will again return to the Department of Construction or perhaps to some authority in the Northern Territory. The works program for the Australian Capital Territory is being reduced this year by approximately $40m in real terms. It is no wonder that that reduction in expenditure is being made. The present Government is actively stifling enterprise and driving away those who would show enterprise. It threatens to stand down or to dismiss its own employees at the whim of a Minister or an unpredictable Prime Minister.

Let me return to the economics of the Budget as it relates to civil works. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) told us in this chamber recently that if we maintain our civil works program we will have to finance the works constructed. That is almost as illuminating as saying that Tasmania is an island totally surrounded by water. The honourable member reflected the mentality of the members of this Government when it comes to spending. They believe that all spending is an expense and therefore can be trimmed. I put it to the House that spending on the creation of assets is far from the expense but simply the exchange of one assetmoney for another asset- a building, a road, a harbour or an airport.

The curious system used by the Governmentused by successive governments- is to construct its assets from revenue. When revenue is curtailed so is the creation of assets. How absurd! Assets are frequently a means by which to obtain revenue. So this Government’s weird attitude towards raising revenue from the public and then spending it for the public benefit is that we enter a circular flight path of ever-diminishing circles until we finally disappear. The Government’s attitude is that the individuals in our community should decide separately how their income will be spent. How does the Government expect individuals to contribute to the cost of schools, hospitals, roads, railways, harbours and the rest of the infrastructure needed to enable a democratic society to develop? The important factor overlooked by the Government is that its friends who believe in and practise the free enterprise system require an infrastructure, organised along socialist lines, in order to survive.

Civil works projects can be financed other than by revenue. They can be financed by public borrowings. They can be financed by deficit budgeting, thus becoming a no-interest borrowing against the future earnings of the communityearnings enhanced by the assets created. Government members do not understand this and are caught in their own rhetoric of ‘balancing the books’. How naive! But let us look at who is being injured by this simplistic approach to a complex question. This Government proudly and loudly proclaims, almost to the point of hysteria, that it will support the free enterprise system. It is the last Government in the civilised world to do so. It is the free enterprise system which is being injured by cutbacks in civil works programs. It is injured just as much if the program stands still.

The Department of Construction is an excellent planning, design and supervisory body. Contrary to its name, it is not a constructor. Construction work is done by contractors in the community who tender for the work. For the term contractors in the community’ one should read the term ‘free enterprise’. It is the contractors who engage the labour and order the materials. Their employees are not public servants; they are tradesmen, labourers and others who are now standing in queues outside branches of the Commonwealth Employment Office to collect dole cheques. They are anxious for work. That is a human resource wasted. The contractors are not government departments; they are public companies with premises, plant, equipment and tools. The shareholders are looking for dividends; the equipment and the tools are lying idle. It is a case of a construction capacity being unused. The suppliers of materials are free enterprise organisations which are anxious to supply to anybody able to pay. They also have a capacity to employ if the work is available. Who is denying them the opportunity to employ? The answer is this myopic Government.

The Government speaks of a consumer-led recovery. Well, its finger is on the trigger. All it has to do is to pull it. But, of course, we are told by the temporary occupants of the Government benches that any activity at all will be inflationary. We are told that it is inflationary to budget for a deficit. To borrow would increase interest rates because we would be competing with other borrowers. Why would anybody be borrowing at the moment? There is no activity to attract people to borrow and there is no prospect that the position will improve. To borrow overseas is also inflationary, according to honourable members opposite. The sorts of arrangements they enter into probably would be inflationary. One could liken them to a young puppy sitting up and begging for a titbit at any price.

It is little wonder that they sought to discredit the late and most respected Rex Connor for the proper way in which he approached the subject. It is no wonder they cast slurs and made the most wild innuendo. The concept was sound, businesslike and to Australia’s advantage. The modus operandi was simple and it is used in business every day. Firstly, you take stock of your assets and value them; secondly, you find a lender; thirdly, you ensure that borrowings do not exceed the value of the assets; and, fourthly, you agree upon interest rates, repayments, and fix a term for amortisation of the loan. Is that not practical, simple, everyday practice, tinged with just a touch of genius? This Government has made many people dependent upon the unemployment benefit and then insulted them by referring to them as dole bludgers.

Let me give as an indication of that sort of situation the current position in my own electorate. Young people under 21 years of age constitute more than 55 per cent of the unemployed registered at that office, as against the Victorian figure of 40 per cent, which itself is very high when it is realised that that group constitutes only 12 per cent of the work force. A recent survey conducted at that office indicated that 52 per cent of boys and 54.7 per cent of girls registered had not gone beyond form three level of education, and only 18.9 per cent of boys and 16.4 per cent of girls had passed form four, five or the Higher School Certificate. It is noted that 29.1 per cent of boys and 29 per cent of girls had passed form four. In those couple of sentences lies the tragedy which is now Australia, and this Government is doing nothing about it. I have here a table entitled ‘The Employment Situation- General and Local (Northern Area)’. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

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

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

The table read as follows-

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. When that table is printed it will indicate clearly the bad position in which young people in particular in the Federal Division of Burke find themselves. The details of expenditure on civil works are better dealt with during the Committee stage, but I shall comment on two items which are very much the concern of primary producers in this country, especially livestock breeders. Every day in this House we hear about the plight of livestock breeders. Nobody denies their plight. We all want to see some action from the Government instead of listening to its bellyaching and its blaming everything from the weather to the trade unions. If the Government is genuinely concerned about the livestock breeders, why is it so careless about the production of vaccines to prevent disease from breaking out amongst our herds of cattle, our flocks of sheep and our other livestock? Must we really believe that the Government is praying its hardest that blue tongue or foot and mouth does not strike and devastate our herds? Is it really concerned that exotic diseases can enter Australia undetected? Has it not heard of aeroplanes and the rapid movement of people? Does it still believe that people come here by ship and that the time spent m travelling outlasts the incubation period of the virus?

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommended the construction of an animal health laboratory at Geelong- a laboratory to research animal diseases and prepare vaccines. My good friend the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has ventilated this matter in the House many times. All that has happened down there in the space of two years is that the site has been cleared and some preliminary works have been done. No funds are to be provided this year for the construction of that laboratory. Yet honourable members opposite stand up in this place and say that they represent the interests of the farmers of Australia. Why have they not asked questions in this House about the matter? Why have they not pursued it? The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is a member of the National Country Party. Why have honourable members opposite not been after him to ensure that this facility is established for the benefit of their friends in the country areas? I have mentioned but a few of the many matters that can be discussed in connection with this Budget. My colleagues on this side of the House will ventilate many more in the course of this debate. Unfortunately, a speaking time limited to 20 minutes does not permit any one honourable member to do so. But the matters which I have ventilated tonight are in the interests of the people of Australia.

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– Without doubt the most revealing speech during this debate has not been that of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), revealing though it was. It was that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). I do not mean the tired cliches and the empty rhetoric. They are not new. The Leader of the Opposition always talks that way on economic matters. He is a literate man but even his greatest admirer could not describe him as being economically numerate. What any leader of the Opposition surely should do in conditions such as these is make clear what his alternative government would do to meet the economic situation. As it is we seem to have three different Opposition policies, none of which makes much sense. One newspaper critic described the three Labor spokesmen on the economy not so much as three wise men but as Donald Duck’s three nephews, Huey, Louey and Dewey. That was unkind but perceptive.

What was so revealing about the Leader of the Opposition’s speech is that it explodes the idea propagated after the last Labor Party Conference that there is now a new Whitlam who has learnt from his past mistakes and grasped some of the principles of economics. No one who listened to his speech on the Budget in this House could believe such a claim for a moment. The Leader of the Opposition still seems to believe that nothing that went wrong with the economy under the Labor Government had anything to do with him. He must be the only person in Australia who still believes that. All he really has to offer is more of the same old bungling. He would do it all again. The new Whitlam is the most unconvincing public relations creation since the new Nixon.

There were two key gaps in what the Leader of the Opposition said. What he does not say is usually more important than what he does say. Firstly, he did not admit the obvious fact that what he is proposing will involve an inevitable increase in taxation. He got us into our present economic state by rapidly increasing government expenditure without being prepared to increase taxation to pay for it. If he is serious about what he said about government expenditure during the debate- I think he is in his rather woolly way- a sharp increase in taxation under a Labor government is unavoidable. The second omission by the Leader of the Opposition was caused by his failure to grasp that the increases he proposes in government expenditure would delay a reduction in interest rates. A reduction in interest rates and a corresponding expansion in credit is crucial to our economic recovery. It affects consumer spending, investment and public confidence. It would be most unhelpful to the community to do as the Leader of the Opposition suggests and to increase public spending so as to employ a handful of people if, at the same time, it delays a reduction in interest rates which would result in the employment of many more.

It is true that the Leader of the Opposition has never pretended to understand interest rates. He admitted to this House that there were gaps in his knowledge about interest rates. It would obviously have been more correct to say that there were gaps in his ignorance. Even these were hard to find. One of the great weaknesses of the Leader of the Opposition is that he has never been able to view the economy as a whole with activities in one part of it affecting other parts. His other great weakness is that he is never able to be selective about government expenditure. He is in favour of it, whatever it is and regardless of its merits, or so it would seem from his speech on the Budget. What government is all about is being selective about expenditure and trying to balance short term needs and long term goals.

The Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor, Arthur Calwell, once said: ‘Give us three years and we will so scramble the eggs that they will never be unscrambled’. I am glad he was not right. There is no doubt that the unscrambling of what the Whitlam Government did is taking longer than we had hoped or that the community had wished. But I am sure that the electorate would never give the present Opposition another chance to scramble the economy still further.

The Budget we are considering is another step along the road to recovery. It is false as some have claimed to say that the Budget does not tackle inflation and unemployment. There is the closest connection between the rate of growth of the money supply and the rate of inflation and between the rate of inflation and the level of unemployment. By holding down the rate of increase in the money supply- this is the main thrust of the Budget- we will bring down the rate of inflation. When inflation is down, employment, by the use of Keynesian methods, will improve and not before. Perhaps we are restricting the money supply a little too much. That is a point to which I will return. But the main thrust of the Budget is right.

Several factors follow from this. Firstly, we must avoid superficially attractive employment creating schemes such as those proposed by the Opposition which by increasing the money supply will do more harm than good. Except in the very short term they will create more unemployment than employment. Secondly, we must avoid any further significant devaluation which inevitably increases inflation and the pressure on wages. Our overseas credit is good. Paradoxically, if we make it clear that we are prepared to borrow as much as is necessary to defend the dollar, we will probably not have to borrow at all. Thirdly, we must avoid too protectionist a stance. Protection as a means of creating jobs is open to the same criticisms as the Opposition’s job creating government expenditure.

The difficulty with using a monetarist policy to control inflation- no one has suggested a better method- is that benefits become apparent only in the long run. This timing is unsuited to a threeyear democratic electoral cycle. We must hope that the electorate is perceptive enough to remember the mess we got into and to realise that we are being slowly but surely dragged out of it. There is one area of economic policy which is not under direct government control. That is the level of wages. There is no doubt that wage rates and crippling penalty rates are pricing us out of many markets. As I have said, there is little that the Federal Government can do directly to reduce the cost of labour. But there is one course of action I will mention. Payroll tax was given to the States some years ago so that they would have a growth tax. It is now levied at the rate of 5 per cent. Last year it raised more than $ 1,300m. The States will soon have access, if they wish, to a larger growth tax- income tax. Payroll tax is not now so necessary to them. Its removal would bring down the price of labour and improve employment. I suggest that the Government negotiate with the States to remove payroll tax as a first step from the lower wage levels and compensate the States this year for their lost revenue. This would be a far more desirable method of stimulating employment than the make-work schemes of the Opposition. It would have the effect of raising the target for growth in the money supply to a little over the present 8 per cent to 10 per cent.

The great problem in framing this Budget must have been to hold down the growth in the money supply. We have to balance the immediate needs of the economy against the human needs of disadvantaged people and the long term growth needs of the economy. On the last point it is tragic to see the Opposition acting in such an irresponsible fashion on the long term growth implicit in the uranium decision. Virtually every member of the Opposition front bench knows in his heart that the uranium decision is morally and economically right and that a Labor government would have wanted to take the same action but he dares not say so for fear of losing a few votes or, more likely, for fear of the outside forces that control him. Labor’s behaviour is contemptible.

All the rumours of dramatic cuts in community services which were sedulously disseminated by the Opposition during the winter have been proved to be false rumours, but this does not undo the worry and distress that was caused to many people. The Opposition knew that these dishonest rumours could not be contradicted until the Budget was issued, but that did not dissuade them from issuing them. Not only has our expenditure been maintained in real terms in all the important areas- in line with our philosophy that assistance must be given where it is needed rather than scattered everywhere as the Labor Party does- but in key areas it has been increased, particularly in the field of youth employment and training, which I welcome.

There has been some criticism that education expenditure has been merely maintained in real terms rather than increased. I think that what the community is looking for now is not more spending on education but rather more effective use of the money we are already spending. I was at a fascinating meeting a few weeks ago with all the militant teachers unions in Melbourne. They pointed out, quite accurately in my view, that Melbourne Church of England Grammar School provides a better education than a typical state h igh school. But very sadly their aim seems to be not to raise the high school to Melbourne Grammar standard but to pull Melbourne Grammar down. Surely our aim should be to level up, not to level down. The teachers did not seem to have thought through what needs to be done. Their only solution was to spend more money. They did not seem to have thoughts about why parents spend their money to send their children to schools such as Melbourne Grammar. Of course, some of it is snobbery- old school tie, and so on- but most people are prepared to make sacrifices to send their children to such schools because they think they will get a better education.

Why? It certainly is not because of the buildings. The most impressive school buildings I have seen recently are those at the new state secondary schools such as Prince’s Hill secondary school in Melbourne. In fact one of the worst classrooms I have ever seen was at the English public school, Winchester, which is academically one of the finest schools in the world but its classrooms would undoubtedly be condemned by the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association. Nor is it because of the size of the classes. In Victoria the pupil-teacher ratio at secondary schools is not 15 to 1 and there is no evidence that when class sizes fall below about 25 the smaller classes produce better education. If it is not school buildings or the size of classes, what is it that induces parents to spend their money to send their children to private schools? I am sure that they do it because they want discipline among the school children and discipline and dedication from the teachers. All these could easily be provided by the teachers in the state system is they so wished. I mention these things because the path to improved education, which is of great importance to the whole community, lies primarily not in the spending of money but in the motivation and dedication of the teachers. I wish I thought the militant teachers realised this.

Now we come to the question of tax reform. There is no doubt that the overwhelming proportion of the community have felt that the income tax scales need reforming. The Asprey Committee felt that there should be some shift away from personal income tax into the area of indirect taxation, but in the present economic situation this is not a possibility. But it is good to see that the Government has taken steps both to simplify the tax system and to lower the tax rate. Tax reform, however, is more than just changes in the tax rates. Nobody likes paying taxes but most people are prepared to pay them if they think they are paying a fair share and that others are not getting away with it. We must avoid getting into the situation that France has reached where tax evasion and avoidance are so widespread that it is said that the French can neither impose nor pay a fair tax. There has been a rather distressing decline in our tax morality in recent years caused, I believe, by the high level of inflation. Tax evasion is common. I heard the other day of a bricklayer who works only at weekends for which he earns $250 in cash, on which he pays no tax. He fishes and plays golf during the week when the golf courses are clear and, to add insult to injury, he draws unemployment benefit. This may be an extreme case, but tax evasion is widespread although perhaps not usually on such a blatant scale.

How many members in this House have paid someone a fee in cash knowing that he has no intention of declaring it as income? These are tax evaders. How many people receive expense accounts which they do not fully utilise and evade tax on the unused portion? I am sure that I do not need to draw the attention of the members of this House to the fact that those in safe electorates who do not spend all their electorate allowance should declare and pay tax on any unspent balance. What is disturbing is the extent to which tax evasion has become a way of life for a significant proportion of Australian people. But that is not the most worrying area. Tax avoidance is even more widespread and much more blatant. I am delighted to see that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is taking up the question of trusts being used as a method of tax avoidance. His proposed amendment to section 98 of the Income Tax Assessment Act will, I believe, make trusts inappropriate for small businessmen and self employed professionals where the beneficiaries are children under 16 years of age. But, to use the Treasurer’s favourite expression this is only the tip of the iceberg and I shall be looking forward with interest to the measures he proposes to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to deal with the wider question of trusts as a means of tax avoidance for higher income earners.

Then there are other methods of tax avoidance, of which the most blatant is income in kind. One very rarely sees a senior position advertised these days without reference to something like a fully maintained company car being provided, without any pretence that it is needed for business, That is a $2,000 a year benefit, tax free, to the recipient. What we must always remember is that when some people manage to avoid paying tax others have to pay more. Surely what we should be aiming at is a tax that is equitable. We must therefore tax all these forms of income in kind, whether they be free cars-the most blatant example-or other benefits such as scholarships for school children, free television, free telephones, free housing, overseas travel, reduced interest loans, and so on. I should like to make it clear that I am not talking about benefits which are necessary in the performance of the job. I am talking about extra benefits which are deliber- ately given as a means of tax avoidance. The Asprey Committee pointed out that the law at present does not cover benefits given to an employee’s family and that clearly these benefits should be taxable. It also pointed out that the meaning of the expression ‘value to the taxpayer’ of other fringe benefits in section 26 of the Act is unsettled. Asprey recommended that it should mean what it would cost the employee to provide the benefit for himself, less that element which is a necessary consequence of his employment. I hope that the Treasurer will proceed on these lines when he amends the Act.

