House of Representatives
8 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2497

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pornographic Publications

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 the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Ellicott, Mr Gillard, Mr

Kerin, Mr Neil and Mr Ruddock

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Lloyd, Mr Lusher, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the term of the current staff-elected commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission expires on 22 October 1978.

We pray the Government will direct that this position should continue, and that the Minister will authorise the Commonwealth Electoral Officer to proceed with an election, by all ABC staff, of a new commissioner, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

The Budget

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That because this Budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by $ 10 per week, because it will reduce the incomes of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that

The Federal Government withdraws this Budget and provides Australia, within this Session of Parliament, with a revised Budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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 Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jarman and Mr Charles Jones.

Petitions received.

Post Office Building, Kogarah, New South Wales

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while Kogarah has an urgent need for a women ‘s rest centre and a place to expand the community aid activities of its citizens, the former Post Office building in Railway Parade has been left standing idle for the past four years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this building be immediately given to the people of Kogarah for the abovementioned purposes.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

That as parents of children in government schools we maintain that it is the responsibility of governments to provide and maintain a public system of education of the highest standard open to all.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the members of this House assembled ensure that the Commonwealth Government maintain a broadly representative Australian Schools Commission to determine: - national priorities in education - strategies and allocation of funds to ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children - allocation of funds for the continued improvement of public systems of education through General Recurrent and Capital Grants to Government school systems and Special Purpose Programs.

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

Petition received.

Sales Tax

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the sales tax as applied to articles handmade by artisans is unfair.

An artisan is a handcraftsman, or a handcraftswoman, who exercises a non agricultural activity, revolving around the transformation of materials with his own handwork or that of his family.

On craft, above all, the accent must be on design, practicability and quality, where the craftsman must perforce pay highly for his raw materials and time must not be a conditioning factor in the making of an article.

This petition seeks the objective examination of the existing sales tax Acts in respect to persons seeking to earn their living by the labour of their hands alone.

Every day, skilled artisans are being forced out of their livelihood, not by the competition of machine made goods, not by high prices of materials, but by the injustice of antiquated Sales Tax Laws. The artisan, thus taxed out of his living, will then go onto unemployment benefits, or worse still, to prostituting his craft by sacrificing his professional integrity, forcing him to lower his standards of workmanship in order to conform to existing laws.

We therefore request that a Sales Tax exemption be created immediately for all handcrafted articles.

We also request that the current exemption limit of $1,400 and$1,000 respectively referred to in items 100-(1) and 100-(2) of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and classifications) Act 1935-1967, be immediately raised to a realistic figure, in line with current living standards and from then on to be periodically reviewed so as to keep pace with the Australian standard of living.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass.

Petition received.

Political Asylum

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

It appears, from reports in the Australian Press, that Jacob Prai and Otto Ondowame, refugees from West Irian who are now imprisoned in Papua New Guinea, may seek political asylum in Australia. It is clear that if asylum is not granted, their lives are in serious danger.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That, in the interests of human rights, the Australian Government immediately grant this asylum if it is sought.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Lone Fathers

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 say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate action to instigate one (1) category of Lone Parent Pension to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That the provision of payments for induced abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for induced abortion, except one performed when a mother’s life is endangered.

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

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and its Recommendations-

  1. contain matters of substance which ought to be pursued.
  2. result from a wide range of submissions made by Australians from all walks of life.
  3. identify many problem areas requiring attention.
  4. have been given media coverage which grossly distorts the contents.
  5. have thus far been ignored in Parliament.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. debate the report and its recommendations.
  2. make provision for rational public debate on the report and its recommendations.
  3. encourage its members to support such public debate in their electorates.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will implement such measures to maintain the Commissioners’ ‘belief in the right and integrity of the individual to make free choices in the context of human relationships, and to have access to the knowledge and skills which give such a free choice meaning’.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefits

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the City of Nunawading in the electorate of Deakin respectfully showeth:

Whereas:

  1. The number of positions available throughout Australia is insufficient to provide the opportunity for full-time employment for several hundred thousand Australians including school leavers who have as yet been unable to avail themselves of work experience.
  2. The provisions of the Social Security Act be so modified as to permit all such persons to engage in part-time employment without suffering the immediate disincentive of loss of Social Security support (Dole Money). The proposed modification to the Act to permit incomes at least to the Henderson ‘Poverty Level’ and to taper off in such manner as to maintain incentive to work.

You petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Social Security give all directions to ensure that necessary action be taken without delay.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

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 the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1 975 policy speech.

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

Petition received.

Rural Telephone Exchanges

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 citizens in rural areas are strongly opposed to the automation of manually operated telephone exchanges which is resulting in loss of employment for telephone operators in difficult economic times and the unnecessary loss of an efficient, personalised telephone service which has proven to be eminently suited to the needs of rural telephone subscribers.

We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia should be instructed to seek the views of country telephone subscribers before proceeding further with the automation program which is causing unemployment, confusion, discontent and unnecessary expense to country subscribers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on the Government to halt the program pending a full and open Parliamentary inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the automation program on country towns, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The humble petition of the undersigned being residents of the Federal electorate of Cunningham respectfully showeth:

That the present funding of abortion through the standard medical benefits table cease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support the Stephen Lusher motion:

  1. to remove items from the standard medical benefit table which currently permit medical benefits for abortion:-
  2. To cease the funding of medical benefit schemes through which claims for terminating pregnancies can be made. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Mr Lusher.

Petition received.

Education

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that all people have the right to quality education, and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to enable all who wish to exercise that right, to do so.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That education expenditure on post-school education and on Government schools be substantially increased.
  2. That any ‘supplementary’ or ‘comprehensive’ loans scheme proposal for post-school students be rejected, not only because it would force the most needy into debt, but because it completely abandons the principle of education as a right. Your petitioners believe that full or partial replacement of a means-tested grants scheme with such a loans scheme would erode the quality and accessibility of education in Australia.
  3. That Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances, and all social service benefits, be increased to 120 per cent of the ‘ Henderson Poverty Line’, this being defined by the Poverty Inquiry as the level of ‘poverty ‘ (currently $77.60 per week).
  4. That TEAS and other student allowance schemes, and all social service benefits, be fully and automatically indexed quarterly to movements in the Consumer Price Index, or equivalent needs-based index.
  5. That all students accepted for study at a post-school education institution, subject to a means test on personal income, receive the TEAS allowance, and be given independent’ status.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being anathema to God and man.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this house direct the Government-

  1. to remove items from the Standard Medical Benefits Table which currently permit Medical Benefits for Abortion and
  2. to cease funding of Medical Benefits Schemes through which claims for terminating Pregnancy can be made.

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

Petition received.

page 2500

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2500

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Who arranged the meeting last year which resulted in Stawell Timber Industries being given favoured treatment throughout Australia in the building of Aboriginal Housing? Why was this company given exclusive access to departmental information which allowed it to contact, and sell directly to, every Aboriginal housing association in Australia which had a current housing requirement? In particular, why was this preferential treatment extended to a company whose prices and performance has been subject to persistent criticism by the Aboriginal Housing Trust? To what extent is the Government’s attitude to Stawell Timber Industries influenced by the company’s location in the electorate of Wannon?

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I can assure the honourable gentleman that absolutely no preference has been given to Stawell Timber Industries in its dealings with Aboriginal housing associations. The meeting that the honourable gentleman referred to was arranged, as I recall, directly by a member of the company. He made a request to my office and I agreed to see him, as I see many people in the course of my ministerial duties. The information that was given to the company was a list of all the Aboriginal housing associations. I inform the honourable gentleman that that list is in his possession, as it is in the possession of every member and senator. Each year, after the Budget is brought down I provide to all honourable members a complete list of all allocations of funds to housing associations and a variety of other Aboriginal organisations. There was nothing untoward whatsoever in my authorisation of the information to be given to this company and there has been nothing untoward in that company’s dealings with Aboriginal housing associations.

page 2500

QUESTION

ABORITION CLINICS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the Government’s attitude to the desirability of the establishment of commercial abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory?

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

-This House has long regarded abortion and other matters of that kind as matters of deep and serious conscience for all honourable members. I have expressed my own view in relation to it, as have other honourable members. To restate my view, I am opposed to abortion except as it applies under the Menhennitt ruling. Honourable members will be aware of that. Under the circumstances that operate in the Australian Capital Territory at present, those are basically the circumstances and within the law ought to be the only circumstances under which abortion in the Australian Capital Territory is possible. The Government established an ordinance some time ago which was designed to make sure that there would not be free standing abortion clinics outside public hospital grounds and to make sure that such abortions as did occur would take place within normal hospital faculties.

I think it is worth noting that recommendations coming from the Legislative Assembly at an earlier time in general terms had recommended that free standing abortion clinics outside hospital grounds should not be permitted and also that a permanent termination of pregnancy ordinance be made to make sure that private- in other words, commercial- free standing abortion clinics do not operate in the Australian Capital Territory. They were the two major recommendations of the Assembly. At a time subsequent to that, the Government ordinance was introduced. The Minister for the Capital Territory on 1 May 1978 wrote:

As mentioned in the attached Explanatory Statement the object of the Bill is to provide for a permanent prohibition of the termination of a pregnancy other than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

TheBill also determined the terms and circumstances under which such termination of pregnancy could be undertaken, broadly in line with the Menhennitt ruling. What was done in broad terms was certainly sympathetic and I believe consistent with the thrust of two of the main recommendations coming from the Assembly’s own inquiry into these matters. The matter becomes serious because there is a motion before another House to disallow the ordinance. If the ordinance is disallowed, one practical effect will be to allow commercial abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, I believe that the only practical effect of the disallowance of the ordinance will be to allow commercial abortion clinics to operate in the Australian Capital Territory.

Dr Klugman:

– What is wrong with private enterprise?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman is objecting and saying: ‘What is wrong with commercial abortion clinics?’, the honourable gentleman should know something about these matters.

Mr Hayden:

– What is wrong with private enterprise?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is now supporting commercial abortion clinics by his interjection. If that is his view -

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman continues to make persistent interjections he will need to take what comes to him in relation to them.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is telling fibs again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that.

Mr Hayden:

– He is not telling the truth. I was trying to be gentle about it. There is a more direct but appropriate word.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– That he is not telling the truth?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr Hayden:

– I will not. He said that I said certain things I did not say.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister was telling fibs.

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, quite true. With respect, I said that I withdrew that but that he is not telling the truth, and he is not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not permit the honourable gentleman to prevaricate in that way.

Mr Hayden:

– I am not prevaricating. I am making a direct statement of fact. Do you mean that the Prime Minister can misrepresent what has been said on this side with immunity but that we cannot defend ourselves?

Mr Sinclair:

– On the point of order, how can -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Leader of the House to resume his seat. I extend considerable leniency and courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition. He knows very well that issues of truth are matters for debate. The use of unparliamentary language cannot be permitted from any member of the House. If the honourable gentleman persists in the attitude that he is now adopting then I warn him that the leniency I extend to him will not be able to be continued.

Mr Young:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, obviously the Government realises, as we do on this side of the House, that the question relates to a matter of great sensitivity in the Australian Capital Territory. The Prime Minister has made an accusation against the Leader of the Opposition without any foundation at all which, unless we challenge it, goes on the record and can be used outside this House. The Prime Minister himself ought to withdraw the statement he has made because it is as described by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide is quite capable of understanding that taking issue as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of a matter does not permit the use of unparliamentary expressions, and it is unparliamentary to use the term the Leader of the Opposition used.

Mr Hayden:

– May I short-circuit it by saying that I withdraw but I ask that the Prime Minister withdraw the untruthful statement he made about an alleged comment coming from me. I did not say that I supported commercial abortion clinics. I merely indicated that the Prime Minister was opposing private enterprise, which was strange.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the Leader of the Opposition believes that the comment made by the Prime Minister is offensive to him I will ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the comment. I warn the Leader of the Opposition that by continually interjecting one must expect that the person on his feet will respond. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition, in interjecting as he so often does- and I think, Mr Speaker, that often you do not hear what he says in relation to these matters -

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. I am listening to the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I think that often you do not hear the interjections of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to these particular matters. If he interjects continuously in such a way that his interjections go over the air, as you say, Mr Speaker, he must expect some response. The very serious matter of abortion is under discussion. I would have hoped that it would be treated seriously. When I mentioned the subject of commercial abortion clinics which I would have believed to be abhorrent to all honourable members of this House, the Leader of the Opposition interjected. He said: What is wrong with private enterprise?’ Clearly that remark was made in relation to commercial abortion clinics. If the honourable gentleman says that he is opposed to commercial abortion clinics, I will certainly accept such a statement and withdraw what I said in relation to his interjection. But at the same time the remarks of the honourable gentleman need to stand in Hansard so that his interjection is on the record. In relation to the termination of pregnancy he stated: What is wrong with private enterprise?’ I believe that much of this problem would be overcome if the constant chatter from the Leader of the Opposition and from the front bench of the Australian Labor Party in the interruption of answers which are being given by myself and by other people speaking in this House, could at least end.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the right honourable gentleman that the House is considering a major social issue which affects the moral attitudes of most of the community of Australia. A question has been raised and an answer is being given. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he proceed with his answer and that the House listen to it in silence.

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. This is a private matter for honourable members. The Prime Minister has been asked a question about it, not without notice because he has the ordinance in front of him. He is taking a rise out of honourable members on this side of the House when he himself referred the ordinance to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Keating:

– I make this point: If he persists with this approach we will interject -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask the House to listen to the answer in silence.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable member for Blaxland who has just taken a point of order is too sensitive on the issue. I am not trying to take a rise out of members of the Australian Labor Party on this issue. I began by indicating my deep concern that these matters had been regarded by the Parliament as ones of conscience. I would have hoped that that could continue to be so. A motion for disallowance of an ordinance is before the Senate. That being so, it is important, I believe, that there should be a clear understanding of the consequences of disallowance. Honourable senators will vote on that matter in the Senate as a vote of conscience. That has been made quite plain. There are consequences from disallowance of the ordinance as it now stands about which all honourable gentlemen in this House and people in the Australian Capital Territory should have some concern. The practical effect of disallowance is not to alter the circumstance in which an abortion can occur in the Australian Capital Territory. The practical effect is to remove the prohibition against private abortion clinics and to allow them to be planned, to grow and to foster in the Australian Capital Territory. I would have believed and hoped that that would be abhorrent to all honourable gentlemen in this House.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that because of an industrial dispute it is highly likely that there will be no production of Hansard tomorrow. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I request you to make arrangements to examine the tape of the Prime Minister’s comments, made in the course of his reply which he has just completed, together with any interjections which were made so that his tendency to misrepresent comment about the House, as well as many other factors, can be curbed at least to the extent that the tape will help us in that respect.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. Before we proceed with the business of the House which might be a good idea, I make a couple of points. Firstly, the Prime Minister indicated that perhaps I did not hear what was said by the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection and that the interjection would be broadcast. In fact, I have had extensive examinations made and I have listened to see what does go over the national broadcast. It is apparent to me that the acoustics of the chamber are peculiar in that the Prime Minister hears comments across the table at a louder volume than I hear from the chair or is heard over the microphones. I am conscious of this. I do not want to interrupt Ministers answering because of continual interjections, but I do want the House to understand that the members of the public listening to the broadcast do hear the general hubbub of conversation. I do not think the national Parliament ought to represent itself to the public as being incapable of discussing major issues of national, moral and social importance in silence.

Mr Hayden- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the matters you have just raised. I have taken the opportunity to check with the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s technicians about the Prime Minister’s assertion that I am constantly interjecting and that my interjections go across the radio to listeners. They assure me that this is not true. They advise me that the microphones on the Opposition side are not turned on when a Minister is speaking, unless there is a sustained interjection. That is the first point. The second point is that you will note that when I am sitting down I am usually sitting back, but even when I am close to the table the microphones are well away from my oral reach. Thirdly, the Prime Minister is constantly accusing me of interjecting when I have not said a word. He hears things that have not been said. I suggest that he needs a holiday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. Those issues having come out and been ventilated, we now look forward, as from this moment, to silence when a person is speaking, and no interjections. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to give leadership in that matter.

page 2503

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WORKS OF ART

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. What Commonwealth Government support is given to Australian artists and to the visual arts in this country? What is the present level of expenditure by the National Gallery on the purchase of works by Australian artists? Does the Minister consider that sufficient funds are being expended by all governments on the patronage of Australian artists?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The last part of that question asked for an opinion. The Minister need not answer that.

Mr ELLICOTT:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I thank the honourable member for his question. It has been the practice of this Government since it came into office to encourage the support of Australian artists. From the very beginning, when the National Gallery was with the Prime Minister’s Department, the Prime Minister was anxious to ensure that as much as possible of the funds available would be spent on supporting Australian artists, that has been the policy. I understand that during 1977- 78, when $3m was available to the National Gallery for the acquisition of works of art, an amount of approximately $690,000 or 23 per cent of the funds was made available for the acquisition of works by Australian artists. In 1978- 79, $3.25m will be made available to the National Gallery. Of that sum, 19 per cent or $625,000 will be expended by the Gallery in acquiring works by Australian artists.

Those amounts, when looked at alongside the other areas of the acquisitions of the National Gallery, are quite substantial. On the other hand, it would be the policy of the Government and, indeed, my desire as Minister to encourage the National Gallery to spend even more than that proportion on the works of Australian artists. It has to be understood that the National Gallery is acquiring a certain class of work. It is not in the business of just buying works of art by Australian artists in every commercial gallery around Australia. Within the class of work which the Gallery wants to acquire to make up our national collection, it would be my desire as Minister to encourage the National Gallery to spend as much as possible of its $3.25m and what it gets in subsequent years on supporting Australian artists.

page 2504

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and is further to the question of my colleague the honourable member for Lalor. Is it a fact that Stawell Timber Industries was known by the Government to be in serious financial trouble when the Minister and his Department agreed to give the company preferential treatment? Is it also a fact that the company has gained Aboriginal housing contracts totalling more than $2m since early 1977 without submitting to competitive tender, even though this process is required by his Department’s regulations? Has the Prime Minister twice discussed the difficulties of the company with its senior executives? Has the Prime Minister discussed them with the Minister?

Mr VINER:
LP

– All the contracts entered into by Stawell Timber Industries with Aboriginal housing associations have been entered into in accordance with the financial directives issued by my Department and within the ministerial guidelines issued by me. I know of no circumstance in which the financial situation of Stawell Timber Industries has put any Aboriginal housing association at a disadvantage. I am aware that the Department of Construction being involved as technical consultants to my Department in advising Aboriginal housing associations, has had cause to discuss with the company upgrading the quality of its housing and otherwise improving the services that it delivers to housing associations. I am advised that those discussions with the Department of Construction have been very useful and to the advantage of Aboriginal communities.

It is entirely a matter for the open commercial market whether Stawell Timber Industries is able to sell its product to housing associations. That company competes with other groups, whether for industrialised housing or for ordinarily constructed housing for those communities. So no preferential treatment is given to this company. It is in the housing business, the same as any other company. It must meet competition as it comes and it must meet the financial directions and the ministerial guidelines issued under my authority.

page 2504

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT MARALINGA

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. In view of the statement by the Deputy Premier of South Australia that information made available to his Government regarding radioactive materials at Maralinga did not appear to be of such a nature that it should remain classified, will the Government now request the British Government to declassify all aspects of the Pearce report other than those details which would disclose security arrangements or the location of material which could constitute a public hazard? Does the Minister agree that the public can have little confidence in the Government’s assurances of safety while it refuses to disclose full details of the waste and contamination remaining at Maralinga?

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

– I remind the honourable member for Reid that the report of the Pearce committee was a report that was available to him while he served as a Minister in the successive Whitlam governments. There is no mystery about the report of the Pearce committee. On my information, for some years it has been available to successive governments in South Australia. I acknowledge the suggestion put by the honourable gentleman that the Australian Government might consider asking the British Government to remove the classification from the report of the Pearce committee. I will ask my colleagues to consider that request on its merits. I have nothing to add to my advice to the House on this issue as far as Maralinga is concerned, other than to remind the honourable gentleman in particular that, as far as my Department has been concerned, it has been the repository of the records -of the archives. We have had no links whatsoever in the direct sense with the Maralinga tests. Finally, may I say that in 1956 1 was not the person responsible for setting off the bomb.

page 2504

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHINA

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Resources. Following the Minister’s advice to the House yesterday that he discussed with the Chinese authorities last week ways of co-operation between Australia and Chinese authorities to assist China ‘s agricultural development, can the Minister now provide any more specific information as to how this cooperation might be achieved?

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

-Various Chinese Ministers and officials in discussions I have had with them referred to Australia’s highly developed agriculture and to the way in which we have developed our pastoral regions. They asked whether we could be of help in providing them with technology in relation to dry land farming and animal husbandry. China has enormous grassland areas which are virtually undeveloped- there are approximately 200 million hectares of this sort of country- and its development offers opportunities for us. We had a machinery display in Peking at which there were 12 Australian exhibitors. They exhibited mainly machinery for this sort of operation. I am pleased to say that all the machinery was sold and we are hoping to get further orders from the display. I mentioned to the Chinese what the South Australian and Western Australian Governments have done in setting up pilot farms in places like Algeria and Libya where we have been able to apply our technology and use Australian made equipment. This was taken up with a good deal of interest. On Monday I mentioned this development opportunity to the Premier of South Australia who very keenly responded and said that South Australia would be willing to get involved in a pilot farm operation. I have just had word back from him that the South Australian Government would like to do it and will be sending its Minister for Agriculture, Mr Chatterton, to see me tomorrow to find out how South Australia might proceed. I hope that other Australian States will be able to provide help and get involved in these projects in China. I believe that it would be helpful. It builds up goodwill and offers us the opportunity in the future of providing livestock and machinery for this sort of development.

page 2505

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Primary Industry will recall making a statement yesterday in the House which I will quote to help his recollection:

The solicitors for the directors and shareholders of all the companies and the chartered accountants responsible for the investigation which I initiated have advised me- as I explained in answer to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this afternoon- that they are not aware of any evidence that would in any way point to a breach of fiduciary duties on my pan, whether with respect to affairs before my father’s death or after it.

I ask the Minister: Is a Mr Allan Walsh a shareholder and director of Allan Walsh Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd and Reliance Investments? Are they three of the companies to which he referred in his statement yesterday? Has he yet received from Mr Allan Walsh a communication which was dispatched yesterday afternoon stating that insofar as Mr Allan Walsh is concerned the statement made by the Minister yesterday in the Parliament, to which I have just referred, is untrue and therefore, I would suggest, misleading of the Parliament?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the last part of the question is no. The honourable gentleman might be interested to know that at the last meeting of the directors of the companies, a meeting at which representatives of all the shareholders were present, including representatives of the Walsh family, a resolution was reconfirmed appointing the solicitor, whose advice I quoted yesterday, to represent all the shareholders. As far as I know he continues to do so. There is no evidence before me, nor has there been any before the companies, to contradict the formal advice which has been given to us on a successive number of occasions that the solicitor continues to represent all the parties involved in the dispute.

page 2505

QUESTION

SURVEY OF WORKERS’ ATTITUDES

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to any recent surveys of the attitudes of employees to matters which are of vital concern to them?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In recent times there has been a professionally conducted survey of the attitudes of trade union members. In view of the attitudes that are so often expressed by some trade union leaders, I think the attitudes of trade union members, as opposed to those of their leaders, are highly relevant and highly important to Australia’s present circumstance. For example, from the survey it was perfectly plain that there is an enormous gap between the views of union leaders and members of unions. For example, 63 per cent of workers agreed that union pressure for wage increases was not supported by the rank and file. Seventy per cent of the workforce agreed that wage increases these days often mean that somebody else loses a job. Sixty-nine per cent of workers felt that another wage increase would not help them much and that they would rather wait until the economy settled down. Fifty-four per cent of workers said that real wages should not be maintained by the

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission if industry could not afford the costs involved. For workers, the top priority was the same as the Government’s- to keep inflation under control. There were similar disagreements between the work force and union leaders on compulsory unionism and working hours, for example. Of the work force, 75 per cent did not want compulsory unionism and 65 per cent of workers said that the average weekly working hours should be kept the same. I think that that survey just goes to bear out the great good sense of the majority of average Australian working men and women. It is a pity that some trade union leaders did not heed their own constituents to a greater extent.

page 2506

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. Do Australian airlines now compare unfavourably in profitability with airlines of other countries where deregulation and price cutting have occurred? Has this decline in relative profitability coincided with these overseas developments? Is it a fact that Qantas Airways Ltd engages in fare discounting abroad, offering advantages to overseas travel customers which are not available in Australia? Is there not an artificial air fare structure in Australia? Is this not the reason why air navigation regulations cause such immense difficulties for the majority of travel operators?

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

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked several questions. The first question was in relation to the profitability of Australian airlines. I assume he means Qantas Airways Ltd which is the only Australian international operator. All I can say to him in that respect is that the profit and loss account of Qantas for the next year will be tabled in the Parliament within the next couple of weeks. He will be able to judge then whether the operations of Qantas are satisfactory from the Australian people’s point of view and from the Australian Government’s point of view.

Mr Hurford:

– Don’t you know? Can’t you tell us now?

Mr NIXON:

– It is not proper for me to disclose that information until I am able to table the report which will satisfy all the questions that might be in the minds of intelligent honourable members. A comparison will then be able to be made between the operations of Qantas as our international carrier and all those operators who presently are engaged in traffic across the Atlantic following deregulation. I think proper comparisons can be made. As to the allegation or suggestion that Qantas might be engaged in improper practices overseas, I think the chairman of Qantas answered this question at a Press Club luncheon recently. I think the words he used were to the effect that Qantas follows the practice of the national carrier in each country in which it operates. I can add no more to the answer to the honourable member than to repeat that statement.

As to the point that there is an artificial price regime in operation causing heavy discounting by some travel agents in Australia, I accept that immediately as being a matter of fact. One of the reasons I am seeking to secure a cheaper air fare regime into every country into which Qantas flies and by every airline that flies into Australia is to overcome the discriminatory practice that flows out of having a regime that, in my view, is too high and allows operators to give discriminatory kickbacks to some customers and not to others. I hold the very strong view that if a cheaper air fare is available it ought to be available not only to the chosen few who might get the subsidy but also to every Australian traveller. The proposals that are presently under discussion both in Asia and. in Europe with a number of governments put forward that view. I can only say to the House that I am very hopeful that this matter will be resolved by Christmas.

Mr Young:

– You have been saying for three years: ‘I am very hopeful that next week something will happen’. You will have a baby.

Mr NIXON:

– When I have a baby, it will be better looking than the honourable member. I can promise him that. It is very easy for those who have not studied this question closely- I include the honourable member for Port Adelaide in this category- to believe that it is a simple matter to change the bilateral agreements with governments around the world. I have said from the start that by Christmas 1978 I will be in a position to make statements about what the air fare regime and the bilateral agreements with governments will be. It will be welcome Christmas news to the Australian people.

page 2506

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the threat that the present United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation draft declaration on the mass media poses to the freedom of the world ‘s Press. I ask the Minister to explain what position the Government will adopt at the forthcoming UNESCO general conference to ensure that the more unacceptable sections of the draft declaration are modified.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government has been particularly active on this matter throughout the year. Whilst the present draft text of the proposed UNESCO declaration on the mass media, as termed, is an improvement over the earlier version which Australia found unacceptable at the last session of the UNESCO general conference in November 1976, it still contains unacceptable provisions. These could imply a need for government interference in media activities and thereby diminish the freedom of the media to operate in a way which we consider absolutely essential to the very basis of a free society. For these reasons Australia will not support adoption of the existing text. However, despite our inability to accept the current draft we have been consulting our Western partners for several months in an attempt to work out amendments which would protect the principle and practice of a free, extensive and responsible flow of information and to erase any suggestion of government control of the media.

Our view is that the international community obviously should have access to the widest possible range of opinions and news on national and international developments. We are of course sensitive to the wishes of developing countries in building up their internal communications systems and news exchange arrangements. Our ambassador to UNESCO has stated Australia’s policy, that is, that we stand ready to assist where we can in this area. In fact the Government has provided media and communications training courses as well as being prepared to contribute financially to international bodies such as the Asian-Pacific Institute of Broadcasting Development which is located in Kuala Lumpur. We see the development of the communications systems of other countries as enlarging and enriching the flow of information around the world, thus being a proper objective of UNESCO. However, we are deeply concerned that UNESCO should not become the vehicle of viewpoints which mar the objectivity of the organisation and seek to weaken a fundamental and basic tenet of democratic practice and liberal thought. This is a matter on which I have personally been in contact with the United States Secretary of State on more than one occasion throughout the year. It touches on a principle that we are not prepared to see politicised. No amount of extreme rhetoric from other elements of the international community will force me to change my view on what is, after all, a basic bulwark of liberty.

page 2507

QUESTION

DEPARTURE TAX

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seen reports that visitors from the P & O ship Island Princess who were in Australia for 10 hours were indignant at having to pay the $10 departure tax? What action does the Minister intend to take to remove what I consider to be an absurd impost on visitors who are here for only a few hours?

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

– I have seen reports in the newspapers concerning a visit by officers of my Department to that vessel and the reported reaction of people on board the vessel. We have undertaken discussions with companies concerned with travel by sea. Those discussions are continuing. We hope to find a way around the problems that have been brought up by this matter.

page 2507

QUESTION

RURAL ROADS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Transport, concerns rural local road allocations to councils in New South Wales. Is he aware of the grave financial difficulties caused to local councils by the fourmonth delay in announcing rural local road allocations? Did the New South Wales Minister for Roads provide any explanation for this inordinate delay in forwarding the rural local road priorities for New South Wales? Is the Minister aware that many individual councils have not received anything like the increase in rural local road allocations that applied to the whole State? Can the Minister ensure that Commonwealth funds for certain road categories are not misdirected by the States into other categories?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– I did not receive any explanation from the New South Wales Government as to why there was a delay in forwarding to me the roads program for 1978-79. I can assume only- I do not want to be political about thisthat it had something to do with the New South Wales State election. It may well be that if the increased funds that were made available to New South Wales had been properly presented to the rural, local governments of that State it would have been seen that the Commonwealth was continuing its support of the local government associations and shires throughout New South Wales.

As to the suggestion that the funding of New South Wales shire councils may not be equitably distributed, I will need to look at the program as submitted by the State Minister, who has the responsibility of sharing the funds around and making that judgment. Part of the federalist policy in which this Government believes is that the

State should be responsible for spreading the funds around, and if one shire ended up with less funds than it should have as a result of the 6.9 per cent increase to the State, that would be as a result of a judgment by New South Wales. It may well be that some shires have received less and some more than they should have as a result of the 6.9 per cent increase, but I will look at that point later. I do not believe it would be possible for the New South Wales Government to transfer any of those funds out of the rural, local grants area without my approval. I will ensure that as far as is possible all of the funds made available under the local grants Act are distributed equitably among the shires.

page 2508

QUESTION

SEMI-GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES: BORROWINGS

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer seen reports that the borrowing program of semi-government authorities, as approved by the Loan Council in June, is likely to fall short by several hundred million dollars? ls the difficulty that the States have experienced in raising these funds substantially attributable to reduced interest rates and to the reduction made three months ago in the minimum ratio of savings banks holdings of government and semi-government securities to deposits from 45 per cent to 40 per cent? Will the recent further reduction in interest rates for semigovernment authorities exacerbate the difficulty of fulfilling the semi-government authorities borrowing program? Was the Commonwealth’s unexpected generosity in approving all of the States’ requests to seek overseas finance for infrastructure projects explained by the shortfall of the domestic borrowing program?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-The answer to the last part of the question is no. Frankly, I am not aware of the reports to which the honourable member for Gellibrand has referred.

Mr Willis:

– I will give you a copy.

Mr HOWARD:

-I am not aware of them. I will investigate whether there have been any reports from reliable and responsible sources which suggest that the semi-government borrowing program is behaving in the way he suggests. If I have any information to offer on it I will let the House know; but my understanding is that thus far something of the order of 70 per cent of the semi-government borrowing program that was approved at the Loan Council meeting in June has already been arranged. Bearing in mind that we are not yet six months through the financial year, I would not have thought that indicated what the honourable gentleman was implying.

page 2508

QUESTION

RETAIL TURNOVER TAX

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that concern is still being engendered in the Australian business community by private statements of some Australian Taxation Office officials that the future introduction of a retail turnover or similar tax is in fact a foregone conclusion? Do such statements have official backing and support? Is the Treasurer able to comment on this situation in particular, and the Australian Taxation Office inquiry into indirect taxation in general?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I have not to my recollection had any complaints from Australian businessmen to the effect that officers of the Australian Taxation Office have privately or publicly said that the introduction of a retail turnover tax or a value added tax is a foregone conclusion. I cannot help the honourable gentleman in that regard. Naturally, I will make some inquiries arising out of his question. I think in fairness to the taxation officers I should state that I do not have any knowledge of any such complaints having been made by the Australian business community.