But there is a further point. It is no use tackling these tax avoidance schemes unless we tackle the situation which has caused them. All honourable members will remember the calamitous situation caused by the previous Labor Government in trying to bring cars into the tax scheme. It failed because it was clumsy and did not tackle the cause. What we must do is offer a trade-off to bring income in kind into the tax scheme at the same time as we lower the tax rates. I do not think that the present lowering of 60 per cent maximum goes far enough. I think that the appropriate level is 50 per cent purely on the basis that it seems to me that one dollar for oneself and one dollar for the community is a fair thing and what we should be aiming at throughout our tax structure is something that can be genuinely accepted as a fair thing. But it will only be regarded as a fair thing if we bring all income in cash and in kind into the tax system.

There are two further disadvantages of too high a marginal rate of taxation. The first is that it lures a substantial proportion of our cleverest people into the field of finding loopholes for high income earners to avoid tax This is an awful waste of their scarce talents, in community terms. The second disadvantage is that it tends to deprive us of the economic advantages of the specialisation of labour. A high income earner who wishes to have his house painted, for instance, has to earn before tax three times the price of the painter. The result is that instead of going out and doing something he is good at to earn the money to pay the painter he does the painting himself, which is bad for the painter, bad for the economy and probably bad for the house. These new tax scales are a big step forward, but there are more steps to be taken, particularly amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. I await with interest the Treasurer’s foreshadowed amendments. I wholeheartedly support the Budget. It gives some much needed tax relief, it maintains expenditure in areas of need and it continues to pressure towards lower inflation which is the only route by which we can return to full employment.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 956

ELECTORAL DIVISION OF CUNNINGHAM

Mr SPEAKER:

-I inform the House that I have today issued a writ for the election of a member to serve for the the division of Cunningham, New South Wales, in place of the Honourable Reginald Francis Xavier Connor deceased. The dates in connection with the election are as follows: Date of nomination, Friday 23 September 1977; date of polling, Saturday 15 October 1977; date of return of writ, on or before Friday 25 November 1977.

page 956

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) attempted to describe the attitude of the Opposition to some measures of the Government as contemptible, particularly the action, I assume, of the voluntary health insurance funds in distributing information in relation to the Government’s proposed measures to withdraw the private hospital subsidy and to increase rates of health insurance in respect of nursing homes. It is interesting to recall that they are the organisations that helped to get this Government into office. If my recollection is correct, they worked very hard for the National Country Party of Australia and provided that party with staff and material.

I am rather suspicious of the attack today by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) upon the private health insurance funds of Victoria and Tasmaniahe forgot to mention New South Wales because the same thing is happening there. It would seem, given the very close association of those funds, the National Country Party and senior members of the present Government, that there is definitely some truth in the claim of those private health insurance funds that the Government does propose to withdraw the subsidy for private hospitals and to increase the rates of contribution for health insurance or insurance cover in respect of nursing homes.

Mr Neil:

-That is a lot of claptrap.

Mr MORRIS:

-If that is the opinion of the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) of the National Country Party I am quite happy to accept his remark because I am referring to the past performance and relationships of that party of which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is the leader. The Government is responsible for the state of the economy and it does not help the people who are in need or who are unemployed to hear the kinds of remarks that were made by the honourable member for Isaacs. After all, we are now in a period of newspeak’, where the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) uses the words ‘reform’ and responsible’ with a new kind of meaning. Reform’ is a word that has a good connotation about it. It indicates the development of something progressive, some new move that brings benefit to the community. But ‘reform’ used by this Government is a euphemism for regression, a euphemism for turning back the clock. That is happening in respect of the tax changes the Government has described as tax reforms. In effect the changes represent a major shift in the burden of taxation from the higher income groups to the lower income groups. The Prime Minister is the best example of a person in the higher income group. He benefits by $60 per week in reduced tax commitment as compared with a man on $ 1 47 per week who receives about a $1.80 a week reduction in tax. Those figures are the Government’s own figures, not the Opposition’s, and that is the kind of tax reform introduced by the Government. The Government’s interpretation of the word ‘reform’ is opposite to the meaning described in the Oxford Dictionary.

The other word used by the Government is ‘responsible’. For that word it has substituted something meaning insensible and insensitivity. Both of these words will fit although they each have different meanings. How any Government supporter, particularly the honourable member for Isaacs, could genuinely claim that the Government is aware and sensitive of the needs and hardship that it is creating in the community is beyond belief. I wish Government supporters would go to some of the outer metropolitan areas of the cities or to Newcastle and talk to some of the unemployed shipyard workers who are now walking the streets looking for work. They should talk to some members of the broken families who are now unable to get work, where husbands and wives have separated because the family income has dropped so low they cannot meet commitments and they have no prospect of getting work. They should talk to men who have never been out of work in their lives before.

I would like to instance one other matter that came to my notice a few weeks ago as a result of the Government’s reform of the school dental health scheme, a scheme that was intended to provide dental care for all children up to 1 5 years of age. The scheme that was implemented by Dr Everingham as Minister for Health in the Whitlam Government to provide dental clinics in schools and to train nurses to staff the clinics has been severely cut because of the withdrawal of government funding and because the present Government has reduced the share of the cost that it wishes to bear.

I mention the case of a constituent, a young woman with two children. This woman is separated from her husband because of a breakup that occurred after the husband became unemployed. The woman ‘s four-year old son has a pain in his mouth. The mother thought he had a sore tooth so she went to a private dentist. He examined the child’s mouth and told the mother that the child had an abscess and that the cost of treatment would be $140. She did not have $140 nor could she enter into debt for that amount. She did not know what to do and the child had to suffer for three days. After three days she learned that there was a school dental clinic in Newcastle, a clinic that is being wound down as a result of the Government’s programs. The child was taken to the clinic and the abscess removed. This is the kind of thing about which the Government is so insensitive and about which it claims to be responsible.

In addressing my remarks to this debate on the 1977-78 Budget, the second Budget of this Government, I want to emphasise that never in recent political memory has a Budget been so quickly exposed for the sham and fraud that this one is and so quickly repudiated by the Australian community. This Budget reinforces the strategy of the first Fraser Budget that has brought higher inflation, higher taxation, record unemployment, reduced real incomes and depressed economic activity. At every stage this Government has sought to create scapegoats, to blame its own ineptitude and incompetence on someone else or some other group as it has bumbled along. The trade union movement, the latest anti uranium movement, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal, and the Industries Assistance Commission are some of those bodies the Prime Minister has sought to blame for his own incompetence and that of his colleagues. Along with that the Prime Minister has sought to blame certain individuals.

It needs to be remembered that this Government came to office on a campaign of deception and divisiveness designed to set Australian against Australian. The Government is a corrupt government and in office it has continued its campaign of divisiveness and provocation. We need only to recall how the Australian domestic airlines- and it is coincidental that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) is at the table- were grounded for a week by the deliberate acts of provocation by the Prime Minister and by the Minister at the table which brought about the air traffic controllers strike. This was a strike that was never intended to happen, a strike that never should have happened and a strike that would not have happened but for the decided and determined provocation of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport.

Let me recall the words of a member of this House who at one time was concerned about the division in the community and the need for unity and national outlook and consensus. He said:

Are we so blind that we cannot read the writing on the wall? Are we going to allow this country to divide, to polarise? Are we going to allow issues to develop in this country that will split our people? Or are we going to seek to find and follow avenues of moderation on both sides in the interests of a united Australia moving forward in our times?

These were the words spoken by the Minister for Transport during the Address-in-Reply debate on 12 March 1974. That extract exposes the hypocrisy of his Government and its Ministers because since coming to office it has pursued a policy of confrontation and crisis in an attempt to conceal its own incompetence. The Prime Minister’s second Budget is a continuation of the cruel strategy of the first- a prescription for continued high level unemployment, reduced assistance to those in genuine need and economic stagnation.

Let me quickly advert to the transport estimates within the Budget. Overall transport has been a casualty in this Budget. The Minister for Transport is so strong in other areas within the Cabinet but he is weak in getting money for his own portfolio. He was a party to the proposal to increase the price of petrol by 1 lc per gallon, and this will increase cost pressures on all services but particularly transport services.

There is a reduction in real terms over the whole range of other services. The expenditure allocated for urban public transport represents a 25 per cent reduction on actual expenditure in the previous year when considered in real terms. The present Government has lost the opportunity in this Budget of providing a stimulus to manufacturing industry by pushing additional money into an urban public transport program for the construction of rolling stock and passenger stock. Total expenditure for the Department this year is to be $870m, an increase of $35. 8m in cash terms but a reduction of 8 per cent in real terms. The appropriation for road funds is $475m. Again in cash terms this represents an increase of $33.3m but a decrease of 3 per cent in real terms when compared with expenditure for the previous year. Likewise the allocation for road safety had been decreased. The appropriation in 1976-77 was $900,000 but in this year it is $790,000.

I mentioned that the opportunity has been lost to provide a stimulus to the economy in the urban public transport sector. It is in the manufacturing centres, particularly those in the metropolitan areas, where that lost opportunity is being felt most in terms of increased unemployment. We all recall that the conservatives who sit opposite promised that they would dramatically reduce inflation. Their failure to do so represents the most glaring breach of their promises. Inflation for the year ended June 1977 was 13.4 per cent. I am using accurate figures not the ‘newspeak’ figures, not the underlying figures. I am not disregarding the party that people do not want to hear about. The rate of inflation was 13.4 per cent compared with a rate of 12.3 per cent for the year ended June 1976. The Government, by its own actions in the past year, increased inflation by over one per cent.

The Budget Papers revealed that the increase in inflation has been higher in each of the six months of the Fraser Government than it was in the last six months of the Whitlam Government. Treasury figures reveal that the underlying rate of inflation, the new speak definition which the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is so fond of insisting is falling, has in fact jumped by some 47 per cent in the last sue months. Every major action taken by the Government has exacerbated inflation. I refer to such things as the increase in health insurance costs, the new compulsory health insurance tax, the massive devaluation of the dollar, and the 11c per gallon increase in petrol prices which will add to prices across the board and hit people in country towns worst of all. Large companies will be able to pass on the increase in company tax to consumers in the form of higher prices but it will mean further pressure on the liquidity position of small companies and small business people.

We all recall the contempt that the National Country Party and the conservatives had for small business in ali those years prior to 1975. In 1968 they commissioned an inquiry into small business and it took three years to complete the report. When they received the report they sat on it until after the change of government. The Labor Government tabled that report in 1973 and established the National Small Business Bureau. That shows the true record of their concern for small business. They used small business as a gimmick but they quickly dropped it. They are concerned to protect major corporations.

The Prime Minister’s view is that life was not meant to be easy and he is implementing that belief. He has converted that saying to make it read: ‘Life will not be easy’. I noticed in one of the records of an interview that he gave that he considers himself lucky. We have seen his behaviour. Living standards are declining and there is increasing unemployment but we have seen a lavish display of personal extravagance on the part of the Prime Minister and his Ministers. This Government paid $9,000 for a new dinner set for the Lodge but we cannot get $9,000 for a regional employment development program in the Hunter Valley. This Government has spent $16,000 on a specially built custom model Chrysler motor vehicle for the Prime Minister but we cannot get $16,000 for the shipbuilding industry.’ The Government is spending $250,000 on renovations to the Lodge because -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tell us about Gough’s Mercedes Benz and all his trips overseas. Come on. Be honest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I gather that the honourable member for Griffith is die next speaker. I suggest he should keep his remarks for that occasion.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are wrong; you are getting them now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member does not take advantage of putting his name on the speakers ‘ list it is not my fault.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek an extension of time. There has been a $3,000 abuse in the use of the VIP flight in order for some people to attend the opera in Sydney one evening. An Australiana fund has been set up aimed at turning Australia’s official residences into places of exhibition for Australian art. I have not yet mentioned the use of the VIP flight to get strawberries for the Queen’s visit. I will keep it for another occasion. The Prime Minister has made a total of eight visits overseas. Yet he was the man who said that we do not want international safaris and we do not want a tourist prime minister. He has averaged a trip overseas every 1 1 weeks. He is due for the next overseas visit very shortly. However he has declined to provide information about the true cost of those trips. There was the chartering of a Trident jet to fly the Prime Minister and his party of 20 from Brussels to Bonn. The cost of the charter was $18,000 which did not include the champagne breakfast.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Who wrote this rubbish?

Mr MORRIS:

– This is from figures produced by this Government. I did not produce them. The Treasurer had four overseas trips at a cost of $49,000.I must mention the cost of the charter.

Mr Nixon:

– I can tell you the cost now.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Minister refused to provide information on the cost. I wrote to him and asked for an estimate of the cost from Qantas Airways Ltd and he refused to supply the information. When he supplies that information I will be happy to debate it with him. The Government spent $18,000 to charter a British Trident jet to fly from Brussels to Bonn. Ken Begg of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was not able to travel on the charter flight so he travelled by train and was waiting there for some hours in advance of the Prime Minister and his party. That is the kind of extravagance we have from the Prime Minister and his parties for his friends but we have not got anything for the shipbuilding industry and we have not got anything for the mother I mentioned earlier who has a four-year old child who could not have an abscess removed from his mouth because the school dental program has been slashed by this Government.

Let us remember what was said by the Prime Minister in the policy speech he delivered in November 1 975. In that policy he said:

Let us all, as Australians, determine to restore prosperity, defeat inflation and provide jobs for all.

Well, he has done very well; he has destroyed business confidence, he has destroyed the countryside, he has increased the price of petrol by 15 per cent and he has increased unemployment to about 350,000 as well as abolishing the records for it. He also said:

There will be no international safaris by members of the Parliament.

I referred to that earlier. He also said:

Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister.

He went on to say:

We will reduce the tax burden.

I have described the change in the taxation system. He also said:

We will index personal income taxation for inflation over three years.

We saw what the Australian Financial Review had to say about that matter. It exposed the clever trick of the halving of indexation for the year 1977-78. The Prime Minister also said:

Unless confidence in private enterprise revives-

Mr Neil:
Mr MORRIS:

– This is what got the honourable member for St George into this place. The Prime Minister said:

Unless confidence in private enterprise revives Australia quite literally faces economic disaster. Inflation will never be overcome. There will never be enough jobs.

That is one part of the policy speech which was accurate. This is what the President of the Small Business and Self-Employed Association of Australia, Mr Charles Connolly, said when he saw the Budget. He described it as the greatest sell-out. He said:

Philip Lynch and Malcolm Fraser came to power on a promise of real tax reform. This is just a window dressing.

On page 8 of the policy speech the Prime Minister said:

We will give the rural community the confidence and certainty it so desperately needs.

This is what Mr Barry Cassell, until recently the National Director of the National Country Party, thought about the Budget. He described it as an utter disaster for primary industry with little incentive for farmers to stay on the land. He said that the Budget was devastating for cattlemen and appeared to be nothing more than a sleight of hand trick.

Mr Sainsbury:

-But he is a member of the National Country Party.

Mr MORRIS:

-Until recently he was the National Director of the National Country Party but he has gained wisdom and seen the error of his ways. He has moved out to combat the National Country Party because it does not concern itself with country townspeople. He has abandoned the incompetence of the National Country Party.

The Ilea gallon increase in petrol tax which has been promoted since 1974 by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) will fall most heavily upon the people in country areas. They will bear the greatest burden as a result of increased freight rates. They do not have an alternative transport system. They do not have any way of shifting the burden of increased cost of petroleum in the operation of a private transport vehicle. This is only an increased indirect tax because there is no semblance of an energy conservation plan that might justify to some degree an increase in excise on petroleum products. There are many other ways that could be tried to ration fuel supplies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-I rise to support the Budget. It is interesting to follow the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) having heard his views on the way in which the major problems of the economy should be resolved. I was interested to note that while his leader speaks in terms of deficits or multi-billions of dollars the honourable member for Shortland talks in terms of a few thousand dollar here and a few thousand dollars there. It perhaps suggests a reduction in the economic stature, if nothing else, of the honourable member. It seems to put into perspective the sort of sniping attitude of so many of the Opposition members when they endeavour to deal with the major economic problems facing the nation in such an important debate as this, the debate on the Budget. We hear the piddling complaints on minor matters such as whether a tea set was bought-

Mr Morris:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw to your attention to that part of Standing Order which relates to the use of offensive words. To ascertain whether the language used by the honourable member for Macarthur is offensive, I ask you to define the word piddling’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I do not think that it is for the Chair to define any word for the House but I suggest that the honourable member for Macarthur use a less colloquial form oflanguage.

Mr BAUME:

– I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and bow to your guidance. I must say that I was stimulated to excessive response by the curious approach by the honourable member for Shortland to the nation’s major problems. He sees them in terms of whether someone spent a couple of thousand dollars on a dinner service but I would have thought that this House was more interested in noting the difference between the spending of billions of dollars which his Party sees as the only way to get us out of our economic problems- it’s solution, in other words, is to throw money around the place and bring about the same sort of disastrous inflation that took place under the administration of which he was an insignificant member- and the situation that we now face where responsible administration is taking the place of financial ratbaggery.

It is most disappointing to note that the honourable member for Shortland continued the disgraceful and misleading attack on the Government’s taxation advantages, the new systems which bring benefits to all taxpayers. There has been a deliberate policy of knocking the Government’s magnificent new tax reductions and this unfortunately has succeeded in confusing the people of Australia. Quite frankly, I regard it as one of the more extraordinary examples of political dishonesty. Critics have tried to prove that taxation has not been reduced and that somehow the poor are being disadvantaged to the benefit of the rich. That was the line that came across from the honourable member for Shortland. It is, of course, utter and complete nonsense. The facts are clear and simple. There will be tax savings for everyone and, just in case under some hypothetical rate of inflation, the new system does mean, with half indexation plus the new exemption rates, that someone will suffer a disadvantage- this is possible but unlikely- the Government has guaranteed and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) have given an assurance that in 1978-79 all taxpayers will be better off than they would have been under the present system with full indexation. Yet in the face of that statement the Opposition still deliberately maintains that nonsense that some people will be worse off.