I am thankful for the question from the honourable member for Tangney because it gives me the opportunity to say two things. I reaffirm what I said in this House two or three weeks ago: No in-principle decision has been taken by the Government to introduce a broad based indirect tax. We are conducting an examination of the practicalities of such action. If we decide to take the matter any further, we will issue a discussion paper for further community response and comment. It is an important matter; we ought to be a rational enough community to have a debate on the mix of taxation without those on one side or the other who hold strong views trying by emotional argument to intimidate the decision making process.

In that regard I have to refer to an obvious form letter, the source of which I do not know, which is circulating in the community and which contains two quite incorrect statements. Firstly, it refers to a proposed retail turnover tax. No decision has been taken to introduce such a tax. To refer to a proposed tax is to instil unnecessary concern and create a climate of suspicion and mistrust. I think that it is very unfortunate that those who promoted that letter should have chosen to do so. Secondly, the letter implies that the Government has kept the community in the dark about this proposal. We have done nothing of the kind. We have been quite open in saying that we are merely exploring the prospect. I would hope that the discussion of this matter will proceed in a mature fashion. I thank the honourable gentleman for asking me the question and I also thank other honourable members on the Government side of the House who raised this matter with me recently such as the honourable members for Macarthur and Wakefield.

page 2509

ABORTION CLINICS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to add to an answer that I gave earlier.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I have already had the Hansard tape checked. In relation to the question of abortion clinics, the tape will show that, during part of my answer, the Leader of the Opposition did interject: ‘What is wrong with private enterprise?’ He said: ‘What is wrong with private enterprise?’. The tape shows that and Hansard will record it.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. I am not terribly agitated. Mr Speaker, I would prefer to have you inspect the tape and report back. On that basis we would have some confidence of an accurate account being given to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. The Prime Minister has just indicated what the Leader of the Opposition said. What the Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition said is totally different from what was actually said. The Prime Minister was deliberately misleading the House. I think that in view of the fact that the daily Hansard is not being produced, and that these proceedings are broadcast and people are entitled to think such statements are authoritative you ought to ask for the Hansard text and bring to the attention of the House the accurate statement of what the Leader of the Opposition said and what the Prime Minister said. Those statements are quite different.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will look at the Hansard report, as will all honourable gentlemen. They will be able to look at Hansard because although the daily copy of yesterday’s proceedings is not yet available, because of the industrial disruption which occurred at the Government Printing Office yesterday, that industrial dispute has been settled and the Printing Office is now operating. My expectation is that today’s Hansard will be available tomorrow morning together with yesterday’s Hansard. So far as today’s proceedings are concerned, there will be no dislocation whatsoever of the Hansard record.

page 2509

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

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

– The Government parties this morning considered the sitting program and decided that the House will be sitting on 17 November and 24 November, the two Fridays which were to be non-sitting days. It is expected that the House of Representatives will be in a position to adjourn for the summer recess late in the day on 24 November. On those days the House will commence sitting at 10 a.m. and I would think that the question would be put for the adjournment debate at about 4.30 p.m.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-On the same point, the Leader of the House has not moved a motion, but on behalf of the Opposition I want to say that we resent the way in which this proposal is being carried out. We see absolutely no need at all for a decision to be taken now, so late in the sittings, that is going to restrict the sittings of the House of Representatives by one week. Absolutely no reason has been given by the Leader of the House. We have no idea of the business to come before the House. We are not privy -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Leader of the House asked for my indulgence to make a short statement to indicate the sittings of the House. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide correctly said, there is no motion before the Chair. I permitted him to speak as a matter of indulgence. I would limit him in that indulgence to a mere statement of the attitude of the Opposition, without giving reasons for that attitude.

Mr YOUNG:

– Let me say firstly, when seeking your indulgence, that the Opposition is not privy to the reasons given in the coalition party room as to why the sittings of the House have to be changed so dramatically. We can only guess at the reason, but we should be allowed to give our reasons as to why we believe the House should not be getting up on 24 November.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he seek leave to make a statement.

Mr YOUNG:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. I cannot permit the indulgence much further.

Mr YOUNG:

- Mr Speaker, I must say that we have the utmost contempt for the way in which this Government is treating the Parliament. What need is there to suspend the sittings of the

House on 24 November other than that the Government is on the nose. That is the only reason we can suggest that these people want to get out of the chamber. There is absolutely no other reason for it. The Leader of the House is the leader of this move, you can bet your life on that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman wil resume his seat.

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of order, I was going to point out to the honourable gentleman that there will be adequate opportunity in this place to debate the adjournment of the House when the motion is before the chamber. I am notifying the House today for the convenience of members so that they will be in a position to plan their programs ahead. I should have thought that even Opposition members would like to be able to do that.

Mr YOUNG:

-The Leader of the House has said that he is allowing us time to make our arrangements. It might be of interest to the Leader of the House to know that arrangements have already been made for the next two Fridays by members on this side. It might have been that all members sitting on the other side had no arrangements for the next two Fridays -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– When is the motion going to be moved? When are we going to be told about it officially?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:

-They are turning the Parliament into a joke.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide that if he does not obey my request I will have to deal with him. The honourable member for Port Adelaide ought to know, as Manager of Opposition Business, that before the House can sit on a Friday there has to be a motion to permit it to do so. On that motion presumably the honourable gentleman will be able to speak. He asked for my indulgence. I gave it to him and he went far beyond a reasonable level. The Leader of the Opposition has a point to raise? The Leader of the Opposition is not speaking, so I call for the presentation of papers.

Mr Hayden:

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have already called for the presentation of papers.

page 2510

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2510

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Construction for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2510

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) ACT

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1 969 I present a statement of the payments made in 1977-78 in respect of all guarantees given under this Act.

page 2510

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a discussion paper by the Schools Commission entitled Some Aspects of School Finance in Australia, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education.

page 2510

DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– On this the second anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Productivity, I present for the information of honourable members the annual report of the Department of Productivity for 1977-78 entitled Productivity 1978.

page 2510

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– At Question Time in answer to a question I directed to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), he indicated clearly that the basis of my question was wrong. I will not go over the question again. I have in my possession a telegram of even date, obviously received today. It states:

Mr Torok does not represent a Walsh Investments Pty Ltd. Mr M. O’Reilly of T G D Marshall Landers and Coy Wynyard House 291 George St Sydney act for the above

Coy in any affairs with the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission

Walsh

I seek leave to have the telegram tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has suggested that in some way I misled the House in the response I gave yesterday and in answer to his question today. I can assure him that at successive meetings at which all shareholders, including representatives of the Walsh family, were present, the appointment of Mr Torok was agreed on by resolution of all the shareholders. I repeat that assertion in this House today as I did yesterday.

Mr Hayden:

– You will take it further.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I can understand his difficulty.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman should not comment on my ruling. I ask him to proceed with his personal explanation.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-To the best of my knowledge, all members of the Walsh family have agreed with the resolutions which were supported on their behalf by those who attended the meetings of the companies to which I referred. I am not in receipt of a copy of the telegram to which the Leader of the Opposition referred nor do I know of it, other than that it has been mentioned in the House this morning. I repeat my assertion that to the best of my knowledge and belief the advice that has been given to me is from the legal advisers representing all the parties in the companies.

page 2511

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1978.

Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Bill 1978.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1978.

page 2511

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107 I have selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Prospect, namely:

The failure of the Government to adequately and equitably provide for the health insurance needs of the community.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your wise choice.

Mr Baillieu:

– Why are all your colleagues walking out?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I think they have probably got sick of what has happened with health insurance over the last three years. Once again, the incompetence of this Government in health insurance policy formulation has been highlighted during the last week or two in a particularly worrying and insidious manner. The aging, the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions, the very people for whom health insurance is most necessary, have been threatened with being dropped by the private funds. What hope does the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) offer these anxious contributors? Yesterday he said:

We are not sure yet whether we will do it by determination, regulation or legislation- it is possible that I will do it by legislation.

Today we have been told that this Parliament will rise on 24 November. It will be interesting to see what kind of legislation will be introduced. I, of course, argue that legislation is not necessary to alter the proposals. I will make a couple of points to indicate to the House the urgency which many people consider is necessary to resolve what is happening at the present time because of the utter and complete confusion. As I have emphasised before, the Liberal Party is employing a public relations consultant, John Gaul, to try to get this particular scheme across to the Australian public. The Minister for Health, his Press secretary and private secretary are not given a fair go to try to explain things. It is all run from the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Prime Minister employs

Mr Gaul who has not been terribly successful so far in getting the facts across. He does not permit the Minister for Health to appear on television with me. The Minister on instructions from the Prime Minister through Mr Gaul had to refuse to appear on This Day Tonight and Monday Conference with me after indicating earlier that he would. The Victorian Director of Consumer Affairs is quoted in today’s Australian. He is talking about the present health insurance system. The article states:

I had to admit I’d simply lost track of Canberra’s rethinks’, he says.

But at least I’m in good company. Judging from the distress calls pouring into my office, 99 per cent of people haven’t the faintest clue which health fund is covering who, for what, for when or for how long’.

Mr Hunt:

– They were pretty confused at the time of Medibank I can tell you.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– They were all covered for everything. The article by Mr Pinkney continues:

Mr Geschke has touched on only one aspect of a medical mess that could itself be causing rebatable nervous illnesses.

Across Australia, chemists and counter staffs, unable to keep abreast of ever-altering rules, are frequently offering erroneous advice.

Unlike insurance companies, the baffling benefits funds give premium payers no statement of benefits and exclusions.

This means that most of us, floundering in a chaos of competitive claims, may end up buying a policy in a poke.

The health funds, I feel, are keeping their cards too close to their well-stuffed money-chests.

What this confused continent needs, Norman Geschke believes, is a deep-delving official report that will tell us, simply, what the funds will reimburse us for- and what they won’t.

As subscribers discover almost daily, there are crevasses galore in the cold, pitiless health cover tundra.

Crevasses whose existence we do not expect until we have fallen sick- and fallen in.

The Sunday Telegraph, one of the papers which continuously supports this Government in its editorial last weekend stated:

What must be remembered is that the Federal Health Minister, Mr Hunt, approved the HCF plans within the past few weeks. He is quite right to be appalled at what was done. But he should have told the HCF he was appalled when he saw their plans. Or didn’t he read them closely enough?

An advertisement of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia was published over the weekend. It stated quite clearly:

The HCF’s new rules from 1 November 1978, which were approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Health (Mr Ralph Hunt) last month, preclude the payment of the ‘gap’ benefit under this table in respect of pre-existing and chronic conditions. This same benefit limitation is also in the rules of other medical benefit funds which operate such tables.

That, of course, is correct. The HCF news item which was to be released after 1 p.m. on Monday 23 October, which is some time ago, was headed: HCF offers new choices under revised health scheme’. It stated quite clearly that semi-private cover would provide medical benefits of up to 100 per cent of the schedule for medical services except for pre-existing and chronic conditions. I ask honourable members to remember the words and chronic conditions’. Some people have misunderstood the situation. They have said that with chronic conditions the first 50 consultations and 40 diagnostic services will be paid for. But that is not so. Those with pre-existing and chronic conditions are excepted and there is an annual limit of 50 consultations and 40 diagnostic services per person covered. In other words, the HCF rule, released after the Minister agreed to it, is quite clear.

The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia has done exactly the same thing. It issued a publication last week or the week before. It states quite clearly in item 3, which was published and is handed out to everybody, under the heading Medical Benefits Fund of Australia for Friendly Service’, that benefits are not payable in respect of pre-existing and chronic conditions.

Mr Hunt:

– That is out of date.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– This is November 1978. Surely it has not changed the rules again since then.

Mr Hunt:

– No. Its rules have not been submitted, which is not news to you.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-This is the MBF publication issued last week and sent to me by Mr Cade.

Mr Hunt:

– Its rules have not come to hand.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– HCF has been blamed wrongly as being the only one doing this. It was not the only one doing this. It was the only one that at least had the common decency to tell its contributors what was happening. MBF has not been telling them. MBF tells them in retrospect when they are putting in their claims. The Minister for Health yesterday and in his statement the other day denying the HCF claim said:

All I have approved so far are the new HCF contribution rates which were introduced on 1 November.

I challenge the Minister again on this point, as I tried to do yesterday at Question Time: What is involved in approving the contribution rates? Surely when he approves particular contribution rates he also looks at what is being offered for those contribution rates; otherwise it is a quite meaningless exercise. The whole point about approving contribution rates is that he relates them to what the fund is offering and his Department makes a decision as to whether it is a fair offer. If he says that he did not look at what the funds offered in exchange for those contribution rates and he approved the contribution rates, I just do not know what that means. What does it mean to approve contribution rates?

All the funds, including Medibank Privatenot only HCF and MBF- have been lying in their advertising. They talk about reduced rates. They say that a person can now get 100 per cent cover for less than what he had to pay for 75 per cent cover previously. This is true, superficially; but what they are not saying and what the Minister ought to be emphasising on behalf of his own Government is that 40 per cent of that 100 per cent is being paid for by the taxpayers of Australia. The Australian Government pays 40 per cent. The maximum the fund has to pay for any one service is 60 per cent. In the expensive services the maximum the fund has to pay is $20. The maximum the funds are up for is $20, which in many cases can be as little as 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the actual fee. When they say that they are giving people 100 per cent for less than they previously had to pay for 75 per cent cover the funds are not telling the truth. They are paying a maximum of 60 per cent or $20 per service and they are charging nearly as much as they charged before for 75 per cent.

The Medical Benefits Fund has increased its charges. As it put it itself, it has increased its charges by $1.85. It is now charging $7.20 for a cover which corresponds to a 60 per cent cover only. For 35 per cent cover- and instead of having to pay up to $300 or $400 for some operations, the maximum it now has to pay is $20- it has reduced its contribution rate by 90c a week.

Mr Hunt:

– Does it supply ancillary benefits?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Not that I am aware of, on that particular cover; but it is getting a lot of extra money. I challenged the funds last week as to why they were not pointing out that the Minister for Health was at fault, before they started publishing the advertisements over the weekend. The reason why they are not doing that is that there has been an underhand agreement between the funds and the Minister in that the Minister has approved excessively high contribution rates so as to enable the funds to build up reserves again. This is really what is behind the whole problem. Neither the Minister nor the funds are telling the truth. They are slowly starting to fight with one another. I am pleased to see that. It is a case of thieves falling out. The basic reason for it, of course, is that there was an underhand agreement between the funds and the Minister. The Minister was accepting far too high a series of contribution rates for what the funds were actually offering.

It is quite clear that even HCF, which allegedly has now given an undertaking that it has withdrawn the letter- whatever that may mean- is still not paying out on those chronic conditions. I have had a call from a lady who has been a member of HCF since 1954, which is a fairly long time. During the last two years she developed a chronic condition in her spine. She is supposed to have treatment in a private hospital this month. She rang HCF following the receipt of the letter and she was told that she would not be paid for it. That was fair enough, because the fund said that she was not appropriately covered. The HCF withdrew the letter, allegedly. She rang the fund again yesterday and she was told that she still would not be covered. Apparently all the fund has done is withdrawn the letter . but it still is not paying the patient the extra money.

Mr Hunt:

– It will be forced to by law. .

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It can be forced to now. The Minister knows that. He does not have to agree to the contribution rates to which he has agreed. That is what I am objecting to. He has accepted those contribution rates.

Let me finish on what I consider to be most important. It is important that people do not overinsure. People are covering themselves unnecessarily. They are taking out 100 per cent cover unnecessarily, not realising that they are covered for everything except $20 anyway. They are not aware that if they go into hospital as standard ward patients they do not have to pay for medical services. The Minister ought to be pointing this out to them. What is John Gaul doing? What is the Minister’s publicity machine doing? What is the Government’s publicity machine doing? It is co-operating with the funds in getting money out of people unnecessarily. It is important for people to realise that in the vast majority of cases it is unnecessary for them to take out any insurance. It is certainly unnecessary for them to take out any medical insurance and unnecessary for them to take out any hospital insurance unless they want the doctor of their choice at least in theory. I am not arguing on the question of doctor of choice. If people want doctor of choice they have to take out that extra cover and pay for that; but it is unnecessary for them to take out medical insurance.

I challenge the Minister to deny that in fact he was aware or his Department or the appropriate committee was aware of the fact that the funds would not be paying for chronic patients. Finally, I ask the Minister once more, as I have asked him since February 1976, when he is going to do something about enabling contributors to the Medical Benefits Fund or the Hospitals Contribution Fund and many other large funds in Australia to be represented on the boards of those organisations? In February 1976 he gave an undertaking that he would do something about it. He still has not done anything about it.

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

– There are a couple of things I want to respond to immediately. I want to correct the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in respect of the public relations consultant. He was not appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). His contract concluded on 1 November and he is not responsible for any of the public relations matters to which the honourable member has referred. In regard to the confusing issue, I might say that health insurance has always been something of an enigma to a great percentage of people in this country and there has never been a change to the health insurance system which has not involved a considerable amount of confusion. This is largely due to the fact that in Australia we have about 80 health insurance funds that offer a variety of packages. This represents a considerable problem of choice to people.

Indeed, the story is that when the national health scheme was introduced in 1953 there was great confusion. There was confusion in the Parliament at that time. In fact, the story is that, as the Prime Minister of the day was leaving this chamber and returning to his office after hearing the then Minister for Health Sir Earle Page announce the new health scheme, the Prime Minister was asked by a journalist: ‘Prime Minister, do you understand this health scheme?’ His response was: ‘Yesterday there were three of us who did- the Almighty, Sir Earle Page and me- but after tonight you can count me out’. Let us face it, it always has been a relatively confusing issue. Let nobody say that the introduction of the Medibank scheme did not cause massive confusion. It certainly did.

We as a government have attempted to simplify the issue of health insurance as much as possible. We have maintained the universal cover concept which was a very desirable feature of the Medibank principle. I will admit that the scheme that went to bed on 31 October was a very complex- indeed, a confusing- scheme and a very difficult one to administer, but it achieved an objective in bringing about a slowing down in the rate of increase in health costs in this country. I reject completely the assertion by the honourable member for Prospect that the Government has failed adequately and equitably to provide for the health insurance needs of the community. I might say that the record of the Australian Labor Party in this area should never be forgotten. In fact, I do not think that its health record will ever be forgotten because it was during the Australian Labor Party’s 3-year term in office that Australians suffered the greatest explosion in health costs in the history of this country.

The medical profession consistently warned the then Government that its ill conceived, openended arrangements would lead to a great explosion in health costs. Yet that profession stood to gain most out of the scheme financially. Indeed, it did. Let us look at the great movements that occurred in doctors’ schedule fees. Using 100 as the base, the accumulated percentage increase from when the Australian Labor Party took office to November 1975 was 58.9 per cent.

The record of this Government has been far different. On 1 January 1977 doctors’ fees increased on average by 7.5 per cent. Due to another tribunal determination on 1 January 1978 doctors’ fees increased on average by a further 7.3 per cent. A few months ago the Australian Medical Association, to its credit, announced that it would co-operate with the Government and with the community and would make its contribution towards restraint by agreeing to a freeze on fees until 1 November 1979. That should not be forgotten because so many people in the community are ready to abuse the medical profession and to blame it for the great problems that have occurred. That is the only professional group in the communityundoubtedly it can afford to do so because of the way in which the former Government bloated its members’ incomes- that has made the gesture of freezing its fees until 1 November 1 979.

So let not the Opposition try to make out that its record in the health area has been anything but disastrous. The Labor Party’s record is so poor that it should not be casting a stone at this Government in regard to health systems. The Labor Party’s three years in government saw the most wanton expenditure of taxpayers’ funds in the history of the Commonwealth. This extravaganza occurred not only in the health area but also in every section of administration. We had record rates of inflation of up to 17 per cent per annum and more. Whom did that hurt most in the community? It did not hurt the wealthy members of the community, the investors and those people with capital which enabled them to achieve capital gain; it hurt people in the poorer sections of the community more than anybody else.

When this Government was elected to office in 1975 it had no alternative but to face up to the unpleasant task of trying to restructure the whole health insurance system. No responsible government could stand by and see the health system break down under its own financial burden. Apart from restoring doctor fee increase moderation, we removed at least some of the burden from Consolidated Revenue by the decisions we took in 1976. The costs of the health system were weighing heavily on the taxpayers’ pockets. Under the universal system that existed then, an 85 per cent benefit, with a $5 gap, was available to every person in the community no matter how wealthy he was. To a very large extent we reduced exploitation in the pathology area. We are still working on that. Very shortly I will table in this Parliament a further report from the pathology committee. We are still not particularly happy with the degree of excess in services that continues to exist in the area. Nonetheless, we have reduced the great acceleration in that area.

We have rewritten the Commonwealth-State hospitals agreements, which were open-ended and provided for no accountability. Officers of the Commonwealth and the States have joined together in what are called the CommonwealthState officials committees, which have been established in every State to undertake the process of proper budgeting. Many measures have been taken to try to reduce the abuses and rip-offs that became a feature of the former scheme. It has been a constant battle to bring the Labor Government’s undisciplined mess under reasonable control. The latest statistics, prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Health and the consultant firm involved, that were released the other day demonstrate that to the year ended 30 June 1977 we achieved remarkable success. That is now a public document.

As I said earlier, the modified Medibank system which we introduced on 1 October 1976- the first modification- helped to make people generally more cost conscious in the whole health area, whether they were providers or users of the system. The scheme was complex. It certainly was difficult to administer. I would be the first to admit that. It was costly to the individual. The new scheme which began operating on 1 November this year has simplified the universal health insurance system and to some extent has reduced the burden upon the individual. The honourable member for Prospect was the first to admit that. He said that perhaps we should be saying more about the universal Commonwealth benefit that is available to all people- the fact that every Australian is entitled to standard ward hospital accommodation at no cost to him. I would be surprised if the great bulk of the Australian people did not understand that. I would have been surprised if they had not understood it when Medibank first came in.

The fact seems to be that the great percentage of the Australian people have a predisposition to seek to obtain private insurance for additional cover and to seek to insure themselves for doctorofchoice for hospital attention. It is arguable whether they are better off doing so. From time to time I have heard the debate on that go on and on in this place. Perhaps there is merit in some of the arguments that are advanced by the Opposition on the issue. Nonetheless, the Australian people have made their choice. Despite all the changes to the health insurance system, despite universality, despite the fact that they could have obtained universal cover for a family for a maximum of $300 a year, the majority of the people covered themselves for more expensive health insurance. Why did they do so? The surveys seem to indicate that they did it because they wished to have their doctor of choice treat them in hospital. Many of them cover and want to cover themselves for dental treatment and for a range of other ancillary benefits.

What the honourable member for Prospect is saying really is that the Australian people are dumb; that they are stupid; that they do not know what they are doing; that they cannot think. We are wasting a lot of money on education in this country if the great majority of the people- we are talking about 70 per cent of the Australian people- have not been able to think out what they want, even when the Labor Party introduced its Medibank scheme, when it provided expensive universal cover and when 70 per cent of the Australian people insured themselves for their choice of doctor and other ancillary benefits. I have spoken to many people on the issue. I am quite satisfied that they know what they are doing. I am quite satisfied that they have decided that they do want the right to choose a doctor when they are having major surgical treatment, particularly in the teaching hospitals.

Dr Klugman:

– They can join-

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member can go out and say that. He is telling people not to insure privately. That is his view; but there is a divided view and he is amongst the minority. He has not convinced many people not to insure privately; let us face that fact. The whole campaign of the

Australian Labor Party in 1975 when it introduced Medibank proved to be a disaster. The Labor Party expected that people would all fall into the Medibank pool but they did not. They were covered for medical expenses but they did not all settle for standard hospital accommodation.

These changes undoubtedly are equitable. There has not been any great public protest about the changes we introduced to take effect on 1 November. I thought that the Opposition was generally in favour of the basic thrust that the Government has taken to maintain universal cover, to take away compulsion and to return to a voluntary system, but at the same time to provide for catastrophic insurance, if one likes to call it that, so that even if people do nothing it will never cost them more thay $20 for any service no matter how expensive it is, provided the doctor charges the schedule fee. So, the scheme is equitable. Certainly, there have been difficulties with one fund in respect of chronicity.

Dr Klugman:

– But all the funds have the same rule. You have agreed to a fund now excluding people over 65.

Mr HUNT:

– While Labor was in office the chronicity provisions were allowed to prevail in respect to the higher tables and they applied to the hospital tables as well.

Mr Lloyd:

– They were there for three years.

Mr HUNT:

– They were there for the three years that Labor was in government. They have been there since 1953. Obviously we are not going to stand by and allow a fund to penalise a family that has been contributing for 10 years to a table above the basic table.

Dr Klugman:

– But you have agreed to it?

Mr HUNT:

– I agreed to the tables and to the rates, but I never had the rules submitted to me and the final rules did not come to my Department until after the Registration Committee approved the tables and the rules. We had to approve the rates as a matter of priority so that all funds could offer their premiums to their contributors. At present we are going through them very carefully. We do not anticipate that we will have any great difficulty with any of the other funds. In future, no fund will be able to apply the chronicity rule in the way that the Hospitals Contribution Fund tried to apply it to contributors who had contributed to that fund for many years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I feel it unnecessary to make any detailed response to the attack by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) on the Australian Labor Party’s health scheme. This is fundamentally because in my own constituency there is a growing and widespread desire to return to the simplicity and equity of Labor’s original scheme. It is true that on the whole the people in my constituency are not favoured by the kinds of elaborate schemes now being developed. I think that right through the community there is a growing desire to return to simpler, more equitable and, I believe, ultimately more efficient schemes.

I take up the Minister’s point that confusion always has been a problem when people have been faced with health insurance changes. The health system always has been an enigma, but I think it is true that it has never been a greater enigma to the Australian people than it is at present. It is my belief, and the Minister seems to have abandoned this idea completely, that government has a duty to make health schemes as simple and clear as it can. I use as my authority for that statement of the duty of government the Sax report which was issued some months ago under the auspices of the Minister. In that report Sax argued the need to create simple medical schemes for three reasons: Firstly, only if we have relatively simple schemes can we achieve our equity aims because the more complex we make the scheme the more chance there is of inequity growing; secondly, the simpler the scheme the greater the chance of efficiency; and, ultimately, the simpler the scheme the better and more effective ways there will be of controlling costs.

The Labor Party predicted that there would be confusion with the present scheme simply because of its genesis. I think that everyone will agree now that we and the population are in an extremely confused state over this scheme. We said three months ago that the people would be confused.

Mr Hunt:

-The more you say it, the more confused they will be.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I do not think that what I say about their confusion contributes at all to the problems the Government has created for them. All I am saying is that the Opposition predicted confusion three months ago and the prediction has turned out to be correct. We predicted it because of the genesis of the scheme. As the Minister admits himself, the scheme was not thoroughly worked out in his Department. It was a scheme introduced to deal above all with the financial exigencies of the Government. This scheme was not designed primarily in the interests of the health care of the community nor was it designed to provide an adequate or equal health service for Australians. The Minister knows that the scheme was a rather hurried and makeshift response to the financial exigencies of the Budget, to deal above all with the consumer price index problems of the Government. The Minister’s administrators know it; the Australian Medical Association knows it; and private health funds know it. The reason we now have so much confusion is that there was a failure of preplanning as this scheme was developed. We had three months of confusion, contradiction and uncertainty. In fact we now have a Medi-muddle to outdo all Medi-muddles

Mr Hunt:

– Nonsense. I challenge that.

Dr BLEWETT:

-The Minister may disagree about the muddle but he might agree that he has these problems at the moment because he has reintroduced effectively into the health system rampant free enterprise. His problems occur because people in the voluntary agencies are carrying the principles of insurance to their logical extension. So we now have rampant free enterprise back in the medical market. Health insurance, not health care, is now the name of the game. The chief consideration is on the insurance side and not on the health care side.

One can see the obvious results of this. There is the slather of advertisements in recent weeks with the best buys listed, the top bargains announced, with inducements to the young and healthy to come in and, at the end, even efforts to ward off from the funds the sick and chronically ill.

The Minister talks about the cost of health schemes to the community. Does he ever try to estimate the costs which are now being imposed and will continue to be imposed on the community simply because of the huxterism of the advertising market which has been brought back into the health scheme to a greater extent than anything else over the past six or seven years. One needs only to look at the newspapers of this country to see what is happening.

As I have pointed out, provisions are being introduced to favour the healthy and to disadvantage the chronically sick. Of course, this is a perfectly sensible thing for insurance people to do. They try to maximise the good risks and minimise the bad risks. Once we start giving priority to insurance we introduce these principles, but should they be the guidelines for health insurance provisions in this country? Indeed, the great achievement of Medibank mark I was that it drove the unbridled insurance ethic out of the medical field.

The Minister himself admits that there is a welter of complex alternative schemes now available. That is a kind of freedom; I will grant him that. But we have to look at the social cost of that kind of freedom, at the whole problem of competitive advertising and at the whole problem of reading the fine print. There is even some evidence that the Minister himself had trouble reading the fine print of some of the health agencies’ proposals. What then of those people entirely unversed in the health field?

I know that the Minister has condemned the worst of these practices and the worst examples of the free enterprise ethic which we now have back in the health system and he will attempt through promised legislation to avoid its worst manifestations. However, the point that needs to be made is that these practices are simply a logical extension of the Government’s attitude to medical policies since it came to power. I will read now from the Melbourne Age of 3 November where it comments particularly on the decisions of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia. However, the article has wider relevance. In talking about the decision of the HCF, the Age said:

It displays a cynicism and a greediness that is remarkable even for the health funds, which have done nicely enough already from the Fraser Government’s decision to abandon the original Medibank and hand health insurance back to the private sector.

But these kinds of extreme activities are the direct and logical extension of the philosophy now enshrined in the Liberal health scheme. Throughout all the permutations that have taken place over the last three years, the Government has sought to restore the private agencies to their former pre-eminence. The whole decision to move to deductibles was to open up the whole health field to competition, at once wasteful in advertising and socially undesirable. I believe that the introduction of deductibles- both the major deductibles and the deductibles offered by the private agencies- ultimately will add to the total cost burden to the community of health care. I would like briefly to read something I said in June because it has not been answered. It is, in fact, the problem at the heart of the present difficulties of the Minister. I said then:

Secondly, deductibles produce a problem of equity, lt is quite clear that there are two groups in the community who, on the whole, can take a risk with deductibles. They are the healthy and the wealthy. The healthy can take the nsk. They can gamble on maintaining their health and therefore can take a deductible scheme. The wealthy can also take the risk because if something catastrophic happens at least they have considerable resources to meet the payments. On the other hand, the poor and the sick should in a sense be encouraged not to opt for deductibles. There is a danger for the people who are sick or likely to be sick and of course there is a major danger for the poor if they take out a deductible. But -

Here is the present problem- if we encourage many people to take up such schemes, universality would be threatened. If deductibles are made attractive and become terribly successful, if they attract both the poor and other people who take risks with illness universality may have to be compromised. People may be so attracted by the deductible that they take the risk.

What the Government is doing is in fact creating or encouraging the private agencies to make very attractive deductible offerings- attractive to the healthy and the wealthy- and leaving the poor in a kind of vacuum position.

Let me illustrate one of the problems that arise from that. The Hospitals Contribution Fund and a number of other private health agencies do not believe that they can cope with the problem of the chronically ill. There are proposals now that the financing of the chronically ill should be shared by all the private agencies in some way. But what will come out of that increasingly is the suggestion that the Government should subsidise them. I have here a very fine statement from Mr Moon, spokesman for the private funds, which promises the next movement of the private agencies. He said:

These people -

The chronically ill- are a real problem for society and they should be considered a responsibility for everyone as a social service.

What all those fine words mean is that the private agencies do not really want to worry about the chronically ill. They want them shifted across to some government service. Again, the long-run movement will be towards -

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I am rather puzzled by the whole wording of this matter of public importance raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) who is the shadow Minister for Health. To me, he has put himself into a nonsense position. The matter of public importance states:

The failure of the Government to adequately and equitably provide for the health insurance needs of the community.