The facts about what has happened to taxation under this Government compared with what happened to taxation under the previous Government should be stated with extreme vigour. Let us recognise that under the Hayden

Budget pensioners were taxed for the first time. Pensioners were taxed under a system that was supposed to be a great and revolutionary improvement. I have superannuated pensioners in my electorate who were faced for the first time with paying taxation as a result of the Hayden Budget. They have said to me: ‘What are you people going to do about it?’ This Budget does something about it. One quarter of a million people in Australia now will no longer have to pay tax as a result of the new system. I submit that the bulk of those people are pensioners. Let us look at the reductions in the tax rates as they affect single people. For example, someone on $60 a week, who under the Hayden Budget had to pay $3. 1 2 a week tax, has had his obligation to pay tax completely removed. Someone on $80 a week, who under the Hayden Budget paid $8.52 in tax, will pay only $2.52 a week tax from 1 February 1978, a reduction of 70.4 per cent at the lower end of the scale. A person on $100 a week has had a tax reduction of 37.3 per cent. The person on $120 a week has had a tax reduction of 27.8 per cent, and so on. As income increases the tax saving goes down. In other words, poorer people do better than the richer people. This is clearly shown in a table which I have prepared. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

The table read as follows:

Mr BAUME:

-I thank the House. A taxpayer on $100 a week with a dependent spouse, who used to have to pay $6.54 a week in tax, now will pay no tax. He has had a 100 per cent tax reduction under this Government. A taxpayer on $120 a week with a dependent spouse used to pay under the Hayden Budget $13.54 tax a week. He has had a 65 per cent reduction. So, it is evident that there have been major and significant tax benefits given to the people of Australia by this Government thereby significantly offsetting the massive disadvantages which so many sections of the Australian taxpaying public had to face under the Labor Government’s last Budget. I say last ‘ in hope as well as in history.

In addition the new system whereby everyone gets the first $3,750 of his income totally tax free brings very significant advantages. Because this new marginal tax rate of 32c in the dollar will apply only to income over that level, workers no longer will get pushed into higher tax brackets if they work overtime or get a rise But despite all these benefits this cynical attack continues to be mounted. I attended a recent seminar at Wollongong University at which it was claimed that this new system was unfair to those on lower incomes because someone on $5,000 a year paid the same marginal tax rate as someone on $16,000 a year. This piece of intellectual deceit ignores reality which is, I suppose, a common failure in some universities these days. The reality is that someone earning $5,000 now has to pay tax on only $1,250. He will pay nothing at all on the initial $3,750. As is pointed out in the table which I incorporated in Hansard, it means that on average he will be paying only 8c in the dollar on his total income. Next year, of course, this will go down to about 7c in the dollar. If this is not a reduction, for heaven’s sakes, what is?

In recent years there is no doubt that incentive to work has been diminished by excessively high taxes on all levels of income. This new scale has been introduced to restore incentive. In the past, particularly in the Labor years of 1973, 1974 and 1975, there was a massive increase in everyone’s tax. Honourable members will remember that the Hayden Budget clearly set out to increase pay as you earn tax collections by 44 per cent, even though it was only budgeting for an increase in wages of 22 per cent. In other words, tax would go up under the Hayden Budget at double the rate of wages. That was the approach of the Australian Labor Party to taxing the worker. This Government has set about to reverse that trend.

There is no doubt that the people of Australia very clearly showed in December 1975 that they would rather have more of their own money to spend than have it taken from them and spent by the Government. The most significant factor of the new tax system, as I stated before, is that the Fraser Government has introduced a system which totally exempts lower income earners from tax. I stress this situation because it is a major matter of concern in my electorate. So many superannuated pensioners who had suddenly been forced to pay tax for the first time as a result of the Hayden Labor Budget will now end up having to pay no tax at all as a result of the present Government’s policy. Those superannuated pensioners whose incomes are over this level will now pay tax at a far lower rate than Labor’s so-called reforms put them on. There is no doubt that our tax reform is a real benefit to all taxpayers, particularly the poor and those on low incomes. What is astounding is that the Opposition has managed to confuse the Australian people and also sections of the media about the reality of these benefits. The Opposition did the same thing in relation to tax indexation when we introduced it in the first place. It brought clear benefits to taxpayers through their pay packets at the beginning of last month. Taxpayers’ pay packets will snow the benefits from the latest tax reforms when the new scheme becomes effective next February. As far as I am concerned for the Australian Labor Party then it will be money up shut up. In February the extra money in each pay packet will tell the story as it did in the first pay packet in July when people got the first clear benefits of indexation in substantial form.

I believe there is a general lack of awareness of the thrust of the Government’s economic policies. Once again I think this is emerging from a confused response to last year’s Budget. This year’s Budget clearly continues the style of approach adopted last year. Last year’s Budgetonce again this is clearly evident from the Budget papers- succeeded in almost all its major objectives. It achieved its targets with one major exception and that one major exception was unemployment. It would be foolish of us to pretend that the Budget had done anything but fail to meet that target. There is perhaps one less significant point where there was a failure and that was in the sense that there seemed to be some excessive governmental activity relative to private sector activity. In other words, despite the immense attempts by the Federal Government to limit growth in Government activity in order to allow greater scope for the private sector, there was nevertheless a continuing increase particularly, for example, in Government consumption spending.

It is interesting to note that despite the massive and continual attacks by the Opposition on the way in which this Government is alleged to have slashed Government spending the statistics available in the National Income and Expenditure Paper which is Budget Paper No. 9 are worthy of being pointed out to the House. Table No. 14 shows that Government final consumption expenditure increased by $ 1 ,903m or 1 7 per cent in 1976-77, which is a rise of 5 per cent in constant prices after accounting for inflation. Let us note that fact. There has been a 5 per cent rise at constant prices or 17 per cent overall for government final consumption expenditure. Let us look at private final consumption expenditure which, at constant prices, rose by just under 3 per cent- 2.7 per cent to 2.8 per cent. In other words, government consumption expenditure increased at a rate almost double that of the private sector. Is it not extraordinary that even in that situation honourable members opposite are bellowing about savage cuts in the government sector. The fact is that, if anything, the Government is continuing to be intrusive into the total level of activity within the community. To my mind it is disappointing that the private sector consumption level increased by only 2.7 per cent or 2.8 per cent as against a 5 per cent growth in government final consumption spending.

The side issue which emerges from this is fascinating. I hope that honourable members who have difficulty trying to counter the nonsense put out by various premiers on the matter will note the extraordinary well-off situation of State and local governments as a result of this Government’s federalism policies which are demonstrated in the Budget papers. In this government final consumption expenditure, although Federal authorities increased their expenditure by 13 per cent which is very little in real terms after inflation, the increase for State and local government authorities was 19 per cent which is a very significant increase over the Federal spending level. Federalism is working. The organs of government which are well off these days are the State governments and local governments as a result of this Government’s clear policy. These Budget papers clearly demonstrate that to be so. When State authorities complain and bellow about not having enough money for specific programs because the Federal Government has cut back that program, they clearly refuse to concede the point that, overall, they are getting a substantial increase over what they were getting in the past. They are certainly doing far better than is the Federal Government.

But let us get back to the major disappointment which, of course is unemployment. Why did last year’s Budget fail to meet its employment target? Let us Face it. The Government met the target of 4 per cent growth in gross domestic product but let us remember that in that Budget it was estimated that of that 4 per cent growth, 2 per cent would be provided by increased productivity and 2 per cent by the increase in the work force. As the work force was expected to rise by 2 per cent the number of jobs available was to rise by 2 per cent. Therefore, there would be only moderate scope for reduction in the number of unemployed. The hope, the intention, the Budget strategy was that that 4 per cent growth in gross domestic product would bring about a reduction, even though slight, in unemployment. But more importantly, it would provide the basis for a gradual, strong, firm economic recovery and would provide capacity for further reductions in unemployment. That did not happen last year because productivity went up by 3.6 per cent. After some curious adjustments were made to the previous year’s figuresquite frankly, I think the adjustments were of an extraordinary large variety; I do not think they reflected terribly well on the quality of statistical collection- instead of a 4.3 per cent increase in the gross domestic product, the figure came out at about 3.5 per cent.

In other words, there was a 3.5 per cent rise in the gross domestic product and a 3.6 per cent rise in productivity. This was not necessarily because people worked harder or better. It was because m the Labor induced recession many employers failed to dismiss staff, particularly skilled staff. They preferred to keep them on, underemployed. The recovery we have had is a substantial and significant recovery which is budgeted to continue into this year. In that recovery these people could be more effectively and more fully employed. As a result productivity would increase. In addition, many industries were required by the force of external competition to increase their capacity for plant improvement. This meant that many people were pushed out of jobs or else there was no need to increase the number in the work force. This does not mean that the Government’s overall strategy failed by any means.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What a curious debate this Budget debate has been. I am delighted to follow the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). Recently I had the good fortune to speak to an erstwhile professional colleague of his in the stockbroking business, a person who in 1975 worried about the future of the securities industry, who had been an enthusiastic backer of the coalition parties and who had campaigned very strenuously and had contributed to the best of his financial ability to the overthrow of the Labor Government. I asked him how he was going and whether his prospects had improved in the intervening period, particularly since the introduction of the first Lynch Budget last year, and what they looked like on the eve of the Budget this year. He said that they have improved tremendously; that whereas in 1976 he had been without a job, in 1977 he had a job as a cab driver on the midnight to 6 a.m. shift. That is what happened to one of the colleagues of the honourable member for Macarthur. It is a true story. This man knows that the economy is not in good shape. Who are Government members kidding in this business? The problem is that in 1 975 they completely oversold themselves. They oversold their colleagues who came in on silly slogans such as ‘Turn on the lights’. They had the idea that at a stroke they could turn around an economy, as an island, regardless of what was happening in the rest of the world and regardless of the structures then existing in the Australian economy. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the monetary policy not working because the Government does not control wage policy as there is an arbitration commission. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not spring into existence on 13 December 1975. The system has been in existence for 73 years. The Commission existed between 1972 and 1975.

These purist Friedmanites want to talk about their crackpot theories. No one overseas will pay them any heed if they whinge about not being able to control wage policy, because no Friedmanite overseas wants to control wages.

Let us get it perfectly straight. The Labor Government was not the profligate government it was painted. There was an argument within the Government and between the Government and the Opposition about the share of resources between the public and private sectors. There always will be. The Labor Party will always push hardest to change the existing profiles because we believe that this society is unjust, and we want to change it. There is nothing peculiar about that. There is nothing in that which ought to alarm anybody. That has been history.

It is absurd to say that we printed money and that we did not cut back expenditure. Of course we did. What we did- Budget time is a time to examine this- was to look at priorities. We should look at where this Government has cut expenditure and where it has given away revenue. It has given it away in a very sectional manner. It has given it away for no good economic reasons. In the financial year 1977-78 the promises made so blithely in 1976 are having to be redeemed. We are faced with the madly generous investment allowances, with the doing away of the coal export levy and with stock depreciation provisions which are unnecessarily generous and which serve no economic usefulness in the existing climate. Last year we were told that these things were the salvation of the Australian economy and that this year things would start again.

Now, in Budget No. 2 of the Fraser Government, with the prospect of a third if the Government is prepared to risk a half Senate election, we are told that three years is not long enough. That has not changed either. At the most there has only been three years for an Australian Government. So who is the Government kidding? Economic debate goes on throughout the year. It goes on in relation to wages policy. It goes on in relation to monetary policy. The Budget is only part of it. For Government members to suggest in the House that this Budget will have a major impact on the economy is nonsense. They say that they are concerned about deficits. They can reduce the deficit by not giving up that revenue to which I referred. But they give it up, and I believe for no good economic reason.

Today we heard of the massive capital outflows from Australia. I do not welcome that. No one on this side does. That kind of situation is allowed to occur because the present Government has undermined the institutions that it is able to call on to shore up the Australian dollar. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) placed himself in the absurd position of pouring scorn on the notion of international borrowings. It was during the

Labor Party’s time in power that on the New York securities and capital markets Australia became for the first time a triple A rated borrower. That is a strength on which we could have drawn and on which we are now drawing. The Treasurer who so scorned borrowing was forced last year, early this year and is forced now to borrow on international capital markets. How has the Government done it? Some of the more recent borrowings may be unexceptionable, but prior to that they were at unnecessarily high interest rates, expecially in the Swiss franc market, because of the way in which the Government chose to approach those markets.

This Government is not a team of experts. It has bungled and bumbled at every turn. Last May we were told that a wage-price freeze was to be our salvation. Now we hear nothing about it. We heard nothing in the week preceding its proposed introduction. During the following fortnight we were led to believe that the future of Australia depended on this half baked crackpot idea being implemented. This Government has been on a consistent course since it came to power. In May 1976 it looked at the appropriations passed by the coalition parties in the Senate. It looked at those appropriations and determined to cut them to the bone, to limit every type of expenditure. It did not do so for economic reasons. It did so for purely ideological reasons -to cut back on the expansion of opportunity in Australia.

In the Budget last year the pattern was continued, and it has been continued quite predictably in this Budget. No one need be surprised. The Tory parties do not pretend that they believe in the provision of community services. On the eve of an election they come out with the idea of tax cuts. We just heard the most pathetic defence of them by the honourable member for Macarthur, a man who knows better, a man who can understand and a man who, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), is able to read 100 pages in a report and get to the next sentence. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cannot agree on the cost of the tax cuts, is it any wonder that the Australian community is confused? The Australian people are not confused about their real cash incomes each week. The fact is that any taxpayer with dependants is worse off as a result of the removal of a rebate for dependant children and the substitution of rates of child endowment which are unindexed. Quite clearly, that person is demonstrably worse off. Intelligent self-interest is not going to allow persons on low or middle incomes to permit the Government to get away with this deception, just as people in the Australian community still have a conscience and will not allow the Government to get away with its proposed scheme for the payment of unemployment benefit.

Debate interrupted.

page 966

ADJOURNMENT

The Parliament -Mining Industry: Retrenchments-Sinnamon Retirement Village, Brisbane-Unparliamentary Language-Minister for Veterans’ Affairs

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March 1977, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I want to take a few moments to record a view about the impact of section 24 of the Constitution upon both the way in which we run this Paliament and the future of the Parliament. I raise this matter in view of the fact that a redistribution is being carried out and probably the present proposals will be agreed to. Basically, this redistribution will be one of the fairer ones that has been carried out since I came to this Parliament. I raise this matter also because a lot of consideration is being given to the new and permanent Parliament House. Section 24 of the Constitution states:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

What that means exactly is that as a result of the present redistribution there will be a reduction in the number of members in this House. I think that is a very serious departure from the needs of this Parliament.

I am moved to say something about this matter because in the past 18 months I have been pretty active on some of the parliamentary committees. I happen to represent a smallish electorate, which has the good sense to vote Labor very solidly, I work at it, I hope pretty effectively. Geographically one has an advantage in living m Melbourne because of its proximity to Canberra. I find the execution of my duties a very heavy burden, as I know all my colleagues do. It is very difficult to service the committees. If we are going to have an effective committee system it is idiotic to reduce the number of members in this House. It is totally illogical to reduce the number of members in this House at the same time as the burden on members is increasing, and to do so at a time when the population is increasing is even more idiotic.

I believe that the fundamental principle of representation is accessibility to members. In 1949 there were about 8 million people to be represented and the size of this Parliament was doubled. There are now about 14 million people. I suggest that we should not try to break the nexus as such between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Obviously, that would arouse the ire of the senators. But if we do not do something about the situation in the next five or ten years I suspect that there will be so many pressures upon this institution that we will have to increase the size of the House of Representatives. To do that we will have to increase the size of the Senate. There would not be too many supporters in this place or in the community for a proposition such as that.

It seems to me that the only tiling to do is to adopt a totally different proposition from the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives which now defines our numbers and relates to population. I have circulated to all honourable members my view about this. I have suggested that we ought to conduct a referendum on a proposal that there be one member of the House of Representatives for every 100,000 people or part thereof in each of the States and Territories. In that way we would also protect the rights of the original States. It seems to me that 100,000 people is a reasonable number, but I still think it is slightly more than members of parliament ought to represent if they are going to do it property. I suggest that we ought to do this because the response to my letter to all honourable members indicates that the general feeling is that we ought to do it.

One of the interesting things about this institution is that we can reach a stage where everybody is in complete agreement but nothing happens. It took 10 years to get going in 1967 the referendum concerning Aborigines, in which I took an active part, even though for the last five years everybody was in complete agreement. I do not support the theory that people will not vote for constitutional change. I thought the referendums this year were a pretty good demonstration of the fact that people are starting to think about the Constitution. People might say- not those in the House tonight who have shown enough intelligence to come and listen to me- that people are sick and tired of elections. They are not.

Mr Hayden:

– It is only politicians who are.

Mr BRYANT:

-No. We fight elections every year in the municipality in my electorate with more vigour than most people fight Federal elections. The honourable member will be satisfied and gratified to know that we won very strongly a week or so back. I think that while people are thinking about referendum issues and constitutional matters and have the memory of the recent referendums clearly in their minds it is a good time to run another referendum. If enough time is taken to educate them about it we can get on with the job. If we do not alter section 24 of the Constitution, the next thing we will have on our hands will be another 60 senators- perish the thought.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– I would like to put the record straight in relation to retrenchments in Kalgoorlie and Kambalda. It is unfortunate that the mining industry has its ups and downs and it is even more unfortunate that people like the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) take some delight in other people’s misfortunes, particularly in reference to the retrenchments in Kalgoorlie, Kambalda and Scotia. The honourable member completely misrepresented the case at Question Time today. I deplore the actions of Labor politicians in making political mileage out of other people’s misfortunes. Incidentally, I did take the trouble to try to notify Mr Beazley that I was going to speak on this subject tonight. If the honourable member had taken the trouble to check the facts with the local member he would have seen that the Federal Government and the State government together have shown a good deal of concern over this matter. What is more, these two governments have acted swiftly to ensure that hardship is minimised at Kalgoorlie, Kambalda and Scotia. If the honourable member for Fremantle has as much genuine concern for the unemployed in Fremantle as I and this Government have shown for the unemployed people of Kalgoorlie he could hold his head high.

The facts are that the State Liberal government and the Federal government acted immediately to set up a special task force to seek out jobs for anyone retrenched from the mines. Several special officers from the Commonwealth Employment Service and the State Industrial Relations Bureau moved to Kalgoorlie, Kambalda and Scotia and set up special offices in those centres. They registered potential unemployed, sought job placements, advised all people involved of their entitlements and the possibilities in regard to retraining and relocation programs. These were well reported in the local Press. It is fairly significant that the manager of the CES office at Kalgoorlie said today that staff should be able to place most of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers who had registered. Two hundred and fifty dismissed men registered with the CES confirmed today that all tradesmen and skilled men had been placed. Retraining courses, which had started last year for men put out of work by cutbacks in gold production, may be available to nickel workers sacked by the Western Mining Corporation Ltd. This announcement by Mr Grayden, the State Minister, was reported in the local Press on 2 September.

More than 100 vacancies in Western Australia and the eastern States were notified to the CES in Kalgoorlie. These related to the retrenchments in that area. These included positions with the Agnew Mining Co. Pty Ltd, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, Goldsworthy Mining- all from the Pilbara Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd in Whyalla, South Australia, including 40 unskilled positions, EZ Industries, Tasmania, Westrail Norseman and companies in the metropolitan area. A recruiting team led by a Mr Green from the EZ Company of Queenstown, Tasmania, has just left Kalgoorlie. He wished to recruit at least 22 hard rock miners, 1 1 tradesmen and one cost clerk. When he left yesterday he had signed 15 workers, mainly hard rock miners. So a lot is being done in the Kalgoorlie area to alleviate the hardship being caused by these retrenchments and no one is more aware of this than I and this Government. On top of this the State Government of Western Australia has announced a scheme to employ unskilled people. This scheme will be operated through local shires. The Boulder Shire Council has drawn up a list of 19 potential projects and skilled vacancies that would be suitable for financial assistance under stipulated State Government regulations. The State Government has requested the Kalgoorlie Shire Council, the Boulder Shire Council and the Coolgardie Shire Council to submit works projects for consideration for assistance. The State Government will pay the wages provided the councils use existing plant and equipment and provide materials.

On top of this, in response to a request by the Mayor of Kalgoorlie to Mr Anthony and Mr Street to visit Kalgoorlie, two very senior officials from the departments of those Ministers are today in Kalgoorlie investigating the situation to see what more can be done. It is realised, of course, that it is impossible for both Mr Anthony and Mr Street to be in Kalgoorlie at this time. They took the next best step available to them and sent two senior officers from their departments. It is apparent that the Government of Western Australia and the Federal Government in Canberra have taken every possible step to alleviate the hardship.

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-On 27 September the Sinnamon Retirement Village at Oxley in Brisbane will be opened. There will be an official opening function which is to be formally presided over by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable J. M. Fraser. I raise this matter because the Sinnamon Retirement Village is situated in my electorate and obviously I have some interest in the project. I shall give honourable members some of the details of the program; it may well interest them. One hunderd per cent of the cost of the program has in fact been met by the Australian Government, and the total grant from the Australian Government is almost $4.6m. The reason I have a particular interest in this matter, apart from the fact that the project is situated in my electorate, arises from the fact that I was Minister for Social Security at the time at which the program was approved by the then Australian Government.

What particularly distresses me about this is that as a matter of common courtesy it has been the convention that when a project such as this which has been funded by an Australian government is opened, among those people who speak at such an opening function is the local member of parliament. I would have thought that given the fact that I am the local member of parliament and also that I was the Minister who approved this program, there may have been at least some recognition of the fact that I had a reasonable claim to make some sort of public appearance at the official ceremony, indicating my commitment to the program and my continuing and not unhelpful interest in that program. I say ‘not unhelpful interest’ because I did maintain a keen interest in the development of the program, as can be confirmed by officials of the Methodist Church which is associated with the Sinnamon Retirement Village. Indeed, it was that keen interest which I believe helped expedite the conclusion of the formalities and so on which allowed the development of the program to get underway and eventually to reach the stage where accommodation is able to be offered.

I repeat that the project is probably the most expensive which has been funded by the Australian Government, with $4.6m being provided by the Government for hostel accommodation for more than 300 people. What irritates me is that the Prime Minister’s Department has advised the Wesley Central Mission, which is the organisation that seems to be responsible for this program, that speeches are to be kept to a rninimum and that I am not to be allowed to speak at the official function. I do not lose a great deal of sleep over that. If the Prime Minister wants to be trivial and petty in these things, then so be it. I would not waste time on the matter. However, I think it ought to go on the public record that we have a Prime Minister of the nation who, in a parish pump matter, is prepared to demean and trivialise, to make mean and petty this matter in the way in which I have indicated. If it is his wish to exclude me, then, I repeat, so be it. All I can say is that my ego is flattered enormously to discover that the Prime Minister is so concerned about me that he has apparently issued an instruction through his Department that I am not to be allowed to participate in the official ceremony that afternoon as a speaker.

I repeat that I was the Minister who approved this program. I also was the local member of parliament who happened to be the Minister for Social Security at the time and who took a great deal of interest in the program from its inception to the point where approval was provided for it to get underway. The program was approved on 20 March 1975. All I can say is that we have a very petty Prime Minister. It is a shame. I do not intend to attend the opening ceremony. I know where I am not wanted. If that is the way in which the Prime Minister cares to conduct the affairs of this country, it is a fair insight into the size of the man- physically large; spiritually and intellectually shallow.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– The honourable member for Oxley ( Mr Hayden), having recently junketed up and down the Queensland coast telling lies to farmers, apparently is going back to his electorate. That statement is quite easy to substantiate. I should like to speak for a couple of minutes about what I consider to be a very serious subject. Tonight the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) was pulled up by the Chair for using the word piddling’ during a speech. Last night the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that the honourable member said that I went up and down the coast telling lies to farmers. I went up and down the coast of Queensland reporting to the people on National Country Party policy. I suppose it is the same thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Oxley knows that that is -

Mr Hayden:

– If you deny that that is a point of order, then I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to withdraw that comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr SAINSBURY:

– The honourable member for Oxley is reported to have said that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty has been withdrawn; and, of course, it has not. That is a matter of record. Of course, that goes along with his general philosophy. I really do have something very serious to speak about tonight. I do not suppose that I will get much support from honourable members opposite. As I said, the honourable member for Macarthur was pulled up for using the word ‘piddling’. The honourable member for Robertson used the word ‘bloody’ last night. I heard it in the House. We do not mind that because those words are accepted these days, even by public people. I do not like to be critical of people and I prefer to be positive; but I believe that in this Parliament there is an onus on us to respect groups in our community.

Tonight I was most shocked by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) who purports to be interested in minority groups and ethnic groups. I really do not know why he is the shadow Minister. I really do not know how he can bear to be part of an opposition which when in government cut migration to this country and, therefore, obviously had very little interest in migration. The honourable member for Melbourne had the hide to blaspheme twice during his speech in this House. I do not know why the person in the chair at the time did not stop him. Honourable members opposite can say what they like, but I believe that this is something that we do not need in this House.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You are a guttersnipe.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-I believe that there is one group in this community for which people do not have very much regard.

Mr Bourchier:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. A comment was made by the h onourable member for Grayndler that should be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has asked that a remark be withdrawn. I did not hear the remark. If an unparliamentary remark was made, I ask the honourable member concerned to withdraw it.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Perhaps you can tell me, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is unparliamentary, because I am an honest fellow and when dobbed in by a copper I will own up. I accused this fellow of being a guttersnipe. I do not know whether that is unparliamentary, but it is true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The public address system evidently is not working very well this evening. It was impossible for me to hear the remark. If the honourable member for Grayndler assures me that the remark was not one that should be withdrawn, I can only accept what the honourable member says. I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to a comment I heard. Someone said that the honourable member for Ballaarat was stupid. I take offence at that remark -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not finished.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley -

Mr Hayden:

– I take offence at that remark -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley knows that he is not raising a point of order and that his comments should not be made. I suggest that the honourable member for Oxley resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– Well, stupid people -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will cease to comment. I call the honourable member for EdenMonaro.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-Honourable members opposite have taken up my time. I might be old fashioned, but I believe that it is in extremely bad taste to blaspheme in this House. I intend to suggest to Mr Speaker that it is most unparliamentary. I was affronted, and I am very serious about what I have said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I mentioned earlier that the acoustics in the chamber at the moment do not appear to be very good. It has been pointed out to me by the honourable member for Wills that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro used a phrase which is unparliamentary. I apologise to the honourable member for Oxley for not picking up what he said when he asked that the remark be withdrawn. In the circumstances, I ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to withdraw the comment he made when he referred to the honourable member for Oxley going up and down the coast of Queensland. He made a certain comment which I suggest he should withdraw.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-I should have described him as mendacious, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I rise tonight to congratulate the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) on his promotion. He is a man who suffered great mental torture. He had the strength of character to fight back against very serious public allegations against him which caused him to appear in the Court of Petty Sessions in Canberra on a criminal charge of bribery. I am glad that his strength of character has been such that he fought against this awful stigmaone of the worst in the minds of many people that can be levelled against a man in the public eye. On the back benches he showed that he was suffering from great mental strain during the terrific ordeal. It is to the credit also of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that he restored him to the heavy responsibility of Cabinet rank.

I do not think that I could have withstood the strain of appearing in court on an allegation that I had passed a $500 bribe to a man.

Mr Macphee:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Hunter abuses the procedures of this House time and time again. He is making allegations on which he knows the court has cleared the honourable member for Curtin. Time and time again he abuses honourable members in this House on matters which he knows are entirely unjustified.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Hunter that he phrase his remarks this evening very carefully. I have been listening carefully to what he has been saying. As the honourable member for Hunter knows, certain inferences can be made in such a manner that it is difficult for the Chair to rule that those inferences are an accusation or are unparliamentary. Not only should the honourable member for Hunter consider the Standing Orders but also he should consider the spirit of the Standing Orders in relation to other honourable members.

Mr JAMES:

-I am most careful not to infringe the Standing Orders. It ill becomes the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) to take exception. I am paying tribute to the strength of character of a Minister who has been able to climb back. I believe it is to bis credit. He had a serious allegation made against him about a bribe of $500. Furthermore, it is to his credit that after the termination of proceedings he surrendered that $500. He made no claim to it. He left it at the Canberra Times office. This was the reply I received to a question on notice.

Mr Sainsbury:

– You are a guttersnipe.

Mr JAMES:

-I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that this debate is being assisted by interjections. I suggest that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro withdraw that remark.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Sainsbury:

– I withdraw the remark without reservation.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I asked you to ask the supposed gentleman from Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) to withdraw exactly the same remark you asked him to repeat it. The honourable member stood up, repeated the remark and said that he meant it. He described the honourable member for Eden-Moonaro in a certain way. You said that the honourable member for Grayndler gave you an assurance that that word is not unparliamentary. You said that you accepted the assurance. But then, Mr Deputy Speaker, you made an honourable member on this side of the House withdraw exactly the same word. If it is good enough for honourable members on one side, it must be good enough for honourable members on the other side. Incidentally, let me point out that I take grave exception to the honourable member for Oxley accusing the honourable member for Ballaarat, in his absence, of being stupid. At least the honourable member for Ballaarat, as far as I know, has never been unfortunate enough to have any psychiatric trouble.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member knows that there is no substance in the point of order that he has raised. That applies also in respect to the second portion of the point of order. The honourable member also knows that I suggested to the honourable member for Oxley that he should not proceed in the manner in which he was speaking and that he knew there was no substance to the point of order he raised.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Grayndler used a word referring personally to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, I would request its withdrawal.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think there is any confusion about what I said. I articulate very clearly, much more clearly than the ill educated tones that come from the honourable member for Bendigo. I said that when the copper over there dobbed someone in- of course I own up; I do not deny saying what I said. I said- I do not point in the fashion that you permitted the honourable member for Bendigo to do- of the honourable member for EdenMonaro that he was a guttersnipe. Anybody who introduces into this Parliament the kind of matter that he does fits that description. Whether that is unparliamentary or not, I do not know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Grayndler knows that such words should not be used in a personal reference to an honourable member. I confess that I thought the honourable member had used the words in a general way of comment, not about the individual person concerned. If the honourable member for Grayndler used the term in regard to a person, I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no confusion. I said, ‘You are a guttersnipe’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Grayndler to withdraw the remark.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. I clearly heard someone say of the honourable member for Bendigo that he was -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you have not heard what I have to say yet. I am very concerned about the unparliamentary comment which I heard from the direction of the honourable member for Bendigo- that he was deaf, dumb, blind and stupid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

– I am offended by that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I will name the honourable member for Oxley -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot because I am telling you what I heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am telling you what I heard someone say. I want it withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– No matter how true the remark is, I want it withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member has been here long enough -

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, with due respect, I say to you that it has been a difficult week. I think it would be wrong to name a member.

Mr Hayden:

– I am telling you what I heard. I heard someone say it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did not name the honourable member for Oxley. I said that if he continued to defy the Chair I would name him.

Mr Uren:

– Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We want to leave on a happy note.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I do not think it is upholding the prestige of this House if honourable members make a statement which they would not be allowed to make normally by saying that they heard a remark about an honourable member and that the remark is not true. I suggest that honourable members who follow that practice are not helping in the running of the House or upholding the prestige of the House in any way whatsoever. Any contribution that does anything to damage the prestige of the House is not helpful to any honourable member, to the parties or to the system under which we work. I think honourable members should think about this on occasions before they take action in this House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 972

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Broken Hill Pry Co. Ltd: Income Tax (Question No. 148)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Has the Broken Hill Pry Co. Ltd made representations to the Government for amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act to allow investments by one of its subsidiary companies in the North West Shelf development to be offset against the profits from its subsidiary operating the Bass Strait oil field.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Motor Vehicle Imports (Question No. 161)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing in the Australian Financial Review of 6 January 1977 to the effect that the Government is unable to reimpose quotas on motor vehicle imports until it receives a new report on this matter from the Industries Assistance Commission; if so, is the report accurate
  2. How many motor vehicles were imported into Australia in each calendar month of 1976 in (a) built-up and (b) knocked-down form, and into what category of vehicle did each import fall.
  3. What was the gross amount spent on (a) imported motor vehicles and (b) imported parts for motor vehicles in each calendar month of 1 976.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The IAC’s report on Passenger Motor VehiclesExtension of Import Restrictions of 16 November 1976 which was the subject of the report in the Australian Financial Review has now been released. The Government does not intend to take any further action upon it.
  2. The Australian Statistician has provided the following statistics of imports of assembled and unassembled motor vehicles and parts therefor for each month of 1976. In the case of unassembled vehicles and parts and accessories, the statistics are shown only for value of imports because information on quantities imported is not recorded.
  3. The Australian Statistician has no information on the gross amounts spent in Australia on imported motor vehicles or imported parts for motor vehicles. The value provided in answer to (2 ) above represent the value of imports for customs purposes (i.e. value for the purpose of assessing customs duties) which is the value at the port of export in the country of origin.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Overseas Territories (Question No. 215)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which International Labour Organisation conventions ratified by Australia have been applied to the Territories of (a) Norfolk Island (Hansard, 9 March and 13 September 1971, pages 750 and 1217), (b) Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Hansard, 26 October 1972, page 3394) and (c) Christmas Island (Hansard, 26 October 1972, page 3394) and when were they applied in each case.
  2. Which Conventions ratified by Australia have been declared inapplicable or applicable with modifications to any Territory and on what dates, for what reasons and in respect of which conventions and Territories were such declarations made.
  3. 3 ) On what dates and by what departments was consideration last given to applying each other convention ratified by Australia to each Territory.
Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3).

  1. Norfolk Island

Details of the declarations made for Norfolk Island in respect of ILO Conventions ratified by Australia are as follows:

  1. Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island

Declarations are yet to be made for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island in respect of ILO Conventions ratified by Australia. Considerable preparatory work has been done on determining those declarations that would be appropriate. It is clear that many of the Conventions concerned would not be applicable to these Territories. However, a number of declarations cannot be finalised until decisions are taken on the future political, economic and social arrangements for these territories which, the honourable member will appreciate, are complex and delicate matters.

Nursing Homes Assistance: Western Sydney (Question No. 247)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. What nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act and National Health Act are situated in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Chifley, (b) Macarthur, (c)

Macquarie, (d) Mitchell, (e) Parramatta, (f) Prospect and (g) Werriwa.

  1. What are the names and addresses of the registered owners of each home.
  2. What are the number of approved beds in each home.
  3. What are the weekly charges in each home.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The information requested is provided in the following table. The information is current as at 3 1 July 1977.

Foreign Fishermen: Unauthorised Landings (Question No. 345)

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-On 10 March 1977 the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) sought information about substantial reports of unauthorised landings of foreign fishermen on the north-west coast of Australia. My answer (Hansard p. 1264), which referred to events that had occurred between 1 July 1975 and 10 March 1977, was not published until 26 April 1977. I now list for the sake of completeness, further information provided by my Department relating to landings that took place off the Kimberley coast between 10 March, the date of the question and 26 April 1977, the date of publication of the answer. 24-30 March 1977

Following reports of foreign fishing vessels in the King Sound area, seven Indonesian vessels were intercepted and boarded by officers of HMAS Advance. The vessels were either beached or anchored on or adjacent to Tyrer, Mermaid or Margaret Islands in King Sound. The vessels were boarded, the masters reprimanded and the vessels taken in tow by Advance with the intention of release 27 miles northnortheast of Cape Leveque light. No livestock was on board any vessel and there was no evidence of vermin apart from cockroaches. Animal quarantine authorities in Perth and in the area concerned were alerted and the matter kept under review. Follow-up action by quarantine authorities was not considered necessary. 26 March 1977

An Indonesian fishing vessel was intercepted by HMAS Advance in the vicinity of Parry Harbour about five miles south-west of Cape Bougainville. Footprints were located on shore suggesting that a landing had occurred. No fowl or other livestock were located on board. Animal quarantine authorities were alerted but decided that follow-up action was not required. 22 April 1977

A report was received on 22 April that a foreign fishing vessel was beached at Viney Island 20 miles north-east of Koolan Island. Quarantine authorities at Perth and in the local area were alerted. HMAS Advance intercepted what is believed to be the same vessel on 28 April high and dry on Sunday Island in King Sound. No fowl or livestock was reported on board. The vessel was refloated at high tide, escorted clear of the declared fishing zone and the master reprimanded.