I ask honourable members to remember the words ‘. . . health insurance needs of the community’. The whole argument of the honourable member for Prospect today was based on the point that the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia and possibly other funds are not, in his view, playing the game. His whole line of argument time after time since this new scheme was proposed has been that there is no need for any health insurance with the new scheme. What a nonsense situation he has got himself into. On the one hand he is saying that under this scheme- because it is simple and obviously equitable- there is no need for insurance whatsoever. I have quite a number of his speeches scattered around here and a couple of Press releases that he has put out. One heading states: Don’t . . . that’s Labor’s medi cover advice’.

In a speech, the honourable member for Prospect stated:

All Australians, both current levy payers and private fund contributors, must think very carefully before committing themselves to health insurance.

He has been saying consistently: ‘There is no need for insurance’. In other words, insurance is beside the point as far as he is concerned in this health scheme. Yet the honourable member for Prospect today, after putting up the argument that there is no need for health insurance at all, now says that the health insurance arrangements are not equitable. What a contradiction. What a nonsense situation he has got himself into. I think he is just making a mockery of what should be a serious debate on this subject. If he would like to reconsider his position, as he was forced to during the most recent health debate that we had in this place- the Labor Party amendment would have provided an open season or an open Sesame situation for doctors to increase their incomes at the expense of the community- perhaps we could adjourn this House to let him think more about the position he has got himself into. The Party he represents as the shadow spokesman should also re-think this matter.

When the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) spoke I think he was closer to the point of what perhaps we should be debating. We should not be debating health insurance by itself but the health care needs of the people of this country in a total concept. Health insurance is only a part of that. We should be asking whether the needs of the Australian people are being met by this Government’s new scheme. When the honourable member for Prospect was developing his nonsensical position, he concentrated on the HCF issue. He referred to the fact that the HCF was trying to introduce restrictions for maximum medical cover for chronically ill patients which would be reduced after a certain time. He referred to the fact that 4,000 letters- or however many there were- were sent out to try to exclude chronically ill patients from medical cover. The letter suggested that these patients should go elsewhere for their insurance. Accepting that line of argument for the time being, one could say, as the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has stated, that the problem developed because of the desire of the Department the Minister represents, the Minister himself and the Government generally to give approval as early as possible to the health funds for their rates schedules- I emphasise this point- so that they could go out and present the tables to the public generally because of the 1 November deadline.

The Minister has stated here today and previously that those rates were approved the day before the guidelines of the schedules of the funds actually arrived. The Minister acted in good faith, not only on behalf of that fund but also of funds generally. The fact that a fund itself was not prepared to act in good faith in return to me does not besmirch the Minister or the Government one iota. It certainly does besmirch the reputation of that particular fund. Because of that, I believe we now have reached the necessary but disappointing situation where one fund has created a bad image for all the funds of Australia and has forced the Government to enforce a series of rules to ensure that the funds play the game. The criticism of the honourable member for Prospect would have been accurate if the Minister and the Government had not acted promptly to redress the situation. The Minister and the Government acted promptly to redress the situation by enforcing new requirements. It has threatened to legislate so that the requirements will be backdated, to my understanding, to 1 November to the start of the new arrangements. Because we do not have copies of Hansard from yesterday available today, I cannot read what the Minister said yesterday in announcing the Government’s decision so I must quote from today’s Melbourne Age in which it is stated:

Federal Cabinet yesterday decided to force health funds to pay full benefits to chronically ill contributors.

The Health Minister, Mr Hunt, announced yesterday that the Government would take any necessary action to prevent the funds applying rules in their medical tables which exclude benefits to the chronically ill or aged.

The moves are designed to prevent New South Wales largest health insurer, the Hospitals Contribution Fund, from proceeding with plans to pay only 75 per cent of the medical bills of chronically ill contributors.

Mr Hunt said he was expecting a report from his legal advisers to see if the funds would be controlled by ‘determination, regulation or legislation ‘.

He predicted that legislation may be necessary and that, as a result of the move, funds may have to increase their contribution rates.

The Minister acted quickly and responsibly to cover a situation which has been caused only because one fund did not abide by the rules.

Dr Klugman:

– All the funds are doing it. I bet the Minister does nothing about it.

Mr LLOYD:

– Because of this situation all funds- if one takes on board what the honourable member for Prospect is now gabbling about- will now be forced to play the rules. If I were the honourable member for Prospect I would be considering my position in relation to the advice about whether people should or should not insure. He came out with a whole new argument about the inequities of insurance when, in the first place, he had said that insurance was not necessary. The honourable member for Prospect should consider his own absurd position before he starts pointing his finger at anybody else. Members of the Opposition particularly the honourable member for Prospect- have developed some other arguments about the so-called avaricious health funds, such as that they are hoodwinking the public and the Government. The health funds were around when Labor was in government.

Let us compare the pressure that was applied to the health funds when the Australian Labor Party was in government with the pressure that we have applied in two and a half years in Government. In my 7 lA years in Parliament no Minister for Health has forced the health funds to reduce their reserves to the extent that the present Minister for Health has. Also, no other Minister for Health has encouraged more competition. So in this respect the present Government once again is doing more than Labor did in the three years that it had the opportunity to do so. If one wants to look at the whole question of avariciousness, corruption, inefficiency and accelerating expenditure in health care costs one should not look just at the funds. When Labor was in government with a scheme that was supposed to be so equitable to everyone problems arose with pathologists. It was a little like Animal Farm. All pigs are created equal but some are more equal than others. Who were more equal than others under Labor’s scheme? It was the pathologists, general practitioners and specialists. What a rip-off they had. Let us have a look at some of the increased costs. They changed their attitudes to the health delivery system. From it being a reputable system their attitude was: What can we get out of it. In one year, medical care costs jumped by nearly 32 per cent. To the credit of the present Minister for Health and the Government that cost has been brought back to about 7 per cent.

Let us look at the hospital development program with which Labor was involved. Labor proposed to spend $700,000,000 to create more beds with an inevitable increase in total health costs in Australia. Now people are saying that we already have too many hospital beds. Yet Labor intended to add to this burgeoning expenditure on health care costs in Australia. For example, in 1973-74, $3,000m was expended on national health. In Labor’s last year in government the expenditure was $5,224m. We have to remember that at that time the Australian health care system was heading for breakdown. Taxes or insurance premiums would have had to increase. When we look at these things and at what Labor was up to when it was in power we can say, on three grounds, that it has more cause to answer than we have. There was the increase in total cost to all Australians- patients are Australianinefficiencies, burgeoning expenditure and avariciousness in certain sectors of the health care field during the time of the Labor Government. So I believe that we have every right to reject the terminology of the motion as put forward by the honourable member for Prospect. He has put himself in a nonsense situation. All the other arguments advanced have been put in the development of that nonsensical argument.

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

-The discussion has now concluded.

page 2520

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to be misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I do. Because the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) made certain claims about my advice, I shall read from the appropriate letter which I sent out to people on the question of health insurance. I wrote:

My advice is to carefully assess your needs and make whatever savings are possible. Only those with conditions requiring very frequent medical attention or those with large families requiring frequent medical attention should consider taking out medical insurance.

I stick to that proposition and I challenge anybody in this House to say that that proposition is wrong.

Mr Lloyd:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Lloyd:

– The personal explanation just made by the honourable member for Prospect completely confirms my argument.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is not a personal explanation.

page 2520

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (NATIONAL STANDARDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · Curtin · LP

– I move:

This Bill proposes a number of amendments of an administrative nature to the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960 that have arisen from experience in its operation. Honourable members will be aware that the regulation of weights and measures is one of the oldest responsibilities of governments. The Australian Constitution provides the Commonwealth with powers to make laws with respect to weights and measures under Section 51 (xv). The Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960 set out detailed arrangements for the regulation of weights and measures and superseded an earlier Act passed in 1948. It provided for the establishment of a National Standards Commission with the functions of advising on units for the measurement of physical quantities and approving the design or pattern of instruments that are to be used for the purposes of trade such as weighing machines, flowmeters and the like.

The Commission has always been closely associated with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and especially the National Measurement Laboratory. Indeed the latter is responsible under the Act for maintaining standards for units of measurement of physical quantities. Initially the Commission was assisted by NML staff. As a result of the 1960 Act however the Commission was given power to recruit its own staff. Today it is served by a staff of 35 who are now housed at a single location in modern premises in North Ryde.

Honourable members will note that clauses 1 to 5 are machinery and formal clauses only. Clauses 6 to 8 provide a revised structure for the Commission, update its constitution and method of operation and specify procedural matters not presently covered in the Act. In essence, the clause retains the concept of a Commission comprising a chairman and 4 members, all part time, but it proposes that they be appointed by the Governor-General in Council rather than the Minister. The proposed new sub-sections 17 (3) and (4) recognise the need for at least some of the members to have scientific and technical skills related to the techniques and problems of weights and measures. They also recognise the close relationship between the Commission and CSIRO and the importance of advice from the latter in the selection of suitable members. I envisage that some of the three positions would continue to be filled by working members of CSIRO such as the Director of the National Measurement Laboratory or one of his senior officers.

The proposed new Section 18af provides explicitly for the Commission to delegate certain of its powers to its senior permanent officers. This power had been assumed to be implicit in the present Act but, in the light of queries by the Auditor-General, it was desirable to make it explicit. Since the Commission meets only every few months it is necessary to delegate powers in regard to staff appointments, promotions, and resignations. Clause 9 brings the provisions in regard to finance and auditing into line with modern requirements for statutory authorities. Clause 10 has been included to remove beyond any doubt that the Commission is not liable to taxation. In the Act a maximum penalty of $200 is provided for a person who falsely represents that an instrument for use in trade, for example a weighing machine, has been given ‘pattern approval’, that is, has been certified by the Commission as suitable for that purpose. The maximum penalty has been increased to $2,000 in line with current values. Clause 12 provides that the Commission shall submit an annual report to the Parliament, which was not required under the Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (in motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2521

GARDEN ISLAND DOCKYARD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I move:

The proposal consists of five separate works, each providing a functional facility for the dockyard, as follows:

A workshop building of three storeys to house facilities to service the new guided missile frigates; an amenities and refit control building of two storeys to house office accommodation for approximately 30 staff, as well as showers, toilets, lunch and change rooms for approximately 240 dockyard personnel; provision of rotary convenor and reticulation to augment 60 hertz power supply to three wharves; provision of a5-tonne electrical-powered portal crane on the east dock wharf; extension of existing east dock wharf services to the southern end of the wharf with additional provision of general purpose electric light and power and ship-to-shore sewerage disposal services. A telephone ship-to-shore connection will also be provided.

The works are urgently required in advance of consideration of a plan for overall modernisation of Garden Island. The estimated cost of the works, at October 1978 prices, is $7.35m. I table plans of the proposed works.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2521

TASMANIA GRANT (THE MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 7 November.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have an amendment to clause 3, which states:

Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting ‘30 June 1 978 ‘and substituting ‘30 September 1978’.

I move:

Last night, when consideration was interrupted, I was speaking about the concern of the Government with regard to the private ownership of community facilities, such as housing, in Queenstown. I would refer now to the capital investment that the mine intends to make, of an estimated $ 1 . 8m over a 2 1 -month period, in new roads and mine vehicles so that the mine may be placed on a more efficient operating basis. These measures are intended to enable the mine to reach a cash break-even position by the end of the period, and so enable it to continue operations after this assistance terminates.

The Government was also mindful of the economic and social consequences for Tasmania and the people of Queenstown should the mine be forced to close its operations at this time. Closure would involve an employment loss to Tasmania. Estimates of this loss range up to 2,000 jobs, which is between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the total employment in the State.

The Commonwealth assistance would be by way of an interest-free section 96 grant to the Tasmanian Government, which would be repayable from the future positive cash flow achieved by the Mount Lyell mine and applied to repayments to Tasmania. Agreements between the Commonwealth and Tasmania, and between the State and the company, will be drawn up to give full effect to the arrangements agreed upon by the three parties. These agreements will include provisions to ensure that the Commonwealth’s interests are properly protected. There will be comprehensive auditing procedures and certification by the State Director of Mines of the necessity of the development work undertaken. Detailed requirements will be set out regarding the operation of the mine and the subsidy to be paid, including eligible costs, minimising the cash deficit, and substantial maintenance of the employment level.

Under the arrangements agreed upon with the State and the company, it is estimated that the Commonwealth contribution would be about $1.6m for the additional 21-month period. However, this may vary upwards if copper prices do not recover to the extent expected.

Accordingly, the amendment proposes that there be a limit of $3. 8m on the Commonwealth payments to Tasmania in relation to the period 1 October 1978 to 30 June 1980. This is the level of assistance required if the price of copper is 10 per cent less than that which has been forecast. The three parties have agreed that if the world copper outlook deteriorates significantly, each will have the right to seek a review of the arrangements. It is, of course, impossible to forecast future prices with any certainty. However, the likelihood of substantial deterioration from the present depressed prices is not thought to be high, and the agreements reached look rather to a degree of recovery by mid- 1980 that would allow the mine to pay its way.

On behalf of the Government, I thank those members, from both sides of the chamber, who took part in what was an interesting debate last night. I think I should in winding up the debate, make one or two comments. The Government appreciates- I am certain Tasmanians appreciate- the very enthusiastic way in which all of the Federal members representing Tasmanian electorates spoke on this matter. The considered judgment of all of the Tasmanian members, bearing in mind their responsibility to their State, was that the Commonwealth should, within its philosophy and policy, consider granting assistance of this kind. Although other Government members have taken issue with them on the ground of overall government policy, and have demonstrated that there has to be a limit to the assistance that can be given, it was understood that this was a particular case and one in which every consideration ought to be given by the Government. We look forward to its successful conclusion.

One or two pertinent comments were made about the role of Tasmanian members. It is perfectly clear that the interest that Tasmanian members have demonstrated in this legislation, and in this matter generally, has been reflected by the high degree of electoral support which those members have received in that State. That is understood and accepted. Indeed, in the days when we were in Opposition, there was constantly on the part of our parties a very real interest in the development of that State. We have reaped the rewards of that by now having the representation that we do in Tasmania. As a tribute to that representation, the Government was prepared, on a balanced judgment, to put forward the amendment which I moved earlier.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition supports the amendment. I indicated yesterday in the second reading debate that the Opposition supports the Tasmania Grant (The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited) Amendment (No. 2) Bill. I shall recount some of the arguments that I put at that time. We on this side believe that this is not just strictly an economic issue, rather that there are human considerations involved inasmuch as the Mount Lyell copper mining project is the employment base of the Queenstown region- the west coast area of Tasmania- and that many other industries in the area depend upon it. There is, as the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has pointed out, a very high level of private ownership in the town. This mining community was established just after the turn of the century. The level of public infrastructure in the town is high. Indeed, much of it is very modern. When I was at Queenstown in late 1977 with Premier Lowe, I could feel the concern of the mayor of Queenstown, his councillors and the public about the future of the mine.

It is a tribute to the Tasmanian Government, and indeed to the Federal Government, that funds to maintain this mining operation have been made available, but for Tasmania especially the provision of $3.8m from its Budget is a significant contribution bearing in mind the population of Tasmania, which is infinitesimal compared with that portion of the population of the Commonwealth which is on the mainland. Therefore, the $3. 8m which the Commonwealth proposes to contribute pales into insignificance when compared with the effort made by Tasmania’s Labor Government. That $3. 8m is a contingent liability and one would hope that that kind of payout figure by both parties would not arise. As the Minister has pointed out, that would depend upon the copper price falling 10 per cent below its current price. We know that in the last six months the price of copper has gone up from about $630 a ton to $750 or even more. The chances are that by the end of this year there will not be much of an operating deficit at all; that even the $1.6m will be more than needs to be paid out over the 2 1 -month period.

This is an interesting point that might well be considered, especially by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) who were in this chamber last night chiding the Opposition and those interested in Tasmania on this issue, and the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean). They are part of the free market place element within the Government which for some time has been mounting this anti-Tasmanian approach. The issue to consider is that we cannot always get back to the market place. While market place considerations are important, sometimes one has to look beyond just the pure economics and take a reasoned punt about the prospects of a venture like Mount Lyell. With the mothballing of significant copper mines around the world and the fact that the supply-demand picture is starting to improve for copper, as has been reflected in the copper price, it is reasonable to assume that, given the improvement in the efficiency of the mining operation in Queenstown and the extent of the ore bodies with mineable grades it could in fact become a viable project early in the future. That has happened. I think the work force at the mine has played its part in making the mining operation more efficient.

Finally, of course, the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company itself or its beneficial owner, Consolidated Gold Fields, has come to the party and put up some money- I think $ 1.8m- for roads and vehicles for the mine. Before that it played the classic dog in the manger role. That is, it just bludged on the Commonwealth or the Tasmanian Government while ever the public purse was prepared to subsidise its inefficiency. Not only that, but it also dragged the Renison tin mine out of the company structure of Mount Lyell, the profits of which would have subsidised the whole of the copper mining operation. It left Mount Lyell sitting with its losses exposed and went to the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments to save it. The Governments had to save it because of the human considerations. The $1.8m which the company is putting in is the very least that it could do. Let me signal the punch this way: If the Labor Party is the Government of Australia after 1980 the company will not want to try any such ploy on me. It will be told and put in its place very smartly.

Mr Chairman, the loans for next year are indeed loans; they do not take the form of a grant. The loans are to be paid out of the profits of the mining operation as it improve. One would hope that the infrastructure funds which were spent in the more heady days of Mount Lyell can now be used to continue the mining operation. Hopefully the Tasmanian Government through its influence on the town and the people who work there will keep the whole operation on the rails. I am very glad to see that the free marketeers in the Government, the honourable members for Moore, Kalgoorlie and the others who spoke vehemently against this proposal last night have not gained the upper hand in the Government Parties. No matter how much the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) or others may protest that their parties- the Government Parties- are pro-Tasmania, the fact is that they cannot mount a debate in this Parliament without a significant division of opinion whether assistance ought to go to the State. That is not an assertion; it is for anybody to turn up in yesterday’s Hansard. It is a matter of public record.

I reiterate to those people in Tasmania who are interested that the high tradition of interest and funding which went to the State of Tasmania in the three years of Labor Government is being upheld currently by members on this side of the chamber. In government of course we would do the same. Suffice it to say that, in November of last year when I was at the Mount Lyell site, I said that we would maintain the operation of Mount Lyell if we were to be the government after the last election. I say again that we support the original Bill introduced by the Government and we support the amendment introduced by the Minister for Finance to give effect to the arrangements which have been entered into in the period between June and September of this year. I just hope that the trust which the Tasmanian and the Commonwealth Governments have placed in the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company’s competence and expertise and in the interests of efficiency of its work force is well placed and that we do not find ourselves in the position if the copper price improves in the future of still having a mendicant operation on our hands. I hope that, in the light of an improvement in the copper price, we will have an efficient operation which can stand some of the chill winds of the market place. I hope that we will not be placed in the situation in the future where the mine looks to continued subsidisation.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2524

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-In this debate on the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, I will deal with four main points: Firstly, the Commonwealth ‘s generosity in relation to State finance; secondly, the historical background to the Bill; thirdly, the new federalism proposals that have been introduced by this Government and the new federation arrangements which have resulted; and, finally, Australia’s economic problems, the role of the Commonwealth and the States and their recent records. This Bill has a background that extends back about 40 years. It symbolises the Commonwealth Government’s long and historical commitment to assisting the States while, at the same time, placing national needs in an overall system of priorities. The Commonwealth Government has not been parsimonious with the States. Indeed, if we examine, as I will do later, the record of control by State governments over their own expenditure programs we will be struck by their almost freeforall approach. The States have continued to spend at the same rates of growth during the past few years of economic stringency as if the economy was still in the prosperous years of the 1950s and 1960s.

The time must come when the States must pull their weight in the fight against inflation and the fight to restore the Australian economy to its former prosperity following the disastrous years of the Whitlam Government when expenditure by both Commonwealth and State governments skyrocketed to new heights. We all know the results of that spending syndrome. We all know that restraint is needed by governments- all governments- to ‘restore private enterprise to some semblance of its former self, to reduce the size of the public sector in order to make room for private investment and to divert resources back to areas which are crucial to the long-term prosperity and security of the nation and to employment. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) acknowledged this recently when he said:

Governments do not have a bottomless pit to provide funds.

I think that is a very significant statement from the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in view of the fact that he introduced a Budget, in the last year of the Whitlam Government’s reign, which was very inflationary. Even such a socialist as Dr Cairns realised that the private sector could no longer be mauled by big Government. He said as much at the Terrigal National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. The States always take great pains to establish their sovereignty, their rights to determine their own spending priorities. But when it comes to assessing the impact of their spending decisions upon the national economy they suddenly act as though they were merely allocation agencies for Commonwealth money. They opt out of taking a responsible stand in the overall framework of Australia’s economic position. Whilst the problems facing Australia are nowhere near the scale, severity or immediacy that they were during the

Depression years from 1930 to 1933, we should not forget that the most important lesson from that period was not so much the actual policies of the Premiers’ plans but rather the spirit in which they were made. Throughout the 1931 and 1932 meetings of the Premiers’ Conference the point made by both Labor and non-Labor leaders, State and Commonwealth, was the need to have a joint approach to Australia’s economic problems and the need for equality of sacrifice by all governments and all classes of people. As the then Labor Treasurer Theodore said at the May 1931 conference:

There must be unanimous co-operation between governments. …

Unfortunately, in our present economic difficulties the States seem to have forgotten about cooperation and about the need for them to act in concert with Federal Government economic strategy. If this does not occur then the allusion to the Australian economy having seven different heads and going in as many different directions is unfortunately all too true.

I now turn to the origins of this Bill, and in particular to its historical origin. We all know that the provision of Commonwealth Government loans to the States through the Loan Council arose out of changes to the Constitution in 1928. These changes were embodied in the financial agreement that became operative in 1929 and meant that instead of seven governments chasing foreign loans and competing against each other, with the unwholesome effect of pushing up interest rates, only one government, the Commonwealth Government, would be responsible for the co-ordination and raising of loan moneys for the States and for the Commonwealth. As well, the Commonwealth contributed to the interest and sinking funds of the States and took over State debts when necessary. As Prime Minister Bruce said, the new arrangements would mean the consolidation and mobilisation of the credit of Australia, in which direction it will be increasingly beneficial to the whole of the people’. That statement is to be found in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates of 14 December 1927. One of the consequences of these powers is that the Commonwealth can take over State debts and thus provide the States with revenue to spend on more current projects rather than pay interest. As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said in his second reading speech, the effect of this is that it ‘. . . relieves the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to pay and . . . accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States’ financial position’. This arrangement arose out of the February 1970 Premiers’ Conference when the States decided that instead of pushing for powers over income tax they would accept- instead additional Commonwealth grants. As well, it was resolved to take over the burden of State debt charges by the Commonwealth accepting part of the existing State debt and also by providing a portion of future borrowing programs for State works in the form of interest-free capital grants. Overall, this meant that the Commonwealth had assumed responsibility for approximately $ 1,000m of State debts and for an annual capital grant in lieu of loan raisings. These are hardly policies of repression, as the States would have us believe.

If we take the provisions outlined in this Bill with the new federalism arrangements we can appreciate how the States have enjoyed prosperity while the Commonwealth has had to tighten its financial belt. Firstly, the States now receive a fixed percentage of total personal income tax- approximately 40 per cent. This is shared amongst the States on the same relativities as in the previous financial assistance grants. There is a guarantee that no State will receive less than it would have received under the previous system. Thus the States have greater certainty of their future income and have access to a growth tax. These have long been demands of the States and they have now been satisfied. Under the new arrangements untied general revenue grants increased, and I want to specify the importance to the States of those untied general revenue grants. They increased by 19.3 per cent in 1976-77, which was an extra $603m; by 14 per cent in 1977-78, which was an extra $685. lm; and by 10.8 per cent in 1978-79, which is an extra $47 lm. The Commonwealth’s own outlays rose by only 10.5 per cent in 1976-77 and by approximately the same percentage in 1977-78. In 1 978-79 the rise will be 7.7 per cent. Specific purpose grants have not risen as fast but, after all, that is what the States want. In other words, they want no-strings-attached grants. They can set their own priorities, and then I believe there should be no bleating to the Commonwealth that various projects cannot be undertaken.

A second aspect of the new federalism is the ability of the States to introduce a surcharge or reduce income tax. What a wonderful measure this is for the States. If a State believes that it needs more funds to carry out various capital works projects it can have a surcharge added. On the other hand, if it believes that its position is such that it can reduce income tax then in fact it can make a reduction to its residents. This follows the democratic principle that the government responsible for spending public funds must also be responsible for raising them. I think we are all aware that there is a certain odium in raising public moneys. If we look at the three tiers of government- Commonwealth, State and local- we find that the level of government that suffers the least odium is the State government area. Local government has its own rates and charges. The Commonwealth is responsible for collecting all forms of taxation, be it payasyouearn, company tax or whatever. We find that the States are relatively free of the sort of odium that is experienced by local government and the Commonwealth Government.

For too long the federal system we have had has cut across the democratic principle of responsible government. Not unexpectedly, the States are critical of this aspect of the new federalism policy. Yet any examination of Federal-State financial relations will show that the States have asked for income taxing power in the following instances: At the September 1950 Premiers’ Conference and the August 195 1 Premiers’ Conference. In July 1952 the Commonwealth said that it was willing to discuss arrangements for returning income tax powers to the States. Further discussions occurred at the February 1953 Premiers’ Conference, the August 1953 Premiers’ Conference and again at the March 1959 Premiers’ Conference. I mentioned earlier the 1950 Premiers’ Conference, when the Premiers expressed a desire to have instituted a system in line with the new federalism policy that, we have now. As Menzies so tellingly commented:

It became quite clear that no State really wanted its income taxing powers back.

It is my contention that it is no use for the States to criticise the lack of funds if they now have the ability to increase their revenue. The States have to become accountable for their spending programs on the one hand and their revenue capabilities on the other. What a preposterous attitude it is when one considers that on the one hand the States are exhorting Canberra to reduce taxes and on the other hand stating that they have inadequate funds to carry forward their favourite projects.

I now want to outline Australia’s economic position and the role of the State and Federal governments in bringing about recovery. The growth rate of Australia’s public sector- that is, the State and Federal governments- rose too sharply under Labor. The Federal Government has played its part in stabilising its spending, reducing the size of its bureaucracy and making room for private investment. The Commonwealth’s share of gross domestic product increased from 11 per cent to 12 per cent in 1977-78. The size of the Commonwealth Public Service has fallen from 400,500 in 1975 to 391,400 at December 1977. If we look at the record of the States, we find that all State and local government outlays rose from 2 1 per cent of non-farm gross domestic product in 1976-77 to 23 per cent in 1977-78. State public services throughout the 1960s and 1970s have outstripped the Commonwealth Public Service, and I want to examine the figures. Between 1960 and 1970 the overall growth rates in the public services were Commonwealth 41.8 per cent, New South Wales 68 per cent, Victoria 34.6 per cent and Queensland 77.8 per cent. From December 1972 to December 1977 the Commonwealth rose by 9.5 per cent, New South Wales by 15.8 per cent, Victoria by 24.7 per cent, Queensland by 21.6 per cent, South Australia by 32 per cent, Western Australia by 27.7 per cent and Tasmania by 23.8 per cent. We can see that the Commonwealth’s increase was a low 9.5 per cent compared with the States, the lowest being New South Wales at 15.8 per cent, and rising to 27.7 per cent in the case of Western Australia. Given these figures, it is totally irresponsible and almost fraudulent for State Ministers to call for a cutback of the Commonwealth bureaucracy when their own houses are yet to be put in order. One of my favourite sparring partners on the Queensland scene, the Honourable Russ Hinze, the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, is quoted in the Courier Mail of 1 8 July 1978. He stated:

Federal bureaucratic extravagance was still a problem and the Commonwealth should make an effort to trim some of the excess fat off its bureaucratic carcass.

This is hypocritical given the fact that in 1 976 the Commonwealth bureaucracy fell by 3 per cent while Queensland’s grew by 1.5 per cent and by 4.7 per cent the following year. Furthermore, there have been numerous announcements by the former Treasurer, for instance on 2 1 May in the Courier-Mail, that Queensland’s Public Service was frozen or experiencing minor growth. On 6 September also in the Courier-Mail it was reported that the Queensland Public Service may- I emphasise the word ‘may’- decrease by 200 out of almost 142,000 employees. I think this is an indication that the States have to put their own houses in order. I believe that the Commonwealth has acted very responsibly over the past three years.

I now turn to the meeting that took place in Melbourne earlier this week when the Commonwealth allowed the States to raise $ 1,767m over eight years for 12 specific resource based projects. I think that bears out the continuing generosity of the Commonwealth to the States to which I referred earlier. One has only to look at the type of program that will be undertaken by each of the States to see that not only will the projects be of substantial benefit to the development of Australia’s resources but also a tremendous number of Australians will be put into work over the next eight years. This benefit will be obtained not only in the initial capital establishment stages of these programs but also on a recurring basis. I believe that the program will be of wonderful benefit to all the States of the Commonwealth. We ought to see the subsidence of the belligerence that seems to be so common when State governments cannot be honest and set priorities. They are continually critical of the Commonwealth because of the lack of funds. That sort of dogmatic, belligerent approach should subside with the Commonwealth’s acceptance of the proposal to allow them to borrow overseas for specific resource projects.

Finally, I refer to the local government personal income tax sharing arrangements which are part of the Fraser federalism. There has been a steady rise in the amount of funds going to local government. A figure of 1.52 per cent was set. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised in his last policy speech to increase that figure from 1.52 to 2 per cent over three years. That has been of tremendous value to local government. Although the increase has been approximately 10 per cent overall nevertheless the increase to individual local authorities has been as low as 2 per cent. The point I make is that the Commonwealth has not been responsible for the breaking down of the overall increase of 10 per cent which has resulted in some shires and cities receiving 2 per cent while others have received in excess of 10 per cent. It is the actions of the States grants commissions which have been responsible.

This point needs to be made strongly. Certain people in local government and State governments have seen fit, because the increase has not been an overall 10 per cent as passed on by the Commonwealth, to blame the Commonwealth. I sheet home the blame to the States grants commissions. They may well be correct in their allocation of less than 10 per cent to some local authorities and a greater percentage toothers but the fact is that there was a clear 10 per cent increase in the Commonwealth’s funding. Therefore, the blame must be sheeted home to the States grants commissions. If the position has arisen where States grants commissions are not acting as they should be and if there is political interference- I am not suggesting for a moment that there is- it is up to the State governments and the State members of Parliament concerned to investigate thoroughly the actions of States grants commissions to ensure that funds are being allocated on a fair basis. Personally I am sick and tired of the criticism of the Commonwealth for being responsible for reducing the amount when, in fact, that has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. The matter is entirely in the hands of the States grants commissions.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill before the House is a very important piece of legislation although given the dry, terse bureaucratic prose with which the Treasurer (Mr Howard) introduced it, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is very mundane, run-of-the-mill legislation. In fact, it has enormous implications for the state of the economy, unemployment and activity in the States. These things need to be brought out more fully than they have been by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). In our view, the Bill is a revelation. It reveals the fraudulent nature of the so-called new federalism, the misconceptions or deceptions involved in the Government’s economic strategy, the Government’s remarkable unconcern at the appalling plight of the building and construction industry, the doctrinaire approach that marks the Government’s continued assault on the public sector and the way in which the Government’s policy is exacerbating the already horrendous problem of unemployment.

What the Bill does specifically is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in this financial year in the sum of $477,933,000. Those grants are general purpose capital grants. In other words, they are paid to the States for capital purposes to use as they think fit on capital works projects. They are distinct from specific purpose capital grants which are, of course, tied to a particular form of capital works activity. The Bill also has another machinery aspect. It authorises the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in the first six months of the next financial year equal to half of this year’s amount. That is necessary simply to provide for such payments before next year’s legislation is passed.

In looking at the importance and the value of this Bill one must firstly make the point that it is anything but generous. The grant is almost exactly the same as for the previous year despite the fact that there has been an increase in prices in that period. In 1977-78 capital grants to the States were $477,930,000. This financial year the figure is $477,936,000-a whole $6,000 more.

Last financial year there was an underpayment of $3,000 to Western Australia which is being made up this year and the extra $6,000 includes that amount. Effectively, the grant is exactly the same as was paid last year despite the fact that the Budget estimate of inflation for 1978-79 is 6 per cent to 7 per cent. The Government deliberately decided to reduce the real value of capital grants to the States by about 6 per cent or 7 per cent this financial year. That is something which the honourable member for Petrie did not quite get around to mentioning. That is a very important reduction. It means that if the Government was going to maintain the real value of the general purpose capital grants to the States it would have had to provide another $28. 7m, if one takes a 6 per cent rate of inflation. If it was higher, the Government would have had to provide an even higher amount.

It is serious enough that the general purpose capital grants have been reduced in real terms to this amount, but it goes beyond that. These capital grants form only part of the total Budget allocations to the States for general capital purposes. The rest comes from Loan Council borrowings. But they have not been increased either. In 1977- 78 general purpose capital funds for the States from Loan Council borrowings were $955,867,000. This year they are exactly the same sum, not a brass cent more. The total general purpose capital funds for the States in the two years are: 1977-78, $1,433,897,000; and this year, $1,433,903,000. That is $6,000 more, and I have explained where that comes from. These are very large sums of money, enormous amounts of money, and therefore their importance in the economy is substantial. If they are reduced in real terms that has various important implications for the state of the economy and for the level of activity in the economy, particularly in the building and construction industry.

It is important to realise that just to keep up with inflation that grant would have had to be $86m higher. This gives us some idea of the measure of the cutback that has been involved in keeping the money amounts at the same level as for the previous year. This does not tell the whole story, because we have to see these real reductions in the context of total capital payments to the States. Capital payments to the States are, as I mentioned previously, not only in this general purpose form but also in the specific purpose form- the so-called section 96 grants. These grants have been cut back even more severely than the general purpose capital grants. In 1978- 79 specific purpose capital payments to the States have been reduced in money terms by $129,439,000 or 8.2 per cent. I emphasise that that is in money terms, without taking any account of inflation. If these payments were to be maintained in real terms, assuming a 6 per cent inflation rate, they would have needed to increase by $94.5m; but instead they have been reduced by $ 129m. So, clearly, in respect of these specific purpose capital payments there has been a very substantial reduction in real terms.

I might note here that this is not something unusual for this Government. Every year since 1975-76 specific purpose capital payments have been reduced in money terms. In 1978-79 they are 21.3 per cent below the 1975-76 level in money terms. If one then adds on inflation, clearly there has been a massive real cut in the level of specific purpose payments to the States for capital works as well as the cutback we are now experiencing in general purpose capital grants.

Mr Hodgman:

– Do you say that they are on the Whitlam scale?

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable member would not know the first thing about it. Altogether, general purpose and specific purpose capital payments to the States in this financial year have been reduced in money terms by 4.3 per cent and in real terms by 10 per cent or 10 per cent plus, assuming a 6 per cent rate of inflation. Perhaps the reduction is over 1 1 per cent if the inflation rate is 7 per cent. Indeed, an extra $309m would have been needed to retain the same level of total capital payments to the States in this financial year. The fact that that money is not there, that in this financial year there has been this $309m reduction in the real level of payments to the States for capital works, has enormous implications for the operations of the States, for the building and construction industry, for the economy generally and for the level of unemployment.

This, of course, is not something which only we in the Opposition have recognised. The States are very much aware of what has been going on and have been horrified by what this Government has been doing. This has been the reaction regardless of party. The States unanimously condemned these allocations to the States when they were revealed by the Federal Government at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting on 22 June this year. I note in passing that the Treasurer said in the second reading speech that there was an agreed program for the States capital works and other payments at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council. That is an extraordinary use of language. The States were given a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. It is hardly the correct use of language to say that there was agreement. They had no alternative but to take it.

Mr Hodges:

– Are they unhappy?

Mr WILLIS:

– If the honourable member will listen I will show him how unhappy they are about it. I have quite a bit to say about that. At the time this greatly reduced allocation for capital works and other payments to the States was revealed, the States had the kind of reaction I will outline. Mr Wran said:

I cannot see for the life of me how this program is destined to allow the economy to recover, to put investors’ money back into the country and put people back into the work force.

Mr Hamer described the reduction as extremely severe and worse than any of the States had expected. He estimated that the Commonwealth’s offer would cost Victoria about $100m. Mr Dunstan described the Commonwealth’s offer as the craziest thing ever to come out of Canberra during his term as Premier. He said:

It means a loss of some $32m this year from our projected worst estimates of what the Commonwealth could produce.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen said that the proposals would aggravate unemployment and give a very heavy blow to industry generally. ‘It’s unbelievable’, he said. Sir Charles Court said that the Commonwealth’s proposed payments were the worst ever put before the Premiers.

Mr Hodges:

– When was this?

Mr WILLIS:

-On 22 June, after the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting when these allocations were announced to the States.

Mr Hodges:

– What about after last Monday?

Mr WILLIS:

– I will mention last Monday later. Sir Charles Court, a Liberal State Premier, said:

It’s a negative growth factor as far as loan works are concerned. This is a prescription for a recession and if you prescribe for a recession you will get it. This is a time when you want a bit of confidence in the community.

Mr Batt from Tasmania said that he was stunned by the harshness of the Commonwealth stand and on loan funds it would mean that the State would have up to $20m less this year for its important capital works. Even discounting for the normal statements made by the Premiers each year when bargaining for higher grants, this unanimous chorus of opposition and concern about the effects on the level of economic activity and employment must be taken seriously.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– The Bill is about capital grants to reduce the increase in State debts.

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable member was not even here for the first ten minutes of my speech on this Bill. I explained exactly what it is about, in substantial detail.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I heard every word, but I did not notice anything; and it is still about capital grants to reduce State debts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member for Lilley will have the opportunity to speak very soon.

Mr WILLIS:

-The States did not confine their objections to what was done to their immediate reaction. When they came to deliver their Budget Speeches later on, they also expressed their great concern about what had been done. I do not intend to go through every State Treasurer’s speech, but I will mention a couple. Mr Knox, the Treasurer in the Queensland Government, was the most passionately critical of all. I mention for the benefit of those who are not aware of it that he is a member of the Liberal Party. He said:

What is of very deep concern to us is the persistent insistence on the part of the Commonwealth that it also needs to strangle capital works, slash State loan borrowing programs and wipe out capital grants for other State works. An expanded capital works program can bring the economy to life again more quickly without any harmful effect on inflation.

This is not just old-fashioned economics, it is good common sense. Every dollar spent on capital works generates a further $2 or $3 worth of expenditure in the flow-on and multiplier effects further down the line in supporting an associated industry. The Commonwealth either cannot see the point or will not accept it.

That was Mr Knox speaking in his Budget Speech in very trenchant criticism of what had been done. Mr Dunstan, in his Budget Speech, said:

In other words, the Government’s capital works program for 1978-79 has been reduced effectively by $1 lm below the inadequate 1977-78 level, which had itself been cut in real terms over the previous two-year period. It is South Australia’s private sector construction firms who will suffer the most from this savage reduction.

There we have statements by certain Premiers and the Treasurer of Queensland both immediately after the Loan Council meeting and in their Budget Speeches. Clearly, they were trenchantly critical of what had been done. It is clear that there is a bipartisan approach to this issue. The States all agree that the Fraser Government’s slashing of funds to the States for capital works is deplorable, recessionary and, importantly, damaging to the private sector. As Mr Dunstan said in his Budget speech and as honourable members on the other side of the House should realise, it is very damaging to the private sector, particularly the building and construction industry.

Let me consider the context in which this policy was introduced and is being pursued. The rationalisation for this policy to cut back allocations to the States, for capital works, which was given in the speech by the Treasurer at the Premiers Conference, was that the Government’s policy was working, that recovery was well under way, that the Government’s past policies had succeeded and that what was needed was a continuance of those policies. So he argued that in that context further cutbacks in government expenditure were appropriate. In making that statement he made many statements which, in our view, were misstatements of the reality. As we know the reality is that the economy was not recovering and that in fact it was going deeper and deeper into recession. Let me turn to some of the statements that were made by the Treasurer at the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council meeting in June, those statements were wrong, but upon them he based a program of substantial cutbacks in capital works grants to the States. Firstly, he said:

Growth of demand and activity has been much as expected at this time last year. Growth in gross non-farm product for 1977-78 seems likely to exceed the 2 per cent projected at Budget time last year.

The facts are that demand and activity were running well below the level expected by the Government in mid- 1977 when it drew up the 1977-78 Budget. The growth in real gross nonfarm product in 1977-78 compared with that for 1976-77 was only 1.8 per cent, compared with the 2 per cent estimated in the Budget. More importantly, the growth in real gross non-farm product from June 1977 to June 1978 was only 2.2 per cent, compared with the 4 per cent estimated in the Budget.

In other words throughout 1977-78 the real growth in the economy was only just over half the growth for which the Government had budgeted. Yet the Treasurer said: ‘Growth of demand and activity has been much as expected this time last year’. That was absolute nonsense and was totally exposed by the later production of the national accounts. They were not available when he made that statement, but certainly he must have had a pretty good idea of what was happening. The Treasurer was really stretching things to claim that growth in demand and activity was much as had been expected. Another statement he made was:

With consumer confidence recovering the personal saving ratio continued to decline and private consumption in real terms has been increasing moderately.

The fact is that, on the basis of the only available survey, consumer confidence has been declining since January. I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from a report in the Australian Financial Review of 2 October concerning the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research survey on consumer confidence. It states:

Consumer confidence, which has been on a downturn since January, suffered a further sharp drop in August, according to the latest survey by the University of Melbourne ‘s Institute of Applied Economic Research.

The August drop was the sharpest ever recorded since the institute first began its surveys in early 1 973.

The institute’s index of consumer sentiment dropped a substantial 12.2 points between the July and August surveys to its present level of 9 1 .2.

This is the second lowest reading recorded by the institute . - .

From that we see that consumer confidence, which according to the Treasurer was going well and therefore we could afford to cut back on capital works, in reality according to the only available survey has been declining throughout this calendar year and now has reached the worst level for some years. In respect of the personal saving ratio which the Treasurer said was declining, the fact is that that ratio went up according to the figures contained in the Budget Papers. In Statement 2 of Budget Paper No. 1, at page 10, we find a table relating to the personal savings ratio, which shows that that ratio increased from 14.6 in the first half of 1977-78 to 15.2 in the second half of 1977-78. Yet we hear the Treasurer talking about a decline in the personal saving ratio. A third statement he made was:

There is no doubt that this marked slow-down in inflation has given a tremendous fillip to the process of restoring confidence, both of consumers and business decision-makers.

As I have pointed out, the fact is that consumer confidence has been declining throughout this year. The latest survey shows that there is not much business confidence around. I refer to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 26 October, which is headed: ‘Business survey shows poor 78-79 expectations’. I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from that. It states:

Only a third of businesses expect their production activity to pick up in the 1978-1979 financial year, according to the latest business survey by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Bank.

The survey also found that there was a slowdown in trading activities in the September quarter.

According to the survey, released yesterday, half the companies expected their level of activity to remain the same this financial year and one-fifth believed it would contract.

Lack of demand was the main reason given for the poor expectation.

That seems to conflict totally with what the Treasurer was saying at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting in June this year about the great growth in business confidence. Clearly, there is little confidence among business decision-makers. The main reason for this, as the survey showed, is lack of demand and not the cost of labour, which the Government claims to be the overwhelming reason for our economic malaise. These examples show how misleading and false were the Treasurer’s analyses of the state of the economy when he sought to convince the Premiers that substantial cuts in their allocations for capital works were desirable and appropriate. Clearly the economy was then and still is in far worse shape than he maintained was the case and the Government’s policy of severely reducing the allocations to the States for capital works has markedly exacerbated the situation because in this important section of total demand there is not just no growth, but an actual decline.

I mentioned the need to stimulate the building and construction industry. As I mentioned previously, this industry is virtually on its knees at present. It has reached a stage where it is at a 15-year low in regard to employment. Surely the Treasurer and the rest of the Government must know that this industry is one of the most depressed industries in the country. At present the level of unemployment in the industry is 8.1 per cent, the highest for any industry. The Government must know that most government spending on building and construction is directed towards private sector contractors. So even with the constraints imposed by this Government’s doctrinaire ideology of reducing the size of the public sector, cutting capital grants makes no sense at all.

The State Premiers told the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer that cutting payments for capital works would damage infrastructure programs, reduce housing construction and increase the level of unemployment in the construction industry. Industry councils have been pleading for more stimulus. Over the past 2V4 years we on this side of the House have argued that the very least the Government should be doing is to give some stimulus to the building and construction industry. It is important to realise in this respect that this industry has the highest multiplier effect of all other areas of economic activity. If we stimulate building and construction, with a given allocation of funds, we do more to stimulate the economy as a whole than we could do by allocating funds is any other way, by other forms of expenditure or by tax cuts. It is tremendously important that we realise this fact. Therefore, it we cut back on the allocations to the States the reverse occurs. If we cut back on allocations to the building and construction industry that big multiplier effect works in reverse. So we get the most depressive effect of all expenditure cuts if we apply them in the capital works area.

This affects not only the building and construction industry. We are talking about flow-ons into all the other areas of activity. Obviously they include the building and supplies industry with materials such as steel, bricks, glass, office and household furniture, cement and so on. It has tremendous ramifications across the whole economy with very little leakage to imports. So, as I mentioned, stimulation of the building and construction industry has the highest multiplier effect of all. If we cut back real expenditure we generate a substantial recessionary factor in the economy.

I now consider the implications of this Bill for the new federalism. The Bill exposes the falsity of the Government’s argument that the States have done well out of Fraser federalism. Continual Government claims that federalism has been good for the States are just not true. The Prime Minister said in Question Time on 13 September that the Commonwealth’s generosity of the last two or three years has been very real indeed. Also in Question Time that day the Treasurer said:

  1. . there had been very significant real increases in financial support made available to the States.

Neither of those statements is true. As we have seen, real capital allocations have been markedly reduced. Furthermore, total payments to the States have been reduced considerably in real terms. That is not just general purpose and specific purpose capital payments but both capital and recurrent payments. In other words, total payments to the States have been reduced in real terms. In this financial year they increased by 5.2 per cent in money terms which is below the projected rate of inflation, so the total allocation of funds to the States is reduced in real terms. It is not just in this financial year that this has happened. The situation was much the same in the previous two years. Indeed, since 1975-76 the States have had their total payments from the Federal Government constantly slashed in real terms. If they had had their total payments maintained at the 1975-76 level in real terms, they would have needed another $ 1000m more than they have received. The actual figure would be $ 1059m more. That is a measure of how much the States’ real funds have been reduced by this Government from their level in 1975-76 when the Labor Government determined what the allocations to the States would be. This shows the absurdity of the claims by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer about generosity to the States and that there have been significant real increases in financial support. It is just not true that this has been the case. Statements by the Prime Minister, Ministers and backbenchers that there have been real increases simply do not accord with the facts. They are totally untrue.

I turn now to a consideration of Monday’s Loan Council meeting. The fact is that the borrowing program announced following that meeting does not compensate for the defects that I have outlined. Even if all the approved borrowings were made, capital funds available to the States and the State semi-governmental authorities through borrowings and grants from the Commonwealth would rise by only $158m this year, or 3 per cent. In practice, because the study and planning of some of the projects are at such an early stage and with delays in planning and decision-making always being so much longer than expected, actual borrowings are likely to be considerably lower than the level approved. The impact on the economy this financial year is, unfortunately, likely to be even smaller. A third of the financial year is over and even in respect of those projects for which planning is well advanced, there must be many months between approval of borrowing and the beginning of construction, for the process of borrowing, calling and devaluation tenders and the starting of construction is all very time consuming. So the effect on the total level of construction activity and employment this financial year will be slight indeed.

However, despite some concern at the apparent inadequacy or complete lack of feasibility studies for some of these projects we welcome the borrowing program announced on Monday. It is a small step in the direction that the Labor Party has been suggesting for over two years. It restores a part of the resources withheld from the States by this oppressive Government. The surprising aspect is that this borrowing approval is in such contrast to the rest of the Government’s policy. Perhaps that is because of the reported difficulties being experienced in fulfilling the semi-government borrowing programs amounting to $1.75 billion which were approved at the Loan Council meeting. Although some 70 per cent of the programs have been fulfilled at present, it appears that it will be extremely difficult to fulfil the rest of the programs and this may well account for the fact that the Government was rather more generous than was expected in allowing all the proposals put up by the States to be funded overseas.

There was a cynical aspect to Monday’s Loan Council meeting. All the approved borrowing is outside the Budget and so makes no impact on the deficit. Having misled the Australian people by claiming that the size of the deficit is the principal cause of the rate of inflation, the Prime Minister now has to find ways of increasing public spending without increasing Budget outlays. The irony of this is that the approved borrowings will add to the money supply in just the same way as an increase in the deficit.

Finally, by way of amendment to the second reading of the Bill, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Is the amendment seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later on the Bill.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-At the outset I must express my disappointment that once again from the prophet of doom, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), we have seen such an uninspiring performance. He showed almost as much life and enthusiasm for his task as a night watchman at the city morgue. I wonder why it is that so many members of the Australian Labor Party have become professional pessimists. These doomsday doctrinaire socialists are never content unless they are spreading gloom, doom and destruction. I could not follow the honourable member’s logic and I could not follow his reasoning. His figures seemed to me as though they could have come from Tattslotto or third or fourth hand. Quite frankly, his speech sounded as though it had been written by Bill Hartley and, to make the point even stronger, was four months out of date.

The honourable member stood in this House and mouthed suggestions that the States are not getting good treatment. Let me tell him that the treatment Tasmania has received from this Government is the best treatment it has ever received in the history of the Commonwealth. I remind the honourable member that in its last year the Government of which he was a supporter, in the Hayden horror Budget, doled out to Tasmania a mere $156m. In 1976, the first year of the new federalism policy, that figure was increased to $ 186.29m by the Fraser Government. In 1977-78, in the second Lynch Budget, the figure rocketed to $2 14. 1 5m. This year it has reached a record $240m. For the benefit of the honourable member for Gellibrand, this financial year Tasmania will be receiving from Canberra a record $50 1.894m which, on a per capita basis, works out at about $1,100 for every man, woman and child in Tasmania. That compares with about $650 per head of population in New South Wales and about $700 per head of population in the honourable member’s State of Victoria. If the honourable member believes that he can stand in this Parliament and tell the people of Tasmania that they have not had a good deal from the present Government, I suggest he should obtain some of the free psychiatric advice which is readily available from Medibank.

I welcome this Bill because it represents the continuation of a program which was instituted by a Liberal-Country Party Government back in 1970; a program, the prime purpose of which was to relieve the payment of debts charges by the States, to give the States greater autonomy in how they spend the money and to relieve the very heavy interest burden which previously had been imposed on them.

As a former member of the Tasmanian Parliament, as a confirmed States righter and as a committed federalist, I welcome this legislation. I commend the Government for the support it has given to the commitment it gave in 1975 to restore federalism to this country. Anybody who lived in a small State between 1972 and 1975 knows exactly what effect it had in our areas when we were incessantly pestered, hindered and fettered by Whitlam centralism and Whitlam socialism, when every ‘i’ had to be dotted and every ‘t’ had to be crossed, and when the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) presided over any expenditure on roads and bridges in excess of $500. There was lengthy argument by correspondence as to whether a toilet could be moved at a railway station. This was the sort of nonsense we had to put up with. The States became colonies of Canberra. Not only were the States in a position of not having a free say as to how they would obtain their money, but also they were told how to spend every cent which came to them from Canberra. It is this sort of legislation that I am quite surprised the Whitlam Government did not take off the statute books. I believe it would have tried to take it off the statute books had it not been for the fact that its attempt would not have passed the Senate.

This legislation must be opposed by the honourable member for Gellibrand and members of the Labor Party because it cuts across everything they want to do. It gives capital grants to the States with no strings attached. It reduces the States’ debt charges which gives them the ability to get stronger. It gives the States the right to make the decisions which ought to be made in the States. As my colleague, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has said many times, decisions for Tasmania should be made in Tasmania by Tasmanians, not by some ivory towered bureaucrat in Canberra and not by the centralist socialists on the other side of the chamber.

Mr Cohen:

– Go back to the Tasmanian Parliament.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Robertson can make as much noise as he likes. People do not listen to him in Tasmania any more. The proof of the pudding is in the eating because if they listened in Tasmania to the honourable member for Robertson and the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) they might have a couple of seats down there but they will be on a zero total -

Mr Keating:

– We will have your seat.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Blaxland said that he will get my seat. I have news for him. My opponent has given up. He is running for the Senate and he will knock off Senator Wriedt for the No. 1 position on the Labor Party ticket. The former honourable member for Denison has given up. Perhaps the honourable member for Blaxland might like to come down and have a bit of a go in my territory. If he wants to make a hero of himself in Tasmania, perhaps he should come down and have a crack at the electorate of Franklin. I will not be distracted by honourable members opposite. I am just putting it on record that they hate this legislation because it is giving back to the States the powers that were constitutionally given to them and which the Labor Government tried to take away.

Mr Goodluck:

– They are hellbent on getting the Tasmanian seats. We worry them.

Mr HODGMAN:

-They can try as hard as they like. It is most important that we should note that the purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants totalling $477m to the States for this financial year. I want to make a comment about that in view of some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Gellibrand. Apart from the fact that his speech was four months out of date, and, as I said, sounded as though it had been written by Bill Hartley, he was completely off the track when he said that there had been a cut so far as Tasmania was concerned. I take the trouble to inform the House now that on the question of loan funds, in 1978-79 Tasmania got the biggest increase of any State. Obviously, honourable members opposite do not know these facts. Let me tell them that Tasmania got an increase of 12.2 per centtwice the 6 per cent inflation figure referred to by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I suppose he thinks that Tasmanians are so dimwitted that if one gave them twice the inflation rate one could then turn around and try to persuade them that there had been a cut.

In New South Wales, the increase was 9.8 per cent. The national increase was 7.9 per cent and Tasmania’s increase was 12.2 per cent. So, do not go telling the people of Tasmania that they are badly off under the loan fund arrangement for this financial year. They will have the honourable member for Gellibrand certified. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) knows that because he used to live in the Derwent Valley. There is a place called Lachlan Park which has now been renamed Royal Derwent. That is where they put people who go around telling other people that they are badly off when they have been given an increase which is twice the rate of inflation. I want to go into this subject in a little more detail. Tasmania got an increase of 12.2 per cent last year. But let us examine how we compared relatively with the other States. This is a very important matter because if one checks the Budget Papers one will find that in respect of loan funds, Tasmania received 7. 1 per cent as a percentage of the six State total. That is not bad for a State with a population which is only 3.5 per cent of the Commonwealth of Australia. So not only did we get the biggest increase in the Commonwealth but as -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Too much.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I do not want to make too much of this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Government might take away some of it. I really mean that. Not only did we get an increase of 12.2 per cent but, taking into account the total for the six States, we received 7.1 per cent of the cake. I invite any honourable member on the other side of the chamber to tell that 3.5 per cent of the Australian population that they are getting a raw deal.

Mr Goodluck:

– What is wrong with Mr Batt?

Mr HODGMAN:

– Well, of course, I just want to say on this particular matter that Mr Batt came out of the Premiers’ Conference screaming. Apparently he did not realise that Tasmania had received an increase of 12.2 per cent. Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, came out with 9.8 per cent. What did Mr Wran have to say? He said: ‘There is no point in complaining. Let us get on with the job of putting Australia back on its feet’. That is what Mr Wran said back in June; not the nonsense we heard from the honourable member for Gellibrand. Mr Wran said: ‘I will take the 9.8 per cent. Let us get on with the job of putting Australia back on its feet’. That is probably why Mr Wran is Premier of New South Wales. The attitude of Mr Batt- I make it clear that I am referring to Mr Batt- will bring down the Labor Government in the next Tasmanian elections. I make that prediction because Mr Batt has not had a good word to say for the Government in Canberra which has done more for Tasmania than any other Federal government since the inauguration of the Commonwealth.

Mr Keating:

– Absolute nonsense! Absolute unsustainable nonsense!

Mr HODGMAN:

-Before the bleater from Blaxland continues to interrupt me, I deal with what happened this week because one cannot look, as my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has pointed out, at the capital grants program and the loan fund arrangements without noting what has happened this week and looking at them as a package. The Hobart Mercury on Tuesday, 7 November- that is yesterday, which was Melbourne Cup daystated:

Mr Lowe and the Treasurer, Mr Batt, returned last night from the Loan Council meeting, delighted by the result.

We got everything we asked for’, said Mr Lowe.

He said the Loan Council decision also meant that the States, in future, would again be able to get authority to raise additional borrowings.

And Mr Batt said that ultimately, employment would be stimulated as a result of the water and power projects for which Tasmania was given authority to borrow money.

Approval has been given for Tasmania to borrow $1 10m. How will it be spent? An amount of $75m will be spent over the next five years- $ 15m of it will be spent this year- for the $404m Pieman power scheme. An amount of $15m is to be spent over five years- $3m this year- for the $ 1 8m stage 1 of the Hobart water supply augmentation scheme. We might be short of water in Hoban this year, which will be thanks to the Labor Government for sitting back and doing nothing about the problem. But at least, thanks to the Fraser Governent, Tasmania will get the money to get on with the job. Even if we have a dry summer this year we can take it in Tasmania because we know that it is Federal money which is going into that scheme and which will make it happen. A further $15m will be spent over five years- $3. 8m this year- on the north-west coast water supply and $5m will be spent on the $6. 12m North Esk Regional-Curries River water supply scheme. These things will happen in Tasmania not because of the State Labor Government -

Mr Goodluck:

– We get no credit.

Mr HODGMAN:

-We do not get any credit; the honourable member is right. These projects will get underway not because of the State Labor Government but because of the generosity of the Fraser Government. I am prepared to criticise the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Government and my colleagues when I think we do things that are mean, miserable and nasty. But I will not criticise the Government when it has been generous. An interesting situation developed following the Loan Council meeting in Melbourne on Monday. It was an historic meeting. For the first time since 1927, when the financial agreement came about, the States were given power to borrow either overseas or within Australia on their own account. I do not believe that the Tasmanian State Labor Government really thought that the Federal Government would give it the go ahead. I will tell honourable members why. The State Labor Government has been caught with its pants down. As of today it cannot even say whether it will borrow inside or outside Australia. There is a very big difference. The interest rates are different. Mr Batt apparently has heard about the exchange rates and he muttered something incoherent. As reported in today’s Hobart Mercury he thought that Tasmania would borrow inside Australia so that it would not have to be bothered with exchange rates. I am staggered by this. I would have thought that the Tasmanian Government would have had its plans worked out to a nicety so that the moment the Prime Minister and the Loan Council said go, Tasmania would move off confidently. But what do we have? We have bumbling and bungling. The Tasmanian Government does not know whether it will borrow inside or outside Australia.

Mr Falconer:

- Mr Batt has been in Queensland all the time.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Of course. This is the point my colleagues, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) and the honourable member for Franklin make. We never see Mr Batt any more. He is trying to repair the Australian Labor Party. He seems to spend all his time in a place called Queensland. It is an incredible situation. We had a national Australian Labor Party president before who wore two hats. Mr Batt appears to be wearing three hats. He has two heads, the way he is carrying on. He is spending more time in Queensland than in Tasmania. I ask honourable members to listen to this. It shows how absolutely incompetent this man is. An article in yesterday’s Hobart Mercury states:

Mr Batt said he anticipated Tasmania would have no difficulty raising the $1 10m it was given authority to borrow over the next five years, and revealed that State Cabinet today -

That was Melbourne Cup day- will discuss whether the money should be borrowed within Australia, or from overseas.

According to a copy of today’s Hobart Mercury the Tasmanian Government still does not know from where it will borrow. It is a vital economic decision whether one borrows inside or outside Australia. I believe that it is economic delinquency on the part of members of the Labor Government of Tasmania that they have been caught with their pants down and their economic bottoms exposed. They went to the Loan Council meeting to ask permission to borrow $1 10m but they did not have a clue from where they would borrow it. I do not breach any privilege when I say that the Prime Minister would make available- as I understand it- the expertise of the Commonwealth to help the Tasmanian Government decide whether to borrow inside or outside Australia.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– It would be smart to take it.

Mr HODGMAN:

– It might be smart to take it. I feel that to the outside world we appear as a bunch of backwoodsmen when we carry on in this way. Collectively, members of the State Labor Government could not raffle a duck in a country pub. If any of them passed first year mathematics I would be amazed. Although the State Labor Government knows that it has permission to borrow $ 1 10m, that it has eight years to pay it back and a rough idea of the areas in which it is to be spent, it does not have the faintest idea- nor does it appear to me to have the wherewithal- of how to go about the process of borrowing. This reminds me of the story about the artificially inseminated cow told by the former honourable member for Mackellar. I will not tell the story. The point I am making is that the State Labor Government does not actually know what has happened to it and has not the faintest idea where it is going. As a Tasmanian, I place on record in this Parliament at this time my regret that it has behaved in such an amateurish, bungling and economically incompetent way. I conclude by quoting authentic official figures to rebut some of the arguments raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I draw to his attention again the increase of 12.2 per cent in loan funds to Tasmania. I ask the honourable member for Gellibrand whether he thinks that Tasmania has done well when the national increase of Loan Council funding was 7.9 per cent and Tasmania received an increase of 12.2 per cent. I ask the honourable member for Gellibrand, Mr Deputy Speaker through you, to tell me whether he thinks Tasmania has done well or badly when, as a percentage of the sixState total, Tasmania received 7.1 per cent of the Loan Council program for a population of 3.5 per cent. I would be amazed if the honourable member could persuade me that Tasmania has had a raw deal or if he could persuade the people of Tasmania that they have been short changed. The short answer to his argument is this: If Tasmania is getting a raw deal why does the Labor Party not take Tasmania’s case back to the Grants Commission which was set up to look after the smaller States? The Grants Commission was designed by a Tasmanian economist, Professor Lyndhurst Giblin. It was set up for States like Tasmania. Tasmania has had budget surpluses for three years out of four and has cut taxes. I ask the Minister to convey to the Government the congratulation of Tasmania for the treatment given to our State not only under the loan fund program but also at the Loan Council meeting last Monday. As far as I am concerned Tasmania has never had it so good and as long as this Government is prepared to pay $1,100 per annum for every man, woman and child in Tasmania it will have my full and continuing support.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said that Tasmania has never had it so good. If he is basing that statement simply on the fact that we have the benefit of him here rather than the Tasmanians having the benefit of him in Tasmania, then I can well understand it. He takes the view that the harder he harangues, the noisier he is and the more he distorts figures, the more he adds to the veracity of a discredited statement, which is without any factual foundation. I challenge him on the very premise of what he has put. This honourable member has a reputation, probably in excess of anyone in the House, for putting things into poor and distorted perspective. He is reeking with parochialism. I have never heard him make a speech on an Australia-wide scale. All his efforts are directed to vote winning exercises, which indicates the degree of insecurity from which he suffers. He also seems to confuse the fact that Tasmania’s share of the national cake in any event is infinitesimal compared with the national scene. More importantly, the figures he has given cannot stand up to examination. I refer to figures from official Budget Paper No. 7, headed Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1978-79. 1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Table 120.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I thank the House. These figures show that the honourable member for Denison has taken one set of figures in respect of Tasmania to arrive at the12 per cent increase factor which he has talked about. That set of figures comes under the heading of General Revenue Funds where there is in fact an increase of 12 per cent. However, as we go though these figures we find that he has disregarded many other headings of great significance. It appears that he has done this deliberately for the express purpose of fooling the people of Tasmania. For example, the next heading is General Purpose Capital Funds and the figure for Tasmania for the year ended 1 977-78 is $ 100.4m. For the next year, that is the year that is now under review, the figure is again $ 100.4m. So under the heading General Purpose Capital Funds there is no increase at all. When we come to the heading Total Specific Purpose Payments we see that the figure for Tasmania for the last financial year was $ 164.7m and for this financial year the figure is $16 1.2m. This is a significant drop. The honourable member for Denison failed to mention that. There are a number of headings.I will not have time to deal with them all. The honourable member for Denison will concede that the important figure is the total figure taking all these headings into account. The Budget Papers, under the heading ‘Total Payments and Loan Council Borrowings’ show that the borrowing program for Tasmania for the year 1977-78 $479m and for the current financial year is $501m. If the honourable member for Denison has a calculator he will soon establish -

Mr Hodgman:

– No, your figure is wrong.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Do not say it is wrong. Here it is. It has been tabled. It is going in Hansard. Go and get it.

Mr Hodgman:

– I take a point of order.

Mr Keating:

– There is no point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- The House will come to order. The question whether there is a point of order will be decided by the Chair.