Copper and Uranium Deposits: Roxby Downs Station (Question No. 453)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

What assessment has been made by his Department of the copper and uranium deposits located on Roxby Downs Station in South Australia by the Western Mining Corporation.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Preliminary assessments based on published information have been made by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. These will not be completed or made public until full details of exploration work by Western Mining Corporation are completed and are available to the Government. The company stated on 18 November 1 976 that, while a great deal more drilling will be necessary to establish the extent and grade of the occurrence, it appears that a very large body of copper mineralisation has been discovered. Drilling results released by the company on 5 May 1977 indicate the presence of further copper and uranium mineralisation.

Mount Ainslie-Majura Foothills: Residential Development (Question No. 569)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Did the proposal to residentiary develop the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills emanate from (a) him, (b) his Department, (c) the National Capital Development Commission or (d) some other source; if it emanated from some other source, what was that source.
  2. Did the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development announce on 12 August 1976 that the Government had decided that the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act will not be applied to the Australian Capital Territory; if so, and in view of the inadequacy of the existing Public Parks Ordinance 1933 of the Australian Capital Territory, what steps does he intend to take to ensure the protection for the benefit of future generations of Australians of areas of national importance such as the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills.
  3. When is it expected that the NCDC will complete its analysis of the submissions on the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills.
  4. Will the analysis be made public.
Mr Staley:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The suggestion that parts of the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills could be developed for residential purposes evolved from the request to the National Capital Development Commission, by the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, for advice on alternative strategies for constraining future growth within the present Australian Capital Territory borders.

In response, the Commission has examined all existing and proposed land uses and is considering possible alternative development strategies in order to ascertain where the optimum costs and benefits might lie. The variable factors are housing densities and open space, both of which are the principal determinants of the form of urban development and which are at present defined by the Metropolitan Strategy Plan, more commonly referred to as the Y-Plan.

On a more general point, I am concerned about the accelerating cost of providing and maintaining city services, particularly the extra costs incurred by extending services to areas well down the Tuggeranong Valley when usable land had been passed over in Inner Canberra, Woden and Belconnen for the purpose of subsequent housing development at medium densities.

The proposals to develop uncommitted land in Inner Canberra were discussed between the Commission, the Department of the Capital Territory and me, after which public comment was sought in order to obtain an initial public reaction before any firm commitments were made by the Commission or my Department.

  1. An announcement was made by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, that the regulatory powers in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 197S should not be used in the Australian Capital and Jervis Bay Territories, but this decision was made on the understanding that legislation of similar breadth would be introduced for these Territories. In fact, a Nature Conservation Ordinance has been drafted and referred to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly for their consideration. The purpose of this Ordinance is to make provision for the protection and conservation of wildlife and for the reservation of land for this purpose.

I am informed by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development that any significant future proposals for the foothills or other areas of the Australian Capital Territory will be subject to the scrutiny of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The object of this Act is to ensure that the significant environmental issues of any Commonwealth action are thoroughly examined before decisions are taken. It was with this object in mind that he directed the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority’s proposal to extend its 132kv sub-transmission around Belconnen and North Canberra, including the extension along the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills.

The extent to which the provision of this Act will be applied to future proposals for areas of national importance will depend on a variety of factors including the form of the proposal, the extent to which environmental matters (in the widest sense of the phrase) have been taken into account and the extent to which public review of the proposals is allowed for or encouraged in any future Australian Capital Territory legislation covering conservation matters.

  1. The National Capital Development Commission is currently in the process of preparing alternative structure plans for the Mount Ainslie-Majura foothills area, a procedure which involves analysis of all the relevant information including the public submissions. The information will be made available for public comment.
  2. See answer to (3) above.

Commonwealth Development Bank: Tourist Project Loans (Question No. 882)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. How many applications for loans for tourist projects have been lodged with the Commonwealth Development Bank since the Commonwealth Development Bank Act was amended to include these projects.
  2. How many applications for loans have been approved.
  3. What was the reason for the rejection of the unsuccessful applications.
  4. What is the maximum amount of loan which can be granted.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has informed me as follows:

1 ) During the period from October 1974, when the Commonwealth Development Bank entered this field, to 30 June 1 977, inquiries involving finance for the tourist industry have numbered 377.

Loans approved for the tourist industry during that period have totalled 7 1 .

Approximately half of the inquiries received related to projects outside the scope of the Bank’s lending policy for tourism and were rejected for that reason. A number of eligible applications were withdrawn by the applicants because the projects did not proceed and the remainder were declined as the Bank was of the opinion, following investigation, that the respective projects were not viable in the economic sense.

There is no formal restriction on the amount of loan which can be approved but, because of the nature of the Bank’s functions, loans are rarely approved for an amount in excess of $300,000 for any one borrower.

American International Charter Flights (Question No. 883)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. Is the Minister able to say whether SO per cent more charter nights to international destinations were offered to the American public in the first quarter of 1977 than were available during the whole of 1976.
  2. If so, is the Minister also able to say how many of these flights were to (a) Pacific Ocean destinations, including Australia, and (b) direct to Australia.
Mr Howard:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The following answers have beenprepared from information supplied by the United States Civil Aeronautics Board. The data is presented in the form of seats available as the Civil Aeronautics Board considers that this unit is the best measure of the volume of charter services offered.

United States originating charter seats for total destinations worldwide during the first quarter of 1977 were 557,200 compared with charter seats for total destinations world-wide during the whole of 1976 which were 2,252, 129.

Thus charter flights offered in the first quarter of 1977 represented 24.7 per cent of total charter flights for 1976.

(a) Of the total United States originating charter seats on flights to international destinations charter seats to Pacific Ocean destinations including Australia in 1976 totalled 91,749 and for the first quarter of 1977 totalled 9,419.

Of these flights, charter seats to Australia in 1976 totalled 682 and for the first quarter of 1 977 totalled 100.

Note: Round trips are counted twice.

Statutory Marketing Boards Administered by Minister for Primary Industry (Question No. 941)

Mr King:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the composition of all statutory marketing boards that come within his administration.
  2. ) Who is responsible for nominations to these boards.
  3. How many boards or corporations are grower controlled.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

(1)-

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation (9 members) 1 Chairman 4 Members representing apple and pear growers 3 Members with special qualifications (marketing, processing, commercial or technical) 1 Government representative

Australian Dried Fruits Control Board ( 1 1 members) 7 Members representing dried vine fruit growers in New South Wales (1 ), Victoria (3), South Australia (2) and Western Australia ( 1 ) 2 Members with commercial experience 1 Member with dried fruit marketing experience 1 Government representative

Australian Wine Board ( 1 1 members) 2 Members representing co-operative wineries and distilleries 5 Members representing proprietary and privately owned wineries and distilleries in New South Wales and Queensland (1), Victoria (1), South Australia (2) and Western Australia (1 ) 3 Members representing grapegrowers supplying grapes to wineries and distilleries 1 Government representative

Australian Egg Board (9 members) 1 Commonwealth Government Representative (Chairman) 6 Members representing Egg Marketing Boards in the States of New South Wales (2), Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (one member each) 1 Member with commercial experience 1 Member representing employees engaged in the handling, grading and processing of eggs

Australian Honey Board ( 10 members) 1 Commonwealth Government Representative (Chairman) 5 Members representing honey producers in the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia 4 Members representing honey packers in the States of New South wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia

f) Australian Dairy Corporation ( 1 1 members) 1 Independent Chairman 3 Members representing dairy farmers 3 Members representing manufacturers 2 Members with special qualifications 1 Member representing employees 1 Member representing the Commonwealth Government

Australia Tobacco Board ( 12 members) 1 Commonwealth representaive (Chairman) 1 Member representing the State of New South Wales 1 Member representing the State of Victoria 1 Member representing the State of Queensland 1 Member representing tobacco growers in New South Wales 1 Member representing tobacco growers in Victoria 1 Mem ber representing tobacco growers in Queensland 1 Other member representing tobacco growers 4 Members to represent tobacco manufacturers

Australian Wheat Board ( 14 members) 1 Chairman 1 Finance member 1 Representative of flour mill owners 1 Representative of employees 2 Wheatgrowers representing wheatgrowers in New South Wales 2 Wheatgrowers representing wheatgrowers in Victoria 2 Wheatgrowers representing wheatgrowers in Queensland 2 Wheatgrowers representing wheatgrowers in South Australia 2 Wheatgrowers representing wheatgrowers in Western Australia

Australian Wool Corporation ( 10 members) 1 Chairman 4 Woolgrower representatives 4 Members with special qualifications 1 Commonwealth Government representative

Australian Wool Testing Authority* (8 members) 1 Member representing the Australian Council of Wool Buyers 1 Member representing the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia 1 Member representing the Wool Scourers, Carbonisers and Fellmongers’ Association of Australia 1 Member representing the Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia 1 Member representing the CSIRO 1 Member representing the Australian Wool Corporation 2 Members who, at the time of appointment, are not directly connected with the Australian Wool Industry

Australian Canned Fruits Board (up to 1 1 members) 1 Commonwealth Government representative 3 Members appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry on the nomination of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers’ Association

Up to seven members elected by the fruit canneries. (Currently there are five members in this category.)

Australian Meat Board ( 10 members) 1 Chairman 6 Members to represent Australian livestock producers 2 Members to represent Australian meat exporters 1 Member to represent the Commonwealth

(2)-

a ) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation

The Government representative is appointed by the Minister.

Any person many nominate for appointment to the Corporation.

Grower members are nominated by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers ‘ Association.

Members with special qualifications are appointed after consultation with the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association, the Australian Pear Snippers’ Association and other bodies considered appropriate.

Australian Dried Fruits Control Board

Any person may nominate, but nomination papers must be signed by at least two growers.

Grower representatives are then elected by members.

Chairman and Deputy Chairman are appointed by members of the Board.

The Board may (subject to approval of the Minister for Primary Industry) appoint a person who is not a member to be Chairman. Members with commercial or marketing experience are appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Board and industry organisations.

Australian Wine Board

Nominations for all except the Government Member come from the industry.

The Government member is nominated by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Co-operative Wineries and Distilleries members are nominated by Co-operative Winemakers ‘ Associatons.

Proprietary and privately owned wineries members are nominated by respective State associations affiliated with Australian Wine and Brandy Producers ‘ Association.

Australian Egg Board

The member with commercial experience and the member representing the Commonwealth Government are nominated by the Minister for Primary Industry.

The representative of each of the State Egg Boards is appointed from amongst the members of that State Board on the nominaton of the State Minister who administers the Act under which the State Board is established.

The employees’ representative is a person selected after consultation by the Minister for Primary Industry with representatives of the appropriate trade unions.

Australian Honey Board

The Commonwealth representative is appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry.

The producer members are elected by producers (owning 200 or more hives) in the respective States.

The packer members are nominated by honey packers in the States represented.

Australian Dairy Corporation

The Chairman, two members with special qualifications and the Commonwealth Government representative are chosen by the Minister for Primary Industry.

The dairy farmer representatives are appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry from a panel of names submitted to him by the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation or by another organisaton of dairy farmers.

The manufacturers’ representatives are appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry from a panel of names submitted by such organisations of manufacturers of dairy produce in Australia as the Minister considers appropriate.

The employees’ representative is appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with representatives of the appropriate trade unions.

Australian Tobacco Board

The Minister for Primary Industry appoints the member representing the Commonwealth, the other member representing tobacco growers, (who is nominated by the Tobacco Growers’ Council) and the four members to represent tobacco manufacturers. These four members are nominated by the manufacturers.

Members representing the States are nominated by the appropriate Minister of the State.

The member representing tobacco growers in the State where there is a Board is nominated from among members of the State Board by the appropriate Minister of State. If there is no State Board a nominaton is made by the appropriate Minister of State.

Australian Wheat Board

In respect of grower representatives the Minister for Primary Industry appoints the members from amongst the members of the State Wheat Board on the nomination of the State Board. If there is no State Board, members are appointed by the Minister after being elected by wheatgrowers in the State.

Members other than grower representatives are chosen by the Minister. The Wheat Industry Stabilization Act does not specify who is responsible for nominations to these positions.

Australian Wool Corporation

Woolgrower representatives are selected by the Minister from a list of persons nominated by the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

Members with special qualifications are chosen by the Minister after consultation with the Wool Industry Conference.

It is the practice for the first Assistant Secretary in charge of the Wool Division, Department of Primary Industry, to occupy the position of Government representative.

Choice of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman rests with the Minister and there is no specific provision for nominations.

) Australian Wool Testing Authority

Each of the following organisations nominates one person for appointment to the Authority: the Australian Council of Wool Buyers the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia the Wool Scourers, Carbonisers and Fellmongers’ Association of Australia the Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

The remaining three members are nominated by the Australian Wool Corporation and comprise: a person who is a member of the Corporation two persons who, at the time of appointment, are not directly connected with the Australian wool industry.

Australian Canned Fruits Board

Up to seven members are elected by fruit canneries.

Three members are nominated by the Australian Canning Fruitgrower’s Association.

One member (the Commonwealth Government representative) is appointed by the Minister.

1 ) Australian Meat Board

The Chairman is appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee (a non-statutory body consisting of four representatives each of the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and an independent Chairman).

The six producer members are nominated by the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee.

Members representing meat exporters are nominated by the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council.

The Commonwealth Government representative is appointed by the Minister.

‘Grower controlled ‘ has been taken to mean that there is a majority of growers on the Authority.

The following bodies are grower controlled as at 26 May 1977:

Australian Dried Fruits Control Board

Australian Egg Board (currently has a producer majority)

Australian Honey Board (currently has a producer majority)

Australian Wheat Board

Australian Meat Board

Programs Administered by Department of Health (Question No. 951)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:

What projects were assisted under the principal programs administered by his Department in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Chifley, (b) Macarthur, (c) Macquarie, (d) Mitchell, (e) Parramatta, (0 Prospect and (g) Werriwa, and what was the expenditure on each project in 1975-76.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The principal programs which are administered by my Department and can readily be identified in monetary terms in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Chifley, (b) Macarthur, (c) Macquarie, (d) Mitchell, (e) Parramatta, (f) Prospect and (g) Werriwa are:

Community Health Program

Australian School Dental Scheme

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Hospitals Development Program.

Details of expenditure for 1975-76 in respect of these programs are included in the following statements.

Other major programs which are conducted on a national or State basis but for which figures are not available for individual electoral divisions are:

Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

Drug Education Program

Family Planning Program

Nursing Home Benefits Program

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefits Program

Private Hospital Bed Subsidy Program

National Ami-Smoking Program

Tuberculosis Control Program

Health Program Grants Program

Hospital Operating Cost Sharing Program

page 984

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM

Grants provided under this Program are to assist the States and through the States, Local Government Authorities and voluntary organisations to establish and extend community based health services.

Expenditure incurred in 1975-76 was:

page 985

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL DENTAL SCHEME

The Scheme is being developed to provide free dental treatment including dental health education for all children under15 years of age, with initial emphasis on primary school children and to improve in the longer term the nation’s dental health by early treatment and prevention of dental diseases in children and by dental health education.

Expenditure in 1975-76 was:

page 985

HOME NURSING SERVICE (SUBSIDY)

Under this item subsidies are paid to approved non-profit organisations conducting home nursing services.

Expenditure in 1975-76 was:

The operations of home nursing services are not generally confined to electorates and metropolitan services may operate in adjacent electorates. For example the Sydney Home Nursing Service operates throughout the Sydney metropolitan area.

page 985

HOSPITALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This program was established in 1 974-75 to provide capital assistance to the States over a five year period for the provision of new hospitals, mental institutions, hostels and nursing homes and the upgrading of existing facilities.

The following approved projects were included in the New South Wales total program of works for which Hospitals Development Program block grants were provided.

The Federal Government under its federalism policy does not fund individual projects but makes funds available towards a total program of works. The onus for managing total funds, both Federal and State, rests with the State, and the inclusion of a project in the program therefore does not mean that the project is going ahead or construction has commenced. There is normally a considerable time required for planning and design of facilities and many of the projects in the program are in the planning and design phase. The block grant allocated to New South Wales in 1975-76 was $37.7m.

Division of Prospect: Projects Administered by Department of Health (Question No. 972)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

What was the expenditure on projects administered by his Department in the Electoral Division of Prospect in each financial year from 1970-71 to 1975-76, and what is the estimated expenditure for 1976-77.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The principal programs which are administered by my Department and can readily be attributed in monetary terms to the electoral division of Prospect are:

Community Health Program

Australian School Dental Scheme

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Hospitals Development Program

Details of expenditure for the financial years 1970-71 to 1976-77 are included in the following statements.

Other major programs which are conducted on a national or State basis but which cannot be split up into electoral divisions are:

Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

Drug Education Program

Family Planning Program

Nursing Home Benefits Program

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefits Program

Private Hospital Bed Subsidy Program

National Anti-Smoking Program

Tuberculosis Control Program

Health Program Grants Program

Hospital Operating Cost Sharing Program

Community Health Program

Grants provided under this program are to assist the States and through the States, local government authorities and voluntary organisations to establish and extend community based health services.

This program commenced in 1973-74.

Australian School Dental Scheme

The scheme is being developed to provide: free dental treatment including dental health education, for all children under 15 years of age, with initial emphasis on primary school children, and to improve, in the longer term, the nation’s dental health by early treatment and prevention of dental diseases in children and by dental health education.

This scheme commenced in 1973-74.