Mr Hodgman:

– The point of order is that the honourable member has misread, I hope accidentally, the figures. He talked about $4,000 m. It should be $400m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am quoting from Budget Paper No. 7 at page 189, the official figures for Tasmania under the heading ‘Total payments and Loan Council Borrowings’. The figure for the year 1977-78 is $479,392,000. For the current year it is $50 1 , 894,000. If the honourable member cares to get out his calculator he will find that that represents an increase, not of 12 per cent as he has been saying right through his speech- indeed, that was the burden of his speech- but 4.7 per cent. Worse still, he failed to mention that the overall increase for Australia, as indicated by the same table, is 5.2 per cent. So Tasmania has done significantly worse than has the rest of Australia. Indeed, the whole of Australia has done extremely badly because the increase that I have quoted, 4.7 per cent, applies in an inflationary situation. That leaves the honourable member for Denison without the proverbial feather with which to fly. As I was about to say, he believes that his harangue, the velocity with which he spills out his words of misrepresentation, should convince us that he is representing the essence of the case. In doing that he does himself and his Party a grave disservice.

He has also sought to justify recent developments whereby an increased borrowing program, to the extent of $ 1,767m, has been made available to the States. There will be, in the course of this debate, a tendency to distort the significance of that development and those figures as well, but we ought to take into account that six States are to share in that borrowing program, which is to extend over 12 major projects. We ought to recognise that it represents a 3 per cent increase in total borrowing this year by the States, but it is to be spent over a period of eight years. Therefore it is of much less consequence than the honourable member for Denison, and probably others who will follow me, would be inclined to point out.

Let me reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is to authorise the payment to the States in this financial year of capital grants totalling $477.9m, and the borrowing of the necessary amount by the Treasurer (Mr Howard). This had its genesis at a Premiers Conference in June 1970 when it was determined that a portion of the States Loan Council program would take the form of interestfree non-payable grants rather than interestbearing State borrowings. This decision was a reflection of the increased burden which the States were facing as a result of accumulating debt-servicing charges. Another motivation was the fact that the States were expending large sums on capital works from which debt charges or interest could not readily be recovered. For example, whereas debt charges on a State transport service could possibly be recouped, they could hardly be recovered on the capital cost of, say, a school, police station or other nonrevenue producing project. So, commencing in the year 1975-76, capital grants to the extent of one-third of the States Loan Council program were paid to them on an annual basis.

At the Loan Council meeting in June 1978 a total Loan Council program of $ 1,433.8m was determined and, accordingly, a capital grant of one-third of that amount is to be authorised under this Bill. Regrettably, despite substantial increases in Commonwealth revenue from taxation and charges and from loan raising, this figure, $447. 9m is exactly the amount that was allocated in the previous year. Therefore in this respect, the grant that is made availablewithout servicing charges- represents no increase at all. No account was taken of inflation and of the fact that the same amount, when allocated for this financial year, would purchase less than it did in the previous year. The need to enable the States to play a part in stimulating the economy by undertaking an expanded capital works program was obviously disregarded. The only possible sequel to this decision is a curtailment of that segment of the work force, both public and private, that services State capital works. That, of course, is the regrettable feature of this legislation.

Budget Paper No. 7, at page 8, table 4, shows that the percentage increase in funds made available to the States by the Commonwealth in 1978-79 over those for 1977-78 was of little consequence. If we refer to the figures for General Revenue Funds we find that the increase is 10 per cent. Under General Purpose Capital Funds we note that there has been no increase. Again, the borrowing programs of the larger State authorities are up by 14.5 per cent, but total State borrowings are up by 5.6 per cent. Overall, under this Budget the States have been deprived. The revenue of the Commonwealth Government has risen by $2,588m or 11 per cent. Outlays have risen by $2,067m. Total Budget outlays have increased by 7.7 per cent. Commonwealth spending has risen by 9.3 per cent, but State spending has been held to a growth rate of only 5.1 percent.

Two things are very apparent. The first is the Fraser Government’s direct support of the private sector, which is treated as a holy cow. The second is the determination, regardless of the consequences to Australia, to undermine the public sector. For example, if we examine the private sector and the investment allowance we find that the cost of that allowance is to increase from $325m last year to $410m in the current financial year. In comparison, the capital grants to the States, as contained in this Bill, have been reduced in real terms by 6.8 per cent. Approved Loan Council borrowing programs have been reduced by 6.8 per cent, and General Purpose Capital Funds by 6.8 per cent, on the basis that the implicit price deflator for 1978-79 will be the same as that for 1977-78. Therefore, there is a reduction in the real purchasing value of the grants made to the States. That can be calculated and is demonstrated by a table which has been made available by the research officers of the Parliamentary Library. I seek approval to incorporate the table in Hansard. It has been made generally available and is headed General Purpose Capital Funds for State Governments, 1974-75 to 1978-79.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I thank the House. Let us convert this table into real terms in relation to 1974-75 price levels and applying those terms consistently. It shows under the heading Improved Loan Council Borrowing Programs ‘ that from 1975-76 to 1978-79 the figure has dropped from $750m to $64 lm. Under the heading ‘Capital Grants’ the table shows that for the same four years from 1975-76 the figure dropped from $375m to $320m. Under the heading: ‘Total General Purpose Capital Funds’ the table shows that for the same period the figure has dropped from $l.lm to $962,284. These figures show a cutback in capital grants to the States- the public sector-at a time when the investment allowance is an indication of capital grants to the private sector of the economy.

One wonders why this Government persistently upholds this favouritism on the one hand and prejudice on the other. This policy has had very serious effects in the employment scene throughout Australia. The national figures issued in October last show that 6. 1 per cent of the full time labour force in Australia is out of work and that 5.9 per cent of the part time labour force in

Australia is out of work. These figures represent an increase of more than 50,000 over the figure for the same time the previous year and do not take into account the number of people not registered as unemployed or those who have gone into involuntary retirement. I have before me the final figures made available by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as to the effect that this Government’s program has had on the building and construction industry. I refer to the period from 30 June 1975 to 31 March 1978. We see that at 30 June 1975 65,000 people were working in the dwellings industry. That figure has fallen to 59,000. We see under the heading ‘Other Buildings’ that the related labour force has fallen from 58,000 to 52,000 and we see under the heading ‘Repairs and Maintenance’ that the related labour force has fallen from 8,000 to 7,000. Under those three headings we see that in the period from June 1975 to March 1978 there has been a total fall in the labour force from 142,900 to 1 1 9,500. As I see it, this is where the chickens really come home to roost.

The situation is that the States have been having a very rough time under this Government. We see that the States are being put against one another in a way that leaves them to fight their way out of this difficult situation. For example, Queensland and Western Australia, two vast States which have a small population, have virtually been operating against each other and contrary to the national interest by selling off to foreign interests the minerals which come from within their State borders. The result has been that 85 per cent of Queensland’s mining production is under foreign control and over 59 per cent of Western Australian mining is also under foreign control. Under the ‘new federalism’ policy this program is accelerated as the States are deliberately starved of necessary funds. They are pushed into the open arms of foreign capital.

If we have a look at the figures we see the extent to which the Australian economy has been taken over by foreign interests as a result of this Government’s policies. We find that the manufacturing industry in Australia is now 34 per cent foreign owned; the finance industry is 4 1 per cent foreign owned; general interests are 38 per cent foreign owned; the advertising industry is 5 1 per cent foreign owned; and so it goes on. Such is this Government’s antipathy to public enterprise and public ownership. It prefers to sell Australia’s birthright. We see resources worth thousands of millions of dollars being turned over to overseas owners and overseas entrepreneurs. If this policy continues, there is no doubt that it will continue to the detriment of the Australian people. Many benefits which otherwise would accrue to this community will be lost, and not just while this Government remains in office. It will have a permanent scarring effect on the well being of the Australian community.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– It was my privilege before the suspension of the sitting for dinner to listen to the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who proposed the amendment for which presumably members of the Labor Party will vote. They have made a very serious mistake, and I want to refer in some detail to the proposals in their amendment. This Bill is one which basically makes capital grants available to the States. Stated simply, that sounds all right, but capital grants are to be made available to the States instead of the old Loan Council commitments so as to release the States from their commitments in terms of State debt. The grants will be of assistance to the States, and this year because of the reduced interest payments States will make on their Loan

Council raisings compared with what they would have to make were this Bill not passed, the States of Australia and their citizens will be saved over $200m. Having said that, frankly, the Opposition has made a mistake. The amendment, in part, states: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill-

  1. 1 ) takes no account of the Government’s responsibility to allocate resources efficiently and equitably,

Efficiently and equitably’ are two nice words, they might be adverbs or they might be adjectives; but what do they mean? In terms of efficiency, the States are going to be saved over $200m this year- that is a very conservative estimate- on the interest payments they would have to make if this Bill were not passed. What does that mean in terms of efficiency? Who pays? Who meets the interest commitments on Loan Council borrowings? Ultimately it is the people in the States of Australia. As to efficiency, each person in Australia this year will be saved at least $14 to $15, because this legislation has operated since 1970.

Mr Hodgman:

– Every person in Australia?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– That is right. What could be more efficient than that? I ask further: What could be more equitable than that? If the States spend their money equitably, if some of the States raise their resources with various degrees of equity, the people of Australia in those States under State administrations, under State Governments, will be paying $ 14 to $ 1 5 less in a year because of the operation of this Bill. The incredible part about it is that the Opposition is complaining about this fact. I ask the Opposition to reconsider very carefully what it proposes to do. It has made an error; a grievous error indeed. It was Dr Earle Page, later Sir Earle Page, who as Treasurer in 1928, after bringing in the financial agreement said: ‘Henceforth all Commonwealth-State economic problems are at an end. ‘ They were not at an end. The financial agreements were to be varied continuously from that time to the present day. But the Opposition has not learned that ultimately it is equity that will support economic and financial arrangements and not some half-baked amendment presented to this House. The honourable member for Gellibrand comes from Victoria. He is going to be supported in a few moments by a man well known on the Flemington race track, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who is from New South Wales.

Mr Killen:

– He knows something about Victoria after yesterday.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– Yes, he has more explanations for yesterday’s running than anybody else I could name. If one talks about equity, the capital grants that will be made available by this Bill pre-eminently assist three States of Australia. They will help New South Wales; they will help South Australia very much indeed- far above its due proportion and its due weight in the Australian economy; and as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has been pointing out- I hesitate to use the words, but almost ad nauseam- they will help Tasmania. Those three Labor States will receive 32 per cent of the grants. South Australia will receive over 13 per cent, which is not relative to South Australia’s size in the Australian economy, and Tasmania will be helped to the extent of 7 per cent. The honourable member for Gellibrand has said that this proposal is inequitable, yet the Labor States of Australia will get more than their due proportion of free grants in terms of capital assistance.

Mr Innes:

– Tell us why. Come on.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-One could say that it was due to the unbounded generosity of the Federal Government. Some of it is due to historical reasons. I believe that in respect of Tasmania it could even be a frank desire to help. But the facts are there.

Mr Innes:

– Come on, be honest. Tell us what you are really after.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The facts are indisputable. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) is a fair-minded man from time to time and I know that these facts will overwhelm him. Why should the Labor Party propose an amendment to a Bill which will effectively reduce the burden on people in Australian States in terms of meeting loan fund commitments and which will quite inequitably assist the Labor States of Australia compared with the other States. I do not want to be parochial but I am forced to it by the repeated interjections of the honourable member for Melbourne. My own State of Queensland is a fast-growing State which provides a very large proportion of Australia’s export income and helps to pay for the industries in the electorate of the honourable member for Melbourne. Queensland will receive only a little over 13 per cent of these free capital grants. We are being inequitably treated, unfairly treated. We are being given far less than our due. Why then should members of the Labor Party vote for this amendment? It is for them to decide. It is for them to say to the electors in their States: ‘ You should not be relieved of $ 1 4 or $ 1 5 per person a year on account of the operation of this Bill. ‘ Of course, the last point in the amendment is too silly to contemplate. It states that the disposition of capital grants will increase unemployment. The disposition pf capital grants, properly utilised, does not increase unemployment. In fact it helps employment to be increased, which means that unemployment is decreased. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that that argument will immediately impress itself on your mind.

I go back to the events of 1970, because this Bill derives from that period of Australia’s existence. Up to the year 1970 the burden of State debts weighed increasingly on the States of Australia. It weighed increasingly on the States of Australia for two principal reasons, although there are others. One was that interest rates had increased somewhat and so the burden of the repayment of the debt had increased significantly. In addition, compared with the Commonwealth, the States financed their capital works out of loan revenue whilst the Commonwealth financed its capital works out of revenue. That meant that a comparative increasing debt burden was being placed upon the States. This was one of two measures that were brought in that year in order to decrease that burden. It was brought in with.-. the overwhelming idea of equity between the Commonwealth and the States. No other judgment was involved in the proposition.

Two propositions were put by the Commonwealth in that year. One was to relieve the States of a certain amount of capital debt year by year. The other was to make loan funds available to the States at no interest. At first, 25 per cent of the total loan program was made available to the States in the form of grants at no interest. Subsequently that amount came to be 30 per cent. The States have been very grateful for that. When State premiers say that this is unsatisfactory I hope it is remembered by-this House that the blame for the great decrease in capital works which has occurred in Australia lies far more on the conscience of the States than the Commonwealth. The States have decreased their outlays on capital works as a proportion of their total outlays by up to 10 per cent compared with a decade ago. The Commonwealth has decreased its expenditure on capital works very slightly. Opposition members say that capital works are needed in Australia. I also say that they are needed in Australia but that is the fault of government which embraces the Commonwealth as well as the States. The States have been the principal sinners in this regard. I will leave one thought with the honourable member for Melbourne. I can see he is taking a very close interest.

Mr Innes:

– But that is passing the buck, is it not?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS I am not passing the buck. The honourable member is taking a very close interest in all I say. Had the States spent the same proportion of their outlays on capital works, for example last year, as they spent 10 years ago, national income in Australia would have been increased by up to $ 1,000m. Capital works have a greater impact and multiplier effect than expenditure on goods and services and cash benefits. That is indisputable. We ask only that this Bill be examined fairly and honestly. It gives capital funds to States in place of what would otherwise be loan funds. It reduces the debt on people living in the States and so it assists them.

If there is a shortage of capital works in Australia the Commonwealth Government is not the only government which has to take part of the blame. The principal blame has to be taken by the States. The States ought to acknowledge that. I can see from the look in the eyes of the honourable member for Melbourne that he immediately acknowledges the sagacity of what I am pointing out at the moment. I ask him, as I ask all Opposition members, to consider very seriously how he will vote on this Bill. Somebody has given Opposition members a handle to a. door. It is a bright, brassy handle. They have grasped it and they are turning it. They will vote for the amendment attached to that handle but they will go into a room full of contradictions and enigmas. That will do this Parliament no good. It will do the Opposition no good. Many Opposition members are responsible men. I know that the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) who will follow me in this debate is a responsible person. He will see the force of these arguments immediately. They have only to be stated for him to realise immediately their worth. Let me illustrate the value of this Bill.

Mr Innes:

– It is what you have not said that is the issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Lilley will address the chair.

Mr Innes:

– Well he keeps referring to me; why should I not respond?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will restrain his debating vigour and give the honourable member for Lilley his right to address the House without interruption.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– If I can intervene in the debate for a few moments more I will illustrate the value of this Bill. State debt lies upon people such as the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer). He would be responsible for his State taxes for part of the debt. The rate of inflation for each of the five years to 1970 was 3.16 per cent. The increase in the State debt which had to be met in dollars by the people in those States was in excess of that figure. It was 5.8 per cent per year. From 1 973-74 onwards, through the years of high inflation, the increase in the rate of inflation was 12.6 per cent per year. The increase in the commitment on State debt due to the operation of this Bill was considerably less. It was over 10. 1 per cent per year upon the people. I am simply illustrating that the burden of State debt upon the people who have to pay State charges, taxes, fines and so on is not being increased. It is being decreased. That is what this Government is responsible for”.

Mr Innes:

– What has been the alternative? What has happened as a result of it?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The exuberance of the front bench of the Opposition almost overwhelms me. In the few moments remaining to me, I turn to the Loan Council arrangements which were made earlier this week. They are very important. They are a small step in the right direction. State premiers can exercise their rights to raise their own loans for the purposes of certain capital works. Some have expressed a dismay as to whether they should raise their loans on the domestic market or on the overseas market. Why should they be dismayed? If they raise the loans on the domestic market for the reasons for which the Tasmanian Premier and the New South Wales Premier want to raise them, this will not increase the public deficit in Australia one iota. If they are serious when they say that the deficit in Australia has to be increased they would immediately raise their loans on the international market. Were they to do so, the capacity for the total public deficit in Australia- it is not necessarily a Federal or a State deficit- would be increased. When they advise the Commonwealth Government all the time to increase the deficit, they are indicating that they do not want to be part of the process of increasing the deficit for economic management themselves. They are trying to pass the buck. I say that the deficit should be increased and that everybody ought to be involved in the process. The State premiers, including the Labor premiers, are saying that they want to increase the deficit and that they will undertake a pattern of borrowings which might influence it, but they do not want to be part of the area of responsibility in that respect. That is what they are saying. Responsibility has to be shared. I wish to refer to certain other matters in the Commonwealth Grants Commission report which was brought down yesterday.

Mr Killen:

– Do you want an extension of time?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS I am being pressed by the Minister for Defence as to whether I want an extension of time. A minute or so will be enough. I will refer to other matters in the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on another occasion. For the first time the report refers to the effect of the different debt arrangements which lie upon the States of Australia. I hope that between them they will turn their minds to the basic inequity involved in the present debt arrangements. My own State of Queensland is very seriously disadvantaged. I am pleased to see that for the first time the Treasury in Queensland has presented an argument to that Commission in respect of this matter, even though I have suggested that to it for years in this place.

This Bill deserves to be supported. It is designed to assist the States. It assists people. It does both quite equitably and most efficiently. I am sure that when the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) speaks he will have very serious second thoughts as to whether he will support the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis).

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very surprised at the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns)- for whose probity, wit, skill and judgment I have the greatest regard- misinterpreting our attitude towards this Bill. He spoke at length. He said that Sir Earle Page decided that all the States’ troubles would be at an end. The States then had not heard of Malcolm Fraser, the present Prime Minister, and the new federalism. So their troubles are not at an end; they are just beginning. Let us deal with the honourable member for Lilley ‘s misinterpretation of our attitude towards this Bill. Of course we support the Bill. In 1 970 at the June Premiers ‘ Conference part of the revised arrangements was that the Commonwealth would provide a percentage of the States’ borrowings in the form of capital grants. The percentage then was 24.3. In government in 1975 we increased it to 33 per cent of borrowings in the form of untied grants or unrepayable loans. Of course we support the Bill. We gave it its genesis. We support it thoroughly. I think that deals with the honourable member for Lilley. It is quite surprising that we had the Western Australian putsch in here last night bitching and complaining about the amount of money that is going to Tasmania, and now we have the honourable member for Lilley, who is from Queensland, complaining that Queensland is being treated parsimoniously. People are being treated parsimoniously everywhere; that is our objection. The amount of money the Commonwealth is making available is too little.

We support the Bill, but do not like it to that extent and we deplore the philosophy behind it. The word ‘stagnating’ has unpleasant overtones, and so does this Bill because it embraces a theory of stagnation. The amount set down in this Bill for capital grants is the same amount as in the previous year, disregarding of course inflation which honourable members opposite say is 5 or 6 per cent but which the housewives of the nation probably think is more like 1 5 or 1 6 per cent. Let us settle on about 8 per cent. Disregarding all that, the Government is giving the States the same amount as last year. The Loan Council program provided $l,433m, with one-third of that, in line with the Labor Party’s program, being allocated to the States as general purpose capital grants. This means that the States will receive $477,933,000- exactly the same as last year. This is truly regressive legislation. There are two concepts inherent in this type of economic planning which have been totally discredited. One is the Government’s obsession with lowering the deficit. I was interested to hear that the honourable member for Lilley is not altogether in accord with that; he would like to see it expanded. Whether he wants it or not, it is going to be expanded; that is a mathematical fact. The figure that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has given us as his intended deficit is of course not going to be the figure. The Government’s hopes are going to truly founder there.

The other thing that we do not like about the Bill, of course,, is Fraserian federalism. The Opposition, the economists and obviously the people are awake to the Government. The lie has been exposed. We know that the draconian cuts we have witnessed in this Budget have very little to do with aiding the economy but have a great deal to do with fostering this Government’s obsession with a redistribution of wealth so that the poor shall be poorer and the very rich shall be even richer. The cry from the Government that all economic wisdom begins and ends with being able to lower the deficit has had its day. The suffering in human terms denies that and also emphasises the fallacy of it. The proud claim of the Government that new federalism is the answer to the States’ prayers is likewise in tatters. The preamble to every State Budget this month evinces that the States disagree with the Prime

Minister on that score. So, what is the Government’s excuse for the parsimonious amount provided in this Bill? It does not offer excuses. It does not admit that since its unholy grab for power it has failed to come to grips with the economy. It just keeps feeding us the lie: ‘It has to hurt before it does you any good and, anyway, life was not meant to be a bed of roses; so you have to cop it’.

It seems so obvious that the Government lies when it continues, in the face of fact, with its deficit obsession. I think it is appropriate in this context to quote Mark Twain, of all people, who spoke of what he termed the ‘national lie’. Mark Twain described it as:

The silent, colossal national lie that is the support and confederate of all the tyrannies, shams, inequalities and unfairnesses that afflict the people. That is the one to throw bricks and sermons at.

Mr Killen:

– It is like Ted Innes ‘s tipping.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I think it is better than Ted Innes ‘s tipping. It is a quotation from Mark Twain and I thought the Minister would have understood it. This Government has bequeathed a litany of lies to the people and it is very obvious that the people have begun to throw bricks at the national lie. That is what the Werriwa byelection was all about. That is partly what the landslide in New South Wales was all about. It is obviously what the by-election in Ballarat was all about. In the Hamer election in a few months time the people of Victoria will reject the national lie and the coalition parties. The people have started throwing bricks at this Government and they have shown that they appreciate the sermons of which Mark Twain spoke and which we on this side of the House have preached against the tyranny of Fraserism. The hallmark of Fraserism is stamped all over this Bill. It is stubbornness allied to a basic stupidity on the part of the Prime Minister which has seen this country dragged down into the quagmire of despondency- and these are the fellows who were going to turn on the lights. Through their mishandling of the economy we are descending even further into the recession.

I quote from a comment made by Mr Kenneth Davidson, the economics editor of the Age, when discussing the Budget the day after it was brought down.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– He is a good socialist.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There are some good journalists about. This is Mr Kenneth Davidson. I do not think the honourable member can put him in the same class as that other friend of his. He said:

Such a Budget would be appropriate to an economy where private sector spending is about to go into an inflationary spiral or where the economy must be brought to a full stop to avert a balance of payments crisis.

That is hardly the Australian experience. Mr Davidson claimed that the measures taken were more appropriate to a boom economy than to a recession, describing the Budget as viciously deflationary. It is this viciously deflationary strategy which is apparent in this Bill. Federalism also is a part of the great national lie. As with the deficit obsession, federalism is the Prime Minister’s monster, and like the deficit monster it too is a monster which threatens to strangle the economy.

Stage one of federalism has been going on for a couple of years now, long enough for us all to be able to say that it has failed. The States were duped; it is as simple as that. A quick look at what the colleagues of honourable members opposite in the States say about the new federalism proves this. In Western Australia the Treasurer, who could hardly be described as a socialist, outlined the great financial burden which the Commonwealth’s actions had placed on the States’ budgeting plans. He said:

The frequent changes in cost sharing arrangements in recent years have been of great concern to the Government, both with respect to the manner in which the changes have been effected and the additional burden that has been placed on the States’ finances.

He went on to say:

I would hope that in the future there will be full consultation with the States before any changes are made so that the impact on the States’ finances can be properly assessed.

That does not exactly sound like the cry of a happy man. In the same vein the Queensland Treasurer, also not a noted socialist, had this to say:

In fact, it has been calculated that Queensland’s financial prospects deteriorated to the extent of at least $38. 8m in about two months as a result of these Commonwealth policies and actions.

He was speaking about the June Premiers Conference and its effect on the States’ budgeting program, which may be of some news to the honourable member for Lilley who seems to think that everything is rosy in Queensland. The Treasurer of Queensland went on to say:

What is of very deep concern to us is the persistent insistence on the part of the Commonwealth that it also needs to strangle capital works, slash State loan borrowing programs and wipe out capital grants for other State works. An expanded public capital works program can bring the economy to life again more quickly without any harmful effects on inflation. That is not just old fashioned economics. It is good common sense. Every dollar spent on capital works generates a further $2 or $3 worth of expenditures in flow-on and multiplier effects further down the line in supporting and associated industries and so on.

One might almost say: Spoken like a true Keynesian. It is the truth that under this Bill the States are being starved of the finances they desperately need to overcome unemployment and lack of confidence on the part of the spending public. A few weeks ago an article in the Sydney Morning Herald mentioned how Australians were ‘squirrelling’ away their savings at an astounding rate. It is not hard to work out why. It is because they do not trust this Government to get the country out of the recession. Is it any wonder?

A few years ago the United States of America had an enormous problem. It very effectively spent its way out of its problem. In 1974-75 the United States had an unemployment level of 7,830,000 and an inflation rate of 1 1 per cent. In 1977-78 the level of unemployment had dropped to 6,856,000 and the rate of inflation had dropped to 6.5 per cent. If we compare that with the Australian experience we see that in 1974 our level of unemployment was 122,000 and our rate of inflation was 15 per cent. In 1977-78- the same period covered by the United States figures- the level of unemployment in Australia had soared to 344,700 and the rate of inflation was still 12.3 per cent. These are figures taken from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development bulletins.

Basically, the Commonwealth funds the States in the following ways: Through special purpose grants; through capital grants; and through general purpose revenue. In each area the screws have been applied relentlessly. The special purpose grants have been cut back in the name of federalism. Let us look at just a few areas in which the cuts fell. The hospital development program was abolished. This was worth $48. 5m last year. This year the allocation is $6m- a decent cut! It has been virtually abolished.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the national sewerage scheme?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That has disappeared also. That has gone down the sewer. The community health programs allocation has been reduced from $69.4m to $52.6m. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) might shake his head, but people who are looking for community health programs in various electorates are shaking their heads in wonderment.

Mr Killen:

– I was not shaking my head at that.

Mr JOHN BROWN He should stop shaking it; it rattles. The allocation for school dental schemes has been reduced from $24.4m last year to $ 1 9.3m this year. The Minister’s teeth are falling out. Welfare housing has felt the axe and the allocation for that has been cut from $400m last year to $330m this year. In New South Wales alone that will cost us a cool $24m.

The next main method of financing the States- the method covered by this Bill- is through capital grants. Since. 1970-71, under the States Grants Act, which is similar to the Act which this Bill seeks to amend, it has been agreed that a proportion of the funds of the State governments Loan Council program would be provided in the form of interest free nonrepayable grants in lieu of what otherwise would be interest bearing borrowings by the States. Earlier I made the point that this amendment was introduced by a Labor government. As from 1975-76 it was agreed that one-third of the total States Loan Council program would be provided for in the form of capital grants. At the June 1 978 meeting of the Loan Council it was agreed that the Loan Council program for this coming year would be for an amount totalling $1,43 3 m- the same as for the previous year. One-third of that amount is $477m, the amount covered by this Bill.

Mr Killen:

– What happens if I scratch myself? I suppose you will complain about that too.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If the Minister is feeling lousy and wants to scratch himself he can go for his life. This money is used by the States to finance their capital works programs in areas such as police and schools. The amount that is allocated in this legislation will mean that these labour intensive initiatives of the States will suffer badly.

Mr Killen:

– He is a very good reader, this man.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is true. I read Mark Twain. I hope that the Minister learned something from it too. With inflation, according to the 1978-79 figures, at a rate of 6 per cent per annum, the States should have received at least $508m just to keep up with the inflation rate. They did not receive that amount and the result is that effectively they have lost out by 6 per cent.

Mr Killen:

– Fancy Eddie Ward listening to this from the grave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The House will come to order or the Chair will raise its voice. The honourable member for Parramatta will proceed without interruption.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Without interruption from the clown from Moreton. The other method by which the Commonwealth funds the States is through general purpose revenue. Prior to Stage 1 of new federalism, this was arrived at by a special formula taking into account the size and the problems of the States. Now, under the new tax sharing arrangements with the States, the States receive a fixed proportion of personal income tax. Here is the lie, Mr Deputy Speaker. Here is where the States were duped. Given this Government’s propensity for raising taxes in a devious manner, the States are being swindled. Under this agreement surcharges and levies on personal income tax are excluded from the amount of tax to be shared. Although the Treasurer has said that this year’s surcharge will be included, it can still be done at his whim. The reason that the Government is being so generous is that it will not cost it anything. The percentage of tax being returned to the States this financial year will fall below the guaranteed minimum which the Act ensures. That is, no State will be better off under federalism.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I know what I am talking about. Each State will fall back on the Whitlam formula, which is the minimum that the Act guarantees.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You had better read it.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will use the words of the Treasurer to explain the situation. I will quote from an answer he has given, if honourable members can follow his involved rhetoric. I ask them to listen to an answer he gave to a question on this point of the 1.5 per cent surcharge and its inclusion in the taxing arrangement. I will allow for the fact that honourable members opposite might not be able to read, but the Treasurer’s answer is recorded in Hansard of 22 August. He said:

The short answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is yes but I think it is necessary to add to that. In practical terms it is very unlikely that it will result in the amount of money to be received by the States under the tax sharing arrangements in 1979-80 being increased, lt is anticipated that under the arrangements as they now exist all States in 1979-80 will receive funds on the guaranteed basis. Even if we added the additional $570m to the amount of money against which the formula is applied, the figure would still not be above the guaranteed figure. Under the arrangements the greater of the product of applying the percentage or the guaranteed amount is received.

If honourable members can follow that they will know the answer. Is it any wonder that the amount of tax to be shared around is contracting so rapidly that federalism cannot work? The Government has been hoist with its own petard. There is minus growth in the public sector, thanks to the little obsession of our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) with not spending or investing in this great country. This has all but strangled the private sector. Therefore, the level of unemployment goes from strength to strength and less income tax is collected, so there is less to share with the States.

The Federal Government does not stop there when it comes to discriminating against the States. There are other means of collecting taxes- other much more unjust means, because the Government’s income tax scales are pitted against the middle and lower wage and salary earners. There is indirect taxation. This most recent Budget has shown us how much the Government favours that method. Petrol, beer, spirits, et cetera have all been heavily taxed. The Government is so devious that it deceives the States very simply. The gap widens between what is collected by way of personal income tax and what the Government extorts from the public by way of indirect taxes. Of course, company taxes are excluded from these tax sharing arrangements. Let me repeat the lofty sentiments of 1975 when the coalition parties proclaimed their new federalism policies. They stated it this way:

Federalism … is not merely a structural concept. Its principal justification is a philosophical one. It aims to prevent dangerous concentration of power in a few hands.

Hands up those honourable members who read between the lines in 1975 and saw the sinister message in those words. Look at them, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a collection of geniuses! Make no mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker, power is highly concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. His treatment of the States, as indicated by this Bill and by other States grants Bills, shows how cynically he is using that power. In the words of the South Australian Premier, the States are ‘captives of the financial chains imposed on them by the Commonwealth Government’. Kenneth Davidson has estimated that unless the States raise their own taxes and charges they will have about $200m less to spend in the coming financial year than they had in the previous financial year. Translated into jobs, this means that the States will have to retrench about 15,000 workers because of the dearth of government contracts that will be going to the States.

The State Premiers are not in sympathy with the Prime Minister’s federalism. They have suffered the costs of his philosophy and his mismanagement of the economy. Because the words are not parliamentary, I cannot quote them to honourable members, but I would love to be able to tell them what Mr Coleman had to say after the Earlwood by-election about the Prime Minister’s great contributions to Mr Coleman’s efforts in that by-election. However, because his words are not parliamentary, I cannot quote them exactly. I think that he spelt out quite clearly what he, as the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia in New South Wales, thought about federalism. Mr Hamer in Victoria has not been backwards in saying the same thing. This restraint on public spending, tightening the belt and all the rhetoric about equating the national economy with the household budget have failed to wash. It is a policy that was disastrously discredited during the Depression and which is now disregarded by almost every other OECD country. The way to recovery is not through curtailing public sector activities. By slowly strangling the private sector infrastructure, the Government has brought the private sector almost to a state of collapse. The orders, which to a great extent come from the public sector, are drying up. This has a very deleterious effect on the private sector. Private industry cannot take on apprentices and cannot find jobs for the unemployed, and building industries particularly are going to the wall more every day while this Government sits back and does nothing.

Governments have a social as well as an economic responsibility; and this Government is failing on both fronts. If, like the Prime Minister, one were a dedicated anarch-capitalist who relished an Ayn Rand-type society where governments- (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. If, like the Prime Minister, one were a dedicated anarch-capitalist who relished an Ayn Rand-type society where governments exist only to police the property rights of the very wealthy, maybe one would applaud the Government’s methods. Honourable members opposite may; I do not. However, if one believed that governments should be responsible for the welfare of its citizens- all its citizens- and that governments should show the way in job creation programs, in providing health services, education, transport, et cetera, one would agree that this government is a miserable failure. I mentioned the Prime Minister’s Randian philosophy, but even in his best of all possible worlds, where government exists for the benefit of the very rich, there needs to be a booming private sector. The facts prove that private enterprise is suffering untold hardships because of the lack of stimulus from the public sector. The redistribution of income and the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s hands are happening at an alarming rate. This Bill is an instrument of that philosophy and we would like the people to know that. I think that they do because, latterly, election results in two States have indicated that they are awake.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Willis’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 75

NOES: 29

Majority…… 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2549

COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES (NORTHERN TERRITORY PAY-ROLL TAX) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Howard:

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Opposition is not opposed to this Bill. It is essential in equity to provide the same levels of payroll tax and the same coverage of Commonwealth authorities subject to payroll tax in the Northern Territory as apply now in the States and in the Australian Capital Territory. I might add that the Opposition, of course, before the last election proposed to abolish payroll tax. If the Government had adopted that prudent course there would be no need for this retrospective legislation. It would have been far more equitable to leave abolished, as the Whitlam Government had abolished, certain investment allowances which have been and are an encouragement to industry to speed up the elimination of jobs- the replacement of labour by machines- whereas payroll tax has the reverse effect. It is an incentive to abolish jobs and to speed up the investment in machinery to replace labour. Indeed, the Commonwealth would have been far better off if it had avoided using the investment allowance, had imposed excess profits tax on windfall capital gains and had imposed a resources tax rather than the impost that has been placed on consumers of petrol in this country.

I repeat: We have no objection to this measure in the context of a continuing payroll tax in this country. It is necessary to restore equity. We remind the Government, however, that it would have been totally unnecessary if the Government had adopted the more appropriate form of taxation and revenue raising and abolished all payroll tax.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I agree with the spokesman for the Opposition on the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham), that this is a machinery Bill which will bring the Northern Territory into line with the rest of Australia. Of course, on 30 June the Commonwealth gave up its right to collect payroll tax. Since that date the

Territory has assumed that responsibility. The need for this Bill arises because of selfgovernment in the Northern Territory. The new Territory Government now takes from the Commonwealth the function of collecting payroll tax on wages in the Northern Territory. I think it is significant that the transference of this function to the Territory Government means that the Commonwealth Government virtually is handing over the right to collect approximately $9m of payroll tax.

Honourable members may well remember that the Labor Opposition in the Northern Territory has, on two successive occasions, run a campaign based on the fact that the Northern Territory Government would have to impose very high taxes on Territorians when they were granted self-government. This, of course, did not eventuate and the Territory Government is continuing to do a very good job. So far, it has not had to impose any outstanding taxes on Territorians. I remind the House, of course, that it was the Labor Government which caused such devastation in the outback of Australia and the Northern Territory in particular by the implementation of the Coombs report. This was a shocking indictment of the Labor Party. The honourable member for Capricornia talked about the fact that before the last election his party recommended that payroll tax should be done away with. He should well remember the absolutely devastating effect that Labor’s policies had on industry generally and on outback Australia when it was in office.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

SALES TAX AMENDMENT BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 15 August, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of these Bills is to amend the Sales Tax Acts (Nos. 1 to 9) 1930 to reduce the rate of sales tax on passenger motor vehicles from 27½ per cent to 15 per cent. Let me hasten to say that the Opposition supports these nine Bills. The nine Bills are necessary because sales tax is imposed under nine separate Acts, each relating to a different class of transaction. This separation is in order to meet the constitutional requirement that an Act imposing taxation shall deal with only one subject of taxation. Since 1 September 1975, only three sales tax rates have applied in Australia. The lowest rate of 2Vi per cent applies to goods normally used for household purposes. The highest rate of 21lh per cent is considered a special rate to cover non-essential goods, whereas the 15 per cent rate is the level applying to all other taxable goods. We are happy to see that passenger motor vehicles are moving from that higher luxury or non-essential goods rate to the- more general 15 per cent rate. The rates of sales tax previously applying to motor vehicles were 15 per cent on commercial vehicles and, as I have already indicated, 2Vh per cent on private passenger vehicles. The effect of the present Bills will be to place all motor vehicles on the one sales tax rate of 15 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget speech on 15 August made only a passing reference to this sales tax cut. He stated:

We-

That is the Government- have decided to reduce the rate of tax on motor cars and station wagons from 2714 per cent to the general rate of 15 per cent.

This means that the price of a new car now costing some $7,000 should be reduced by roughly $530.

The cost to revenue of this change, after allowance for some likely gains in sales, is estimated to be about $ 155m in 1 978-79 and $ 1 96m in a full year.

I am happy to note that those who made the estimates were correct in estimating that an increase in sales would result from the reduction in sales tax, although I am unhappy to note that the momentum of that increase in the early months after the Budget has now lessened somewhat. The picture is not as rosy for October as it was for August and September. The Opposition is bound to criticise the way in which the Government has approached the sales tax changes. I repeat that we do not oppose the Bills but we are not happy with the way in which they have been dealt and the way with which the motor vehicle industry generally has been dealt by the present Fraser Government.

I now illustrate why I make that charge. A closer study of the Bills will show most of the reasons why I make that charge. These Bills illustrate a certain hypocritical approach when we notice that the Government rejected the Opposition’s call for precisely this measure less than six months ago. We even raised for discussion in this House a matter of public importance on the issue. I had the pleasure to lead for the Opposition on that occasion. But that is not the only reason why we find this sales tax reduction rather hypocritical. Given the Government’s overall stagnation strategy which is deliberately aimed at contracting the Australian economy, we find it out of character that these measures are brought in. I refer those who might question whether my charge about the contracting nature of the Government’s economic strategy is correct to the figures in the Budget. Receipts are expected to increase by 1 1 per cent overall whereas expenditure is expected to increase by only something in the nature of 7 per cent to 8 per cent. If we look at the total receipts from the community and compare them with expenditure in the community we have to come to the conclusion that at least the Government has been consistent in pursuing what Mr W. C. Wentworth, a former member for Mackellar, dubbed as this stagnation strategy.

These Bills, together with subsequent policy announcements relating in particular to the motor industry, I assert, illustrate a certain myopic approach by the Government towards the motor vehicle industry. The Opposition advocated that a package of measures be taken to ensure the viability of the industry. We did this when we called for lower sales taxes at a time when Chrysler Australia Ltd in my own State of South Australia was announcing its enormous reduction in employment. A second point that has to be made in this context is that the short term expedient tinkering with the local content plans for the time being has merely brushed the problems under the carpet. So I believe that I am justified in making the assertions that I have made. I now go into further details about these facts which I have just placed before the House. The Opposition for a long time has been calling for substantial permanent sales tax cuts on passenger motor vehicles. Two examples occurred in May this year. Firstly, in a debate on a matter of public importance concerning the motor industry to which I referred earlier I argued as follows: . . we must have a growing consumer demand for passenger motor vehicles. The only way of getting that growing demand is by the national Government improving consumer demand immediately by reducing sales tax. A reduction to 15 per cent would mean about $600 less being spent on the purchase of a family car. It is urgent that this be done.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in a speech around that time advocated a substantial and permanent cut in sales tax. He said:

The 2716 per cent sales tax on motor vehicles in Australia is among the highest anywhere. It can and should be reduced immediately by half. The saving on a current new car would be S500 to $600. The cost to the Government in lost revenue would be about $200m.

How much better it would have been for the motor vehicle industry and the level of economic activity generally in Australia if the advice and recommendations of the Opposition last May had been taken rather than waiting until a few months later when so much damage had been done. However, in response to our calls we saw the Government vigorously rejecting the measures which it has now introduced to this Parliament. Two prominent examples come to mind. Firstly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), in an answer to a question without’ notice from me on 28 February, said:

I regret that the honourable gentleman has raised the matter of sales tax. I must say to him, as I said in earlier days when I was Treasurer, that a reduction is not part of Government thinking because of the impact it could have on inflation in Australia and, in a particular sense, in relation to Government economic policy, because of the impact it would have on the Budget deficit.

How much better it would have been if these measures had been taken in February instead of even in May as I suggested earlier. Another example of the Government’s earlier attitude leads us to the charge that these measures are hypocritical. In a debate in the House in May the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) said:

The Leader of the Opposition, on occasions, has claimed that a cost of $250m would be required to halve sales tax. He says that this cost could be easily managed. This is another example of the Opposition’s failure to learn from its experience in government … Is this $250m to be an additional cost to the inflationary budget deficit? If not, where would the Opposition raise this $2 50m?

We already know what problems this Government is having with the deficit. Yet it can bring in measures such as this now which are totally inconsistent with what the Government said in answer to me in February and in answer to the Leader of the Opposition in May. We are witnessing a complete about-face by the Government on this issue. We have been offered no explanation for this reversal, just an implicit admission perhaps that the Opposition’s calls for sales tax cuts were correct after all. Indeed, I assert clearly that these measures are the result of more enlightened thinking from the Opposition than has been shown by the Government. The Government’s hypocrisy on this whole issue is compounded by its continuing contractionary budgetary strategy to which I referred earlier. This is evident at two levels: Firstly, at the general level of the economy, with the Government’s refusal to stimulate the economy, with its cuts in spending and staff levels and with its imposition of a Vh per cent surcharge on personal income tax. That is the effect at the macro level. Let us look now at the micro level. In the motor vehicle industry, as a result of the immediate conversion of all Australian oil prices to import parity levels, we have had a substantial rise in petrol prices. Despite the obvious contradictions in government policies we are given no recognition or explanation of the fact that these policies have been altered.

Mr Martyr:

– You are emptying the chamber!

Mr HURFORD:

-That should be enough to convince even the honourable member for Swan that the charge I make about government hypocrisy is correct. Let me now back up the charge I make about the myopic nature of the Government’s policies. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) said that the Government saw its action in reducing sales taxes on passenger motor vehicle’s as - . . providing a significant stimulus to the passenger motor vehicle market by reducing prices and thereby encouraging consumers to purchase motor vehicles.

This optimism regarding the permanence and magnitude of the effect of the sales tax cuts upon the sales of motor vehicles is short-sighted. Firstly, may I state that the Opposition advocated such cuts as part of a package of policies which included the controlled stimulation of the economy and planning measures designed to ensure the long-term viability of the motor industry. We did not advocate sales tax cuts in isolation but as part of a package. However, the Government has adopted only one aspect of the Opposition’s policy package. This, by itself, will result in only limited and temporary improvements in the viability of the industry. Indeed, these limitations are shown in the latest figures.

New registrations numbered only 51,456 in September, compared with 55,407 in August. Even when seasonally adjusted, September registrations showed only a 6.2 per cent increase over those for August. The fact that there was only an increase in seasonally adjusted terms, not an actual rise, indicates that the sales tax cut has not resulted in an unfettered splash of motor vehicle buying. We may all hope, however, that the introduction of the new Commodore to the Holden range may improve these figures over the coming months. In addition, the minimal increase in the 1979 quota for car imports, from 88,000 units to 90,000, announced last month suggests clearly that the Government itself is not convinced that the Budget cuts in sales tax will prove successful in stimulating demand for more than a short period. That is merely one illustration of the myopic nature of the policy adopted by the Government in introducing these measures in isolation.

A second illustration of the short-sightedness of the Goverment ‘s optimism regarding the effect of the sales tax cuts has been evidenced by recent policy pronouncements concerning the motor vehicle industry. It is possible that these measures, by overestimating the effects of sales tax cuts, effected in isolation, may have a disemployment impact upon the industry. They may result in fewer rather than more people being employed. Most important among these announcements have been the changes to local content plans of 18 October 1978. These alterations represented some concessions. The manufacturers- Nissan, Toyota and Chrysler, which are phasing into the local content planhave been given an extended period to do so. I welcome the extension. I am glad to note that, as a result, less duty will be payable by the particular companies and consequently, I hope, there will not be increases in the prices of cars which otherwise would have taken place.

However, in the meantime dangers are to be seen on the horizon because in the same announcement the Government stated that in the future the non-reversion clause of the local content plans would be abolished. The effect would be that General Motors-Holden and Ford could now abandon, possibly indiscriminately, some local parts makers and find a source for their parts overseas. I am disappointed indeed that the committee which was charged with overseeing this non-reversionary clause has gone out of existence. I believe that at a time when we must move towards a policy of making in Australia parts which are also usable in motor cars overseas- a complementation plan- it would have been very valuable if that committee had continued in existence. Thus, I believe that whilst sales taxes have been reduced, the Government has provided examples of ad hockery in its policy on the motor vehicle industry. That ad hockery comes under the heading of short-term expediency rather than the longer-term plans needed to ensure that there will be proper security in the motor vehicle industry, which is such an important engine to manufacturing industry in this country.

In conclusion, I say that although the Opposition supports these Bills it does so in the context of emphasising their inadequacy, taken alone. We plead that a good deal more be done to ensure the viability of the motor manufacturing industry and thus preserve the job security of workers therein. The Opposition believes that a manufacturing industry is absolutely essential if we are to get back to anywhere near full employment in this country. It believes, further, that a motor manufacturing industry would provide the essential engine, the motor, for that manufacturing industry to move forward generally. Our fear is that the Government, for its own doctrinaire reasons, may be incapable of providing the positive leadership that is needed to arrive at a comprehensive solution of the problems which still confront the motor vehicle industry in Australia and indeed manufacturing industry generally. Therefore, whilst we support these measures and express our pleasure that sales taxes are being reduced, we are bound to point out that, for the reasons I have indicated, there is something that is hypocritical and something myopic about these measures.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-Because the Opposition and the Government are in agreement on the need for the measures before the House, I shall not speak at great length upon, them. The support by the Opposition is very reluctantly given. It does not feel that the Government is facing up to the real problems of the motor vehicle industry. I would like to trace briefly the history of the Sales Tax Amendment Bills, which number nine in all. Their purpose is to reduce from 27!6 per cent to 15 per cent the rate of sales tax on passenger motor vehicles. Primarily, those reductions will have application to sedan motor vehicles, station wagons and taxi cabs. It is remarkable that nine Bills should be necessary to introduce such a change, but unfortunately Australia suffers from a Constitution, not physical but political, that was worked out in the horse and buggy days of 1901. We are still suffering from it just as we suffered from it in 1 975. We have been suffering from it since 1 90 1 . It is necessary to bring in nine different Bills because a sales tax must be introduced in respect of each class of transaction. The separation is necessary in order to meet the constitutional requirement that an Act which imposes taxation shall deal with only one subject thereof.

It is interesting to note that since September 1975 only three sales tax rates have applied in Australia. The lowest rate, 2lh per cent, applies to goods which are normally used for household purposes. There is also what is called commonly the general rate of 15 per cent. Then there is the higher rate, of 21 Vi per cent, which is considered to be a special rate covering non-essential goods. There was a time when a motor vehicle was considered to be non-essential just as a razor blade once was. What is almost a luxury rate of 27V4 per cent has applied to things such as cosmetics for our female counterparts. Without those cosmetics, our female counterparts would not look as good as they do. It is interesting to speculate as to the reason why there should have been a tax rate of 27VS per cent applying to motor vehicles in the first place. The Government I think for good reasons which it announced in the Budget has decided that it will be reducing the rate applying to motor vehicles from 27!/i per cent to 15 per cent. As I said earlier, we do not oppose the Bill. While we support it, we do not consider that it provides the solution to the problems which confront the motor vehicle industry. It is interesting to note that on 8 May 1978, some three months only before the Budget was brought down, the Opposition raised for discussion as a matter of public importance:

The Fraser Government’s failure to respond to the crisis in the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry, with appropriate policies to improve consumer demand and provide a viable future with resulting employment security.

The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who has just resumed his seat, led for the Opposition on that particular occasion.

Mr Hurford:

– Brilliantly.

Mr MARTIN:

– He did make a very good speech. I took the opportunity tonight to read that speech which he made on 8 May 1978. Amongst other things, he had this to say:

The Whitlam Labor Government commenced the long and difficult task of providing Australians with manpower programs, with job training, retraining, relocation and income maintenance schemes.

He made that statement and it has never been as true as it is today. He said:

For all intents and purposes these progressive measures have been dismantled by a Fraser Government . . .

How true that is. We see today tax that the motor vehicle industry is only one of the many industries in Australia which are suffering from the machinations of the Fraser Government. The first action that it has taken to try to repair the harm which has been caused to the motor vehicle industry is to introduce this Budget measure of reducing sales tax from 21 n per cent to 15 per cent. The honourable member for Adelaide also had this to say:

Firstly, we must have a growing consumer demand for these cars.

The honourable member for Adelaide is a prophet in his own country. He had that to say on 8 May 1978, three months before the Budget was brought down. The present Budget came down on 15 August. The Government obviously agreed with him because it introduced all these sales tax measures, which reduced the rate of sales tax from 21Vi per cent to 15 per cent. The honourable member for Adelaide also had this to say:

The only way of getting that growing demand -

He was talking about motor vehicles:

  1. . is by the national government improving consumer demand immediately by reducing sales tax.

He was followed by one of the leading speakers for the Government, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr McPhee) who is the Minister for Productivity and whose area of expertise encompasses or should encompass the motor vehicle industry. Notwithstanding the very fine words of wisdom of the honourable member for Adelaide about the reduction of sales tax, the Minister for Productivity said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) had said that the cost of the reduction in sales tax could easily be managed. He said:

Another example of the Opposition’s failure to learn from its experience in government can be seen from this remark. Is this $250m -

He was referring to the loss of revenue caused by a reduction in sales tax:

  1. . to be an additional cost to the inflationary Budget deficit? If not, where would the Opposition raise this $2 50m?

He also said:

To mislead consumers into believing that sales tax is going to be cut is to damage consumers themselves. It will damage the health of the industry and the health of all those about whom the Opposition purports to be concerned. It will damage the morale and the security of employment of the people in the work force, because the more the Opposition talks about the prospect of a sales tax cut, the more people will refrain from buying a car in case the price is going to be reduced.

Some three months later the Government brought in a measure to reduce the sales tax from 27W per cent to 1 5 per cent. I say in all seriousness that the reduction in sales tax is still only a palliative. It is not a solution to the problems of the car manufacturing industry. It is not the real answer to the problems. What is needed is a proper policy package to be worked out to deal with the real problems which affect the motor vehicle industry itself. There are real problems in the motor vehicle industry. Do members of this Parliament realise that we have more car manufacturers in Australia for a population of a mere 14 million people than there are car manufacturers in the whole of the United States of America which has a population of 260 million people? Let me emphasise that point: We have more manufacturers in Australia for 14 million people than has the United States of America for 260 million people. The simple answer is, of course- everyone knows what the simple answer is- that we have far too many companies in

Australia manufacturing motor vehicles. But the problem arises as to which motor vehicle manufacturing company has to go; which motor vehicle manufacturing industry has to move out of one State. Certain States of Australia and certain areas within those States are over dependent on particular types of industry and in particular the motor vehicle industry and the component parts industry associated therewith. This situation applies particularly in the State of South Australia and to a lesser extent in the State of Victoria. It does not apply so much in the larger manufacturing State of New South Wales.

The Government has to get down to its task as the previous Labor Government was doing at the stage when it was summarily dismissed from office on 1 1 November 1975. We have only three days to go to the anniversary of that dastardly deed. This Government has to get down to its task and face up to the cold hard realities of deciding which of the particular manufacturers in the motor vehicle industry have not so much to go to the wall but have to cease manufacturing because the economy of this country cannot stand the number of car manufacturers that we have today.

Whilst the Opposition reluctantly agrees with the measure before the House- we do not oppose it; we support it- I say that it is only a token support to the extent that it is only a palliative. It is not the real answer to the problem. It is only a short term measure to try to allow the motor vehicle industry to pull out of the mess that it is in at present. It is in a real mess. Until such time as the Government gets down to the cold hard task of deciding which of the particular companies have to cease manufacturing, the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia will not achieve any firm basis at all and it will not reach a stage where a company can manufacture with confidence knowing that it can dispose of the vehicles that it is producing. Until the Government faces up to that reality, we will have a stop start situation applying to the motor vehicle manufacturing industry which is not good for not only the people employed in the industry but also for the industry itself. The Government is in power; it has to exercise that power. It is absolutely no good just sitting by and saying: ‘We will just adopt a stop start attitude; we will just adopt short term policies’. It has to look to the long term future of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry.

We need a healthy and very progressive motor vehicle industry in Australia but we certainly do not need the number of changes in motor vehicles models which are made in Australia. We do not need a different motor vehicle every year. We do not need a whole series of new models and new types to appeal to the fads of people. The expense of maintaining even the spare parts in an industry such as this is well beyond the population of 14 million which we have in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Third Readings

Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith.

Bills (on motion by Mr Groom) read a third time.

page 2554

BOUNTY (METAL- WORKING MACHINE TOOLS) BILL 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Braddon · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Bounty (Drilling Machines) Amendment Bill and the Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Amendment Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three Bills? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of the main Bill, the Bounty (Metalworking Machine Tools) Bill, is to give effect to the Goverment ‘s decision, announced on 24 May last, to provide a revised bounty scheme to all sections of the metal-working machine tools industry in Australia. This decision followed an Industries Assistance Commission report sent to the Government back in December 1977. I am sure that those who are in this industry will be glad that even though it is near enough to a year later, at last a Bill is progressing through this House to give effect to that recommendation. In the past, assistance in the form of bounties has been available to only certain sections of the industry. These bounty payments have been made under the Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Act 1972, and more recently under the Bounty (Drilling Machines) Act 1978. Indeed, the purpose of the other two amending Bills which we are debating in this cognate debate, namely the Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Amendment Bill and the Bounty (Drilling Machines) Amendment Bill, is to phase out the current schemes so that they can be replaced by the new scheme provided for in what I have referred to as the main Bill.

Indications of the nature of the industry can be gleaned from the fact that the local manufacturing witnesses at the IAC inquiry employed about 1,400 persons and made up just over 40 per cent of the domestic market. Imports accounted for over 60 per cent of total market sales. The Industries Assistance Commission accepted that the machine tools industry should be maintained at least at its present level because of the defence significance of the industry. To achieve this, of course, there were a number of options open to the Industries Assistance Commission. After a great deal of examination, it recommended that an effective rate of assistance of about 40 per cent to 45 per cent be given to the industry. In particular, it argued for three elements. Firstly, it recommended extending the present bounty scheme to all locally produced machine tools at the rate of one-third of the factory cost of the machine tools for 100 per cent local content, reducing proportionately to zero at 55 per cent of local content.

The second element of the IAC recommendation was the implementation of an additional, that is a new, bounty at the rate of 25 per cent of the design cost incurred in Australia in the total factory cost. I notice that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) is to follow me in this debate. I am certain that as an engineer he will be happy to support the fact that his fellow engineers in the design field will now be receiving some benefit because design is included in the bounty. Thirdly, the IAC recommended making duty free on 1 July 1979 all imported tools competing with those subject to the bounty. I hasten to say that the Government has not accepted all three of the IAC’s recommendations, but I will come to that in a moment. The IAC felt that these measures would be sufficient to maintain and increase current levels of activity in the machine tools industry. Also, the members of the Industries Assistance Commission felt that a general level of assistance to the industry which was neutral across all segments of the industry would provide scope for expansion of lower cost activities and would serve to compensate for any reduction in activity in the high cost standard metal removing machine tools segment, which in its report the IAC said showed ‘little prospect of improving its efficiency and did not contribute greatly to the efficiency of industry generally ‘.

The Government accepted the first two elements of the IAC’s recommendation without any variation whatsoever. The bounties which became operative from the day after the Government’s announcement- that is, from 25 May 1978- will cease on 30 June 1984 or such date as is fixed by proclamation. On the basis of the 1976-77 production figures, the bounty payable would have been about $8m, of which the extra bounty on design would have been about $500,000. This compares with a cost of $2.4m under the old scheme in 1976-77. So indeed these measures are generous inasmuch as they represent taxpayers’ funds going to subsidise the industry through bounty increasing from $2.4m, on 1976-77 figures, to $8.5m, if the estimates are correct, still in relation to 1976-77 figures. The Government did not accept without modification the third element of the IAC’s recommendation, namely, that imported machine tools be duty free from 1 July 1979. Instead, the Fraser Government decided to phase in the duty reduction over a three-year period ‘to allow time for local manufacturers to plan and implement adjustments in product ranges without adverse effects on activity and employment’. This decision was put into effect by Customs Tariff Proposal No. 13, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 24 May 1 978.

As I indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose these Bills. In fact, we welcome the notion of temporary assistance for an important defence industry. However, we see temporary assistance as being only one part of a package of policies designed to improve the efficiency and international competitiveness of our industries. Other essential parts are, firstly, a controlled stimulus to the economy to increase consumer demand for the products of industry and, secondly, the institution of positive industry policy programs designed to encourage the revitalisation of existing industries, the restructuring up into new industries, and positive manpower policy programs to increase the mobility of workers through training, retraining and job search subsidies. We assert that there should be such a comprehensive policy package, not just one relying on bounties or on the Industries Assistance Commission putting out one grass fire here and another one there. If a comprehensive package such as this were adopted we could reasonably expect industry to improve its efficiency and competitiveness while receiving temporary assistance and so be able to go it alone when the temporary assistance expired.

However, all we see this Government doing is providing the temporary assistance in isolation. We do not see that package, that longer term policy, that vision which is required. The only time that this country has vision is when the Labor Party takes over. It had vision in 1972, and a lot of wonderful new policies were introduced to this country, not all of which, happily, have been obliterated by this Government, in spite of many attempts to do so. A lot of the great policies have been obliterated but not all of them. The country had vision at the time John Curtin took over. He had the vision of getting on with the job of pursuing the war successfully to its conclusion. It had vision after the war in Chifley ‘s day when he set about the task of restructuring this country. This task was carried out so successfully that we had the wonderful base on which the full employment of the 1950s and the 1960s was built. Now, of course, vision is lacking. We do not have longer term policies. We have merely one-off temporary measures such as the one we are debating tonight.

It seems to be the Government’s naive hope that business stability will result from an enforced lowering of inflation rates. It also hopes that the magical market forces, in consequence of the policies of stagnation and the lowering of inflation rates, will bring about an upturn in economic activity and an improvement in the viability of Australian industry. This is nonsense. Not only is this chain of reasoning- I hesitate to call it logic- unconvincing but also, it has been invalidated by the experience of the past three years. It seems inevitable that the Government’s reliance upon temporary assistance alone will mean that the long term prospects for industry will comprise a series of short term measures in which panic efforts to sustain industries struggling unnecessarily will inevitably dominate. It seems likely that this Government will continue to be preoccupied with short time palliatives offering little positive leadership to ensure the long term viability of Australian industry. We in the Opposition are optimistic that the right package of” policies, coupled with an appropriate recognition of the structural problems within Australian industry, can get our economy back to full employment. However, our temporary, reluctant pessimism is associated with the limited and misguided nature of the Fraser Government’s policies.

Until the present Government recognises the error of its ways and adopts the strategy which the Opposition is advocating, it will only lead the economy deeper into recession. Could it be that at last there is a chink in this strategy of seeking salvation through stagnation? I refer to the Loan Council meeting on Monday. Could it be that proud men will not admit publicly that their stagnation policies have been a failure but that they will do so privately? Instead of coming into the Parliament with vision and getting on with programs, in particular public works programs, they will quietly allow the States to do this. Unfortunately, there are costs in doing it that way. The States will borrow funds abroad at a higher rate of interest than the rate at which a national Government could borrow the same funds.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Why?

Mr HURFORD:

– I would have hoped that the honourable member for Hotham would have had the education to know exactly why. It is because a national government has a greater credit rating overseas. Even though the honourable member has been a member of the Parliament for only a short time and may not have had the opportunity to visit the capital markets of London and New York and to talk to the bankers as I have done, I would have hoped that he would have read enough in the business pages of the Australian Financial Review or any of the other major metropolitan newspapers of this country to know that the overseas credit rating of a national Government will allow it to borrow funds at a far cheaper rate than can the individual States for their own separate schemes. Of course that will be more expensive. Who will pay? The consumers, the ordinary Australians, will pay the extra costs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you come from South Australia. You will know how pleased we all are on a bipartisan basis that the Redcliff proposal is one of the successful projects for funds through the Loan Council meeting. But I am sure that you will deplore with me the fact that those funds will cost more to be borrowed abroad by our State government than they would have if the national Government had borrowed the money as national governments have done hitherto and then allowed the States to use that money.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I suggest that the honourable member for Adelaide should not put words into my mouth. I would like to know which of the three Bills he is discussing.

Mr HURFORD:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I noticed the intelligent look on your face and knew that the words I was putting into your mouth were words that you would welcome. In answer to your question, I point out that I am discussing the fact that the three Bills before the Chair are temporary measures whereas what this nation needs is wider, longer term measures if we are to get our economy going. The temporary approach of the Government means more problems for more industries. At least we can be thankful that the metal working machine tools and the drilling machines industries are getting some help through these bounties. But those who form these industries know of the uncertainties of bounties. As I stated earlier, this measure will last only until, I think, 1984. It could be terminated by proclamation overnight. That is why it is only a temporary measure. That is why I was talking about the longer term development and longer term measures which are necessary for this country. What it needs more than anything else is a return to economic health. It will not get it by small temporary measures such as this. However, this is better than nothing. It will help one industry which is of defence significance to this country. Because of this the Opposition is happy to support the three Bills.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– Small business is vital to Australia, both to our economy and to our way of life. The Liberal-National Country Party Government has always recognised this and has taken a number of important steps to encourage and foster small business. The Fraser Government has steadfastly pursued a responsible economic policy with the top priority of reducing inflation and thereby restoring the climate for expanding business activity and investment. Our bringing inflation down has been of great help to small business. Further, Federal Government spending has been controlled and the Public Service has been cut to a responsible level allowing the major growth to come from the private sector. One big item which has helped small business has been the additional investment allowance for taxation purposes on the purchase of new plant and equipment. The figure is now 20 per cent. It is applicable to June 1985 and can be fully claimed in the year in which the equipment goes into operation.

The firm control on government spending, better management of financial resources and the lower rate of inflation are now paving the way for lower interest rates. With lower inflation, the importance of our bringing in trading stock valuation is lessened but the adjustment of the value of trading stocks for taxation purposes helps to avoid the erosion of the capital base of business. Then there is the increase of the retention allowance from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of profits for private companies. This, coupled with the indexation of personal income tax, has been of immense value to the small businessman.

Alongside these important steps have been other helpful innovations such as the extension of the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to lend to all kinds of businesses and to provide equity finance to small business. The guidelines of the Reserve Bank of Australia have been extended to cover major financial institutions to stress this Government’s aim of improving the finance facilities available to small businesses. Further, the Government has followed a policy of, where possible, purchasing locally made goods to fill Commonwealth orders and of encouraging State governments and local government to do the same. There is also a support program of short practical publications oriented specifically to the small business owner-manager, and there is a Bureau of Industry Economics to undertake research into longer run economic issues relevant to small business sectors.

In these three Bills we have a further aid to one section of industry, a revised bounty scheme for the metal working machine tools industry in Australia. The main Bill extends the bounty arrangement, while the other two Bills amend earlier Acts which were needed as a consequence of the main Act. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) said in introducing the Bills, they are based on the Industries Assistance Commission report No. 155 of 23 December 1977 on metal working machine tools. The basis for this report was a referral by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in December 1976 of the question whether assistance should be accorded to the manufacture in Australia of metal working machine tools after the termination of the Metal Working Tool Bounty Act 1972, the provisions of which have been extended until 30 June 1979 and, if so, what should be the nature and extent of any such assistance.

The Minister required the Commission, in answering the above question, to have regard for the provisions of the Metal Working Tool Bounty Act and the Government’s objective that at least the nucleus of a machine tools industry should be maintained in Australia’ and asked the Commission to report by 31 December 1977, which I am glad to note it did. Let us look firstly at the Commission’s conclusions regarding the nucleus. It felt that the total level of activity in the industry should not fall below the present level and that associated design and development should be maintained at least at the existing levels; however, in keeping with these aims, recommendations must not hinder the introduction of flexible or versatile machines which might tend to replace existing technology. Since most machine tools used in the industry itself are of overseas origin, maintenance of this nucleus must not inhibit the availability of such machines.