Home Nursing Service- Subsidy

Under this item subsidies are paid to approved non-profit organisations conducting home nursing services.

No home nursing services subsidised by the Commonwealth Government are located within the electorate of Prospect. However, services operating in adjacent electorates may provide services within Prospect.

Expenditure for the years in question is therefore nil.

Hospitals Development Program

This program was established in 1974-75 to provide capital assistance to the States over a five year period for the provision of new hospitals, mental institutions, hostels and nursing homes and the upgrading of existing facilities.

There have been no projects in the electorate of Prospect included in the approved capital works program for New South Wales for which Federal supplementary block grants are provided. In addition the Federal Government under its federalism policy does not fund individual projects but makes funds available towards a total program of works.

Mushrooms: New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (Question No. 983)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. What procedures are adopted by his Department to determine whether or not an industry will be affected by the inclusion of a commodity in Schedule A of NAFTA.
  2. Is the industry organisation always contacted; if not, why not?
  3. If so, was the Australian Mushroom Growers Association contacted prior to New Zealand being notified that there were no Australian objections to fresh mushrooms being included in Schedule A; if not, why not?
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1, 2 and 3- See answers to Question No. 982.

Crude Oil Imports (Question No. 988)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 977:

  1. Has the Government taken any action to diversify future sources of imported crude oil for Australia, or has this matter been left to the discretion of oil companies.
  2. Has he discussed this matter with any overseas governments.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia already imports crude oil from a number of countries. It is not the Government’s policy to become directly involved in commercial import or export transactions or to give any direction to Australian commercial interests as to where they should source imports.
  2. The Government’s policy as outlined above has been explained on any occasion when the matter of crude oil imports into Australia has entered into discussions with representatives of foreign governments.

NEAT Scheme: Meat Inspectors Course (Question No. 993)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1977:

  1. How were the successful applicants chosen for the recently announced NEAT meat inspectors course in Melbourne.
  2. Is it a fact that no country people were given the opportunity to apply because details of the course were not made public, until after the positions were filled; if so, why.
  3. When unemployment is higher in country areas, and some of this unemployment is due to industrial trouble at abattoirs, would it be preferable to give first priority to country people.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The meat inspectors course which is currently being conducted in Melbourne was established under the NEAT system following discussions between my Department, the Department of Primary Industry and the Victorian Department of Agriculture. The impetus for these discussions stemmed from a recognition within the Departments concerned that there was a growing shortage of meat inspectors in Victoria which could approach 100 by the end of 1977. Applicants for the course were interviewed by a selection panel which comprised one Veterinary Officer from each of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and the Victorian Department of Agriculture, and a representative from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Preference in selection was given to the unemployed, although some employed people were selected where their employment was considered insecure or unsuitable e.g. they were in only part-time positions or had to travel excessive distances to work.
  2. No. Details of the course were circulated to all offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Victoria on 4.4.1977. This meant that country people had the same opportunity to apply as people living in Melbourne. Most of the applicants were in fact registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service although some applications came from people working in meat works who were informed about the course by meat inspectors with whom they were working. All applicants who were not already registered were required to register with the CES. As there were 221 applicants for approximately 100 positions, it was felt to be unnecessary to advertise it more widely, although it was given some press publicity.
  3. Of the 89 successful applicants 47 were from the metropolitan area and 42 from the country.

As two thirds of the registered unemployed are in the metropolitan area and one third in the country, the ratio of successful applicants to unemployed was higher for country areas than for the metropolitan area.

Ball Bearings (Question No. 994)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

  1. Which companies, at which factories in Australia, claim to be complete manufacturers of ball bearings?
  2. Which companies claim to be fabricators and which are importers?
  3. How many persons are estimated to be employed at each of these factories and, of these, how many are specialists brought in from the company’s home country?
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. No companies claim to be complete manufacturers of ball bearings in Australia.
  2. Three companies are engaged in ball bearing production in Australia using imported materials and components. All three import complete ball bearings to complement their locally produced range. The firms are: S.K.F. Australia (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd, at Echuca, Victoria; Australian Koyo Ltd, at Waterloo, NSW: and N.S.K. Manufacturing (Australia) Pty Ltd, at Geelong, Victoria.
  3. lam advised that:

S.K.F. employs 260 people at Echuca including one specialist from Sweden

Australian Koyo employs 70 people at Waterloo including four specialists from Japan

N.S.K. employs 57 people at Geelong including two specialists from Japan.

Commonwealth-State Working Party on the Transition from School to Work or Further Study (Question No. 1034)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education:

  1. Who are the members of the joint Federal-State Working Party which has been established to act as a steering group to develop proposals on career guidance in schools and to improve services available to young people making the transition from school to work (Hansard, 3 May 1977, page 1501).
  2. What are its terms of reference.
  3. 3 ) When is it expected or required to report.
Mr Viner:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The members of the Commonwealth/State Working Party on the Transition from School to Work or Further Study are:

Mr C. L. Beltz (Chairman), First Assistant Secretary, Education Planning Group, Commonwealth Department ofEducation.

Mr J. Limbrick, First Assistant Secretary, Manpower Development and Operations No. 1 Division, Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.

Mr M. Watson, Director, NSW Department of Technical and Further Education.

Mr W. R. Donohoe, Assistant Secretary, Victorian Department of Labour and Industry.

Mr W. Brown, Staff Inspector (Guidance Branch), Queensland Department ofEducation.

Mr J. C. Bannon, Assistant Director, Planning and Research Division, South Australian Department of Labour and Industry.

Mr K. Catterall, Superintendent of Guidance, Western Australian Department ofEducation.

Mr J. K. Noonan, Administrative Officer, Tasmanian Department of Labour and Industry.

  1. The Working Party is operating under the terms of a resolution made at the February, 1977 meeting of the Australian Education Council. These terms are that the AEC wished to:

    1. affirm its conviction that concerted action by State and Commonwealth education and employment authorities should be taken in the area of transition from school to work or further education, with particular reference to the problems of early school leavers.
    2. seek closer consultation and co-operation among education and employment authorities, both State and Commonwealth, in the development of policies and programs.
    3. acknowledge the relevance and importance of vocational preparation to the total educational process and having considered the OECD examiners report and the report of the national working party, propose, in consultation with Ministers for Labour, to coordinate policies for improved careers, education and transition services.
    4. recognise that TAFE authorities and institutions should be encouraged to take a more positive role in the transition area, including recurrent and adult education as well as in specialised vocational education.
    5. seek the active co-operation of employers and employees, of teachers and parents in these matters.
    6. invite the State and Commonwealth Employment Ministers to co-operate with it in the appointment of a small working party of officers to develop proposals for early consideration and, subsequently, to act as a steering group for further action.
    7. Council also resolved that the working party, as a part of its task, give consideration to basic perspectives which may establish a general context for more specific proposals for action.

  2. The Working Party is required to develop its initial proposals for consideration at the next meeting of the Australian Education Council in November 1977.

Quarantine: Vessels Berthing at Cockatoo Island, Western Australia (Question No. 1050)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 June 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How many vessels from overseas berthed at Cockatoo Island, Western Australia, in each of the last 3 years.
  2. Were all of these vessels inspected by quarantine staff; if not, how many were not inspected and for what reasons.
  3. What quarantine staff are responsible for Cockatoo and Koolan Islands.
  4. Who has been appointed as quarantine assistant to cover this area over the last 3 years and what is the nature of the full-time work of each.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1974-75-76; 1975-76-58; 1976-77-47.
  2. Overseas vessels arriving at Cockatoo Island are not subjected to full inspection; this is not considered necessary. AH vessels were boarded by a quarantine medical officer.
  3. A Quarantine Medical Officer and, since January 1977, a Quarantine Assistant.
  4. Senior Constable Cole (from January to March 1977) Senior Constable Devereaux (March 1977 to date) both being police officers. The appointment of part-time Quarantine Assistants was not considered necessary until January 1977. Prior to 1 977 the Harbour Master assisted by advising ships’ masters of quarantine requirements.

Townsville Housing Industry (Question No. 1082)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article which appeared in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 25 May 1977 in which the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Joh BjelkePetersen, is reported as saying that he would seek financial assistance from the Federal Government to aid the housing industry in Townsville and that interest rates should be lowered.
  2. If so, has the Commonwealth Government received any submission from the Queensland Government on these matters.
Mr Newman:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Although the Commonwealth Government has not received a submission on the matter referred to, on 2 June I had discussions with the Premier on the housing industry situation in north Queensland. I would point out to the honourable member that the Government has advised the Reserve Bank that it wants financial institutions to be encouraged to increase their lending for private home building, particularly in those States and areas where the capacity of the building industry is under-utilised. I understand that permanent building societies in north Queensland are currently quite well funded. Last month the Prime Minister stated that, as inflation is brought further under control, there were prospects of falls in interest rates occurring; this factor also could assist the housing industry.

European Carp (Question No. 1083)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. When and for what purpose was the fish species European Carp introduced into Australia.
  2. Was the CSIRO or other governmental authority aware that the fish were being imported into Australia; if so, what tests were undertaken to ensure that the species was not a potential pest.
  3. If these authorities were not aware of its importation, what was the reason.
  4. How widespread is its occupation of the Australian inland water system.
  5. Have the habits of this fish species resulted in the killing off of Australian native fish in many areas of Australia and, particularly, in the Murray River system.
  6. Do the habits of this fish species convert what have been clear river waters into very muddy conditions; if so, what effect does this have on those towns which rely on these waters for their town water supplies.
  7. Is the CSIRO undertaking any research to rid Australia of this pest; if so, what have been the results of the research.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) It has been stated that Eurpoean carp was introduced to Victoria as a potential sport and food fish as early as 1872, but it is uncertain whether that introduction was successful. There is good evidence that it was successfully introduced to Prospect Reservoir (New South Wales) in 1907-08. However, the widesprean dissemination of carp in southern Australian waters dates from about 1960. At that time a fish farm was established in Gippsland and 1961 it began to sell carp to farmers in the vicinity for stocking dams and rivers. There are some grounds for believing this was a different strain from earlier introductions. Though breeding, rearing and sale of the fish became illegal in Victoria in 1961, the damage had been done and there is evidence of illicit as well as natural spread since that time.
  2. There have been no legal introductions of European carp in recent decades, nor would legal introduction nave been permitted as the authorities were well aware of the fish’s undesirable characteristics.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Carp have now entered much of the Murray-Darling River system and its tributaries. They are also present in the southern-flowing rivers of eastern Victoria and in such isolated streams as the Tambo and Snowy.
  5. The effects of other fish may generally be expected to be adverse. The Victorian government is undertaking a study aimed at determining the impact of carp on other species of fish and on waterfowl. There are documented cases in some Victorian lakes and rivers where carp have substantially eliminated other fish but there has not been an extensive study of their effect in the Murray River system.
  6. Carp stir up mud and silt when feeding, which makes the water unattractive to many other species and increases the cost and difficulty of clarifying water for urban use.
  7. CSIRO concentrates on marine fisheries, as the inland waters are under State jurisdiction, and has not developed expertise in freshwater fisheries. The Organization has not carried out research on carp. However, the Victorian government is investigating two possible methods of control, one involving a genetic approach and the other the use of a viral disease thought to be specific for European carp. Unfortunately, even if successful, neither is likely to offer relief for a number of years. The consensus view of Australian fisheries authorities, as expressed in the Standing Committee of the Australian Fisheries Council, is that control of carp may not be practicable, having in mind that very comprehensive programmes being undertaken with that end in view in various overseas countries appear not to be making much progress. At present there seems to be no choice but to learn to live with carp and to use appropriate measures including commercial fishing as a means of depressing wild populations in waters where they reach a high level, while at the same time continuing to take all practicable and reasonable measures to reduce the rate of spread into presently uninfested waters.

Commonwealth Funding of Programs in Federal Electorates (Question No. 1086)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Many programs for which Commonwealth funds are provided also include State and local government expenditures, and identifying the Commonwealth component of these combined expenditures on a particular project is difficult.

Additionally, since Commonwealth funds are frequently allocated broadly by programs rather than by particular projects specifically identified and located, details of all projects for which the Commonwealth provides financial assistance are not readily available.

Moreover, projects may not be within the bounds of a particular Federal electorate.

For the foregoing reasons, to collect and assemble the kind of information that is requested would be a major task; and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of money and effort that would be involved.

Division of St George: Works Undertaken by Department of Construction (Question No. 1094)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major works did his Department carry out in the electoral division of St George during 1976-77.
  2. What was the expenditure on each item.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Construction carried out three major projects in the Electoral Division of St George during 1976-77. These projects, which are currently nearing completion, are the telephone exchanges at Kingsgrove, Undercliffe and Kogarah.
  2. The expenditure on each of these projects during 1976-77 and their total contract values are as follows:

Social Security Benefits: Income Test (Question No. 1095)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

Can the Minister yet provide the numbers of social security beneficiaries who received (a) no increase and (b) a partial increase only in May 1977 due to the change in the means test preventing the conversion of certain incomes to assets in November 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information requested is not available.

However, as indicated in answer to Question No. 611 (House of Representatives Hansard, 2 June 1977, p. 2575) it was estimated that, with the change from a means test to an income test, some 50,000 pensioners were receiving a higher pension than they would have been entitled to under the new income-test. Special provision was made in the legislation to save pension being reduced in these cases.

Liverpool Women’s Health Centre (Question No. 11 16)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Did he state twice on 23 March 1976 in answer to a question from the honourable member for Evans that he would visit the Liverpool Women’s Clinic to make his ‘own assessment of the value of its continued operation’.
  2. If so, why has he not done so.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Under the administrative arrangements applicable to the Community Health Program, primary responsibility for governmental supervision of projects such as the Liverpool Women’s Health Centre rests with the State health authoritiesin this case, the Health Commission of New South Wales. Official inquiries were made concerning certain allegations relating to conduct of this Centre. If the Health Commission of New South Wales has no reason for concern, I see no necessity for my personal inspection of the Centre.

Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health (Question No. 1134)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. When does he expect to receive the second report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health.
  2. When will the Government announce its policy on the recommendations in the first report.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The second report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health is expected to be received in October.
  2. The group appointed by the Government to follow up the recommendations in the first report with State governments, local government, and non-government organisations is now preparing its findings. The Government will consider its position in the light of these findings.

Grants under Homeless Persons Assistance Act (Question No. 1161)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What were the location and value of projects for which grants were made under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act in each State in 1976-77.
  2. How many homeless persons will these projects accommodate upon completion.
  3. What were the location and value of applications awaiting approval under the Act in each State as at 30 June 1977.
  4. What are the location and value of projects for which grants will be made under the Act in each State in 1 977-78.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. Under the Act, capital grants totalling $8.4m have been approved with funds being made available to meet commitments when they mature. Expenditure on capital projects to 30 June 1977 amounted to $2.1m, while $S.3m has been appropriated for expenditure in 1977-78. No new projects were approved in 1 976-77.
  2. ) See answer to ( 1 ) above.
  3. See attached schedule.
  4. It is not proposed to make any new grants in 1977-78; progress payments will be made on approved projects as they become due.

Unemployment: Aboriginals (Question No. 1163)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

Will he bring up to date the monthly statistics of Aborigines registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service (Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1926).

Mr Street:
LP

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

Costs of Land Development (Question No. 1171)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August:

What is the average cost of (a) acquiring and (b) developing blocks of home building land on which each State housing authority is at present building houses (Hansard, 24 August 1976, page 5 18).

Mr Newman:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 184 (Hansard, 17 August 1977).

Area Improvement Program (Question No. 1172)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August:

  1. For what projects and at what cost were grants made under the Area Improvement Program in 1 976-77.
  2. Will grants be made for any projects under the Program in 1 977-78; if so, for what projects and at what cost.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1) In 1976-77 no new grants were made under the Area Improvement Program. Funds totalling $589,585 were

made available to the States; $120,000 to New South Wales towards the building of the Mount Druitt Town Centre; $1,627 for unacquitted expenses from the 1975-76 Area Improvement Program in South Australia-$S00 for Petersborough Park, $850 for the periodical Change and $196 for the Devenport Tree Nursery; and a sum of $467,958 as a block amount to Queensland to allow the completion of projects that remained part completed at 30 June 1976.

  1. No new grants will be made under the Area Improvement Program in 1977-78 and there will be no funds made available from this program since all outstanding commitments have been met.

Expenditure on Growth Centres (Question No. 1174)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

What expenditure has the Australian Government made on each growth centre in 1975-76 and 1976-77 and what expenditure will it make on each in 1 977-78.

Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is set out in the following table:

National Estate Program (Question No. 1175)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what projects and at what cost were grants made under the National Estate Program in 1 976-77.
  2. Will grants be made for any projects under the Program in 1 977-78; if so, for what projects and at what cost.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The honourable member may recall that in September last year he asked me a most detailed question on the national estate program including a request for information on the program in 1976-77. In answer to the question he now asks I can repeat the answer 1 gave him at the time. This was that the Government decided as an economic measure to curtail spending on the national estate program in 1976-77. The $ 1 ,350,000 provided in the Budget was to be used where there were firm legal commitments arising from agreements made in previous years. In these circumstances no new projects were funded in 1976-77.
  2. With regard to 1977-78 I can advise that the Budget contains an amount of $2,600,000 for the program. Of this amount $2,550,000 is provided as assistance to the States, and a further $50,000 is provided for national estate projects in the Territories. The program will be developed with advice from the Australian Heritage Commission, and I will announce details of the approved projects at the appropriate time.

Australian Science and Technology Council (Question No. 1182)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When does the Australian Science and Technology Council meet.
  2. What inquiries are at present being undertaken by the Council.
  3. How many staff members are employed in the secretariat which supports ASTEC.
  4. What are the salaries and professional backgrounds of the senior members of the secretariat.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The ASTEC Council meets monthly.
  2. The Council is conducting a review of science and technology in Australia. Special attention is being paid to marine science, industrial research and development, and energy research and development.
  3. Six.
  4. One Secretary, Level 2, Second Division ($26,537 per annum); Two Principal Project Officers, Class 10, Third Division ($19,406 per annum); One Project Officer, Class 6, Third Division ($13,275 per annum).