The industry can conveniently be divided into three major segments- standard metal removing machines, special purpose metal removing machines and metal forming and shearing machines. The total market in 1976-77 was $68m, of which only about $2 7m was the competitive market. Local manufacturers enjoyed 60 per cent of this competitive market but only 24 per cent of the total market. The employment for the goods under reference is not easy to establish, but it is of the order of 1,500 to 2,000 persons and more than half of these are involved with metal forming and shearing machines. Professional” engineers and draftsmen make up 10 per cent of this employment and skilled tradesmen account for 56 per cent.

The aim of the Commission was a pattern of longer term assistance, thus the present high assistance to standard metal removing machines was maintained and the same rate was extended to all locally produced metal working machine tools of the metal removing, forming and shearing types. Such an assistance pattern provides scope for expansion of lower cost activities and serves to compensate, to some extent only, for any reduction in activity in the high cost standard metal removing machine tools segment. This group shows little prospect of improving its efficiency and does not contribute greatly to the efficiency of the industry generally. Levels of assistance in this Bill impose a cost on the community. One of the main reasons for giving such assistance is the special defence requirements. Perhaps this should be an item in the defence budget. At any rate, the Department of Defence should keep its requirements in regard to this industry under review at all times.

The industry should not expect such levels of assistance to continue for ever or even after 30 June 1984. It must continue to make every effort to improve its efficiency and to become competitive at lesser and lesser levels of assistance. It is expected that the structure of the industry will change and that the standard metal removing machine segment will alter its range and methods of production so that it produces machines that are more efficient and more appropriate to the changing demands. If such adjustments cannot be made successfully reductions in employment are possible. In contrast, employment in other segments will be assisted by the terms of this Bill. One would expect increased employment opportunities which should more than make up for possible losses in the standard machine segment.

The existing bounty scheme is to run to 30 June 1979. However, it is obvious that if these revised bounties were not to start until then purchasing decisions would be deferred. The revised bounty scheme under this Bill therefore will be operative from 25 May 1978. Whilst it is not possible to guess the overall effect on the industry, it is expected that the bounty cost would be in the order of $8m, of which the extra bounty on design would cost a little over $400,000. I add that the IAC report is a remarkably complete assessment of the industry. The Commission deserves full credit for it. It was not carried out by volunteers. The 69 witnesses spent much time and therefore much cost in the preparation of material and in their presentations. One can only hope that the overall effect on Australia from this cost and the bounty cost will be on the plus side- in other words, a benefit.

While the Labor Party may not be opposing this Bill, honourable members should remember its performance while in office. It reduced tariffs across the board by 25 per cent, which hurt all manufacturers of these machine tools. In summary, we have a Bill which is a further help to one sector of the industry, the metal working machine tools industry. It should save jobs, but at a cost to the community. It also will ensure the maintenance of the nucleus of this industry, with all its defence significance. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Let me, in the first instance, rebut the argument used by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) about the Labor Government reducing tariffs and causing so many problems. It is to be hoped that Australia does not have to go too often through the problems of the boom and recession of that period that flowed throughout the Western world, because the decision to reduce tariffs was one of the very few options open to the Labor Government in that period in order to make the goods available to what was a much steamed up economy. It would be interesting indeed to see what formula would be used by the present incumbents of office in this country if they were faced with the same sort of boom and then recessionary problems as the Labor Government was faced with.

The other interesting factor about the 20 per cent across-the-board tariff reduction that took place in that period is that it was much criticised by the then Opposition, now the Government, but it has never been reversed. It is interesting to note that, in spite of all the criticisms of the Government of those days and of its decisions regarding tariffs, specifically the 25 per cent tariff cut, this Government has refused and refused steadfastly in the three years since it came to office to reintroduce the additional 25 per cent protection across the board. If it were such a bad decision and if it had such an impact on industry as one is led to believe by government speakers, I wonder why this Government has not taken the very simple step- it can do this without reference to the Industries Assistance Commission if it does so across the board- of reinstating the additional 25 per cent protection. It does not do so because the inaccuracy of much of what it has said has been exposed by IAC annual reports since that decision was taken, and it has not done so because it could not possibly justify doing so. Consumers in this country also have some say, but the overriding factor in that decision obviously was the economic climate through which Australia was going. No one wishes that the rise and fall in the economy which we had then would come back to Australia. I would think that most of us are contributing towards ensuring that we have a stable economy in which everybody can share in the resources of this country and in which there is work for all those people who wish to go to work.

The honourable member for Hotham also said that the Government’s decisions were right because the Government was putting emphasis on the private sector and was reducing the number of people in employment in government. Subsequently the decisions placed emphasis on and gave priority to the private sector. It seems to me that government speakers continually obscure the difficulties being engendered by the private sector in terms of employment. It is true that a great deal of structural adjustment has occurred in the private sector, including the industries about which we are talking tonight. In the long term, this adjustment will benefit those industries. Obviously the decision tonight will be of great benefit to the machine tool industry, but we also have to take into account that that restructuring is still going on and will continue to go on by virtue of the decision tonight and very much by virtue of the generous investment allowance made available to industry by this Government. It should not go unnoticed that despite all the additional help being given to the private sector by this Government, 48,000 fewer people were working in the private sector in June 1978 than were working in that sector in June 1 977.

It is no good saying that the machine tool industry is going to be assisted enormously by this decision tonight, it is no good all of us saying Rah, rah; good on you’ and all of us putting up our hands and saying how beautiful it is going to be, if in the long term the decision adds to the length of the dole queues. I am not suggesting that there is any equation between the decision we are making tonight and the factor of unemployment. In the past, the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money which have been handed over to industry, has helped industry in one way. Certainly industry is more efficient, more competitive and more aware of the outside world, but we have a greater problem in our midst than we had before the Government started to give these handouts. I refer to unemployment. Tonight we are talking about the machine tool industry. It might interest the honourable member for Hotham to know that in South Australia alone- this is indicative of the situation throughout the Commonwealth- over 1,500 skilled metal tradesmen are registered as unemployed. As many as 300 apprentices have had their indentures broken because industry has closed in that State alone. They are waiting to go back to complete their apprenticeships.

We have to look at some of the decisions we make in relation to all aspects affecting the people of Australia, not just how much we are able to give industry, how much it will assist industry and how much more efficient industry will be as a result. There is no grey area about our support for this measure. As the former honourable member for Wakefield used to say, in many instances we would much prefer to see the bounty mechanism used in assisting industry so that everybody throughout the country, whoever he might be, could see quite clearly the amount of assistance that is being given. In this case something like $8m is being provided. Everybody can see that quite clearly and knows what is involved. There is another factor related to this decision, a factor which we have pointed out on many occasions. Members who perform in this Parliament as free traders ought to think about this. There are many reasons, including the one given by the IAC, for giving this sort of assistance. The IAC has stated that in this instance the machine tool industry is defence related and as such plays an important role in the Australian defence capacity. Therefore, it ought to be given assistance to get over the sorts of problems it will face between now and 1 984.

The IAC placed emphasis on giving encouragement to development design prowess in the Australian industry. There are other reasons for giving this sort of assistance. An infant machine tool industry might be given the same sort of assistance to get it started and to enable it to get on its feet before it has to compete with imports that do not have any duty imposed on them. It might be that the industry is labour intensive, which also would be a reason for our supporting the sort of measure which we are debating tonight as a result of IAC recommendations. There are all sorts of reasons for our providing this sort of assistance.

The added factor which I want to stress to the House tonight is that these decisions cannot be taken in isolation. It is now accepted by everybody that in February next year we will have half a million people unemployed. From time to time we will hear people associated with the immigration policies of this country and some industry leaders saying that we need more skilled tradesmen; that the only way we will get skilled tradesmen is to have a greater inflow of migrants. As I have pointed out, in South Australia 1,500 metal tradesmen are registered as unemployed. The type of assistance we are debating tonight is a bit like unemployment- there are so many hidden factors. With unemployment there is the hidden factor of the number of tradesmen who are unemployed because of the relativity of wages. The jobs of some people can be protected, not merely by paying a bounty to an industry, but by seeing that the remuneration of a person entering a trade is commensurate with the sort of responsibility that he accepts within the industry. In this respect people who have worked in Australia as tradesmen have lost their relativity in respect of remuneration, particularly over the past 15 years.

In some instances governments have lost their rationale about what may be required when the Australian economy picks up. For instance, it seems to me to be an absolute disaster that not only are apprentices now having their time broken, but also our intake of apprentices in 1978 is down 8 per cent on the intake in 1977. In the metal industry, the car industry, the machine tool industry and so forth the intake of apprentices this year is about 8 per cent or 9 per cent lower than it was last year, which also was down on the previous year. If the economy picks up, which we hope it will do, and if it starts to provide jobs one of the great problems we will face will be that we will have insufficient numbers of skilled people to carry out the work that will be required to build the infrastructure for a stable economy. They are some of the factors that have to be looked at also when one talks about assisting industries further by the imposition of bounties. As I said earlier, previously when legislation was introduced into this Parliament to provide bounties for certain textile industries and the data processing industry, which was very much an infant industry in this country- we produced our first commercial computer only in 1968- it was agreed that those sorts of industries, which held a great future in this country, had to be assisted. As I said, it is clear to see whether we are assisting if we do it by way of a bounty.

So it is with the machine tool industry. It seems to me to be elementary that we should all support assisting this industry, which employs so many people and which can give great backup to the defence industry. On the matter of defence, a number of members from both sides of this Parliament served on a committee which considered the industries that ought to be maintained in order to give us that sort of industrial complex that is needed to back up our defence capacity. It is unfortunate that the decision to be taken here tonight is not the decision that should have been taken in relation to the shipbuilding industry. The committee from this Parliament which said that the machine tool industry was important also said that the shipbuilding industry was important to the defence capacity of Australia. So, we have to look at these aspects in total but, more importantly, we have to look at the massive impact that some of the assistance we are giving to industry is likely to have on the long term opportunities for people to go to work because it is that which is going to leave a great social scar on this country. No bounty of any amount, of any level or of any duration will assist us unless we have manpower policies commensurate with the sort of assistance we are giving to industry.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I am surprised to hear Government supporters talking about the need to divert defence resources into various forms of industry in order to maintain the defence basis of those industries. That argument can be maintained in respect of a very broad area of industry. It is fair to say also that the industries we are talking about tonight are important not only for the defence capacity that they may engender but also for the basic skills and the capacity to do basic design, tooling and machining work that they provide. These are needs that a nation should be able to meet in its own right. That is really what this debate is all about. The Government’s record on defence industries, if it cares to claim one, is not very good. Already it has moved against the shipbuilding industry which is vital to any suggestion of a defence capacity and has done so quite ruthlessly because the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was unable to achieve an employment circumstance where employees would have been required to pay for any over-run on contracts whether it was caused by the employees, management incompetence or the failings of suppliers or other persons in the field. We already have considerable concern about, and certainly there is evidence of, a government intention to close the heavy engine works in Port Melbourne. This is the only operation of its kind in Australia and certainly would have very significant defence importance, but this is of no concern to the Government.

The suggestion by the Government of a concern for defence industries is fairly hollow. I do not think that the Government takes it into consideration at all when assessing what action it will take on any given industry. I suggest that that is not a good policy. There are criteria relating to defence. When the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) makes that type of suggestion, I wonder what sort of response he would make to the fact -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You did not listen to me. You did not understand what I said. Read it in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr SCHOLES:

-It was a very political speech- that was its only purpose- and it carried very little substance. I suggest that the honourable member should look at what the Government is doing to the scientific and weapons research complements of our defence capacity in Salisbury, South Australia. Already over onethird of the employees there- the people who have the developmental and technological skills which would make the use of weapons possiblehave gone out of that industry. Under this year’s Estimates, just over 600 public service positions are to be abolished within the defence area and one-third of those positions will be positions of technical skill without which no reasonable capacity for defence in an electronic and technological age such as we are in now can exist. The Government is padding the situation, is failing to deal with very serious weaknesses which are appearing in the defence area, and is applying staff ceilings to the skilled technical people who would carry the burden of this aspect of our defence capacity. These Bills will protect some skills in Australia but they represent an ad hoc arrangement made without any serious planning by the Government of the basic skills necessary to enable a nation to perform in an economy which will depend on the nation’s technological capacity in the future for its standard of living. The suggestion being made in this House that some industry justifies support out of the defence budget is very hollow because it is not something that is seriously contemplated or supported by the Government. The Government supports industries on an industry to industry basis and defence in that context is a secondary consideration.

Technical skills, design capacity and the capacity to carry out the basic functions of industry are important and should be supported by all governments. The unfortunate fact is that a lot of lip service is being paid by the Government to this area but a very low level of performance is evident. There is also a tendency to underrate the importance of technical skills in all areas. Only two weeks ago in this House, the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) suggested that certain people who prepared a report on the naval technical service in the Department of Defence were persons with a low level of skills or persons without skills. The Minister may have considered that to be a good and smart answer at the time but one of the persons involved in the preparation of that report was in charge of the engineering aspects of the procurement of the FFGs. If the Minister’s statement to this House was correct, he should be asking himself why a person with the level of skill that he described in this place has a job of such importance. Of course, it did not suit the political climate at the time to do so.

These Bills deal with an important section of industry. I think that all sides of the House support the maintenance of that section of industry. However, I do not think that the holierthanthou attitude that we have heard tonight advances the argument. The Government is dealing with it on an ad hoc basis. The White Paper on Manufacturing Industry has gone into limbo with the long-forgotten reports and there are serious problems throughout industry. There is a lack of knowledge and a lack of capacity to plan for the future because the Government is not able to put forward an overall policy or anything that approaches an overall policy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I have an amendment to the Schedule, which reads:

CLASSES OF MACHINE TOOLS

Class 1

Power-fed machine tools of the kind known as numerically-controlled machining centres or of the kind known as computer-controlled machining centres.

Class 2

Automotive reconditioning machine tools other than machine tools included in Class 1 .

Class 3

Power-fed machine tools (other than machine tools included in Class 1 or 2 or machine tools of a metal-forming or metal-shearing kind) that-

have been designed for the purpose of performing, in relation to a particular kind of work-piece, a particular operation or particular operations; and

cannot, without structural alteration, be used for any other purpose.

Class 4

Machine tools other than machine tools included in Class 2, 3 or 4.

I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2562

BOUNTY (DRILLING MACHINES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 September, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2562

METAL WORKING MACHINE TOOLS BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 September, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2562

HANSARD REPORT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to add briefly to a statement I made earlier today in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister has the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-During an answer I gave at Question Time in which I outlined my objections to commercial abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory -

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker, as the matter involves another honourable member, I ask, before you give the Prime Minister your indulgence, whether the other member involved has been informed? I think that courtesy would require that a member has the right to hear a matter which affects his interests.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have given the Prime Minister the indulgence of the Chair. If another honourable member seeks the indulgence of the Chair I will give it to him also. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I outlined my objections to commercial abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) interjected: ‘What is wrong with private enterprise?’. I responded to that interjection by saying: ‘The Leader of the Opposition is now supporting commercial abortion clinics by this interjection’. At the end of Question Time, I said that I had already had the Hansard tape checked. In relation to the question of abortion clinics, the Hansard record will show that during part of my answer the Leader of the Opposition did interject: ‘What is wrong with private enterprise?’ In fact, it was a Hansard reporter who confirmed to a member of my staff that the Leader of the Opposition had made that interjection. I have checked the greens’ and that interjection does appear together with a similar interjection from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) who made it first; the interjection being picked up by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I seek your indulgence also, Mr Speaker, to speak to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, the question: What is wrong with private enterprise?’ says nothing more nor less than that. It is no indication of what my particular views are on the subject although I expect they are fairly well known. I have expressed them often enough. It is a pity that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) desires so often to cast himself in the role of the Vyshinsky of the Federal Parliament.

page 2563

ADJOURNMENT

Migrant Education- Prescribing of Drugs- Commonwealth Government Employees Compensation- Use of Parliamentary Postage Paid Envelopes and Franking Machines -Abortions

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to raise for the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), his representative in this place and, indeed, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), a serious situation which has developed in many schools in my electorate and, I suspect, in many schools in Victoria where there are pupils with ethnic backgrounds. The problems arise out of new criteria which have been adopted by the Federal Department of Education working in conjunction with State education authorities in Victoria. These new criteria apply to the provision of migrant English teachers in State schools. I understand that the adoption of the new criteria involves the acceptance of the principle that if a child, irrespective of his background, has been in a school for two years the presumption is that he is able to handle the English language. The net effect of this new policy with these new criteria is that in many schools where children of ethnic and migrant background are being educated there will be an overall reduction in the number of teachers available to teach English to such students.

Just by way of example I refer to the result of these new criteria in one school in my electorate. The Albert Park High School has 830 pupils, 450 of whom have Greek as a native tongue and 60 per cent of whom are of Greek nationality. The effect of these new criteria will be to reduce the existing number of migrant teachers from three full-time and two part-time teachers to two fulltime teachers and one part-time teacher. Having produced this result, it is somewhat cynically hoped that teachers and pupils will have to make do. The effect of this policy- obviously it flows from the Budget cuts in respect of education- is simply to discriminate selectively against children of migrant or ethnic backgrounds. It seems to me that if one looks at the history of many of these children one will find that they began their schooling in our system with considerable handicaps. There would be very few schools in the inner suburbs of Melbourne where the student population- in some cases it is 60 per cent and in some cases it is as high as 80 per cent- has English as the mother tongue.

It is of vital importance that the rate of funding, which has been produced by the Commonwealth over a number of years, should not be reduced. In very few of these schools- I challenge the Minister for Education to name one such school- in any of the inner suburban areas of Melbourne the provision of English migrant teachers meets the very real demands for educational service of children of migrant and ethnic background who are trying to be educated. The effect of this cutback, therefore, is to reduce existing staff. Teachers who have been with schools are now being taken out of those schools. This, I think, unfairly discriminates against children of ethnic origin who have substantial educational handicaps. This new policy, which might be good in theory and might be tailored to meet the needs of this Government to cut back in spending, has the net effect in the classrooms of adding substantially to the burden of teachers who are retained in such schools. It reduces the level of educational teaching to children of one social grouping, namely, children of ethnic and migrant backgrounds. I believe it is a retrograde step- a step that is to be deplored. I have no doubt that other honourable members representing electorates in the inner heart of Melbourne will receive the same sort of complaints not merely from teachers, many of whom are talking strike action, but also from the leaders of ethnic communities who no longer are prepared to allow their children to be treated as second-rate citizens.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-On the last evening of the sitting of the Parliament two weeks ago I raised a matter during the adjournment debate which troubled me and a number of professional people in Canberra. Honourable members will remember that I noted the case of a doctor prescribing what appeared to be unduly large quantities of methadone and Mandrax tablets. My speech received considerable publicity in the Canberra media. I am glad that I raised the issue as it has brought to a concerned public’s attention the current inadequacy of our approach to the problem. However, I am pleased to report that things are moving ahead quite well now. I hope my airing of the matter has assisted.

Last night I was informed by the Chairman of the Capital Territory Health Commission, Russell Boardman, and the Minister for Health, (Mr Hunt) that the Commission has been monitoring the consumption of drugs in the Australian Capital Territory for some time. As far as possible, but hampered by existing laws, the Commission has taken action to prevent the abuse of drugs. For the last 12 months a specialist has been advising the Commission on the development of a drug referral program. The system I described in this House was in fact an attempt to meet the problem while a more controlled system was being developed. The Minister has assured me that before the end of this year the full program will be implemented and the current imperfect system replaced. The new program will be, firstly, the gazettal of a new poisonous and narcotic drugs ordinance which will give the Commission additional power to control the prescribing and consumption of drugs in the Australian Capital Territory. Specifically, doctors will not be able continually to prescribe drugs for regular drug takers for more than 2 months without reference to the Medical Officer of Health. Secondly, in support of that legislation the Commission will supplement its clinical counselling and support services.

A newly appointed specialist will take up duty to lead a new clinical out-patient and in-patient service. Hospital beds will be made available to facilitate a properly controlled rapid drug withdrawal program. The current and recently introduced out-patient drug withdrawal program, in the course of which progressively smaller doses of specified drugs are provided for patients with proper identity control, will continue. Thirdly, the programs to provide continuing support and counselling services for either rapid withdrawal patients or out-patients will continue and be refined. Lastly, from early December this year the Commission will finance through ADPACT a self-care residential community centre in an old Canberra homestead. This community centre will operate on a selfcaring basis to fortify people who have successfully gone through withdrawal. One of the doctors I criticised in the House wrote to me as a result of the publicity which my; criticism gained. He said:

I would like to convey that I am glad that the matter has come more to notice as this may help expedite the provision of a system for treatment of drug addiction here comparable to what pertains elsewhere.

He went on to say:

It was solely with the object of assisting some addicts that I undertook this type of treatment, in the absence of another realistic alternative.

I hope that my raising the matter has added some impetus to the efforts of the Capital Territory Health Commission to provide, a realistic alternative. I will be most interested to see that the treatment facilities provided are open and attractive to the people concerned in the drug scene. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a successful drug referral system needs a proper shop front operation rather than a clinical setting. Only time will tell, but I suspect that in addition to its current commendable proposals the Commission will need to provide more support to those people working out in the drug scene if young people are to be persuaded to attempt to kick the habit and not just use the system to pander to their addiction. I commend the Commission’s response and I will watch the effectiveness of the campaign with interest.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-In the chamber a couple of weeks ago I took the opportunity of making some comments on the present Commonwealth employees compensation legislation. I was pretty strong in my condemnation of the rates that were paid to long term recipients. An employee who is off work after six months receives $80 a week, $21 for his wife and $10 for each child. Since I raised this matter I have received a reply to a question I asked of the Minister concerned. He said that the Government at this stage does not intend to adjust its rates of compensation. So these people will go for many years without any adjustment to a miserable rate of compensation.

I want to refer to a chap who has been in receipt of long term compensation. I will point out what happened to him and what I think is a clear anomaly. In January 1976 the chap, a wage employee with the then Commonwealth Railways, suffered a back injury at work in carrying out his duty. But because of certain circumstances the Commonwealth Compensation Commissioner did not accept liability for the injury straight away. The employee applied for compensation but the matter flowed back and forth between the Commissioner in Canberra and the Commonwealth Railways compensation officers. The claim took approximately 20 months to be fixed up. Of course with a back injury the man was in extreme pain and discomfort. He was receiving no money in the form of compensation. He applied for assistance to the Department of Social Security and received a benefit until the Commonwealth Commissioner finally agreed to accept liability for his claim. The employee then received compensation payments. Of course he had been receiving social security payments before that.

After it was agreed that the Commonwealth Compensation Commissioner would accept liability an adjustment was made between the amount the employee had received in social security benefits and the amount that he was entitled to as compensation. That took some time to work out. There was a lot of correspondence between the Commonwealth Railways- now the Australian National Railways- and the Department of Social Security to calculate the amount. Finally, after 20 months he received an adjustment which was the difference between the amount he had received in social security payments and the amount he was entitled to as compensation because of lost wages during the 20 months involved. When he received his money it was not in the form of a lump sum payment. It was an adjustment made in the weekly compensation payment for lost wages which he would have received. So it could not be classed as a lump sum payment.

Last year of course he had to fill out an income tax return. I repeat that he was injured in January of one year and the compensation claim was not resolved until the latter part of the next year, approximately 20 months later. So it covered three taxation years. When he submitted his taxation return last year the amount that he had received in compensation for the 20 months that he had been off work was treated as being earned in one year. Because of that this employee was taxed at a much higher rate than normally he would have been. He had already suffered during that time by having a very low income while waiting for the compensation and when the compensation was paid his income was adjusted to another low income. He suddenly found that the income adjustment was taken as being earned in one year although it was actually earned over three taxation years. To me this is a glaring anomaly in the taxation system.

This man came to see me. I took the matter up with the Taxation Office, which referred the matter to Canberra. The answer from Canberra was that the experts had talked the matter over and decided that the amount had to be accepted as income earned in one year. This wage employee was on an extremely low income, with responsibilities. He received money that in normal circumstances he should have received probably 1 8 or 19 months previously. Because he received the amount in one hit he was taxed at the highest rate. I consider that he was very unjustly treated. This is something that should be looked at by the taxation people.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– It is more in sorrow than in anger that I raise a certain matter tonight. I am reluctant to do so, and only do so because the matter has been drawn to my attention and I feel that it should be given some airing. On 16 August this year, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), as Minister representing the then Minister for Administrative Services drew attention, in answer to a question, to the improper use of the free postage facilities available to members and senators. The Minister was asked on that occasion:

Is the Minister aware of a letter that is being circulated to various councils in Victoria and, no doubt, other States, by a Councillor Healy of Fitzroy City Council on behalf of a group called Medibank Action Coalition and that this letter is being posted in a postage paid envelope restricted for the use of members of Parliament? If he is aware of this action will he undertake to call for an inquiry by the Commonwealth Police of the honourable member concerned?

The Minister replied:

I thank the honourable member for his question because if his information is correct, it is most disturbing to find that an honourable member of this House should be using or allowed to be used parliamentary postage paid envelopes for a purpose not connected with his own parliamentary business. I understand that the address provided by Mr Healy is 200 Lygon Street, Melbourne. I do not think any honourable member on our side of the House has his parliamentary office at that address.

He went on, and concluded by saying:

I will report it to Senator Durack, the Minister for Administrative Services, to see what inquiries are necessary to be undertaken.

I am afraid that I have to draw attention to yet another abuse by the Australian Labor Party of the free postage facilities of members of Parliament. My electorate is adjacent to the State electorate of Mitcham where the Labor Party candidate is Mr Michael Shatin. To promote his candidature in the forthcoming State election, Mr Shatin has been posting out to the voters of his electorate mail which can be described only as party political campaign material. That mail is franked. As honourable members know, a franking imprint carries a number. The machine with the number imprinted on Mr Shatin ‘s mail is issued to Senator Evans, a Labor Party senator. So once again the public is paying for Labor Party propaganda to be sent through the mail.

There can be only two possible explanations for this. The first alternative is that the franking machine has been stolen. That, of course, is one explanation. The second alternative is that Senator Evans has improperly allowed that franking machine to be used by Mr Shatin, for it is no part of Senator Evans’ parliamentary dudes to allow his franking machine facilities to be used to send out Labor Party propaganda. I would certainly be interested to know which of the two explanations is correct.

The Commonwealth Police should investigate the first alternative and the Minister for Administrative Services should investigate the second alternative. The electors are entitled to know whether there has been any misappropriation of public funds by this means and how extensive it is, if there has been any such misappropriation. I have noticed on some occasions that some Labor Party people are great ones for talking about constitutional reform and propriety in government. When it comes to basic honesty in dealing with public money, some of them are sadly lacking.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Before launching into the matter on which I want principally to speak, I would like to make a couple of points in reply to what has been said by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr N. A. Brown). The honourable member has some legal training and I would draw to his attention the fact that the Remuneration Tribunal’s report as I recall it- I obviously do not have it in front of me- does not restrict the use of the franking machines to non-political material. It does restrict the use of postage-paid envelopes to that purpose; it does not do so as far as the franking machines are concerned. Therefore, I assume that as long as anything is done in the interests of the people of Victoria, whom Senator Evans represents -

Mr Cohen:

– What better use could a machine be put to than to get rid of the mob of crooks in Victoria?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Then it is surely within the rules, as laid down by the Remuneration Tribunal to do it. As the honourable member for Robertson points out there can be no greater cause at present in Victoria than that of getting rid of a mob of crooks, which is the position as far as the State Parliament is concerned. The honourable member for Diamond Valley need only read the Age. I do not know whether he has represented any of the people concerned in those shady land dealings. The honourable member sitting a couple of seats behind him has taken a fairly definite stand on the question of land deals in Victoria. I do not necessarily support that stand, but the question is that if it is generally accepted that there is a crooked government in Victoria, and if it is in the interests of the people of Victoria- as the people of Ballarat have shown quite recently- to get rid of that government, it should be done. If Michael Shatin can be elected to the seat for which he is standing it will certainly be in the interests of the people of Victoria. If the Remuneration Tribunal had put some restriction on the use of the franking machines, such as that they should not be used for party political purposes- as it has in regard to the pre.stamped envelope- I could see some point in the honourable member’s attack, but I certainly cannot on this issue. He has been wrongly briefed by one of his colleagues.

A few minutes ago the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) commented on an interjection, or alleged interjection, I made earlier today when the question of abortion clinics for the Australian Capital Territory was mentioned. In fact, just for the record, my interjection was: ‘I thought you supported private enterprise’. I was not going to get involved in the arguments about termination of pregnancy, but I do think that it is highly hypocritical for people who generally support private enterprise to make a distinction between the morality of having private abortion clinics and the morality of having public abortion clinics.

The point I would make is that it is either legal and ethical or it is not. People have differing views on that. Some believe that it is legal; some believe that it is legal and ethical; some believe that it is not legal; and some believe that it is not ethical. If it is legal and ethical, those who support private enterprise are being quite hypocritical in opposing the co-called private abortion clinics. If it is not legal and ethical it is wrong whether performed in a private hospital or a public hospital. That is quite clearly the position. If one believes, as do a significant proportion of our population, that the foetus is a human being and that abortion involves the killing of a foetus, it is just as wrong to do it in a public hospital as it is to do it in a private hospital. If one believes, as I do, that potentially dangerous procedures should be performed only in public hospitals one can distinguish between public and private hospital termination of pregnancy.

Mr Baume:

– What about the panel, Dick?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The important thing so far as I am concerned is this: The panel is a complete farce, as the honourable member knows, as far as the termination of pregnancy is concerned. The rules under which the panel operates are such that one obviously would not be prepared to say that a baby which was about a week old could be killed if it came under the particular headings under which one may be prepared to permit termination of pregnancy. People are being hypocritical and ought to think about the matter when they argue purely on the basis of private enterprise being involved in termination of pregnancy. As I said earlier, I am opposed to it because I think that it is wrong to do it under the sorts of conditions which generally obtain in private hospitals.

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2567

TREATIES

The following treaties were deemed to have been presented on 8 November 1978, by command of His Excellency the Governor-General:

Texts of Treaties which have been signed for Australia

Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Asian Development Bank concerning an Australian contribution of$A200,000 to the Technical Assistance Special Fund of the Asian Development Bank. (Manila 4 and 25 May 1978).

Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People ‘s Republic of China concerning the establishment of Consulates-General. (Peking 18 September 1978).

Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea concerning a loan for the purchase of certain assets of the Australian Telecommunications Commission in Papua New Guinea. (Canberra and Port Moresby 10 November 1976 and 14 September 1978).

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile use of Environmental Modification Techniques approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976. The Convention was signed for Australia subject to ratification on 3 1 May 1978.

Text of a Treaty which has been Signed and Ratified for Australia

Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June, 1957, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967, and at Geneva on 13 May 1977. The Agreement was signed for Australia on 21 December 1 977 and ratified on 4 January 1978.

page 2567

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Sinclair to move; That the date for the report of the legislation committee on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978 be 23 November 1978 in lieu of 14 November 1978.

Mr Sinclair to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1952.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1978.

House adjourned at 10.49 p.m.

page 2568

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1438)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made in his Department and statutory authorities under his control Tor the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. If no arrangements Tor recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Street:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No metal or glass is generated by my Department or the statutory authorities under my control. In respect of waste paper, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Administrative Services to Question No. 1437 (See Hansard, 15 August 1978, page 334).

The Trade Union Training Authority recycles its waste paper through private waste collection agencies or arranges for its collection by charitable organisations.

Delegation of Power to approve Expenditure (Question No. 1594)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which of the members of his Ministry have delegated to public servants their constitutional power to supervise and authorise the expenditure of moneys approved by the Parliament.
  2. Is it a fact that some Second Division Officers have had Ministerial authority delegated to them to spend up to $ 100,000 without reference to the Minister.
  3. In any event, what are the limits set by the Ministerially delegated authority to the various- Second Division Officers within each department and what limit applies in the case of the Permanent Head.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) All members of the Ministry have delegated to officers of their departments the power to approve expenditure. This is necessary in the interests of effective administration. The delegations relate only to the approval of expenditure within the limits of appropriations approved by the Parliament or within approved forward commitment procedures. The delegations to officers are given mainly under section 34(5) of the Audit Act 1901 (which provides that the correctness of every account in regard to rates of charge and faithful performance of the services charged shall be certified by the person incurring the expense or the person appointed for that purpose by the Minister administering the department concerned), Finance Regulation 49 (which provides that after a certificate that funds are available for the purposes of a requisition has been given the requisition shall be submitted for approval to the Minister of State administering the department in which the requisition originated or to an officer appointed by that Minister for the purpose) and Finance Regulation 48 (which provides that a requisition for supplies that are to be obtained from or through the Department of Construction shall be submitted to the Minister administering the department from which the requisition originated or to an officer appointed by that Minister for the purpose).
  2. Yes, within the abovementioned framework.
  3. Most Permanent Heads have unlimited delegation within the framework outlined in the answer to part ( 1 ).

The pattern of delegation varies from department to department and reflects such considerations as the nature and purposes of individual appropriations and the size and individual spread of departments. Many officers have multiple delegations. In consequence, the number of individual delegations that have been made is very large and a detailed collection and tabulation would result in a voluminous document the preparation of which would require a heavy commitment of departmental resources. I do not think this would be justified but if the honourable member wishes any specific information regarding my own department I should be happy to provide it.

Oil: International Reserves and Australian Imports (Question No. 1887)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say ( a) what are the proven oil reserves of (i) the Persian Gulf countries, (ii) the United States of America, (iii) the North Sea, (iv) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (v) Eastern Europe, (vi) China and (vii) Australia, and (b) how many years production does each have at 1975 production levels.
  2. What dollar values does payment for imported oil represent for the years (a) 1973, (b) 1975 and (c 1977.
  3. What values are expected for (a) 1979, (b) 1981 and (c) 1983.
  4. What percentage of total imports, expressed both as a dollar value and percentage, do Australian exports represent to Gulf countries by major commodity classification, and what are the projections for the years 1 98 1 and 1 985.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1) (a) and (b) For overseas countries see ‘International Energy Statistical Review’ (National Foreign Assessment Centre, US) of 9 August 1978. For Australia see Petroleum Statistics Calender year 1977, Department of National Development. These publications are available through the Parliamentary Library.
  2. Australian payments for imported oil totalled:

    1. in 1973-$244.7m plus$35.6m freight
    2. in 1975-$489.7m plus$39.3m freight
    3. in 1 977-S72 1 .9m plus $56.2m freight.
  3. Not available.
  4. Information on these countries’ imports by major commodity classifications is not readily available.

English Language Courses (Question No. 1940)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many full-time English classes were held over the summer holiday period of 1977-78.
  2. How may students were enrolled.
  3. How long were these vacation courses in (a) hours per day and (b) total days of instruction.
  4. What groups organised and ran these classes.
  5. 5 ) In what cities were they held.
  6. What sum was allocated by the Commonwealth to fund these vacation courses and what sum was actually spent.
  7. Are similar courses proposed for the 1978-79 summer holiday period; if so, what is the proposed budget allocation.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a) Minimum of five direct instructional hours per day.

    1. The courses were conducted from between 30 to 40 days of instruction, except for two of the courses in Victoria which were 1 5 days and 25 days respectively.
  2. These summer vacation courses were planned by a Committee comprising persons from various ethnic groups, State and Commonwealth officers and representatives of tertiary education institutions that were to conduct one or more of the courses. Each Committee was chaired by an officer of the Commonwealth Department of Education.

Courses were conducted by tertiary education institutions and by the State Adult Migrant Education Services.

  1. Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
  2. $290,000 was allocated for -these courses in 1977-78 including $130,000 for living allowances. $238,990 was actually spent including $ 107,682 on living allowances.
  3. Yes. It is estimated that the summer vacation courses will cost $280,000 in 1978-79.

Matters of Special Concern to Migrant Women (Question No. 1944)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was a working party on matters of special concern to migrant women established in his Department during 1 976.
  2. If so, how often did the working party meet during (a) 1976, (b) 1977 and (c) 1978.
  3. What was the composition of the working party in regard to (a) the level of officers appointed, (b) their sex and (c) their ethnic background.
  4. What was the brief of the working party.
  5. What tasks has it carried out in accordance with its brief.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. A working party was established within the Department in August, 1 976 to study matters of special concern to migrant women. It met on six occassions in 1976 and was subsequently disbanded when its activities were incorporated into the charter for the Ethnic Affairs Branch established in early 1977.
  2. The working party consisted of:

    1. 8 Third Division Officers and 1 Fourth Division Officer.
    2. 7 females, 2 males.
    3. I refer the honourable member to the answer to the House of Representatives Question No. 1041 in Hansard, 2 June 1978-Parts ( 1 ) & (2).
  3. The working party was given the broad task of reporting on the major problems of migrant women from the point of view of social relationships, language difficulties, problems in the workforce, and the need for special facilities and was required to seek effective solutions through the development and improvement of existing services. It was also to examine the selection criteria and Departmental procedures for necessary amendment in the light of problems which had been identified.
  4. The working party was examining Departmental procedures, migrant selection criteria and community facilities available to migrant women when its tasks were subsumed by the establishment of the Ethnic Affairs Branch in early 1977 and the Task Force on Migrant Women as part of the Inter-departmental Working Group on Women’s Affairs, in June 1977.

The recommendations of this working Group were considered by the policy review group and the submissions made were taken account of in the preparation of the new policy which I announced in my statement in Parliament 7 June 1978.

Airline Services: Parallel Scheduling (Question No. 1966)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

What evidence was presented to the Committee of Review on Domestic Air Transport which substantiates his assertion that paralleling of flights receives the most criticism.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Comments in relation to parallel scheduling were made by the Review Committee in the presentation of its Report. For example in paragraph 12.2.1 the Report states ‘Not surprisingly, criticism of parallel scheduling featured in a large number of submissions to the Committee…… ‘. In addition I have, as Minister received a considerable number of letters on this issue which complain of parallel scheduling. In so far as submissions to the Review Committee are concerned the information is treated as having been provided on a confidential basis. The question of release of the information so provided is a matter for those making the submission.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2091)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a jooint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2095)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2090. (See Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2099)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. to (3) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 2090 which appeared in Hansard oi 17 October 1978 (page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2101)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Finance upon notice, on 1 9 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. 2 ) When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2114)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State Governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure, who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, page 1972 of 17 October 1978).

Qantas Aircraft: Logo Design and Colour Scheme (Question No. 2127)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) When was the last updating of the Qantas logo and aircraft livery.
  2. How often are these designs and colour schemes reviewed.
  3. ) When is the next review scheduled.
  4. What is the estimated cost of conversion to new livery for the Qantas aircraft fleet.
  5. Has the planned changeover to a green and gold colour scheme suggested in 1 975 been abandoned.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Qantas logo of the ‘Flying Kangaroo’ was introduced in 1947 and has been used with minor artistic variations ever since. Qantas has used a basic aircraft livery of red and white since 1935. Livery design has been varied occasionally, usually to suit a new aircraft type. The last such change was in 1971 with the introduction of the Boeing 747 aircraft and involved some lettering changes, addition of ochre as a second colour and more emphasis on the ‘Flying Kangaroo’. Qantas aircraft interiors have been designed to complement the present external livery.
  2. Logo designs and colour schemes are intended to last indefinitely because they become identified with the airline and due to the high cost of change.
  3. No review is scheduled.
  4. A new logo and colour scheme would involve costs of about three million dollars for aircraft (excluding possible redesign of aircraft interiors) and ground vehicles, and $750,000 for buildings.
  5. A green and gold colour scheme was suggested in 1975, but its introduction was never agreed to or planned.

Australian Tourist Commission: Overseas Offices (Question No. 2129)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the locations of overseas offices of the Australian Tourist Commission.
  2. In what year was each of these offices established.
  3. How many staff were employed at each office (a) on formation, and (b) at 30 June 1 978.
  4. Have any overseas offices been closed since 1970; if so, what were their locations.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. New Zealand- Auckland; Japan- Tokyo; North America- Los Angeles; New York; Europe- Frankfurt; United Kingdom- London.
  2. Auckland- 1967; Tokyo-1968; Los Angeles-1969; New York- 1 967; Frankfurt- 1 970; London- 1967.

The offices in Auckland, New York and London prior to 1 July 1 967 were operated by the Australian National Travel Association (ANTA ).

In 1 967 the Commission took over the San Francisco office operated by ANTA.

  1. 4) San Francisco- 1 97 1 ; Chicago- 1974.

Australian Tourist Commission: Staffing (Question No. 2130)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many staff, by designation, have been employed by the Australian Tourist Commission during the years 1 970 to 1978.
  2. What was the staff ceiling of the Commission as at 30 June 1978.
  3. What is the proposed staff ceiling for 1978-79.
  4. Will any projected adjustment be made in overseas offices; if so, at which offices.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

(1)-

  1. The effects of the new ceiling, on the Commission’s planned marketing program for 1978-79, is currently being assessed. In view of the increase in appropriation and the higher level of activity envisaged, it will be difficult to reach the staff ceiling for 1978-79 without some adjustment to the planned program being necessary.

At this stage, however, it is not intended to close any of the existing offices, but currently a number of senior staff are being relocated to make better use of resources.

International Air Fares (Question No. 2143)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have the fare arrangements offered by Australian authorities to European aeronautical authorities as mentioned on page 41 of his Department’s 1976-77 Annual Report, been accepted by the European authorities.
  2. If so, what is the nature of those arrangements.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No agreement had been reached with the European aeronautical authorities prior to the announcement of the establishment of the Government’s review of Australia’s international civil aviation policy, which was aimed at providing the Government with low fare options on routes between Australia and other countries.
  2. Not applicable.

Specially Formulated Butter (Question No. 2196)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to section 4. 1 of the recently released Principles Governing the Determination of Quotas Under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977’, what is specially formulated butter.
  2. Does it include soft spread and butter/ vegetable oil mixtures.
  3. With reference to section 6.2, is it likely to become evident in November or later that shortfalls have occurred.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Specially formulated butter is butter that has been subject to a special manufacturing procedure designed to improve its spreadability. For example, the MART and ALNARP processes which are special methods of treating cream to improve spreadability. In accordance with Section 4 of the ‘Principles Governing the Determination of Quotas Under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977’, specially formulated butter must be of a kind approved by the Minister for Primary Industry in consultation with the Australian Dairy Corporation.
  2. No.
  3. It is unlikely that sufficient data will be available in November 1978 to decide whether shortfalls will occur. The matter will be kept under review and a decision will be taken at the appropriate time.

Computers (Question No. 2205)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. How many computers are (a) owned, (b) operated, (c) in the process of being purchased or (d ) rented by his Department, and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the cost of purchase or rental of each computer.
  3. ) For what purposes is each computer used.
  4. What is the nature of the data stored by each computer.
  5. 5 ) What interconnections exist or will exist between any of these computers.
  6. Who has access to each computer.
  7. What savings in staff numbers have been achieved or are anticipated as a result of the installation or operation of each computer.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) None, (b) None, (c) None, (d) None. The Department does use time on computers owned or rented by other Departments or Authorities, namely:
  2. the Public Service Board,

    1. the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs,
    2. CSIRO.
  3. to (7) Not applicable. Refer to answers given in respect of computers owned, operated or rented by:

    1. the Public Service Board,
    2. the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs,
    3. CSIRO.

Responses given by Ministers responsible for these Departments/Authorities include usage by the Department of Trade and Resources.

Computers (Question No. 2234)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d ) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) Not applicable. The Department does not own or operate computers. The Department does make use of computers owned or operated by other Departments or Authorities, namely:

    1. the Public Service Board,
    2. the department of Business and Consumer Affairs,
    3. CSIRO.

Responses given by Ministers responsible for these Departments/Authorities include details relating to the Department of Trade and Resources.

Immigration under the Entrepreneur Policy (Question No. 2284)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What were the nationalities of applicants approved for immigration under the entrepreneur policy up to 30 June 1978.
  2. Has the Government received notice that any approved applicant has transferred funds to Australia in a manner which contravenes the exchange control regulations or any other regulations of the country of origin concerned.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The nationalities of applicants approved for immigration under the entrepreneur policy up to 30 June 1 978 are indicated in the following table.
  1. I am unaware of any infringements of the type mentioned by the honourable member.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1997 (Question No. 2290)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 1997 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I have today answered the honourable member’s Question on Notice No. 1 594.

Armed Services Disciplinary Code (Question No. 2333)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) When does he expect finalisation of the modernisation and standardisation of the Australian Armed Services Disciplinary Code.
  2. As the present Code has not been significantly altered since World War II, is completion of the review a matter of some urgency.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The honourable member will be aware that each of the Australian Armed Services currently has its own system of disciplinary legislation, based substantially on British legislation which has been modified in its application to the Australian Services.

Over a number of years work has proceeded with a view to producing a single, modern disciplinary code to apply to the three Australian Services on a common basis.

On 2 April 1974, a Working Party Report, including a draft Defence (Discipline and Justice) Bill, was tabled in’ Parliament.

Consideration of the proposed code has continued since then. The working Party examined comments from various sources which were prompted by publication of its report. I have myself had discussions with members of the Working Party, the Service Judge Advocates General and senior officers of the Defence Force and the Department of Defence about aspects of the Code which I wished to see given further attention before I put it to the Government.

I will shortly be having further discussions with the Judge Advocates General and members of the Working Party. I am hopeful that it will then be possible to identify the action necessary to bring the matter to finality.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Geelong Office (Question No. 2341)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has he made a decision to locate an office of his Department in Geelong, Victoria.
  2. When is it anticipated that this decision will be announced.
  3. Has he discussed with the Minister for Foreign Affairs the possibility of the proposed office dealing with passport applications.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Following a survey of the Geelong area it has been decided to open an office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in that city.
  2. It is expected that suitable office space will become available during November and that the Office will be opened in the latter part of that month.
  3. As regards passport applications, I am informed that it is not presently proposed to extend passport issuing facilities to the Geelong office.

Butter (Question No. 2348)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is every dairy factory being encouraged to produce soft spread butter and/or dairy soft butter/vegetable oil mixtures.
  2. If not, is the Australian Dairy Corporation controlling the production of these special butters and only licensing certain manufacturers.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. Dairy factories are fully aware of the need for increased spreadability for butter and are free to process new types of formulations for this purpose. In the case of dairy soft butter/vegetable oil mixtures, a test marketing campaign is currently being conducted by the Australian Dairy Corporation in Adelaide to determine whether the product should be marketed nationally. There are patent rights involved which would make it difficult, at this stage, for any manufacturer to enter into the production of this type of product.

Butter (Question No. 2349)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. With reference to section 4.1 of ‘Principles Governing the Determination of Quotas Under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977’, does part (a) mean that the total production of specially formulated butter will receive stabilisation payments; if so, will this be on a total weight basis or on the weight of the butterfat actually in the product.
  2. Does part (b) of the Principles refer to a factory exceeding its quota of specially formulated butter or of normal butter, or does it mean that special butter produced by a factory additional to its quota for normal butter will be included in that factory’s normal quota and that production will not be eligible for stabilisation payments.
  3. 3 ) If the latter proposition referred to in part (2 ) correctly sets out the position what advantage is there for a factory to produce special butter, and why bother to include section 4 in the Principles, if it offers no variation from the standard arrangement.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) As a result of representations made by the industry on specially formulated butter, I have certain aspects under consideration which I intend shortly to put to the Cabinet.

Airports: Car Rental Contracts (Question No. 2350)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. Does the present contract between the Avis RentACar System Pty Ltd and his Department which expires in 1979, cover all airports in Australia, including those designated as locally-owned.
  2. If not, which airports are now designated as being locally-owned and which car rental companies have a contract to operate at those airports.
  3. If no contracts are available at locally-owned airports, which car rental companies service each airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present car rental contract with Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd covers only Commonwealth airports. Locally-owned aerodromes are not included.
  2. There are approximately 200 aerodromes in Australia accepted under the Local Ownership plan. The day to day operation of these aerodromes is a matter for local management and therefore my Department is not aware of minor contractual arrangements which may be made. The Department has been informed that Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd, Budget Rent-a-Car System Pty Ltd and Hertz/Kay Rent-a-Car Pty Ltd have contracts in respect of certain of these aerodromes.
  3. Information is not available of the locations when no contracts exist. However, the number of contracts held, as advised by the latter companies, are:

Avis- 44 locally-owned aerodromes plus contracts in respect of 1 1 aerodromes operated privately

Budget- 2 locally owned aerodromes

Hertz/Kay- 4 locally-owned aerodromes with negotiations in hand in respect of another 5.

Customs Duty: Payment by Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2381)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs forwarded to the Attorney-General’s Department a list of statutory authorities for advice as to whether they should pay customs duty.
  2. If so, when was the list received by the Department, and when does the Attorney-General expect the advice to be forthcoming.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Early in July 1978. The advice was provided on 17 October 1978.

Weapons Research Establishment, Woomera (Question No. 2393)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the reduction in staff at the weapons research establishment at Woomera, South Australia, since it was decided to place the facilities on a care and maintenance basis.
  2. How many employees have been found alternate Commonwealth Government employment.
  3. How may (a) have been retrenched and (b) have resigned.
  4. What is the anticipated staff ceiling for Woomera when it is on a full care and maintenance basis.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. To 4 October 1978 the net reduction in staff at the former Weapons Research Establishment, Woomera, was 501.
  2. 126 Woomera employees have transferred to alternative Commonwealth Government employment.
  3. (a) Nil. (b) Total separations from all causes have been 690. These include 464 resignations and the 126 people re-deployed to alternative Commonwealth positions. The smaller net reduction SO 1 reflects re-staffing of positions not designated as surplus.
  4. The care and maintenance level at the Woomera Range is expected to be reached in 1980. It is envisaged that at that time the ceiling level to cover employees at the Range and in the Defence Support Centre will be of the order of 300.

Major Airport Needs of Sydney Study Group (Question No. 2423)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Will he explain the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Latham from the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study group.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

As far as is possible my Department provides experience for its officers throughout the various divisions. Mr Latham has been transferred to the Department’s Roads Division for six months in accordance with this policy on staff rotation.

Department of Transport: Auditor-General’s Report (Question No. 2428)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

What action has his Department taken to rectify aspects of its accounting procedures identified as unsatisfactory in the Report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The comments in the Auditor-General ‘s report related to a small accounts section located in the Canberra Central Office of the Department.

Departmental internal audit had indicated that unsatisfactory practices were occurring. A senior experienced departmental finance officer was already positioned investigating and rectifying when the Audit officers arrived and the situation was discussed with them before they undertook the audit.

Following the transfer of the Central Office Finance Branch to Canberra the previously outposed Accounts Section was transferred to that Branch on 3 July 1978, where it is under the supervision of senior experienced finance officers.

All matters raised in the report have now been rectified and appropriate procedures instituted to prevent any recurrence.

Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 2429)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. Is he able to say whether Chrysler Australia has introduced an electronic lean burn system (E.L.B.) to its 6 cylinder cars in order to reduce petrol consumption.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian on 27 September 1978 stating that Chrysler Australia claimed that the E.L.B. device will improve fuel consumption by 20 per cent to 25 per cent; if so, has his Department instigated any investigation to assess the accuracy of these statements.
  3. If the ELB system is efficient, has any consideration been given to making it mandatory on all new cars sold in Australia.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I understand that Chrysler Australia is in the process of introducing such a system.
  2. 2 ) I have seen the article, and my Department is seeking further details from Chrysler.
  3. The Australian Transport Advisory Council is currently examining the question of energy conservation in the transport field. In accordance with general policy, any fuel consumption requirement which might result from this examination would normally be expressed in terms of a requirement to meet particular performance standards rather than a requirement to fit a particular commercial device or system.

Casey University -Australian Defence Force Academy (Question No. 2434)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Has the Government deferred the Casey University Defence Academy for 12 months.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Following a review of all of the demands on the funds available for defence purposes this year, the Government decided not to include financial authorisation for the construction of Casey University- Australian Defence Force Academy in the first year of the current defence program.

Mirage Aircraft (Question No. 2437)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. Is it intended to transfer additional Mirage aircraft from active use to storage; if so, how many aircraft are to be stored and for what period.
  2. How many Mirage aircraft are currently (a) in active use and (b) in storage.
  3. How many Mirage aircraft have been in storage during each of the last five years.
  4. What was the average annual flying time of Mirage aircraft stationed (a) within Australia and (b) in Malaysia during the last five years.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. , (3) and (4) Answers to these parts of the Question would involve giving details of an operational capacity of the RAAF which it would not be appropriate for me to disclose publicly.

However, I am willing to advise the honourable member confidentially of the details he seeks should he desire this.

Artillery Replacements (Question No. 2439)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. Has the proposed replacement for artillery over 30 years old been deferred indefinitely.
  2. If not, when will orders be placed.
  3. Has self-propelled artillery been considered; if so, with what result.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Replacements are under consideration within the Defence Program of new capital equipment acquisition. However, the timing of orders is yet to be determined.
  3. Yes; a study has confirmed a likely but low priority requirement.

Army Survey Unit (Question No. 2440)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. Are approximately 25 litho-printers in the Army Survey Unit to be reclassified from level 6 to levels 5 and 4, a drop of $ 10 and $20 per week respectively below their existing rates.
  2. If so, will this mean an effective pay freeze for those concerned for several years.
  3. Are the skills involved in printing specialised military survey and mapping material considered to be significantly lower than in private industry where litho-printers in technical areas are paid at higher rates than those suggested for the Army Survey printers.
  4. Will this downgrading encourage a loss of skilled operatives to the Army.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 18 printers in the Army Survey Unit will be reclassified from Pay Level 6 to Pay Level 5 and 4; at Private level the difference in these pay levels is $9.15 and $18.41 a week respectively.

These reclassifications stem from recommendations of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, an independent body under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Coldham, a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

  1. Salary preservation provisions for members currently serving in these employments could be operative for a period of about 1 8 months.
  2. The basis of the recommendations made by the Committee of Reference is set down in its report which is publicly available.
  3. Given the authoritative quality of the Committee’s report, together with salary preservation provisions, I see no sound reason why the reclassifications should encourage separation.

Iron Ore Exports to People’s Republic of China (Question No. 2458)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. With respect to recent trade negotiations with the People’s Republic of China about the export of iron ore, what arrangements have been made about shipping.
  2. Will the ore be shipped by Australian vessels.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Recent contracts concluded between Australian iron ore producers and the People’s Republic of China for the supply of iron ore to China were on an fob basis. Consequently, responsibility for the shipping arrangements lies with the People ‘s Republic of China. (1)See answer to ( 1 ).

Australian Ambassador to Switzerland: Absences from Switzerland (Question No. 2459)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Between what dates has the Australian Ambassador to Switzerland been absent from that country?
  2. What places did the Ambassador visit during each absence?
  3. What was the purpose of each visit?
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) The Australian Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr K. G. Brennan, is a senior distinguished career officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs who has a long record of involvement in international legal affairs. He has played a prominent part in recent years in a number of major international negotiations, particularly with respect to the Law of the Sea and Antarctica, since the commencement of his assignment in Berne in September 1974. He has led Australian Delegations to various meetings of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, and has been Leader or Deputy

Leader or Australian Delegations to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The details of Mr Brennan ‘s absences from Switzerland since 30 September 1974 are as follows: 18 October-3 December 1974- Member, Australian Delegation. United Nations General Assembly, New York 7-21 February, 1975- Intersessional Consultations, U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, New York 22-27 February, 1975- Preparatory Meeting, Eighth Antarctic Consultative Meeting, Oslo 7-22 June, 1975- Leader, Australian Delegations, Eighth Antarctic Consultative Meeting, Oslo 27 January- 18 February 1976- Intersessional Consultations, U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, New York 14 March-9 May 1976- Deputy Leader, Australian Delegation, Fourth Session UN Law of the Sea Conference, New York 26 June- 14 July 1976- Leader, Australian Delegation, Antarctic Special Preparatory Consultative Meeting, Paris 28 July-21 September 1976-Deputy Leader (and Leader in the absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs), Australian Delegation, Fifth Session UN Law of the Sea Conference, New York 3 October-9 December 1976- Leave and Consultations in Australia 12 March-20 March 1977-Leader, Australian Delegation, Preparatory Meeting, Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, London 17 May- 19 July 1977- Leader, Australian Delegation, Sixth Session, U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, New York 24-29 July 1977- Leader, Australian Delegation, Preparatory Meeting, Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and First Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, London 18 September-8 October 1977-Leader, Australian Delegation, Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, London 9-16 December 1977- Intersessional Consultations, U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, New York 1- 17 February 1978- Leader, Australian Delegation, Intersessional Meeting, UN Law of the Sea Conference, New York 18 February-21 March 1978-Leader, Australian Delegation, Second Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Canberra 26-31 May 1978- Bilateral Consultations, Australia/USSR, on Antarctica, Moscow 31 May-2 June 1978- Bilateral Consultations, Australia/Poland, on Antarctica, Warsaw 9-16 June 1978- Member, Australian Delegation, FAO Committee on Fisheries, Rome 17- 20 June 1978- Bilateral Consultations, Australia/France, on Antarctica, Paris 12-30 July 1978-Leader, Australian Delegation, Second Session, Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Buenos Aires 20 August- 15 September 1978-Leader; Australian Delegation, resumed Seventh Session UN Law of the Sea Conference, New York 16-30 September 1978-Leader, Australian Delegation, Consultations on Antarctica, Washington 11- 13 October, 1978- Bilateral Consultations, Australia/France, on Antarctica, Paris

In addition to absences on duty or on leave combined with periods of duty in Australia, Mr Brennan has spent the following periods on leave away from Switzerland: 18- 21 December 1974 (United Kingdom) 22 September- 10 October 1975 (Italy and Austria) 1-2 April 1977(France) 20-22 July 1977 (United Kingdom) 27 October- 10 November 1977 (Australia) 17 December 1977-8 January 1978 (Australia) 26-29 January 1978 (France) 22-25 April 1978 (Ireland) 28 June-7 July 1978 (Ireland).

Australian National Line: Overseas Services (Question No. 2466)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What evidence is there that the entry of ANL into overseas shipping services has actually reduced or moderated freight costs to Australian exporters.
  2. Has ANL just become part of the Conference and joined forces with the overseas shipping companies; if so, what is his response to this move.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There can be no doubt of the fact that the ANL has been a catalyst to other shipowners in the introduction of modern, efficient shipping services, both container and rollon/rolloff, on many of Australia’s trade routes. For example, as a partner of the Eastern Searoad Service (ESS) between Australia and Japan, the ANL in 1969 was the first shipping line to introduce a specialised vessel into this trade. Other similar examples would be the Australia-East Asia and Australia-South East Asia Trades.

It is difficult to quantify the effect that ANL’s entry into overseas shipping has had on the cost of freight for Australian exporters. However, it is generally accepted that container and ro-ro vessels have helped to contain freight rate increases in a period of rapidly escalating costs and it is therefore considered that the ANL has contributed to moderating freight costs to Australian exporters.

  1. The Government has supported the Conference system where it provides the most efficient and economic services to and from Australia. In 1967-68 the Australian Government encouraged and supported the entry of ANL into overseas trades as part of the relevant Conferences, so that the line would participate in the management of those Conferences. It was considered important that, with the advent of new technologies in shipping, Australia should gain a full understanding of the new developments in order to ensure that the national interests were best served.

Any ANL relationship with overseas shipping companies, either by Joint Venture or Consortium arrangements, has been in the interests of rationalisation of resources to ensure the provision of adequate, economic and efficient services which is consistent with the objectives of Government in the overseas liner shipping field.

Department of Transport (Question No. 2475)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department given consideration to dividing itself into two separate divisions.
  2. If so, (a) what is the nature of the new structure under consideration, (b) what prompted the move, (c) on whose direction is the move taking place, (d) what consultation has taken place with the Public Service Board, (e) what has been the outcome of those consultations and (f) when will he announce the nature of the Department’s new arrangements.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.

Melbourne Flight Service Centre (Question No. 2477)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any workload studies of the Melbourne Flight Service Centre been conducted since 1 January 1 976.
  2. If so, what did the studies reveal.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The loadings at some work positions exceeded desirable levels for one-man operation for portion of the day. My Department uses such information as an indicator when making associated staffing, facility or airspace adjustments.

Aircraft Equipment Breakdowns (Question No. 2481)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any aircraft owned by (a) TAA and (b) Qantas been returned to their manufacturers for inspection due to breakdowns in equipment since 1 January 1976.
  2. If so, what was the outcome of the inspection for each aircraft.
  3. 3 ) What is the present whereabouts of each aircraft.
  4. Were any aircraft withdrawn from service as a result of the inspection.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

No aircraft owned by TAA and Qantas have been returned to their manufacturers for inspection due to breakdown of equipment since I January 1976.

Special Flight Service Officers (Question No. 2483)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department cancelled the transfer of special Flight Service Officers from the Department’s Victoria/Tasmania Region to other Regions; if so, (a) how many officers were concerned and (b) to which Regions were the officers to have been transferred.
  2. If not, (a) how many officers will be transferred to other Regions and (b) to which Regions are they to be transferred.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. My Depanment has not initiated any transfers of special flight service officers from the Victoria/Tasmania Region to other Regions. These officers are engaged on limited duties pending their entry to the Flight Service Training School in November 1978. Arrangements are in fact being made to replace these employees with a similar group of pretraining employees in order to maintain physical staffing levels pending the availability of fully trained personnel from the training school.
  2. Not applicable.

Drug Problems: Senate Committee Report (Question No. 2485)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 October 1978:

What steps has the Government taken to develop a program to implement the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report ‘Drug Problems in Australia-an intoxicated Society’.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Implementation of many of the recommendations contained in this report would have far reaching effects. For this reason the report and recommendations are, deservedly, being very carefully studied. The study will shortly be completed and I hope to be making a statement in the House on the matter before the close of the current sittings.

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Question No. 2501)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government been approached by other countries or international organisations or groups for its views on or participation in the building of a spent nuclear fuel storage centre in the Pacific region.
  2. If so, will the Government provide full details, and, in particular, itemise the countries which have made the approach to the areas which are under consideration and the estimated cost and capacity of the centre.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. As indicated in Senator Carrick ‘s reply to Senator Mulvihill ‘s question (Hansard, 19 September 1978 p. 678 q.v.) Australia is aware in general terms of the United States interest in the concept of regional spent fuel repositories. This has arisen in discussions between Australian and United States officials on several occasions but no specific proposal for such a repository in the Pacific region has been put to Australia for consideration.

The United States is fully aware of Australia’s position, as stated by the Prime Minister on 25 August 1977, that there is no intention of storing other countries’ radioactive wastes in Australian Territory.

  1. See answer to (I).

Chinese Students in Australia (Question No. 2525)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. Has the Government of the People’s Republic of China approached the Australian Government with a request for Australia to accept greater numbers of Chinese students in Australia.
  2. In view of the publicly stated interest of China in rapidly expanding numbers of Chinese students studying abroad, what steps has the Government taken to consult with State authorities and tertiary institutions to establish what needs to be done to accept these students.
  3. Have Australian officials been in touch with United States officials and those of other countries to learn what preparations academic institutions in those countries have been making.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes. I have conveyed Australia’s willingness to cooperate to Mr Huang Hua on 28 August 1978.
  2. Responsibility for arranging the Chinese Government sponsored training program in Australia rests with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Bureau, which is responsible for the training component of Australia’s development assistance program, has well established channels of communication with Australian educational institutions. These channels will be used as the requirements of the program emerge and the Chinese Government provides details of the fields in which it wants its students to study.
  3. Yes. Similar requests have been made by China of the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, The Netherlands, and Canada. Inquiries have been made of the Governments of those countries and will be continued as appropriate.

Human Rights in the Soviet Union (Question No. 2562)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether in the past when important visitors have gone to the USSR, such as President Nixon in 1972 and 1974, the Soviet Government has placed in custody a large number of persons who may have protested against Soviet violations of basic human rights; if so, has this included recall of other dissidents for further psychiatric treatment in political hospitals.
  2. If the position is as stated, will he seek assurances from the Soviet Government that it will cease to place in custody the large number of persons who may protest against the Soviet Government’s violation of basic human rights during the forthcoming 1980 Olympic Games.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Government is unable to say that a correlation exists between actions taken by the Soviet authorities against persons campaigning for human rights in the USSR and the timing of prospective visits by prominent foreign leaders to the USSR.

Speculation in the media, and elsewhere, that such a correlation exists is offset, to some extent, by equal and contrary speculation that the Soviet authorities have sometimes moved to relax procedures for the control of dissident activities prior to important state visits, as a means of improving the political climate for the discussions with the foreign leader concerned.

The Government is deeply attached to the need to promote and defend the cause of human rights throughout the world. This position has been stated publicly on many occasions. The issue of human rights in the Soviet Union is one which has drawn the particular attention of the Government. The Government has called on the Soviet Union to implement the important principles of human rights embodied in United Nations instruments as well as the 197S Helsinki Accords. It will continue to do so. The Government’s stand on human rights will be maintained into 1980 (when the Olympic Games are to be held in Moscow) and for as long as basic human rights are denied in the Soviet Union or elsewhere.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781108_reps_31_hor112/>.