All senior members of the secretariat are most highly qualified both professionally and administratively. All have higher degrees in scientific disciplines. Applications are being considered for the vacancy of Assistant Secretary, Level 1, Second Division ($24,252).

Australian Registry of Adverse Reactions to Drugs (Question No. 1186)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

How many reports from medical practitioners have been received by the Australian Registry of Adverse Reactions to Drugs in each of the last 5 years.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

A total of 9,589 reports were received by the Australian Registry of Adverse Reactions to Drugs during the period 1 972-1 976. General and specialist medical practitioners contributed 4,253 of these, while the remainder were received from hospitals, pharmacists, dentists, pharmaceutical manufacturers and from patients themselves. The following table provides the figures on a yearly basis.

Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee: Pilot Survey (Question No. 1187)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee carry out a pilot survey in Canberra during 1 976.
  2. If so, has the data from the survey been published.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The pilot survey was carried out over a two month period in order to determine any difficulties which might arise as a result of the possible introduction of an area monitoring project and to establish the expected workload of such a project. Two group general practices and their associated pharmacies as well as the pharmacy of one of Canberra’s major hospitals were involved in the survey.
  2. No. The computer processing of the seven thousand patient drug use sheets is almost complete and an analysis of the survey will be available shortly. The survey was designed primarily for Departmental use although the results will be published if it is found that the data will be of value to medical practitioners.

Publication Triad (Question No. 1195)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1) What is the annual cost of the (a) production and (b) distribution of the publication Triad.
  2. How many copies of each edition are produced.
  3. Who are the major recipients.
  4. What staff is involved in the (a) production and (b) distribution of the publication.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

(0-

  1. $ 1 8,000 based on a contract price of $4,500 per quarterly issue;

  2. approximately $1,200 for postage and cartage, based on the bulk of distribution being handled by Department and Service means.

    1. 21,000.
    2. Federal and State Parliamentarians, metropolitan and provincial Press, libraries, ex-Service organisations, and Defence and Service personnel.
    3. –
  3. one journalist and one designer, each with a part-time involvement;
  4. one clerk and two clerical assistants, each having two days involvement per issue.

Publication: Health (Question No. 1199)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the annual cost of the (a) production and, (b) distribution of the publication Health.
  2. How many copies of each edition are produced.
  3. Who are the major recipients.
  4. What staff is involved in the (a) production and, (b) distribution of the publication.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) The average production cost per issue of the last four issues was $8,890- an annual total or $35,560.

    1. The average distribution cost per issue of the last four issues was $8,4 1 5- an annual total of $33,660.
  2. 27,000.
  3. Doctors are the major recipients- approximately 1 9,000 are on the mailing list

  4. (a) One Journalist, Grade A is employed to write, edit, design and supervise production of the journal (the same journalist also undertakes other duties in connection with other Departmental publications).

    1. One Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 is involved in the updating of the computerised mailing list. This task occupies approximately eight working days per issue. Actual distribution is arranged by the printer.

Defence Force Members: Housing Rent (Question No. 1202)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

Why are members of the armed forces who are stationed in isolated country areas required to pay the same rent for their housing as that charged to members who are stationed in city areas which are provided with recreational and other facilities not available in isolated areas.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Members of the Defence Force are required to pay the same rent for housing of similar quality, regardless of its location. This is an important principle of the Defence Group Rent Scheme which was introduced in April 1976. Under the previous arrangements rents varied considerably both within and between localities with the result that some Servicemen found that they were required to pay higher rents for poorer quality houses when they were transferred.

Servicemen are housed in many localities ranging from inner city suburbs to remote areas. It is not possible to make allowance in rent fixation for all of these situations. In specified remote areas, however, a district allowance is payable.

Naval Deployments in the Indian Ocean (Question No. 1204)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Will he bring up to date the information contained in answer to Senate question No. 433 (Senate Hansard, 6 May 1976, page 1654).
  2. Will he provide similar information for the navies of (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) France, (d) the Peoples’ Republic of China and (e) South Africa.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Soviet ship deployments into the Indian Ocean for the period Jan 1976- June 1977 (incl) are shown in the following table:

(2)-

  1. Ship deployments into the Indian Ocean for the navies of the USA, the UK and France, for the period January 1976- June 1977 (incl) are shown in the following table:
  1. The People’s Republic of China did not deploy naval ships into the Indian Ocean d during the period.

  2. The South African Navy consists of the following ships:

    1. 3 Daphne-class submarines
    2. 2 Destroyers
    3. 5 ASW Frigates
    4. I Escort Minesweeper
    5. 10 Coastal Minesweepers
    6. 6 Patrol Craft

This force was deployed to the Indian Ocean and approaches throughout the period.

Northern Territory Transport Services (Question No. 1207)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Bureau of Transport Economics undertaken a study of transport services in the Northern Territory.
  2. If so, when does he expect the report to be completed.
  3. Will he undertake to table the report.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Transport Economics is currently undertaking a study of the freight transport needs of the Northern Territory.
  2. The report is expected to be completed by the end of September.
  3. 1 will consider the matter of publication of the report after it has been presented to me. I have generally adopted the position that the results of BTE studies should be given as wide a circulation as possible.

Initiation of Law Reforms by Government (Question No. 1210)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Did he tell the 19th Australian Legal Convention that his Government had initiated more law reforms than previous governments dominated by lawyers.
  2. If so, was he referring to initiatives like the Industrial Relations Bureau, abolition of the Australian Legal Aid Service, restriction of the Aboriginal Legal Service, and the Government’s interpretation of the High Court ruling regarding unemployment benefits to school leavers.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1) In my opening remarks at the Australian Legal Convention in Sydney on 4 July 1977, 1 indicated that an unprecedented program of law reform was now being pursued by the Commonwealth Government.
  2. As the honourable member will know, the Government actively supported the four Constitution alteration proposals arising out of the Hobart meeting of the Constitutional Convention last year, and provided the referendum machinery which resulted in 3 of the 4 proposals passing into law earlier this year- that is, the Senate casual vacancies, territorial voting in referendums and retiring age for Federal judges proposals.

The Government has also initiated a far-reaching and progressive range of legislation including the Human Rights Commission and Criminal Investigation Bills, has brought to fruition the Ombudsman and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Acts, and substantive amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The Government proposes to introduce an Archives Bill and a Freedom of Information Bill during this sitting of the Parliament.

Fisheries Management in Investigator Strait (Question No. 1212)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Has the Government given any consideration to the suggestion of the South Australian Minister for Fisheries that the Commonwealth delegate to the South Australian Government its authority to manage fisheries in Investigator Strait which is an area recently adjudged to be Commonwealth territory by decision of the High Court.
  2. Will failure to agree to the South Australian Minister’s suggestion result in duplication of fisheries management in Investigator Strait.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The question of fisheries management in Investigator Strait is at present under active consideration by Commonwealth fisheries officials.
  2. In view of the High Court’s decision that the waters beyond territorial limits in Investigator Strait clearly come under Commonwealth jurisdiction there can be no duplication of fisheries management in such waters. However, where a single fishery occurs within and beyond territorial limits, such as the case of prawns in Investigator Strait, every endeavour will be made to reach agreement on the management measures to be applied by the State and Commonwealth governments.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (Question No. 1213)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Do widows in receipt of a pension from the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme lose their pension on re-marriage.
  2. If so, how do the conditions applying to these widows compare with widows in receipt of a pension from the Superannuation Scheme.
  3. Will the Government take the necessary steps to place Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme widows on the same conditions that apply to widows in receipt of a Superannuation Scheme pension on their remarriage.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) On 19 April 1977I issued a statement explaining that the DFRDB reversionary benefits arrangements were to be modified to bring them into line with the generally more beneficial provisions of the CPS superannuation scheme, including the non-cessation of widows’ pensions on their re-marriage.

Amending legislation to give effect to the changes is expected to be introduced during the current parliamentary session.

Grants to Canterbury, Hurstville and Rockdale Councils (Question No. 1215)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. What total Commonwealth funds were allocated to (a) Canterbury, (b) Hurstville and (c) Rockdale Municipal Councils in each year since 197 1.
  2. How much of each of these funds was (a) tied and (b) untied grants.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Commonwealth funds in the form of untied general revenue grants have been provided since 1974-75. Allocations to these Municipalities have been-

    1. a ) Canterbury Municipal Council
  1. b ) Hurstville Municipal Council
  1. Rockdale Municipal Council

In 1974-75 and 1975-76 the funds were paid direct to local government on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

From 1976-77, under the Government’s new tax sharing arrangements, the New South Wales Government, acting upon the recommendations of the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission, distributes Commonwealth untied funds to local government authorities in the State.

A number of specific or ‘tied’ payments have been made since 1970, some of which may be made on the initiative of the State Government without further reference to the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth does not have information on all these payments to individual local government authorities.

Deserted Wives: Social Security Benefits (Question No. 1217)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. How many deserted wives were receiving a widow’s pension as at 30 June in each year from 1 972 to 1 977.
  2. How many deserted wives were receiving a supporting mother’s benefit in the same years.
  3. Are similar figures available for the electoral division of St George; if so, what are the figures.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The number of Class A and Class B widows’ pensions payable to women classified as deserted wives as at 30 June of each year from 1 972 to 1 977 is as follows:

In addition, other wives who have been deserted and are now divorced et cetera would be in receipt of widows’ pensions under other classifications (e.g. divorcees or widows).

  1. Deserted but legally married wives, eligible for payment under the Social Services Act, are generally paid widows’ pension. Some deserted wives have claimed supporting mothers benefit as a matter of personal choice, but separate statistics for this category of supporting mother are not available. However, it is thought that only a small number of such women are in receipt of supporting mothers benefit.

Deserted de facto wives with dependent children are eligible for supporting mothers benefit. Separate statistics of deserted de facto wives in receipt of supporting mothers benefit are not available.

  1. 3 ) The required statistics are not available.

Unemployment (Question No. 1243)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 August 1977:

What was the percentage of employees in the Australian work force registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service for the months ended

December, March, June and September of each year since 1970.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Second International Airport, Sydney (Question No. 1251)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 August 1977:

  1. With reference to the Commonwealth-State Committee inquiring into Sydney’s airport needs including the possible site of a second international airport, where do the members of the committee live.
  2. If a member lives in or near the Sydney metropolitan area, what is the name of the suburb in each case.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are four Commonwealth members on the Committee, three of whom live in the Australian Capital Territory and one lives in Melbourne.

The four State members on the Committee live in Sydney. (2)I consider that like any other citizen, a public servant is entitled to privacy and hence I don’t propose to disclose this information.

International and Domestic Airlines: First Aid Equipment (Question No. 1264)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports in the Medical Journal of Australia stating that first aid equipment carried on international aircraft operating from Australia is inadequate.
  2. 2 ) If so, what first aid equipment is carried by ( a ) Qantas and ( b ) Australian domestic airlines.
  3. 3 ) Is this equipment considered to be adequate.
  4. To what degree are the cabin crews of Australian international and domestic airlines trained to handle emergency medical cases during flight.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Air Navigation Orders require Australian airlines to carry a limited range of indefinitely storable items for first aid for physical injuries. Airlines carry additional medical supplies and equipment, of their own choice, appropriate to their operations.
  3. Regarding the items required by Air Navigation Orders- Yes. The adequacy of additional medical supplies and equipment is a matter for each airline to determine in the light of its needs and experience.
  4. Australian international and major domestic airlines give or require their cabin crews to have first aid training. The extent of the training is determined by the airline in the light of its needs.

Federal and State Arbitration Tribunals: Joint Sittings of Members (Question No. 1269)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When did the president of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission suggest that the Federal Government should get together with the State governments to create a situation whereby members of the Federal and State arbitration tribunals should sit together.
  2. With which State governments has the Government taken up this suggestion and when and how did it do so.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The President of the Commission brought this suggestion to my notice in September 1 976. It was put on the agenda for the Conference of Ministers of Labour at its special meeting in November 1976 and was further considered at meetings of the Conference in February and September 1977.

Aboriginals: Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 556)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. When did the Department of Labour eliminate the requirement that Aboriginals who are full-time residents of church missions and government settlements must be willing to accept work away from those communities in order to qualify for unemployment benefits.
  2. How many more Aboriginals received unemployment benefits in each State because of the elimination of the requirement.
  3. Did the acting assistant director of employment services in the Queensland branch of his Department instruct employment office managers in Queensland by a circular dated 27 January 1977 (file no. 62/3157) that the requirement was to be re-imposed.
  4. Have other State branches re-imposed the requirement.
  5. How many fewer Aboriginals now receive unemployment benefits in each State because of the re-imposition of the requirement.
  6. Did he and the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Social Security have discussions before 28 May 1976 on the problems of Aboriginal employment, including the impact of unemployment benefits payments on Aboriginal communities.
  7. Were officers of his Department and the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Social Security and Education appointed on 28 May 1976 to a working party to make a full study of these matters.
  8. Did the working party complete its report on 31 July 1976.
  9. On what dates, with which Ministers and with what results did he discuss the report.
  10. 10) On what date did his Department prepare its submission to the Government (Hansard, 18 November 1976, page 2844, 7 December 1976, page 3370, 16 March 1977, page 248 and 23 March 1 977, page 48 1 ).
  11. On what date and at what level was the decision taken to change the policy in the terms of the Queensland circular of 27 January 1977.
  12. Which (a) Ministers and (b) departments were consulted before the decision was made.
  13. Did the working party make recommendations on the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs entitled ‘Aboriginal Unemployment- Special Work Projects’ (Hansard, 30 October 1975, page 2665 ).
  14. Which (a) Ministers and (b) departments have considered (i) that report and (ii) Chapter 9- Employment of the report of the Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Senate Hansard, 26 August 1976, page 355).
  15. Will he bring up-to-date the monthly unemployment figures for Aboriginals which the Prime Minister tabled on 26 August 1976 (Hansard, page 604).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1) I am advised that the decision that an Aboriginal was not required to leave a settlement or mission in order to qualify for unemployment benefit was taken by the then Government in May 1973.
  2. The number of Aboriginals who received unemployment benefit as a result of this decision is not known because separate statistics for Aboriginals in receipt of unemployment benefit were not recorded.
  3. to (5) The draft circular to which reference is made was never issued.
  4. to (10), (13) and (14) Aboriginal employment has received a great deal of consideration by relevant Ministers and their departments. This has involved, with others, the various reports to which the honourable member has referred. The outcome is the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals, the details of which were announced by my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on 26 May 1977.
  5. 1 1 ) and ( 12) See (3)-(5) above.
  6. The monthly totals of Aboriginals registered with the CES as unemployed since December 1975, when the total was 9,988 are as follows:

Statutory Authorities Established since 1972 (Question No. 935)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 May 1 977:

  1. How many statutory bodies were established by the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975.
  2. What are the names of these bodies.
  3. Who have been appointed to the boards of these bodies and what is the length of their appointments.
  4. How many statutory bodies have been established by the Fraser Government since 1975.
  5. 5 ) What are their names.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  2. –

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission

Aboriginal Loans Commission

Academic Salaries Tribunal

ACT Fire Brigade

ACT Liquor Licensing Board

ACT Poker Machine Licensing Board

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Administrative Review Council

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation

Australia Council

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Australian Dairy Corporation

Australian Development Assistance Agency

Australian Electoral Office

Australian Film Commission

Australian Heritage Commission

Australian Housing Corporation (abolished in 1976)

Australian National Gallery

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service

Australian National Railways Commission

Australian Postal Commission

Australian Statistics Advisory Council

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Canberra Commercial Development Authority

Capital Territory Health Commission

Children ‘s Commission- 1 974 ( abolished in 1 976 )

Cities Commission- 1973 (abolished in 1975)

Commonwealth Teaching Service

Curriculum Development Centre

Darwin Reconstruction Commission

Export Development Grants Board

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Family Law Council

Festival Australia Incorporated

Film and Television School

Grants Commission

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Health Insurance Commission

Hospitals and Health Services Commission

Industries Assistance Commission

Institute of Family Studies

Insurance Tribunal

Law Reform Commission

Legislative Drafting Institute

Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations

Office of the Insurance Commissioner

Petroleum and Minerals Authority (abolished in 1975)

Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee

Pipeline Authority

  1. Details of appointments are as follows:

Prices Justification Tribunal

Remuneration Tribunal

No. 2 Repatriation Board, Victoria

No. 3 Repatriation Board, New South Wales

Road Safety and Standards Authority (abolished in 1976)

Schools Commission

Social Welfare Commission (abolished in 1976)

Student Assistance Review Tribunals

Technical and Further Education Commission (abolished in 1977)

Temporary Assistance Authority

Trade Practices Commission (abolished in 1 977 )

Trade Union Training Authority

  2. Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account Advisory Committee

Australia-Japan Foundation

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee

Australian Science and Technology Council

Canberra Showground Trust

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Defence Force Ombudsman

Defence Service Homes Corporation

National Labor Consultative Council

No. 4 Repatriation Board, NSW

Superannuation Fund Investment Trust

Tertiary Education Commission

Trade Practices Commission

Mr Brych: Registration in Cook Islands as Medical Practitioner (Question No. 1075)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Melbourne weekly newspaper Truth that his Department has recognised Dr Brych of the Cook Islands by allowing Medibank rebates to his Australian cancer patients.

  2. If sofa) does this mean that he no longer believes Dr Brych is a fake and

    1. will this mean that blood from Australian donors will be made available to the doctor’s clinic.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I ) and (2)1 have been aware for some dme now of the continuing and misleading campaign being undertaken by the newspaper concerned in support of Mr Vlastimil Brych, an unqualified practitioner in the Cook Islands who claims to be an expert on cancer. Largely because of this campaign, I have issued three Press statements since early May warning Australians of the possible dangers involved.

My Press statement of 3 1 May referred to the totally misleading impression, fostered by the newspaper in question, that the Australian Government recognised Mr Brych ‘s qualifications. I pointed out at that dme that the Health Insurance Act provides for payment of benefits for expenses incurred by Australian residents temporarily overseas in respect of Schedule medical services rendered by ‘a person authorised to practise as a medical practitioner under the law of the place where the service was rendered’. The Act therefore relates to the registration, not qualifications.

Mr Brych does not possess any medical qualifications and has been the subject of a long and detailed investigation by various medical and other authorities in New Zealand. Despite numerous opportunities to produce facts or figures to substantiate his alleged cancer treatment procedures and results, Mr Brych has failed to produce any supporting evidence for his claims. It is not the intention of the Government to give false hopes to unfortunate terminal cancer victims seeking unproven therapeutic regimens in the Cook Islands.

Mr Brych was registered in the Cook Islands as a medical practitioner in March 1977 following an amendment to that country’s Medical Act specifically designed to permit his registration. Under the existing health insurance legislation therefore, services specified in the Schedule that are rendered by Mr Brych attract medical benefits at the present dme.

There is no relationship between the payment of benefits and ‘recognition’ of Mr Brych ‘s qualifications. As pointed out previously, the existing legislation gives no option but to pay benefits for Schedule services rendered in the Cook Islands by Mr Brych.

The Government has not approved the unrestricted release of blood supplies to Mr Brych for patients temporarily residing in the Cook Islands. The Minister of Health for the Cook Islands has not complied with the necessary conditions to permit a once-only assistance, on humanitarian grounds, for the five Australian patients for whom assistance had previously been sought.

For further detailed information on the Cook Islands and Mr Brych I would refer the member for Batman to my Press statements of 12 May, 3 1 May and 8 August 1977.

Dental Therapists (Question No. 1113)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Did the then Treasurer report on 19 August 1975 (Budget Paper No. 1, Attached Statements, page 39) that his Government would aim to provide a free dental service to all primary school children by 1982.
  2. If so, does the present Government share this aim in view of the cuts made in expenditure.
  3. How many dental therapists have been trained in Australia.
  4. How many trainee dental therapists are enrolled in training schools at present.
  5. Did he estimate that 2300 dental therapists would be required to provide a dental service to all primary school children.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government intends to continue its support for the development of the School Dental Scheme though the proportion of expenditure to be met by the Commonwealth has been reduced so as to spread the financial responsibility for the Scheme in a more equitable manner between the Commonwealth and the States.

The estimated date for provision of free dental care to all eligible primary school children depends on progress made by the States in the development of the Scheme. However on the basis of current development, primary school children in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania will be covered by the Scheme by 1982, while in the other States these children will be covered in the period 1985-90.

  1. To date 424 dental therapists have graduated under the Scheme from Australian dental therapy schools.
  2. Some 650 trainee dental therapists are presently enrolled in Australian dental therapy schools.
  3. Yes. However this figure is being kept under review in the light of experience and changes in the dental health of children.

Dental Therapists (Question No. 1170)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) At what locations were dental therapy training schools being (a) supported, and (b) constructed with Australian Government grants as at 30 June 1977 (Hansard, 12 October 1976, page 1789).
  2. How many trainee dental therapists (a) are, and (b) will be, enrolled at these schools.
  3. How many dental therapists will be required to provide a free dental services to all primary school children.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) New South Wales-Newcastle, Westmead, Sylvania, and Shellharbour; Victoria- St Kilda Road (Melbourne); Queensland- Yeronga, Stafford and Holland Park ( Brisband), Townsville; South Australia- Hindmarsh Square and Somerton Park (Adelaide); Western Australia Mt Henry and Warwick (Perth); Tasmania- Hobart; (b)No new dental therapy schools were under construction.
  2. (a) As at 30 June 1977, 650 students were attending the abovementioned schools; (b) The present dental therapy schools have the capacity to accommodate 784 students each year.
  3. About 2,300.

Committee of Inquiry into CSIRO: Secretariat (Question No. 1189)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the professional qualifications and salaries of members of the secretariat supporting the committee inquiring into CSIRO.
  2. From where were the members of the secretariat drawn.
Mr Street:
LP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. and (2) The names, qualifications, designations and salary ranges of research and administrative support staff, together with the departments and other bodies from which they were drawn, are detailed hereunder.

Committee of Inquiry into CSIRO (Question No. 1190)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Adminstrative Services, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. When is the committee inquiring into the CSIRO expected to make its report to the Government.
  2. Will the report be made public.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Committee presented its report to the Prime Minister on 25 August 1977.
  2. Yes.

Electoral: Enrolment of Commonwealth Citizens (Question No. 1224)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

How many citizens from each Commonwealth country applied to have their names placed on the electoral rolls in the last year for which the Electoral Office has compiled the statistics.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The Commonwealth countries of citizens who seek enrolment is not information that is required of applicants under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Australian Electoral Office is therefore unable to provide the statistics sought by the honourable member. However, the honourable member may recall that the Office does compile statistics for each electoral division for each month showing the number of electors added, electors removed and the number of alterations to the roll (change of name et cetera. ).

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 1294)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the deflator for defence expenditure during 1977-78 expected to be 6.4 per cent.
  2. Is the implicit deflator for all public expenditure during 1977-78 expected to be 6.4 per cent; if not, what figure is predicted.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No; the deflator for defence and all public expenditure in 1977-78 is expected to be somewhat greater than 6.4 per cent. It has not been the practice in the past to release details of projected movements in these deflators which are, of course, subject to many assumptions. However last year, and again this year, Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech contained more information on prospective movements in prices and wages than in previous years; the honourable member’s attention is drawn particularly to pages 36-37 of that document.

Minister for Primary Industry: Pecuniary Interests (Question No. 1317)

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

am asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

Which of the declarations of his pecuniary interests which he has made to the Prime Minister (Hansard, 23 August 1977, page S4S) related to the companies about which he was interviewed on television on 1 S August 1977.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

All declarations.

Export Milk Products: Bacterial Contamination (Question No. 1320)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When was he first informed of the possibility that Australian export milk products may be infected with a virus.
  2. What action did he take.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. On 18 July 1977 a meeting of Victorian authorities (Health and Agriculture), Federal authorities (Health and

Primary Industry) and trade representatives were advised that the health authorities had traced the cause of an outbreak of gastroenteritis among children in Australia to certain brands of infant milk powders.

It was established that there had been some salmonella (S. bredeney) contamination in a number of batches of milk powder sourced from one factory.

Salmonella is a bacterial micro-organism, not a virus.

  1. An immediate examination was made of the whereabouts of all suspect powder.

State health authorities arranged for the withdrawal of the affected milk powder in Australia.

The Department of Primary Industry prohibited any further exports of these infant milk powders and cancelled certain export permits that had been issued prior to the source of the infection being determined. In addition, where records showed that any of the powder of the suspect batches, or any finished products which could have possibly been contaminated by suspect powder, had already left Australia, the national authorities of the importing countries were alerted, and advised of the action taken in Australia. The infants milk powder detained in Australia will not be released on the domestic market or for export unless it has been reprocessed and tested.

Overseas buyers of Australian dairy produce have meanwhile been assured that with the exception of identified batches of infant milk powders, Australian dairy produce is sound, wholesome and high grade.

Foreign Investments (Question No. 1327)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. On how many occasions has final decision on foreign investment proposals differed from the recommendation of the Foreign Investment Review Board on the matter.
  2. What cases were involved.
  3. For what reasons were the Board’s recommendations not accepted.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The advice of the Foreign Investment Review Board is given in confidence and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to provide information of the kind requested.

Wine: Alcohol Content (Question No. 108)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Is he in a position to indicate whether his Department has finalised its consideration of the report on proposals being developed in other countries concerning the desirability or otherwise of requiring wine makers to indicate on wine labels the sugar content, alcohol content, pH and acidity (expressed in gram/litre as tartaric acid) of the contents of each bottle of wine sold in Australia.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

Inquiries conducted by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs indicate that apart from alcohol content, information of the kind suggested would be difficult to provide on labels and would be of questionable value to consumers. I understand that the question of alcohol content labelling is being considered in respect of all alcoholic beverages by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Mr John Francis Licardy (Question No. 62S)

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

am asked the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates, at what addresses and in what circumstances has he met Mr John Francis Licardy.
  2. Has he himself or through others (a) sent communications to Mr Licardy or (b) received communications from him.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 met a Mr Licardy on two or three occasions in Sydney and Canberra in about October 1975, and prior to my appointment as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.
  2. Since my appointment as Minister the only communication I can recall having had with Mr Licardy either direct or indirect was a telephone call from him of short duration and on a subject quite unrelated to my dudes or responsibilites as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

Public Transport Facilities (Question No. 773)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. What is the net cost per anum to public revenue of maintaining the necessary facilities for commercial air transport for the carriage of passengers and freight in each Suite and Territory.
  2. What net payments per annum are made from public moneys in respect of other forms of transport, e.g. railways, for the carriage of passengers and freight.
  3. How many passengers and how much freight is carried by each of these forms of transport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The information sought by the honourable member is quite extensive and is not readily available from departmental records in the form requested. I have asked my Department to examine the possibilities of calculating the desired information and will advise the honourable member as soon as this assessment is made.

Kenana Sugar Project, Sudan (Question No. 1136)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the proposed multinational Kenana sugar project in the Sudan which aims to produce 350,000 tonnes of refined sugar by 1981, which will become the largest sugar factory in the world, and which has a consortium of backers including Japanese private companies.
  2. If so, what long term effects does he expect that this development will have on the Australian sugar industry, and particularly on sales of sugar to Japan.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable members ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes. I am informed that the Kenana sugar project is part of a development plan by which the Government of Sudan aims to lift sugar production from the current level of about 120,000 tonnes annually to about 1 million tonnes by the early 1980s and possibly to about lft million tonnes by the mid-1980s.

The Kenana Sugar Co. project would include the largest mill and refinery complex in the Sudanese program, with a capacity of 350,000 tonnes of refined sugar annually. The plant would be the largest in Africa and one of the largest in the world.

My understanding is that most of the Sudanese program would be owned by the Government. However, only 50 per cent of the Kenana Sugar Co. capital was subscribed by the Government, the remainder being contributed from interests in several (mainly Middle Eastern) countries, with a 2.25 per cent share held by Nissho-Iwai Co. Ltd, the only Japanese participant.

  1. No significant long term effects on the Australian sugar industry are expected to result from the Sudanese expansion. Most of the sugar produced in Sudan will be consumed within that country. World trade in sugar absorbs over 20 million tonnes annually and is expected to grow.

No adverse effects on Australian exports of sugar to Japan are expected. Our sales to that country to 1980 at least are covered by a contract.

Tourism Development Grants (Question No. 1154)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce:

  1. 1 ) For what projects and at what cost were grants made under the tourism grants scheme in 1976-77. (Hansard 6 October 1976, page 1614 and 9 December 1976, page 3693)
  2. ) Will grants be made for any projects under the scheme in 1 977-78; if so, for what projects and at what cost.
Mr Howard:
LP

-The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. No grants were approved for tourism projects during 1976-77. The Government announced the cessation of the tourism grants scheme in February 1976. During 1976-77 an amount of $831,825 was expended on this item, which fully discharged the Commonwealth’s commitments under the scheme.
  2. No funds have been provided for expenditure on this item in 1977-78.

Agreements Between Newspaper Publishers and Newsagents (QuestionNo.1193)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Has the Trade Practices Commission finished its review of agreements between newspaper publishers and newsagents.
  2. Were any public hearings held.
  3. Can the publishers prevent the sale of any new newspaper by newsagents under the agreement.
  4. If so, how can this be in the public interest.
  5. Has the Commisson made is decision; if not, when can it be expected.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Trade Practices Act confers responsibility on the Trade Practices Commission to determine matters of public benefit.
  5. No; I am informed that a decision can be expected towards the end of the year.

Housing Costs Inquiry (Question No. 1230)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the terms of reference of the Housing Costs Inquiry agreed upon at the Housing Ministers’ Conference on 29 April 1977.
  2. What are the names and positions of the persons appointed to conduct the inquiry.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The identification of causes of inefficiency and unnecessarily high cost in the provision of housing in metropolitan and rural areas, including the development of land and the provision of basic services so far as they are matters that are connected with or related to the exercise and performance of any powers of the Parliament or the Government of the Commonwealth either alone or in co-operation with the States, and to submit a report for public discussion on the means available to improve the efficiency and to lower the cost of the supply of housing, and the provision of infrastructure within existing national resources.

The Committee shall give particular attention to the following matters in so far as they are connected with or relate to the cost and availability of residential land and housing in metropolitan and rural areas: the planning, approval and development process for residential land and related facilities, including interaction among and between Commonwealth, State and Local Governments and the land development industry; the provision and financing of urban infrastructure as it affects the cost and supply of allotments; the effect of standards, requirements and specifications on costs and choice in residential land sub-division; the efficiency, structure and role of the land development industry, including land assembly, subdivisional servicing, and the financing of land development; the operation of the market for residential allotments, as it affects final prices to purchasers; the effect of standard’s, specifications, and approval and title requirements on costs and choice in new dwelling construction; the efficiency and structure of the dwelling construction industry, including the cost and availability of labour, materials and finance; the relationship between the land development and dwelling construction industries; the operation of the total housing market, with specific reference to the availability of a range of public and private housing types.

Within the context of paragraph I the Committee may direct investigations into housing costs and into other related matters as are agreed to or directed by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development

The Committee shall give attention to the adequacy of information available on the land and housing markets including prices, stocks, production and volume of sales and the information available on skilled manpower, and on the land development and dwelling construction processes including standards, procedures, components of costs and technologies. It shall report for public discussion on measures for alleviating any serious information deficiencies in these fields.

The Committee shall report to the Government by 30 June 1978 subject to any requirement by the Government to report on specific matters earlier than that date.

  1. Mr E. S. Eyers, O.B.E., (Chairman) (former Foundation Chairman, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation).

Mr K. J. Campbell, C.B.E., Chairman and Chief Executive of the Hooker Corporation.

Mr K. S. Taeuber, DirectorGeneral of Lands, South Australia.

Fisheries Research Programs (Question No. 1247)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 8 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What fisheries research programs are being carried out in South Australian waters by his Department.
  2. Are any fishing research projects being carried out in the waters of the Great Australian Bight or is it intended that such projects be carried out.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Department of Primary Industry is currently undertaking a survey to define deepwater trawling grounds off south eastern Australia, including waters off South Australia.

This project is being financed from the Fisheries Development Trust Account, established under the Fishing Industry Act 1956 and assistance for financing the South Australian section of the survey is being provided by the South Australian Government on a dollar ibr dollar basis.

The objectives of the study are to prove the existence of commercial deepwater trawling grounds, evaluate overseas trawl gear and demonstrate trawling techniques to Australian fishermen. Two commercial trawlers have been chartered to undertake the survey under the supervision of Commonwealth and South Australian departmental officers.

The area of operations extends westward to the- South Austraiian, Western Australian border, and eastward to include coastal waters off Tasmania and Victoria.

  1. See I above. In addition, I am informed that the Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife is undertaking several research projects involving fish species which range into the Great Australian Bight. These include monitoring the southern bluefin tuna catch landed at Esperance and Albury, coupled with aerial spotting and a tagging program monitoring trawling operations in the western Bight. Also, jointly with CSIRO, biological research and tagging is being undertaken of the Western population of the Australian salmon, which migrates across the Bight.

Woomera Village: Security Restrictions on Political Candidates (Question No. 1249)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the procedures to be adopted by a political candidate desiring to campaign in the Village area of the Weapons Research Establishment at Woomera South Australia.
  2. Are any security restrictions placed on the candidate in the village area.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. The Woomera Village is pan of the Woomera Prohibited Area which is under the control of the Director Weapons Research Establishment (WRE) Salisbury, South Australia. Political candidates desiring to campaign in the Woomera Village area should apply to the Director, Woomera Research Establishment, for permission to enter the Village.
  2. Permits to enter the prohibited area specify certain requirements in regard to possession of firearms, explosives and ammunition, cameras and photographic material, radio transmitting receiving and recording apparatus, etc. Otherwise there are no security constraints upon visitors. Access to the technical areas of the Woomera Range is not of course permitted.

Australian Tobacco Leaf (Question No. 1283)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of the tobacco content of cigarettes sold in Australia is Australian leaf.
  2. Have substantial imports of manufactured cigarettes reduced the quantity of Australian leave used.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Available data on the tobacco content of cigarettes produced in Australia for home consumption in the past five years indicate that the Australian leaf content was:

The tobacco content of cigarettes imported into Australia is not recorded.

  1. Imports of cigarettes have been increasing and accounted for about 2.2 per cent of the market in 1975-76.

The size ofthe market is best indicated by data relating to duty paid clearances for imported and Australian made cigarettes. Figures for the last five years for which they are available are:

As shown in ( 1 ) the content of domestic leaf used in cigarette manufacture in Australia has increased.

The decline in the total market can be attributed to a number of factors including, particularly, the impact of excise increases in 1974 and 1975 and of licence fees imposed by four States in 1 975 and 1 976.

The increase in imports of cigarettes has been considerably less than changes in the total market brought about by price increases and other causes.

Ministerial Visit to South Korea (Question No. 1398)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article appearing in the Australian Financial Review of 10 February 1977 which, in commenting on the expulsion of a South Korean diplomat, alleged that one ofthe coalition’s most important Ministers is well known in diplomatic circles for the lavish and exclusive hospitality he has enthusiastically accepted on visits to Seoul.
  2. Is he the only coalition Minister to have visited South Korea in the last 12 years.
  3. What gifts and entertainment did he receive on his visits between (a) 9 and 13 December 1968, (b) 29 November and 3 December 1970 and (c) 13 and 17 June 1972.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Official entertainment was exchanged in the normal course of exercising my ministerial responsibilities. No significant gifts were exchanged.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 September 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770908_reps_30_hor106/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant