House of Representatives
15 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3053

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

-I inform the House that the Right Honourable Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, K.B.E., M.P., the Prime Minister of Fiji, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members, I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

The Right Honourable Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.

page 3053

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives, Canberra. The humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the thorough nationwide investigations by the working Party highlighted the need to establish the National Women’s Advisory Council.

That we believe the Council consistently and democratically demonstrates its wide representation of the interests of all Australian women, as shown by the Draft Plan of Action for the 1980 National Conference to be held in Canberra in preparation for Australia’s participation in the United Nations Decade for Women World Conference in Denmark, July 1980.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women’s Advisory Council and its recommendations.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democraticallyelected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones, Mr Katter, Mr Nixon and Mr Peacock.

Petitions received.

Education

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

The Petition of certain citizens of NSW.

Respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on edu cation proposed for 1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent, while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie, Mr Howard and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Refugees

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

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

Petition received.

Group Resettlement Schemes

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. ) more time should be given to those Cribb Island residents who want it, to make arrangements for somewhere else to live;
  2. that substantially more should be paid to residents by way of compensation, than has customarily been paid to residents so far, and
  3. that more help should be given by the Commonwealth government to those who want it, for example with group re-settlement schemes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that legislation be introduced to assist group re-settlement schemes.

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

Petition received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a limit to the capacity of Australia’s drug manufacturing industry in Australian hands.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawnmac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and cost the Australian government several times the proposed sale price. It provides the Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing negotiators within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transnational drug firms. It complements the resources of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to make both Government owned drug firms more efficient and competitive by co-operation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of companies.

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

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 especially its Recommendations:

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, et cetera.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners’ action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘family ‘.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the UNO Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia ‘s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

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

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. byMrJull.

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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

That the price of LPG in Victoria has risen by $80 per tonne since November 1978 as a result of Federal Government policy thereby causing hardship to country consumers using LPG for cooking, heating and hot water and to decentralized industries using LPG for industrial purposes.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. that the Federal Government should abolish its so called export parity’ pricing policy for LPG consumed in Australia.
  2. that the price of Bass Strait LPG sold on the Australian market should be related to the true cost of production plus a fair margin of profit for the producers;
  3. that all LPG ex. Bass Strait consumed on the Australian market should be free of excise levy;
  4. that there should be no restriction on availability of LPG ex. Bass Strait to meet the requirements of the Australian market;
  5. that the price of LPG ex. oil refineries should be established by the P.J.T. at parity with Bass Strait LPG consumed on the Australian market;

  6. that pending the establishment of a fair price in accord ance with Clause 2 above and to provide some immediate relief to country consumers’.

    1. the existing excise on Bass Strait LPG consumed in Australia be abolished forthwith, thus providing a reduction in price of$27.60 per tonne for propane,
    2. b ) that windfall profit that Esso /B.H.P. is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $ 1 10 to $147 per tonne be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price of $37.00 per tonne.

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

Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That offshore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. Declare the whole Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
  2. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region (as defined by the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act),
  3. Retain full Federal Government control over the whole Great Barrier Reef Region,
  4. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with staff and resources sufficient for effective management of the Region.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of Overseas Aid, both Government and Private, as well as with support for local charities. Such Aid is saving precious lives, giving undernourished and homeless people encouragement and help, bringing malnourished children to health, education and a better life, giving people friendship and a new hope. A Crusade of Compassion highlights the hope of a brighter and kindlier world in the International Year of the Child- 1979.

We therefore, respectfully, request that the Commonwealth Government provide some incentive to encourage such aid by making the same tax concessions to approved voluntary overseas aid organisations, as are already provided for charities working within Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 3055

RURAL UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

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

That this House-

recognises that non-metropolitan Australia has 30 per cent of our population yet experiences 42 per cent of national unemployment; that the September 1975 unemployment vacancy ratio for non-metropolitan areas was 13.3 compared to 24.8 in September 1979 and that in September 1979 46 juniors were registered per vacancy in non-metropolitan areas compared to 23 registered per vacancy in the cities;

deplores the rejection by the Government of a plan by the Australian Council of Local Government Organisations that would have created jobs throughout non-metropolitan Australia;

is of the opinion that the Federal Government has failed to recognise and deal with rural unemployment; and

calls on the Government to urgently implement job creation programs particularly at the local government level.

page 3055

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Notice of Motion

Mr John Brown proceeding to give notice of motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not prepared to allow the honourable gentleman to continue reading a notice which is not a notice of a proposition but is the arguments that he proposes to put. I ask the honourable gentleman to reframe his notice.

page 3055

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3055

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to a submission, a copy of which I gave him this morning, for the Commonwealth Police to use listening devices under the New South Wales Listening Devices Act. Is it a fact that the submission is based on a statement that evidence has been obtained by an undercover police agent? Is it further a fact that the evidence obtained at that time was from a Mr Nakis, who was one of those originally accused, who at that time had been offered a pardon and in relation to whom the Crown had already discussed the payment to him of sums of money up to $200,000?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did inform me a few moments ago that he had a copy of that advising to my predecessor. I note that he was careful in what he selectively quoted out of that document. I would not wish to be drawn into a direct reply about what he is implying. All I say is that I am sure that if he had received that advice he would have given authorisation in the same way as my predecessor did.

page 3056

QUESTION

HOME SAVINGS GRANTS SCHEME

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to the value limit which has now been imposed on houses qualifying for a home savings grant. I ask the Minister whether the Government took into account the higher cost of building a house on a farm or in remote areas of Australia in determining the value limit? What increase in funds is available this year? Can the backlog be overcome? Finally, can the Minister say how many grants are likely to be paid in South Australia in this financial year?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

– I want initially to make two points: Firstly, this Government is providing more money in financing the Home Savings Grants Scheme than has been provided in any one year by any previous government. This financial year we are expending $75m on the Home Savings Grants Scheme. That is more than twice the previous highest figure paid out in any one year. Honourable members will recall that in January of this year we increased to $2,000 the maximum amount payable for a grant under the Scheme. Secondly, we have also broadened the qualifying conditions under the Scheme so that it now applies not only to married people but also to single people, and there is no longer any age limit. They are important facts that I think the House should take into account. Despite the value limit which has been imposed and which was announced by the Treasurer on 24 May this year, the vast majority of applicants for home savings grants will qualify for grants in this financial year. In the last financial year over 80 per cent of first home buyers around Australia paid $40,000 or less for their home. Again this financial year a very substantial percentage of first home buyers will qualify for a grant.

The honourable member for Wakefield raised the question of inequities between regions. In particular he raised the problem of people in remote areas having to pay more for houses. That is certainly a problem for those building or buying houses in remote areas- for example, on farms- and also in some particular metropolitan areas of Australia. It has been suggested that we should be looking at a differential value system whereby different value rates would apply to different areas of Australia. I believe that that is something at which we should be looking carefully. In fact, we are looking at it carefully.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to use this Dorothy Dix process to pre-empt a matter which is listed on the Notice Paper for debate today?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Both the Notice Paper and the daily program of proceedings note that the third Order of the Day today is the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill. I think the honourable gentleman is anticipating the debate. I call the next question.

page 3056

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to the decision in R. v. Padman that the interception of a communication passing through the telephone system by attachment of a recording device is a breach of section 5 of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. In relation to what I would call the Greek conspiracy debate, I refer the Minister to a statement by his colleague, Senator Guilfoyle, that in May last year his predecessor had advised her that there had been no telephone interception and that he himself on 27 March of this year had confirmed that advice. I ask the Minister: Why was wrong information given to his ministerial colleague and why has he not made any effort to correct this untrue information in accordance with his responsibility as Minister?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I deny what the honourable gentleman asserts. He raises a question of law. Although I claim some things, I do not claim to be an authority on the law. Certainly, I agree that a grey area is developing about what is a telephone tap, what is a listening device and so on.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I assume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attaches importance to the question that he asked and I would expect the House to attach importance to the answer. Therefore it ought to be heard in silence.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have nothing to add, except to say that I will not be involved in any questions of law.

page 3057

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES TO COMPANIES

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that the Commercial Bank of Australia is withdrawing its support from Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd? Is it also a fact that $1.7m of taxpayers’ money, guaranteed to that company by the Commonwealth, is therefore lost? What is the current risk attaching to the $4. 5 m guaranteed to Cooperative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd? What criteria are employed by the Minister to determine which private sector business shall gain directly from public moneys? Is the Government to afford guarantees to the Back o’ Bourke General Store and the No Hope Gold Mine? If not, why not?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have noticed the enthusiastic and consistent interest of the honourable member for Moore in matters such as this. My understanding is that a couple of weeks ago there was a meeting between the bankers, the miners and Commonwealth and State officials on Woodsreef. Certain facts were presented at that meeting. The bankers’ interpretation of them was different from that of the miners. Certainly, one would not describe the outlook for Woodsreef as being particularly bright. The Commonwealth-State agreement has not yet been finalised, but I have asked the Department to hurry that process. There seems to be an increasing urgency that that should occur.

The final Industries Assistance Commission report on asbestos has been received by the Government. When we give consideration to that report we will no doubt make a final decision as to what the Government’s attitude to the future might be. With regard to Co-operative Farmers and Graziers, I cannot give the honourable gentleman any information additional to that which I gave him a few weeks ago. The matter is under scrutiny and the figure of $4.5m is correct; the involvement is there. These decisions are taken by the Government, based upon information given to it at the time of the requirements to assist. However, it is not the Government’s policy to be involved in these sorts of assistance or guarantees unless they are believed to be overwhelmingly desirable in the national interest.

page 3057

QUESTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: CAPE YORK AND TORRES STRAIT

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will recall his reply to my question on notice of 4 April, as recorded at page 1545 of Hansard, wherein he outlined plans to provide coin telephone links for Cape

York and Torres Strait communities by about mid- 1979 as a means of obviating censorship and eavesdropping on behalf of the Queensland State Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to Senator Keeffe ‘s disclosure- as recorded in Senate Hansard of 8 November- of the text of a strictly confidential telex from a Federal official and a telegram from the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the Yarrabah Council near Cairns, and to the honourable senator’s reference to other telegrams copied by State employees on behalf of the State Minister? Has his attention been drawn to assurances of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs as recorded in Senate Hansard of 13 November, page 2154? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that telegram operators at Yarrabah and at other Aboriginal settlements in Queensland observe their oath of allegiance and do not continue to act as undercover agents of the State Aboriginal affairs administration?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member would know that there are quite severe penalties for telegram or telecommunications operators who act in any such fashion. I will examine the circumstances which he has brought to my attention and advise him of the outcome of my inquiries as soon as possible.

page 3057

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Health to his statements in the last couple of years urging the States to consider the conversion of some sections of hospitals- in particular, geriatric sections- to nursing home care with the concomitant introduction of a fee structure. As the Minister has visited many country areas in New South Wales recently, including Bega in my electorate, and has had discussions with a number of hospital administrations concerning various aspects of this question, can he report to the House the present position with regard to progress on these matters?

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

– The honourable member is referring to a decision that the Government took earlier this year, and which was incorporated in legislation here, to allow for the reclassification of nursing home type patients in recognised hospitals throughout Australia so that they would make a contribution towards their board and lodging as they would do in a nursing home situation. At the time of the last Health Ministers conference, all State Ministers indicated their general support for the concept. Discussions have been taking place between officers of my Department and various officials of the State governments and State government departments or commissions. With regard to New South Wales, there is agreement at the ministerial level and I anticipate that a legal document will be completed and signed to enable the New South Wales Government to proceed to reclassify nursing home type patients in public hospitals as from 1 February next year.

page 3058

QUESTION

MAJOR AIRPORT NEEDS OF SYDNEY

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I refer the Minister for Transport to his announcement that the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee will present its final report by 14 December this year. I ask the Minister why this report is two years overdue and why it was necessary for the Committee to release 20 discussion papers in the three years it has been in existence? Is the Minister aware of any other committee of inquiry which has taken so long to complete its investigations that it has earned its own entry in the phone book? Will the Minister confirm that the Government has already made its decision that it will expand Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, against the wishes of the New South Wales Government, to accommodate future needs, rather than build a second airport? Did the Minister stipulate the date of 14 December by which the MANS Committee has to finalise its report knowing that he could then make his decision known while this Parliament is in recess?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– It was decided by both the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Landa, and me that there ought to be appropriate consultations by the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee with as wide a range of community interest groups as possible in respect of the development of proposals for the future airport needs of Sydney. Consistent with that, each discussion paper which has been a product of the Committee- the discussion papers have had nothing to do with this Government- has been canvassed as broadly as possible with all of the councils and groups that have been interested in the matter. That certainly is one of the reasons for there being a considerable length of time involved in the conduct of the inquiry. I should make the point to the House that the MANS Committee consists of officials from the Government of New South Wales as well as officials from the Commonwealth departments involved in trying to help to decide this question. So it is a joint study to try to help both governments to determine the best way through this difficult problem of meeting the future airport needs of Sydney.

In relation to why it has taken longer than normal for a report of this nature to be furnished, without being too critical let me say that we have had some trouble with State officials in relation to their attendance at meetings and the sorts of requirements that they have placed on the work of the Committee. It seemed to me- I share the” concern of the honourable member- that this matter should have been drawn to a conclusion. I took the initiative myself of asking the Chairman of the Committee to furnish a report. I informed Mr Landa, the State Minister, that I felt that 14 December was an appropriate time for this committee work to be wound up. It seemed to me that it was pointless carrying it on any longer, that all the consultations that were possible had been carried out and that all the work that it was possible to carry out had been carried out. It seemed to me that to carry out some of the work that it was suggested the Committee should continue to do would be simply going over old ground in a slightly different way. So I asked for the report by 1 4 December.

This date was not chosen with the thought that the Parliament would not be in session. Please rest assured that this Parliament will have a perfect opportunity to debate this matter after Mr Landa, the State Minister, and I, as the Commonwealth Minister, have determined what the future airport needs of Sydney will be.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It is all over.

Mr NIXON:

– I have heard statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They were totally irresponsible statements by a member of parliament who purports to be a contender for the Deputy Prime Ministership of this country. He has not even the institutional fortitude to face up to the difficult questions that affect his own electorate, let alone anything else.

Mr Young:

– What is that institutionMelbourne Grammar?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Minister is making this rather political.

Mr Uren:

-i raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know whether the honourable member for St George and the honourable member for Barton support the Minister for Transport.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is something which will have to emerge in time. I do not intend to ask those honourable members for their opinions.

Mr NIXON:

-If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is struggling with the words ‘institutional fortitude’, I could find another plainer word that might help him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister had better not.

Mr NIXON:

– Out of respect for you, sir, I will not.

Mr Hayden:

– It would be a very common word if you used it.

Mr NIXON:

– Absolutely; I agree with the honourable member. I must say that the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this matter has been quite disgraceful. He has done more to bring politics into this question than has anybody else. Neither I as the Minister for Transport nor a great number of back benchers who are very concerned with the matter have played politics in relation to it. We have simply sought to provide a proper response to the future airport needs of Sydney. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes on like this he might wreck the chance of Sydney’s continuing to be the No. 1 airport capital of Australia.

page 3059

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer to the Government’s negotiations to secure a more assured access to the United States for Australian meat. What are the consequences for Australia of the counter-cyclical legislation which has now been passed by the United States Congress?

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

– Previously I have answered questions in this House regarding the countercyclical legislation which we have fought against and tried to persuade the American Administration not to enact. However, pressures in the United States were such that the Administration felt that counter-cyclical legislation needed to go through. The legislation will apply in the United States only if the cattle herd of that country increases to a certain extent. Then the mechanism will then come into play. It is not expected that the mechanism is likely to come into play in the near future. It would probably be as far ahead as three or four years, if it were to come into action.

The floor level of the counter-cyclical legislation is 1.25 billion lb or approximately 567,000 tonnes of meat, which is still a very large figure. Therefore, we know that we will get access for that amount of meat. However, under the multilateral trade negotiations I was able to get a commitment out of the Americans to allow a slightly higher figure than that- 1.3 billion lb. Should Australian exports fall below 1.3 billion lb the Americans will have to make some adjustments to their tariff arrangements to pay us for the costs of reducing our exports to 1 .25 billion lb.

I do not believe that there is any reason for the Australian meat industry at this time to be concerned. I do not believe that the legislation will have any bearing on Australian exports to the United States in the immediate future. Anybody purporting to say that it is drastic legislation which will have serious consequences is, I think, exaggerating the circumstances.

page 3059

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is it a fact that there is now a differential of some four to five points between United States and Australian interest rates? Has the Treasurer seen the judgment by Syntec in its November issue that some 2 per cent of this differential could ultimately be expected to flow through to Australia’s interest rate structure? Does the Treasurer agree with this assessment? How does the Treasurer propose to insulate Australia’s monetary system from the substantially higher rates of interest now applying in the United States and, according to this morning’s news reports, the skyrocketing interest rate movements in the United Kingdom? Finally, how does he intend to implement the Prime Minister’s firm pledge to the nation of a 2 per cent drop in interest rates- a promise now almost a year behind schedule?

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

-The Leader of the Opposition asked an important question about interest rate differentials between Australia and the United States. Of course, the rise in United States interest rates and the duration of the high rates ultimately will have an impact upon other countries. Nobody can deny that. Nobody who understands the situation ought to try to deny it. The extent of the impact will depend upon a variety of factors. It will depend upon the relative interest rates at the time the rises occurred. It will also depend upon the duration of the rises. As I think was said by the Acting Treasurer when the United States Federal Reserve announced its moves on 9 October, the Government will watch the situation very carefully.

It is true that there has been an outflow of capital during September and October. I think it also ought to be said that the trade account of the Commonwealth for the first four months of this financial year shows that exports have risen by 40 per cent compared with the same period in the previous year; that our international reserves are standing at a six-year high and at the end of October were over $4,000m -

Mr Hayden:

– There are two artificial influences there.

Mr HOWARD:

-It is true that effects of the valuation of gold have played a significant role in that, but it is equally true that whereas during the first six months of the last financial year we borrowed $ 1,031m on official account, in other words to supplement our reserves, the total borrowing expected for the same period in 1979-80 when the current yen borrowing is completed will be only $280m. The Leader of the Opposition may well interject about the effects of the valuation of gold, but equally he ought to acknowledge that the underlying strength of the Australian dollar and the underlying improvement in our balance of payments over a period have permitted a much lower level of official borrowing. Nothing can hide the fact that months ago the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Gellibrand were saying that we were committed to a never ending cycle of overseas borrowing. Of course, the wisdom of the Government’s policy in that respect has been demonstrated. There has been some firming of short term interest rates in Australia over the last couple of months, but the exchange rate has continued to be managed in a very flexible manner.

I also point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that to 13 November sales of government securities to the non-bank public, which are always a reliable indicator of the relevance and the sufficiency of official interest rates, totalled $41 lm. When one bears in mind that that includes $223m worth of Australian savings bonds and that the domestic deficit to be funded is only $875m, which is less than half the domestic deficit of 1977-78, one starts to see some of the innuendo in the question of the Leader of the Opposition exposed for what it is- an attempt to make rash judgments about the impact of United States interest rate rises on the conduct of monetary policy in Australia. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government will continue to monitor the situation very closely. What has happened in recent months has demonstrated an underlying strength of the Australian dollar and the correctness of the monetary policy which has thus far been followed. The Government has no intention of departing from the conduct of that policy over the coming weeks.

page 3060

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS FOR MERCHANT SEAMEN

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs by reminding him that, despite the recent amendments to the Acts governing repatriation benefits, merchant seamen who were captured and held prisoner of war during World War II are still not treated as members of the forces and therefore do not qualify for benefits. I ask the Minister whether he will give careful and favourable consideration to having what has become a very small number of Australian merchant seamen repatriated home from POW camps after World War II defined as veterans so that they may be entitled to appropriate repatriation benefits in view of the abnormal privations and hardships suffered in their wartime service to Australia.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-This is a question which has concerned not only me but also members of previous governments. The situation has been examined by various Ministers of various governments and it is constantly under examination. Of course, the rationale for the difference is that merchant seamen who had not signed a particular agreement were not regarded as members of the forces for a number of reasons. They received specific award rates of pay and a war bonus, and were free to choose on which vessels they would serve and for what period. They were covered by various provisions of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act and, in case of injury, by the Seamen’s Compensation Act. That has been the difference between merchant seamen and members of the forces. It is a matter that we are constantly considering. We must remember that with repatriation benefits our first obligation is to the members of the forces, and that is an obligation that we have recognised. Requests are always being made for extension of Service pensions to other people, but they have always been related to war service. There is also pressure to change the nature of the war pension. This matter has concerned me, as it has concerned previous Ministers. It is one that we are looking at carefully, but I would not like to give an undertaking that at this stage anything can be done about the situation.

page 3060

QUESTION

UTAH DEVELOPMENT CO

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Americanbased coal mining giant, Utah Development Co., has delayed the completion date of its Norwich Park coal mine development in order to benefit from the July 1980 reduction in the coal export levy? Norwich Park was forecast to produce approximately 4.5 million tonnes of coal a year and, if it waited until July 1980 before announcing completion of construction at Norwich Park, Utah would avoid paying the current $3.50 a tonne coal export levy, consequently saving approximately $12m a year. Will this form of tax evasion affect the estimated receipts from the coal export levy for the current year? Will the Treasurer investigate this tax avoidance scheme?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-As this matter falls within my ministerial jurisdiction, I will answer the question. To the best of my knowledge, and I have heard this allegation made before, it is just a lot of nonsense.

page 3061

QUESTION

AVIATION GASOLENE

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and concerns aviation gasolene. Is it a fact that New Guinea is short of aviation gasolene and that plane owners and operators have been warned to be careful when planning flights? Can the Minister say whether this will affect Australia? Will he advise the present supply position of aviation gasolene in this country? What does the future hold as to sufficient supplies of this important fuel?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I am aware of the unfortunate situation that has developed in Papua New Guinea. However, I can say that that will not affect the situation in Australia. The position with aviation gasolene is that the British Petroleum company will import a large consignment into the country, I think on 17 November. This shipment, together with our existing stocks, with some other small shipments that we expect from Singapore early next year, and with the continued operation of Altona, which would be an important factor, adds up to supplies of aviation gasolene which, on existing rates of demand, should take us into the next five or six months, that is April or May next year. That will bring us to the point when the Shell company will be producing aviation gasolene. All in all, the situation in Australia, at the current rates of demand, is under control. In addition, the Government is encouraging the marketers- the Mobil, Shell and BP companies- to go around the world and find additional supplies where they can.

page 3061

QUESTION

ASIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD

Mr KERIN:

– When will the Minister for Primary Industry table the Auditor-General’s report on the administration of Asia Dairy Industries Ltd which was received by his predecessor on or about 17 September and about which the Minister was questioned on 16 October? Has the Minister yet received the report on the AuditorGeneral’s further investigation of Asia Dairy Industries Ltd which he initiated on 19 September? Has he acted upon the ‘need for particular actions considered necessary’ to which his attention was drawn in the Auditor-General’s supplementary report tabled on 13 November? If not, why not?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– The Auditor-General’s report has come to hand and certain actions have been taken by the members of the board of the Australian Dairy Corporation to ensure that the practices that caused concern to the AuditorGeneral are no longer relevant. In other words, as I understand it, they have corrected the practices to ensure that they meet with the AuditorGeneral ‘s requirements. As to the other parts of the honourable member’s question, I would like to look at them in some detail and give him a considered reply.

page 3061

QUESTION

PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL: CHILD DEATH

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Health been informed of the coroner’s court findings yesterday in the case of a child death at Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth? Is the Minister aware that two doctors and five nursing staff refused to give evidence on the ground that they might incriminate themselves? Is the Minister also aware that there was no evidence of the use of standard resuscitation methods and that the coroner expressed alarm at this fact? Will the Minister please seek a full report on this matter and check that involuntary euthanasia is not being practised in hospitals subject to Commonwealth benefits?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– No, I am not aware at all of the findings of that hearing and the alleged refusal of two doctors and five nurses to give evidence because they might incriminate themselves. This is, of course, primarily a State government matter, but for the benefit of the honourable gentleman I will seek a report on the issue and check on the suggestion in his question that the hearing was prejudiced because of a refusal by people to give evidence at the hearing. I will furnish him with the findings of my own inquiry in due course.

page 3061

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I refer the Treasurer to a statement made by the Minister for Social Security in the Senate this morning that her DirectorGeneral had decided it was not necessary for his Minister to be informed about the possible payment of up to $200,000 to Mr Chris Nakis, and that the Treasurer had final responsibility in the matter. Has the Treasurer’s advice or approval been sought on this matter at any stage?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I had not seen or heard of anything said in the Senate this morning by my colleague, Senator Guilfoyle, until the honourable member for Melbourne Ports asked his question. I have no recollection of having discussed this matter with anybody, but I will check that recollection. If I have any reason to revise it I will let the honourable member know.

page 3062

QUESTION

MERCHANT SEAMEN

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs and follows the question asked a few moments ago by the honourable member for Cook. It concerns the status of certain merchant seamen and, in particular, the service they gave during periods when Australia was at war. Is the Minister aware that a merchant seaman who lost his life while serving on troop transport ships involved in convoy work in war zones is not eligible to have his name recorded in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra? Is it a fact that this matter has also been under review by successive Ministers and successive governments and apparently still has not been resolved? Does the Minister agree that now is the time to make a decision on this matter and to record in the Australian War Memorial the names of those people who gave such valuable service?

Mr ADERMANN:
NCP/NP

– That question also comes within the province of my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, who has the responsibility for the Australian War Memorial. I was not aware of those circumstances. I will discuss the matter with my colleague and ascertain the position.

page 3062

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Does the Minister for Finance know of any law that entitles a public servant to authorise the payment of amounts of up to $200,000 of taxpayers ‘ money to any individual without the authority of Parliament? Can he say whether Parliament has made provision for such a payment in any of its estimates?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There is obviously no appropriation by the Parliament with regard to the matter about which the honourable member has asked me. As he would well know -

Mr Hayden:

– Do you have an advance fund?

Mr Uren:

– Have they got a special slush fund somewhere?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-As I hope the Parliament -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I understand that the honourable member for Hindmarsh attaches importance to the question and I ask the House to listen to the answer in silence. I ask the honourable member for Reid to remain silent.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Parliament ought to know that I do have a responsibility to authorise act of grace payments, and some of my authority as it relates to minor amounts is delegated to officers of the Department. However, even if a minor amount were involved, and there was any sensitive or contentious issue, it would come to my notice. If I have any further information I will inform the honourable member for Hindmarsh or, indeed, any other member of this House.

page 3062

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Special Trade Representations advise the House of the latest position on moves for possible closer economic ties between Australia and New Zealand? What is the present position regarding consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report on cheese? At what level are consultations proceeding between the two countries? To whom are the officers reporting on these matters? Can the Minister give an assurance that the Australian domestic market will not be flooded by New Zealand dairy products, particularly cheese?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I acknowledge the interest that the honourable member has shown in these matters. I am glad that he has asked the question because I have had a number of queries along those lines. As the House knows, earlier this month very senior officials did meet in Wellington with New Zealand officials to discuss and examine the scope for closer economic cooperation between the two countries. But studies are still at a relatively early stage and certainly no precipitate action will be taken. It is clear that if change is to occur it will have to be absorbed in a manner which will avoid any sudden dislocations in the economy. When options are examined in greater detail particular attention will be paid to the economic and social implications for all major industries, and this certainly would include the dairy industry. In fact, the Government would not consider questions of detail or contemplate any decisions in the area without giving the Australian dairy industry ample opportunity to make its views known.

Last year the Government certainly sent a reference on cheese to the Industries Assistance Commission. I assure the honourable member that the views of the industry will be very carefully weighed when a decision is made on the report.

In June 1979 consultations were initiated with New Zealand within the Joint Dairy Committee. During those consultations the New Zealand Dairy Board indicated that its objective in the Australian market was to develop a modest place for New Zealand cheese and a share in reasonable market growth. The Australian Government is continuing discussions with New Zealand to see how that objective might be achieved without materially prejudicing the interests of the Australian dairy industry.

In the multilateral trade negotiations the Government sought and obtained international opportunities for trade in cheese.

page 3063

QUESTION

COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FORMER MINISTERS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify an answer that I gave yesterday to the honourable member for Hunter concerning costs in the committal proceedings in the case of Sankey against Whitlam. Whilst some orders for costs have been made in the course of those proceedings, the question whether costs should be awarded against the informant, Mr Sankey, in favour of the defendants in respect of the proceedings generally was argued on 4 October 1979. The magistrate has reserved his decision on the question and it is expected that the reserved decision will be given on 17 December 1979.

page 3063

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman 1979.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPERS COUNCIL

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Shippers Council 1979.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present financial statements of the Australian National Railways Commission 1977-78.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924I present the annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation 1979.

page 3063

TREASURY

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the first annual report of the Treasury 1978-79.

page 3063

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the 1977-78 annual review of Australia’s development assistance programs.

page 3063

CHILD MIGRANT EDUCATION

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

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 I present a report entitled ‘Child Migrant Education 1978-79’.

Dr Cass:

– I ask that the Government move that the House take note of the paper.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for the 1977-78 biennium, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report.

page 3063

DEFENCE REPORT

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– For the information of honourable members I table the Defence Report for 1 979.

Mr Scholes:

– I ask that the Government move that the House take note of the paper.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 I present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 1 978-79.

page 3064

ABORIGINAL HOSTELS LTD

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd 1 978-79.

page 3064

PRIVACY AND THE CENSUS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Law Reform Commission on privacy and the census.

page 3064

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES CORPORATION

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918I present the annual report of the Defence Service Homes Corporation 1977-78.

page 3064

NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION COUNCIL

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977 I present the annual report of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council 1978-79.

page 3064

AUSTRALIAN SAFEGUARDS OFFICE

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Safeguards Office 1978-79.

page 3064

AUSTRALIAN IONISING RADIATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the sixth report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council entitled ‘Radioactive Waste Management 1979’, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment relating to that report.

page 3064

SUPERVISING SCIENTIST FOR THE ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment relating to that annual report.

page 3064

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MacKellar:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

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

– During the debate on East Timor on Tuesday of this week in this chamber comments were made which I claim misrepresent me. In particular I refer to a comment by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who said:

The sad thing about it is that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) . . . implied that really most of the losses had occurred during the civil war between the Fretilin and the Democratic Union of Timor.

In the same debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated that one Government Minister had said:

  1. . that most of the people would have lost their lives in what has been called a civil war.

I presume that he was referring to me. The facts of the matter are that following a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 November 1979 I was interviewed on several occasions as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs by members of the media concerning, amongst other aspects relating to East Timor, the loss of life which has occurred there. I presume that it was to one or more of these interviews that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Reid were referring. I have not raised the matter earlier as I wished to check as far as possible any transcripts of interviews I gave on this matter. I can find no evidence which would justify the statements by the honourable gentlemen. Neither appears toreflect accurately what I said. When asked by an interviewer whether I accepted figures suggesting that the population of East Timor had been depleted by at least 100,000 in the last four years of Indonesian rule, I said:

I think it’s terribly difficult to evaluate accurately the situation. It’s probably of that order, probably, I say, of that order, but it wouldn’t be merely since the Indonesian administration has taken place. There has of course been a civil war in Timor. There was the Indonesian administrative takeover and since that time of course there have been people in the hills and places such as that, and it would appear from the reports coming out that a large number of people have died during that period of time. I think we should understand though that malnutrition and unfortunately disease have been endemic in that area for a very long period of time.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition nor the honourable member for Reid nor I know precisely the extent of the loss of life which has occurred in East Timor. We all acknowledge that there has been tragic loss of life, and this saddens us.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes, I do. The Minister has just referred to me, saying that I had said that he gave information that approximately 1 ,500 people had lost their lives. I did say that at the time. What I said was based on material from the information service. I suggest that he check the information available and make the appropriate correction to it.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr UREN:

-I do. It has been said that I followed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the debate on East Timor and referred to the figure he had quoted for lives lost during the civil war there. I am aware of what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) actually said and my remarks would have correctly represented what he said. I heard him on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, on either AM or PM. When he implied that many of the people who died in East Timor could have died in the civil war. A report by the International Committee of the Red Cross proves that only 1,500 people died in the civil war between the Fretilin and the Democratic Union of Timor. The remarks made by the Acting Foreign Minister on the ABC program, in my view, clouded the real facts. As Acting Minister, he should have been aware of that report. That is our criticism of his statement on the ABC.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter.

page 3065

PROTECTIVE SECURITY REVIEW

Paper and Ministerial Statement

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the unclassified version of the report of the Protective Security Review. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Honourable members will recall that, following the bombing at the Sydney Hilton Hotel in February last year, Mr Justice Hope of the New South Wales Supreme Court was appointed to conduct a review of the whole area of protective security in Australia. Mr Justice Hope has now completed his task and recently presented his report to the Government. The review has been both comprehensive and wideranging, involving discussions not only at the Commonwealth level, but with Ministers and officials of all the States and the Northern Territory, as well as with officials in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America. Mr Justice Hope received full co-operation from all these persons and the Commonwealth Government joins with him in thanking them for their assistance. I record the Government’s appreciation of the valuable contribution that Mr Justice Hope ‘s review has made to our consideration of the important field of protective security.

The report, parts of which are classified, looks at counter-terrorist machinery in Australia and the considerations relevant to the effective relationships between law enforcement and intelligence authorities at both the Commonwealth and State levels, the arrangements and procedures for handling terrorist incidents, the protection of VIPs, the use of the Defence Force in civilian security situations, and protective and security arrangements in Commonwealth departments and authorities. The report will provide a basis on which the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory governments will be able to work together better in matters of protective security and counter-terrorism. To this end the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the premiers and to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory passing to them copies of the full classified report. In view of the importance of this report, and in accordance with the bipartisan approach that is appropriate to matters of this nature, the Prime Minister has also sent a copy of the full classified report to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) so that he may be fully informed on the issues. The report, of course, represents the findings of a completely independent review and its views are not necessarily those of the Government. It will be appreciated that the findings of the review have implications for a wide range of government bodies- Federal, State and Territorial. There are many matters flowing from the report on which consultation and co-operation with State and Territory governments will be necessary. We will be following these matters up with the States and the Northern Territory.

Honourable members will see that the report makes many references to the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth-State Cooperation for Protection Against Violence. We attach very considerable importance to this joint Commonwealth-State body and share the view of Mr Justice Hope that much can be achieved through it. It has already produced useful results. The first issue to be decided has been the extent to which the text of the report may be made public, and Mr Justice Hope has made recommendations in this regard. Mr Justice Hope also stated the view, which we endorse, that as much of the material in the report be published as is possible without endangering security or the public interest. The Government has therefore prepared an unclassified version of the report which takes the Judge’s recommendations very closely into account. In this respect it will be recalled that the Government followed Mr Justice Hope’s recommendations regarding publication of the reports of his Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in 1 977. The approach of the Government in handling this report is similar to that taken in respect of the reports of the Royal Commission, the substance of which has since been implemented.

For the information of honourable members I table the unclassified version of the report of the Protective Security Review. Honourable members will see that the report’s findings cover a wide field and I should say that positive steps have been taken to ensure that these are considered promptly and adequately. Decisions will be taken progressively as advice is available. There are some areas where we have already taken action upon the findings of the report. In some other cases the judge ‘s inquiries themselves stimulated action and his views were available in respect of a number of matters under consideration by the Government. One of the central themes that flows from the report is the need for greater co-operation between the authorities involved in protective security. Improvements are desirable in this area, and steps have been taken to effect them, but a report such as this has the beneficial effect of hastening progress.

Honourable members will note the report’s proposals for legislative changes dealing with the use of the Defence Force in aid of civilian security raise very significant constitutional, legal, civil rights and practical issues. These are being carefully studied by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and the law officers. There will also need to be consultation with the States which will clearly have an interest in these proposals. As the report has demonstrated the need for some revision of existing statutory provisions, the Government will as quickly as possible reach a decision as to what legislative action should be taken. But I stress the principle of the primacy of the civil power. Another aspect that I might mention is the report’s comments on crisis management, another area with a major Federal-State component. The Commonwealth endorses the general rule, enunciated by Mr Justice Hope, that in any battle against terror the local law enforcement authorities in the normal processes of the criminal law must be in the vanguard.

The report’s comments on crisis management are consistent with and in effect endorse the contingency planning arrangements and other proposals that are being or have been developed in association between the relevant Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory authorities. Further, insofar as they affect policy matters, the review’s proposals are in accord with policy planning for the Australian Federal Police. Honourable members will see that the report has given government authorities- Federal, State and Territorial- much to examine and reflect upon. It also provides a most valuable opportunity, which this Government will not let pass, to establish and maintain effective relationships with the State and Northern Territory governments in the field of protective security.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- The report which has been tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) sets down a pattern of responses to the potentials for, and actual threats to, the security of the community. It outlines matters relating to training, organisation, to command, and to cooperation between the various units that have responsibility within our society in this sort of matter. It is clear that Mr Justice Hope, as he has done on previous occasions on matters of great public responsibility, where he has had a brief to carry out a review of such matters, has again in this report performed his task diligently, intelligently and with considerable beneficial effect for those people in the community, in government and other institutions serving government in the community who have to take decisions in these matters and have to respond to actual problems which may arise affecting security or prepare for the potential that may rest within the community from whatever cause for that sort of threat.

It seems to me to be an eminently sensible outline in many respects. It does not mean of course that one gives an inflexible, uncritical commitment to everything that is outlined within the report, but it is extremely valuable. What is clear is that in our Federal system there is a spread of authorities with responsibility in this sort of matter and that at a time of severe strain where an issue of security is concerned, with the absence of preparation, severe shortfalls can occur in the way in which the response takes place to those sorts of threats.

We had a most unfortunate lesson in the early part of last year. I do not want to derogate in any way at all from the sincere and, in many respects, able way in which people in the civilian police forces and in the military services responded to the orders which were issued to them following that unfortunate incident. But it is important to bear in mind in making responses on these matters that we live in a civilian society which still is, in spite of the enormous strains from many directions, a cohesive social and political unit and that underlying what is done in our society is a basic philosophical commitment about the institutions and the organs which serve it. That commitment essentially is that they should function in a way which is appropriate to a free, civilised and civilian society. In times of stress ad hoc arrangements and exceptions have to be made. But to the extent that they have to be made and to the extent that they have to be overt, their intrusiveness should be kept to a minimum consistent with their fulfilling their role effectively.

It seemed to me that, in the resort to the use of military services at Bowral for instance last year in response to the unfortunate security incident that arose then, the way in which the armed forces were mobilised and the presentation of that mobilisation to the public was altogether too intrusive. It was intrusive to the point where the perspective presented to the public of what was being done seemed to lack some sort of balance. There was a lack of balance in terms of the role they were fulfilling and the sorts of tasks they had to respond to. It was quite clear to me that the whole circumstances of the mobilisation of the military forces fell away quite sharply from high drama to, bluntly, pathos. That was embarrassing, and it was particularly embarrassing for the members of the armed forces who were fulfilling instructions issued to them. I hope that this report will in turn allow preparation that will avoid that sort of circumstance.

I make a final observation in relation to this matter. That refers to my comments about this being a civilian society. As much as possible in serving the needs of a civilian society, we must maintain a commitment which philosophically is consistent with the standards of a civilian society- not of a paramilitary society or of a militaristic society- in a pluralistic democratic system. That means that the systems of authority have various forms of restraint appropriate to the circumstances of the time applied to them. So when we use our police forces or our Defence Force we want to have a clear understanding, philosophically, of how we see their roles being fulfilled. Accordingly, 1 am very pleased to read paragraph 115 and 116 of this report because they come to the heart of this matter. We should never lose sight of it because if we lose sight of it we inject some degree of peril to the freedom of our society and we tend to shore up a more authoritarian quality in the way in which certain services are provided. It may seem to exaggerate the situation a little. I do not believe it does at all. I do not believe that we could ever be fierce enough in the defence of our freedoms and of the standards which we require to ensure that the systems of authority within our community are answerable; even at times of crisis, they can be made accountable. Now let me quote the two paragraphs. Paragraph 1 15 states:

Police need skilled marksmen for many purposes, but there is good reason not to establish a paramilitary group, either as an independent unit or as part of a police force. What has been described as a ‘tactical battle involving fire and movement’ or a ‘close quarter battle’ with a group of armed terrorists is not properly a matter for police, except in emergent circumstances. Armed encounters of this involved kind are properly matters for members of the Defence Force whose training fits them for the task.

Counter-poising that and, I believe, bringing it into the sharp focus that is appropriate for this sort of discussion is paragraph 1 1 6. It states:

The Defence Force should be used only as a last resort, and an overriding principle is that ‘troops should never, in any circumstances, be used to confront political demonstrators or participants in industrial disputes’. Whatever logistical support they render, they must be protected by police who alone must deal with any violence arising from objection to their support.

So Mr Justice Hope, in this report, has very nicely made the distinction, in my view, between the role of the police force and that of the armed forces. A police force is a civilian organisation designed to service the civilian community, certainly as an authoritarian institution but with clear limitations on the authority available to it and, more importantly, the manner of authority that it displays in deporting itself in discharging its ability. Mr Justice Hope makes the distinction that the circumstances in which the armed forces should be called into operation are in what would very largely be a civilian problem. I feel increasing unease at the evidence I see in newspapers of the tendency, at least in some State police forces, to want to set up what can be described only as paramilitary units. The police forces should never move in the direction of a paramilitary service.

I was enormously unnerved to read of a police union official in Queensland stating a little while ago that in fact he saw the police force as a paramilitary unit serving the community. The police forces are not paramilitary units at all. If paramilitary services are required- heaven help us that our system should collapse to the point where we need to establish paramilitary services in this community- they should be completely separate and there should be clear restraints established as to the circumstances in which they function. If we need within the community units that have to be trained to a high pitch of combat readiness, that is a function of the military services and not of the police services. I argue very strongly the points made in paragraphs 1 1 5 and 1 16 of the report. The distinction that is asserted in those paragraphs by Mr Justice Hope is a very important one and one that we must not lose sight of.

page 3068

INTERSCAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD: REPORT

Paper and Ministerial Statement

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members. I present the first annual report of InterScan Australia Pty Ltd for the year 1978-79. I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to this report.

Leave granted.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The Government decided in 1978 that the development of the experimental InterScan system into commercially competitive hardware should be undertaken by InterScan Australia Pty Ltd. The report covers the first year of operation of InterScan Australia Pty Ltd. The company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Industry Development Corporation, was formed under the chairmanship of Sir Ian McLennan to manage the enginering development and undertake the commercial arrangements for the InterScan system. InterScan is a major high-technology innovation developed by the Australian Department of Transport and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has endorsed the principles underlying InterScan as the basis of future airport landing guidance systems. The considerable industrial potential of InterScan was recognised by the Government and funds totalling $8.2m over 3 years were provided to enable Australian industry to translate the experimental system into commercially competitive hardware.

The report records the completion of agreements and the placing of contracts with two Australian companies, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd and Hawker de Havilland Aust. Pty Ltd covering the completion of engineering development, manufacture and marketing of the InterScan system. Under these agreements the Australian companies will take up equity in InterScan Australia Pty Ltd as the development and manufacturing program proceeds. It also records a joint venture agreement with the United States company Wilcox Electric Inc. Wilcox, an established American company in the development, manufacture and marketing of aircraft landing systems, will contribute to the development and will be a significant factor in marketing on the American continent. The participation of AWA and Hawker de Havilland will contribute very substantially to Australia’s realising the long term benefits of increased export earnings and increased employment. The involvement of Wilcox, one of the world ‘s leading suppliers of aircraft instrument landing systems, is an important step in securing for Australian industry a significant share of the very large world market for microwave landing systems. The company has considerable experience in development and production of high technology equipment for landing aids and in marketing that equipment to civil aviation authorities.

The formation of InterScan Australia Pty Ltd and the subsequent participation by the other companies is an important initiative. It should encourage the development of governmentindustry co-operation towards high technology products based on local creative initiatives with high export potential. I am sure that all honourable members will be encouraged by the progress made to date by InterScan Australia Pty Ltd. I expect also that most members will wish to associate themselves with me when I extend congratulations to the Board and the executive officers of the company. I have no doubt that all Australians wish them well in their endeavours on our behalf. There are still many obstacles to be overcome if they are to gain for Australia a substantial share of the world market over the next decade. The Government is very pleased with the progress recorded in this first annual report and believes that this success should provide an inspiration to other inventors and entrepreneurs to chance their arm to create the new, high technology, export oriented, innovative industries which the Government, largely through the efforts of my Department, is striving hard to encourage.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-by leave-The Australian Labor Party Opposition has supported interscan ever since it was first mooted and announced. We believe that it is an excellent example of public enterprise in this case using private enterprise in partnership, to develop a major high technology project on which so much new employment in this country must be built. We believe in the public sector’s taking initiatives such as this. Thank goodness a body such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation was in existence so that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) and the officers around him could use that machinery in order to develop this idea. We think that this is an offsettype agreement using Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Pty Ltd and Hawker de Havilland Pry Ltd in the way that public enterprise should use such concepts. We recognise that there is a great need for the association with a major United States company- in this case Wilcox Electric Inc. has been chosen- to make an impact in the United States market which InterScan Australia Pty Ltd could not make without such an association. We do not want to neglect other markets just because we are initially using our initiatives in the United States market. I am sure that many officers of InterScan will be looking at the other areas of development in this regard.

Generally speaking, the Australian Labor Party believes that new jobs must be created not only by our resources but also by our skills. To put it rather more explicitly, we are suggesting that such resources as marginally lower cost energy and the minerals we have are an excellent base on which to build manufacturing industry. But so are the skills in our community because of the greater amount of education we have compared with many of our competitors. This is an excellent example of a major high technology project which we hope will build new jobs. That high technology project, its research and development, has itself been built on the high standard of education which we have in this country. We hope that there will be more ideas and projects such as this. In the meantime, we wish

InterScan well.

page 3069

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CONNOLLY:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I refer to the debate last Tuesday on the subject of East Timor which was introduced into this House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). Subsequently, after Question Time yesterday, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the honourable member or Reid (Mr Uren) both sought the indulgence of the Chair on the grounds that they had been misrepresented by my remarks. The House will recall that I stated:

Let it never be forgotten that he-

That is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- was a Minister in the last Whitlam Government, which in 1974 virtually acquiesced in what ultimately took place when by military force the Indonesians took over the Portuguese half of Timor.

The point I was making was that we have in this Parliament a doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility. If a Minister does not like a decision taken by a Prime Minister or by other Ministers he has the right to resign.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is debating the matter. He is entitled to point out in what manner he was misrepresented.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– Yesterday the honourable member for Hindmarsh, in relation to the remarks I made, on page 2966 of Hansard said:

That is quite untrue.

I merely wish to emphasise the point that the observation I made is absolutely true both in fact and on the basis of the traditions of the Parliament.

page 3069

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3069

TRANSPORT COSTS

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I move:

That this House is of the opinion that a select committee should be established to examine the impact of transport costs on:

the efficient movement of goods and people within Australia;

the development of Australia ‘s industries, and

3 ) Australia ‘s ability to compete in overseas markets.

Since I gave notice of this motion on 2 1 February 1978, the pressing need for a thorough public examination of the costs and effectiveness of Australia’s transport system had become obvious to the Opposition and to transport authorities and users but not to the Government. In the 2 1 months since the Opposition’s call for a select committee we have seen mounting concern over the state of transport services in and to Australia. Comments contained in an article entitled Transport and Distribution- a matter of deep concern’ published by the Australian Industries Development Association in July this year are typical. The Association warned:

  1. . serious inefficiencies, delays and excessive costs in Australia’s transport sector are of great national significance because of its size and importance in our production and consumption.

The Australian Wool Corporation’s 1977-78 annual report estimated that the cost of physical distribution of the Australian wool clip between shearing shed and textile mill to be over $200 m per year of which about half was sea freight. The report stated:

It would be unrealistic to expect that in present inflationary conditions this amount can be reduced, but the Corporation sees considerable opportunity for reducing the rate of increase.

The draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the iron and steel industry stated that transport costs for both raw materials and finished goods represent approximately 15 per cent of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd steel division’s total costs. The division employs road, rail and sea transport with sea transport accounting for just over half of BHP ‘s total freight costs. The IAC acknowledged the disadvantage suffered by BHP compared with its overseas competitors as a result of transport costs and inefficiencies. The Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment concluded that a significant factor in raw material processing is cost of transportation. The issues were acknowledged to be complex and to extend beyond the terms of reference of the study group.

Amongst those who must use our transport system, the private motorist is only too well aware of the disabilities of that system. The Australian Automobile Association in its submission to the Transport Industries Advisory Council drew attention to the tremendous losses being incurred by the nation as our road systems fail to keep pace with the growth in total vehicle kilometres of travel which has increased at an average rate of 6.7 per cent a year for over a decade. Referring to transport costs, enormous congestion, delays, road quality, related breakdowns and associated wastage the Association emphasised:

These factors affect costs of all Australian production whether for import competing domestic consumption, or for exports.

Not only the transport users have expressed concern at the state of Australian transport. At an Australian National Railways Commission locomotive naming ceremony in Adelaide two years ago, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) who is now at the table said:

It is disquieting that representatives of the Road Transport Industry, rail’s competitor, are telling me that something must be done to improve our rail system.

This certainly is disquieting but not surprising. The largest road freight operators also have significant interests in general freight forwarding. They realise that goods must be moved by the most cost efficient and fuel efficient mode. But at present costs and fuel efficiency do not necessarily go hand in hand. Mr W. Egan of Mayne Nickless Ltd indicated last year that given a greater use of unit trains and the ability to bypass congested marshalling areas, at least 50 per cent of freight volumes on the east coast would transfer from road to rail. Mr Lou Marks, executive director of Brambles Holdings Ltd, gave a similar opinion to the 1978 Transport Outlook Conference. The Australian Chamber of Shipping has pointed out the inconsistences in government policies on land based transport and coastal shipping which the chamber feels are leading to serious modal imbalance. The Australian Shipbuilders Association agreed that due to the present cost structure of the industry, freight was not being carried by the most fuel efficient mode. The ASA’s request for an inquiry was contemptuously dismissed by the Minister for Transport.

Concern has been expressed by leading academics in Australia. Dr Webb of the University of New South Wales writing in the July 1978 Bank of New South Wales Review’ documented both natural disabilities and self-induced disabilities affecting Australian transport. Dr Keith Trace of Monash University recently stated that during the past 30 years the freight transport task, measured by tonnes-kilometres performed, has grown at a significantly more rapid rate than has real gross domestic product. The importance of transport is further illustrated by the Government’s own Bureau of Transport Economics, which estimated that the 1 975-76 resource cost of providing domestic freight services, excluding infrastructure, at $6, 866m or about 9.7 per cent of the gross domestic product and the cost, including infrastructure, at $ 1 1 ,360m or about 1 6 per cent of the gross domestic product. Dr Trace has calculated that figures for comparable countries are roughly two per cent to three per cent lower.

The fact is that we lack any systematic overall evaluation of the impact of transport costs on the Australian economy. Abundant information and expertise are available on the subject together with organisations and individuals who would readily give evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into transport services. In addition, there are the Bureau of Transport Economics in the Department of Transport and six State Transport Departments, each with expert advisers. This information should be collected and analysed. There is a need to identify the problems and disabilities and to determine possible solutions to our transport deficiencies. Just as importantly, an allparty parliamentary select committee of inquiry would act as a catalyst for informed public debate on transport matters and, in time, the generation of concensus both inside and outside the Parliament.

Paragraph ( 1 ) of the motion calls for an examination of the impact of transport costs on the efficient movement of goods and people within Australia. Dr Webb, whom I mentioned earlier, argues that the high proportion of gross domestic product devoted to transport and communication costs in Australia is partly explained by such natural disabilities as the vast size of the country, the relatively small and unevenly distributed population and the lack of low cost inland-water transport. It is possible, however, to identify a number of problem areas which affect all of Australia ‘s internal transport modes. Foremost is the lack of any coherent national transport policy for Australia and the resulting fragmentation of decision-making among one national government and seven States and Territories, each with its own set of transport authorities, bodies and policies. Whilst I acknowledge the difficulties involved, I deplore the approach adopted by the Minister for Transport, whose representative told the Australian Road Transport Federation annual conference in Hong Kong last September:

The basic fact of the matter is that it is simply impractical for anyone to suggest that the Commonwealth should impose a national transport blue print for land transport in Australia.

This amounts to an admission of incompetence by the Minister. Certainly the solution is not to impose a blueprint on State and private transport authorities. But national co-ordination there must be. Compare the Minister’s defeatist attitude with that of the Australian Automobile Association in its submission to the Transport Industry Advisory Council, in which it stated:

There can be little doubt that our national transport bill is inflated by some self induced disabilities, the elimination of which would be assisted by the establishment of a national transport strategy.

Similarly, Mr B. Redpath of Mayne Nickless, in expressing sentiments last year on the same subject concluded:

Perhaps it is that there is no single person or group with the overall understanding and the authority to act

He was referring to the lack of a national transport plan. The Australian Labor Government attempted to create such a group in the form of the Inter-state Commission, as provided in the Constitution. This body would have the ability properly and responsibly to co-ordinate and oversee transport services. Despite having expressed support for the concept of an interstate commission, the present Minister has failed to proclaim the Inter-State Commission Act or to amended it to his satisfaction.

The regulation of transport by individual States has contributed to the distortion of the national transport system in favour of parochial State interests and delaying much needed modernisation and reform. Regulation has usually been aimed at protecting State rail systems from road transport competition and in ensuring that goods were moved to that State’s capital city irrespective of the impact on national transport costs, industry efficiency, the development of our industries and our ability as a nation to compete in overseas markets.

Another force which has distorted the development of a rational and national transport system is the maze of hidden and explicit subsidies received by various modes. Total price costs to the taxpayer of these subsidies are unknown. The subsidies have two main effects. Firstly, they distort the balance of traffic between different transport modes. Secondly, they may distort the total proportion of national expenditure going to the transport sector. That is not to argue that all subsidies are unjustified. Just as assistance granted to non-transport industries are subject to continual public scrutiny, similarly the purpose of assistance to the transport industry should be explained and the full cost identified.

The Australian transport system is also plagued by a jungle of varying regulations and laws between States. Road transport particularly suffers as a result. Regrettably, ever since 1949 when conservative governments have held national office in this country they have been unable to raise their time horizons to embrace the long lead-in times that are necessary for major transport investment.

I have mentioned briefly the problems of the road transport industry. We do not have to go beyond the steps of this building to see evidence of the problems and the chaotic state of the road transport industry. The truckies blockade earlier this year highlighted that chaotic state. Outside the building- he has been there for 16 days- is Mr Carl Breen along with some of his colleagues in the industry. They have been seeking to talk with the Minister for Transport, who is sitting at the table, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). No members of the Cabinet have been prepared to go outside to speak with that man, to listen to him and to try to understand his problems. He wrote to the Prime Minister on 1 November and I understand that he has not received a reply. Letters were given to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker- approval was given earlier by the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee)- to incorporate in Hansard a copy of Mr Breen ‘s letter.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Carl Breen,

Riverside Road,

Chipping Norton, 2 1 70 1 November 1979

Mr M. Fraser,

Prime Minister of Australia,

Parliament House,

Canberra, 2600

Mr Prime Minister,

My name is Carl Breen and I am an independent haulier trying to earn a living on the interstate network of Australia.

My aim Sir, is to point out to the Australian Government that the excessive price of diesel fuel is seriously affecting the Consumer Price Increases and causing inflation to spiral.

It is obvious that the State Public Transport systems are not being run efficiently. This matter could only be resolved by a Royal Commission. Since the State Governments’ deficits are getting worse each year, I feel the day of reckoning is long overdue. We believe that approximately $1,000,000,000.00 per annum is lost by the Railways between Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. This, to me, is appalling.

It is therefore necessary for somebody to point out to the Australian people what is happening in this day and age.

Sir, unless we get a firm assurance from your Government, this protest could mushroom and we do not desire to have a repetition of the Razorback Blockade.

Trusting you will give this matter your sincere consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Carl Breen

Mr MORRIS:

-Briefly, the problems in the industry are those of overcapacity and, in human terms, there is enormous plight, a tragic plight, being suffered by owner drivers working in the road transport industry. I do not believe that as a nation and as fellow human beings we can stand by and do nothing about what is happening to those people. The industry itself is calling for some form of regulation. The people in it are suffering tremendously from the heavy impact of fuel costs. The public road users in general are being endangered by truck drivers driving way beyond their normal driving periods because they are battling. They are overloading their vehicles and driving longer hours than they responsibly should, trying to make enough money to meet their expenditure. It is for the Government to do something about it. I can only say that the Minister for Transport is not to be given any regard whatsoever. From what I saw, he played a very shabby role in the truckies blockade. I would have expected him to be seeking some sort of constructive solution to regularising the industry and giving the people in the industry and road users a right to safety, a right to earn a reasonable income and a fair return for a fair day’s work.

I want to move on to a couple of other matters, particularly air transport, which has become a matter of major public interest in recent years. Time does not permit me to deal in detail with all aspects of air services- passenger and freight, both domestic and international. I have referred to those matters in the Parliament over recent weeks. They are subjects of wide public and industry concern, particularly to the tourist and manufacturing industries. They are matters that are appropriate for investigation by the select committee that I have proposed. However, I want to devote a few minutes of my time to one important aspect of aviation services- the provision of safety services at airports for the travelling public.

Within the aviation industry there is constant criticism of the charges made by governments on air service operators and the quality of services provided by governments to air service operators. In short, how efficient is the provision of services to the industry by the Department of Transport? Are those services sufficient? Is money being well spent and are the services being provided necessary? Most of all, as far as the operators are concerned, is the rate of recovery being sought from the operators and, through them, the users of the service, fair? Again, a committee of the Parliament approaching this problem on an all-party basis in a spirit of consensus could analyse the problem reasonably, impartially and properly. It seems that the Minister for Transport and some others opposite take objection to the suggestion of consensus. I am disappointed.

The Parliament needs to know what priorities are followed in the provision of safety services at our airports. Yesterday witnessed the second near disaster at Mascot airport in just over two years. It arose from the gross irresponsibility of this Government in refusing to provide funds to ensure public safety at Mascot airport. In 1977, following the oil tanker crash and fire and the occasion on which blazing petrol flowed through the drainage system at Mascot airport from an incident that occurred outside the airport, the Minister’s response was: ‘It was a unique accident’. In effect, his Government is gambling with the lives of air travellers, visitors and staff at Mascot airport. Yesterday’s methylene tanker crash occurred just a few weeks after the second anniversary of the petrol tanker crash. Exhaustive studies were carried out by the Department of Transport after the October 1977 crash to determine what caused the problems that arose and how the deficiencies in the drainage system could be overcome to prevent dangerous liquids that enter the drainage system from the street gutters, outside Mascot airport from traversing the airport environment itself. The report of that study is available to the Minister and parts of it have been made available to the Parliament in answer to questions on notice, but no action whatsoever has been taken, as far as I can ascertain.

Recently, an amount of something like $82,000 or $83,000 was sought to carry out urgent modifications to the most critical areas of the drainage system. That request was refused within the Department on the basis that that kind of accident, which the Minister said was unique, could not happen again. It has happpened again, and acceptance of responsibility for that situation must lie at the feet of the Minister for Transport and his Government.

Mr Cadman:

– What about the road authorities?

Mr MORRIS:

– As the Minister said, it is a public road and it could happen anywhere. That is how the Minister evaluated this problem, and I will read the answer he gave to the Parliament in May 1 978 in reply to question on notice No. 8 14. He was asked:

What action has been taken to prevent a repetition of the events that occurred.

The question did not ask about the accident but about the events, the destruction of the tanker, the movement of blazing fuel throughout the airport, underneath TAA’s gate lounge No. 5 and up through the open drain, in an area where an aircraft had moved out two minutes before. This was the Minister’s response:

Accidents of this type can occur on any public road and prevention is impracticable.

That is just not good enough. This Government can find money out of the air ad infinitum when it wants it for $40m programs for Boeing 707s, for world trips in luxury and safety for the Prime Minister. But when it comes to spending $82,000 or $83,000 on the safety of the public, who pay for the air services, for the infrastructure, money is not available because, on the Government’s assessment and on the assessment of the Department that kind of accident could not happen again. It did happen and it still could happen again because that section of road outside Qantas, along Qantas Drive, is a heavily trafficked section used by vehicles carrying volatile liquids. Urgent attention has to be given to it.

The Government has before it the responsibility of acting immediately to protect public safety and to ensure that funds are made available to carry out the necessary modifications to that drainage system. I emphasise that the drainage system within the airport is in contravention of internationally accepted standards of design for international airports. The Government knows this, but it is taking a punt. Some government members are punting men, but members of the public are not punting people. When they go through the airport they want to know that they can move through in safety and with the assurance that they are not likely to be victims of this Government’s gambling with human lives and danger because it does not think an accident can occur.

In conclusion, let me say that a select all-party parliamentary committee, as outlined in the motion, could thoroughly investigate the standards of safety at Mascot Airport, the efficiency with which taxpayers’ money is being spent there, and identify the serious risks that could arise for the travelling public when essential and basic works are not funded by government. Throughout Australia, both among the community and in industry, there is widespread concern at the price, quality and availability of essential transport services. There is concern at the level of air fares, the provision and quality of rail and bus services, the standard of roads, the availability of stable, reasonably priced coastal and international shipping services to get our products to the international markets, and at the chaotic state of the road transport industry and the intrusion that that makes upon road safety for all other road users.

I have detailed some of the issues involved and comments by industry leaders on action that should be taken to improve our transport services and thus our trading competitiveness and quality of life. An all-party select parliamentary committee should be established to conduct a responsible and far-reaching investigation into our transport systems, to identify its problems, and to recommend appropriate solutions. Its inquiries, findings and report would be in the national interest. I commend the motion to honourable members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition essentially is asking for an investigation and inquiry. It is not asking the Government to spend a great deal of money. It is not asking it to develop grandiose plans. It is simply asking the Government to have a serious look at transport costs and their implications for the economic and social development of this country. It is quite clear that the energy price crisis has re-opened a series of previously unquestioned assumptions about the most efficient forms of transport to undertake different transport tasks. If, as the Government claims, it is on about rationality in energy policy, it must recognise that interdependency as between energy use and transport is such that one simply cannot have a rational energy policy without a rational transport policy. To some extent, that is the importance of today’s motion.

It is quite clear that in Australia transport is the key to our economic prosperity. However, we face problems with respect to transport which are peculiar to this nation. There is no nation which is more highly urbanised than Australia, but then there is no other nation whose major population centres are separated by such vast distances. Furthermore, the structure of Australian cities is unique. No other nation has cities of such uniformly low density. Not only are Australian cities separated by distance, but also they are separated as between States, adding considerable complexity to the achievement of any effective national transport strategy. In Victoria alone we have something like 13 separate authorities with responsibilities in the transport area. There is no overall transport commission and no overall transport planning authority. Nationally, there are at least another 10 authorities responsible for transport. The interlocking and interrelationship between these authorities represents a major problem which to some extent is peculiar to Australia.

Whilst each of these characteristics represents problems, it is important to put them into a positive perspective. What objectives are we seeking to achieve and what is the relationship between these objectives and transport? I believe that we are seeking three principal objectives: Firstly, economic growth and higher national prosperity, particularly through the provision of an efficient service to industry, commerce and agriculture, secondly, the meeting of social needs through securing a reasonable level of personal mobility; and thirdly, the minimising of the harmful effects in loss of life and damage to the environment that are often the direct physical result of the transport we use. These objectives are not always completely compatible. The development of a transport system to suit economic development often leads to social deprivation of one sort or another. Similarly, the environmental constraints on transport systems, long not understood, are now being seen increasingly to be critically important limiting factors.

On the other hand, one ought not to see such different considerations as being quite separate. Often people’s social needs cannot be met without consideration of economic factors. During a period of high unemployment, it is important that systems be maintained to enable people to move within cities or even between cities for jobs. For example, the lack of priority for a high speed rail link between Melbourne and Geelong tends to exacerbate the serious unemployment that exists in Geelong. The lack of cross-city public transport in the northern suburbs of Melbourne means that areas of high unemployment very often are isolated from areas of potential employment. This has been a major finding of the study undertaken by the northern municipalities group in Melbourne.

Furthermore, there are important social reasons why transport ought to be receiving greater priority. In the past, the Australian city has been characterised by extremely high mobility. The suburban city seeks to maximise the advantages of low density family style suburbs and the advantage of accessibility to all the services of the city. This combination is possible only if transport is cheaply and readily available. There is increasing evidence that this is unlikely to be the case in the future unless radical steps are taken. This will require the development of alternative transport systems. It will require also the restructuring of the urban form with much greater attention being given to the decentralisation or regionalisation of urban facilities, including employment, and the full range of community facilities. It will simply not be possible for people to have access to the whole of the city. In part, these problems will have to be resolved by much greater commitment to public transport, which will require support over and above fare revenues. Australia is about to be confronted with a very clear illustration of the contradictions present in what might be described as the unplanned and capitalist city. At a time when it is critical to have effective transport systems, each of the major systems, it might be argued, faces some sort of crisis.

I turn briefly to the rail industry. There is no doubt that the rail industry in this country, taken as a whole, is in a state of very serious crisis. This crisis cannot be separated from the more general economic crisis which we, as a nation, face. The railways are part of what might be described as a more general public sector crisis. High levels of unemployment, reduced taxation revenue, reduced production of surplus value and reduced profitability have all served to create a massive deficit in the Federal Budgets. The overseas purchase of new capital goods required for technological and stuctural change, coupled with increasing export competition, reduced foreign capital inflow and sustained foreign profit repatriation have all served to generate financial problems and a capital drain out of this country. Of course there has been a real and a definite reduction in the rate of rail revenue inflow relative to the services provided. In fact, it might be argued that this real revenue decline, and not so much a service cost increase, is the source of the apparent deficit. Consequently, the so-called deficit is actually a measure of government subsidy being paid out to principal users, for example, coal, wheat and freight forwarders. After the 1978 international monetary crisis, world finance problems and instability gave rise to a major explosion in international shipping rates.

Against this background and in the context of developing international inflation and economic stagnation, Western capitalist governments sought to provide a compensatory adjustment to land freight rates, and thereby, it was hoped, to contain domestic inflation. For example, between 1970 and 1976, international shipping rates rose by 140 per cent. I repeat: They rose by 140 per cent over a six-year period. Meanwhile, the Australian consumer price index rose by 80 per cent. In terms of internal domestic freight costs, New South Wales freight rates, for example, rose by only 30 per cent. Stagnation and inflation have not been simply a temporary matter. In fact, the situation has been compounded and thus the opportunity for correction of the freight rate depression has never materialised; that is, rather than the internal costs of freight being relatively high they have in fact been maintained artificially low. That situation is likely to continue given the general situation of economic depression.

In the course of 1979 we have seen the rapid escalation of fuel costs which, as the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has suggested, has intensified the economic problems of road transport. While owner-drivers successfully eliminated their road tax payments that has, of course, turned out to be only a very temporary expedient. The extent of the crisis that faces their industry is reflected in their willingness to take direct action, as will be seen by the trucks parked at the front of Parliament House. The key to future profitability and even viability for the road industry will be for it to have access and control over rail facilities, and in this area it is the larger companies which dominate the industry, such as Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and Mayne Nickless Ltd, which will be in the box seat. They, along with other large transport firms, are seeking both to invest in their own rail connections and facilities and to force government rail investment policies in directions most to their own advantage.

Whilst the overall priority of the national Government’s policies with respect to the rail system has moved in some respects in contradictory directions the Government’s policy has been to contract systems overall. I emphasise that point because it is being recognised increasingly that the contraction of rail systems over extremely long periods- the contraction has accelerated in recent years- in terms of the mounting energy crisis whereby the shift will be more and more from the use of liquid fuels to the use of coal, will increasingly become critical in the future. In that context, governments around Australia have been moving to contract systems. While upgrading to some extent mainline networks, particularly those that service coal and interstate container movements, and modernising and technologically upgrading areas bearing on the national mainline system, they have also moved to invest in labour saving equipment. However, against that pattern one sees the increasing closure of stations and goods sidings in country areas and the destruction of country railway systems which are extremely important in terms of the regional economies of provincial areas.

I refer briefly to the situation with respect to shipping. We, as a nation, pay through the nose for the supply of services through foreigncontrolled shipping. Australia is about the fifth or sixth largest trading nation in the world. But it is unique because of its minuscule involvement in overseas shipping. This alone costs Australia about $2,000m each year but, of course, we know that this Government will do nothing to develop the Australian National Line and will do very little to increase the number of ships carrying Australian exports and imports which would be owned by Australia or by a nationalised shipping line.

By far the biggest single freight hauled by the Australian rail systems is coal. In the early 1 970s the Federal Labor Government introduced the coal export levy. It felt that Australian coal was being exported and sold too cheaply. Utah, which is 90 per cent American-owned, has just announced a half-yearly profit of more than $70m, with strong expectations of topping profits of $100m. So, we have a situation whereby freight charges which cover industries which are highly profitable remain relatively depressed on an international scene to support companies which expatriate their profits on the scale of the Utah mining company.

The passenger transport policies of governments such as the New South Wales and Victorian governments when they were under Liberal administrations- the situation in New South Wales has been partially reversed because of progressive policies adopted by the Wran Government- have resulted in massive declines in rail passenger numbers. Between 1947 and 1 97 1 there was a 10 per cent Australian-wide rail passenger decline while between 1971 and 1976 there was a 30 per cent decline in rail passenger use in Victoria and New South Wales. The justification for this decline was the need to reduce or eliminate the rail deficit by getting rid of uneconomic services. For example, in New South Wales, in the period to which I was referring, there was a 19.5 per cent reduction in urban passenger numbers, but an increase of 2 1 per cent in urban train kilometres travelled. Less passengers in more trains, travelling further, cannot mean increased efficiency.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! As it is now two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion ( by Mr Nixon ) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 12.43 p.m.

Mr HOWE:

– I briefly conclude my remarks by saving that I believe that the Opposition, in calling for a select committee, is calling for an absolute minimum from this Government. Its transport policies do not reflect the emphasis and the lip service which it gives to conservation of energy and the critical importance of energy for the future of Australian industry and economic development. A select committee’s findings could set the basis for the establishment, for example, of a co-ordinating authority such an inter-state commission to properly co-ordinate interstate transport policies and develop a national approach to transport. It is interesting that even one of the major companies, to which I referred earlier as being to some extent the beneficiary of the lack of Government policy, has suggested that at a decision making level there is an apparent lack of understanding of the total transport situation, with the result that there is no national plan and no policy or program to bring about necessary change.

The need for the development of a national transport policy, of course, has been recognised in other countries, notably Britain, which has commissioned Green Papers and White Papers and developed a national transport plan. The Government’s present approach to oil pricing has, since its inception, accomplished two significant feats. It has allowed oil companies to accrue massive profits and it has filled the Government’s coffers, avoiding progressively worse deficits. On this latter point, the United States Government is developing a policy which will earmark $13 billion for public transport out of the $142 billion it expects to raise over the next 10 years with its proposed windfall profits tax. The Australian Government should do something comparable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– Apart from anything else the proposed terms of reference for this select committee to examine are extraordinarily broad and we should not expect a small group of members of Parliament to find time to look into them effectively. I quote the second point of the proposed terms of reference. It is:

Examine the impact of transport costs on the development of Australia’s industries.

Presumably the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) is suggesting- as this motion has been on the Notice Paper for nearly two years I imagine he is suggesting it in all seriousness- that an examination of the interrelationship of transport costs on all of Australia’s industries be undertaken. I suggest that given the thousands of factories and industries the committee could not even begin to scratch the surface of this problem. I pity any honourable member of Parliament who proposes to sit on this committee. Quite simply, the point is that a number of expert groups within the Stare and Commonwealth Governments are co-operating to constantly study precisely what the honourable member for Shortland suggests a group of Parliamentarians should be doing. This specialist work is carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics, the Australian Transport Advisory Council, the Transport Industries Advisory Council, the Marine and Ports Council of Australia, the Aviation Industry Advisory Council, the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council, the Australian Shippers’ Council, the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation, the Australian Road Research Board, and the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities. The Department itself carries out particular studies, as do the transport departments of other States. There is co-operation and a flow of information between the Commonwealth and the States, all aimed at further enhancing transport efficiency in Australia.

Given this complex federal system, with State control of transport regulations and systems, attainment can be achieved only by cooperation, not by dictation through Federal parliamentary study. I know that the Opposition, with its typically centralist approach, ignores the sovereign rights and responsibilities of the States and the lack of jurisdiction by the Commonwealth. Again the Opposition would like to ride all over the top of the States. The fact is that the Opposition ignores the role that the States have in this matter. The Bureau of Transport Economics has carried out a number of studies directed towards looking at the impact of transport costs in relation to demands on services. A few specific examples include several studies in relation to urban public transport, rail upgrading and intersystem rating studies, evaluation of roads investment needs, a Study of rail freight wagon utilisation, and a study into the long distance road haulage industry. With specific reference to overseas trade, there have been several Bureau of Transport Economics studies such as the transport and handling of Australia’s wool production, the transport of the wheat harvest, the demand for international air services, and cargo centralisation. I name these only to stress the point that a select committee, as suggested by the Opposition, would be going over the work that has already been done quite adequately. It also shows that the Government is doing something positive about transport and transport costs.

Someone has to pay for the provision, the operation and the maintenance of the infrastructure and the equipment necessary in transport. It is an extremely expensive business and the Government is fully conscious of the importance of transport costs in the overall economic picture. Where it has been possible, the Government has taken steps to ensure that goods and people are moved in the most effective way, providing that this is also the way that most benefits the economy and the community. The Opposition, through this motion, seems to be implying that an examination of transport costs, taken in isolation, will somehow result in a significant improvement in the areas mentioned in the motion. But it must be realised that the Government also has responsibilities ranging far wider than simply costs of transport. We have to take into account environmental aspects, social and developmental factors- such as the need to service areas on other than economic groundsfrequency and reliability of services, safety, quality and comfort.

The Government is keen to ensure that transport costs do not have unduly adverse effects on the competitive position of industry. In transport, we have implemented the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act, under which the Commonwealth will contribute $70m over five years to upgrade State railways which are a part of the national mainline system. During the current financial year an amount of $1 lm is being provided. We have supported the Kwinana-Koolyanobbing railway scheme in Western Australia by supporting the Western Australian Government’s application for $65m loan funds. We are supporting the Brisbane rail electrification program through substantial grants under the Urban Transport Assistance scheme. We are improving the efficiency of the Australian National Railways and reducing its operating deficit. We have established the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation to assist railway efficiency and development. These things are not pie-in-the-sky. They are actually happening in order to assist transport throughout Australia.

We have approved projects involving a Commonwealth contribution of.$40m in 1979-80 to the States under the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act. Only last weekend the transport

Minister for South Australia, and I, announced an improved program for upgrading the Stuart Highway between Port Augusta and the Northern Territory border. Over the next seven years $66m is to be spent to complete the sealing of the highway by 1987. That is something that the previous Minister for Transport in South Australia, Mr Virgo, said could not be done. Yet the new Liberal Government in South Australia has moved quickly, to come in with the Commonwealth and get the program under way. In 1979-80 the Government is making available an amount of $7m to the States for land transport planning and research. We have major plans under way for the development of a new international airport at Brisbane and new terminal area at Coolangatta. We have developed uniform Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory shipping laws. We are strengthening the overseas cargo shipping legislation. We are carrying out major airport needs studies at Port Phillip, Sydney, Darwin, in the Perth region, Canberra and Adelaide. One of the most vivid examples of keeping transport costs down is through the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– But you have no transport philosophy.

Mr NIXON:

– During this financial year the Commonwealth will provide $27. 2m for transport freight equalisation. The honourable member interjects and says that the Government has no transport philosophy. There speaks an academic without the slightest basic knowledge of transport problems in this country. I invite him to come down to my farm and help me shift some cattle to market. He might learn a few facts of life. These are some of the achievements that have been carried out by the Government. In addition to that, of course, is the major program of road funds undertaken by the Commonwealth. In overall programs the Government has consistently increased its annual allocations, despite economic difficulties created by the previous Government, and the fundamental needs to restrain public expenditure. It is interesting to note that during 1974-75, which is the last year of the Labor Government, the amount provided for roads was a little less than $365m. This represents less than $lm a day. When the present Government came to office it was faced with a disastrous economic situation and this meant it was forced to restrict government spending to contain the forces of inflation that had been unleashed by the previous administration.

Despite the tight budgetary situation, the Government has increased the amount available for roads to over $546m. That is an increase of more than $ 181m, or almost 50 per cent, over 1974-75, when Labor was in office. The mathematically minded will find that even allowing for the extra day next February we are providing more than $ 1 .49m each day for roads.

Another area where we have achieved spectacular results is in the field of air transport. We have slashed air travel costs for consumers through our international civil aviation policy in a way that was never achieved by any previous government. The previous Government was not even game to tackle the problem. Despite steeply rising world fuel prices many individual return international air fares are still below the level of those available in December 1978. Our new international civil aviation policy has made such air fares available- fares which are benefiting hundreds of thousands of air travellers, hot only in Australia but also in many other parts of the world. Honourable members will recall that last month officials of the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia reached agreement on recommendations they would make for new cheap air fares within the region which, if approved by the governments concerned, will come into effect from 1 January next year.

With these recent developments we have now established low fare arrangements on 16 routes into and out of Australia covering more than 85 per cent of total international passenger movements. Benefits to consumers are significant with reductions typically in the order of 35 to 40 per cent and up to 50 per cent of the previous lowest individual fare. New domestic add-on fares encouraging wide travel within Australia are now available in conjunction with these international fares. Benefits are not restricted to lowest fare passengers with lower tour basing fares to North America, Pacific destinations and Asia agreed. In addition, new business class- superior seating, separate cabins- and sleeperette first classnewly designed seats- services have been introduced on several routes.

As was expected, the new arrangements have stimulated travel into and out of Australia. Some examples of generation of traffic recorded to date, compared with levels experienced in 1978, are: Increases of 48 per cent on the United Kingdom route, 83 per cent on the German route and 50 per cent on the United States of America route. Indications are that visitors to Australia comprise a large proportion of the new growth. Preliminary sample figures of overseas arrivals during 1 979 compared to similar periods in 1 978 show considerable growth in short term visitor arrivals. For example in May arrivals were up 33 per cent, in June up 6 1 per cent, in July up 50 per cent, and in August up 26 per cent. This demonstrates the positive impact that the new arrangements are having on tourism to Australia.

Our international civil aviation policy review was very much a study- indeed the first of its kind in recent years- related to the impact of costs and the efficient movement of people. The review of our domestic air transport policyagain, the first undertaken for many years- was similar. Through it, we have already introduced a number of discount fares. A number of significant changes were recommended with the object of fostering increased competition in Australian domestic aviation.

I hope to make a statement to the Parliament on this matter next week before we get up. Already we have achieved significant benefits for air travellers within Australia by way of lower air fares, with standby fares at 30 per cent discount, Advance Purchase Excursion fares at 25 per cent discount and Super APEX fares at 40 per cent discount. I have mentioned international addons and ‘See Australia ‘ fares.

I must say that I find the last part of this motion rather surprising; namely, that which proposes that a select committee should examine the impact of transport costs on Australia’s ability to compete in overseas markets. I think that everyone knows where the main problem lies in this regard- with excessive wage demands by the unions and rising prices adversely affecting our competitiveness. Rising prices are caused fairly and squarely by wage demands. Let us look at what a Labor government would do. This is straight from the Adelaide Labor conference. It would endorse a free for all for the unions, and that would mean unchecked wage demands. It would endorse political strikes and put unions above the law.

Mr Young:

– Who said that?

Mr NIXON:

– You said it, amongst others, at Adelaide. Labor would favour the rights of unionists above non-unionists. It would induce unions to operate outside our system of conciliation and arbitration. It would allow unionists to strike in the course of their activities, immune from pain or penalty. Labor would completely destroy Australia’s competitiveness. When it comes to the records of this Government and the Opposition and what ought to be done and what can be done in government, I rest on the Government ‘s record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

page 3079

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Fraser Government’s failure to devise and implement adequate industry development policies.

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-

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Since coming to power four years ago the Fraser Government has presided over growing unemployment and falling job opportunities and now it is presiding over increasing inflation. Far too little has been done to revitalise Australian industry. Such revitalisation is essential. The days of the services sector being responsible for new jobs to offset the decline in the rural and manufacturing sectors are over. To state just one reason for this, microprocessing has ensured that those days are over. The manufacturing sector of the Australian economy must also contain some of the new jobs which are required if we are to return to anywhere near the unemployment levels that this country should have. It is not just the national Labor Opposition saying that this revitalisation is necessary, that the Government has done too little in this area. Sir John Crawford said this earlier this week to the annual general meeting of the Australian Industries Development Association. The President of the AIDA, Mr A. W. Hamer- a well known Liberal namesaid much the same thing in his annual report which was made public on the same day, last Monday, in Sydney. The week before Mr Gordon Jackson, the General Manager of the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd, said that too little had been done to bring about the changes to industry which are vital for our future economic health. He said:

There still appears to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to grasp painful nettles and to firmly point manufacturing in the right direction.

The week before that the views of an institute of engineers task force were published. A Victorian Chamber of Manufactures analysis asserted much the same beliefs as those that I have quoted from Sir John Crawford and Mr Gordon Jackson. The Institution of Engineers task force called upon the Government to exercise new initiatives to maintain and strengthen the manufacturing sector. The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures- a friend of the Minister for Industry and. Commerce (Mr Lynch), who is at the table- when commenting on industry policy in the 1979-80 Budget, stated:

Post Crawford, the Commonwealth Government still does not have a comprehensive and clearly articulated industry policy strategy. By indicating agreement with areas of the (Crawford) Report but deferring decisions on a range of critical issues, the Government has preserved uncertainties about long term policy and will face increasing difficulties in making discussions on particular industries.

For such views as these which are critical of the Government because of its lack of adequate policies and actions, I could have called for support from the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association annual report, on the published views of trade union leaders and the annual reports from the chairmen of industrial companies to the shareholders of those companies. I could have called on a host of other sources, but the ones I have called on are good enough to show that there is evidence for me to assert that this is not a partisan political point of view which I am putting to this Parliament, and through it to the people; it is established fact from independent sources. What I have to say is said, as I am sure the Minister will understand, in sorrow as well as in anger. I believe that it is absolutely vital that to the greatest extent possible we have bipartisan policies in this country. Those who take investment risks in their job creation and national wealth creation projects should be given as much certainty about the future as is possible by politicians such as us in this Parliament. I will continue to strive for as much bipartisan approach as is possible. In the light of all that independent evidence of a lack of policy, a lack of action on the part of this Government in this essential area of revitalising industry, how could the Opposition remain silent?

Labor has an industry strategy. It is based on positive incentives for change. We need change- a lot of change- in industry, but to a large extent this change is not from one industry sector to another. It is change, or we could call it revitalisation, within each industry sectors- the sort of change which has been taking place in the whitegoods industry for instance. We must encourage those sectors which require the least tariff support. Only by doing those things that we do well will we get the necessary vital growth. We shall not achieve a higher standard of living if all our resources are tied up in the more highly protected areas. That having been said, let me make it clear, as the Crawford study group made it clear, that there are some sensitive, highly labour-intensive sectors of industry which require special policies. ‘Industry specific policies’ was the jargon, if I may call it that, that was used in the Crawford report. Let me name some of these sensitive sectors. The Government has not named any of them, let alone bring down industry specific policies for them as recommended by Crawford. If the Government cannot be positive and lay down policies and institute action which is required for this revitalisation, it is left to the Opposition to take the initiative. I name the automotive industry, the textiles and clothing industry and the footwear industry. These are three of such industries, but they by no means constitute an exhaustive list.

These sectors are sensitive because of their great importance to regional employment and because of their vital importance in the training facilities that they give in providing skills that industry generally needs. We believe that these sensitive sectors require far better government machinery to assist them than we have at present. That is why we have announced our policy for the establishment of a textiles and clothing authority. I have recommended the setting up of a footwear and allied leather industry authority and an automotive industry authority. This is all under the umbrella of the IAC type of institution, which must continue. This would bring together within this authority the work now being carried out in a fragmented way by the Industries Assistance Commission, the quota review committee and the productivity groups within the Department of Productivity. These sensitive, highly labour-intensive sectors of industry require far better attention than the inadequate, fragmented government machinery which now exists in industry can give them.

These authorities will not only monitor their respective sectors continuously. They will not only make recommendations to government for policy decision- making by government. They will not only have a more gentle, not abrupt, influence on the change which is necessary in order to bring us to greater competitiveness. They will not only help us to integrate our economies within those sectors with the economies of our trading partners- I refer in particular to our Asian neighbours. These authorities will also be on hand as the machinery to follow through in partnership with the private sector the decisionmaking that has already been arrived at by government. I repeat that it is far more satisfactory to have this sort of machinery for these sensitive areas than to have the present ad hoc approach which is a feature of the government policy at present, with a reference being sent to the IAC, with one set of commissioners working on that reference, with the stock quota committee undertaking valuable work for the continuation and the survival of that industry and with productivity groups working somewhere else. All of this needs to be brought together, and that is what our authorities under the umbrella of the IAC, will do.

Having said something about those sensitive sectors, let me now return to the general thrust of the Labor Opposition’s industry development policies, namely, bringing about change to concentrate on what we do well. Of course, we must build jobs on our mineral resources. It is not good enough to be a quarry for the rest of the world. We must upvalue our minerals. We must also build jobs on our marginally lower energy costs. New South Wales is doubling its power generation over the next five years. Let me put that in another way in order to make more impact on some members of the Parliament. I notice that Tasmania’s Andrew Jones, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), is in the chamber seeking to interrupt me by interjection, but I will not allow him to do so. We need to put things in simple terms for him. In five years time in New South Wales there will be twice the power capacity which exists right now. To a large extent that is the result of the public enterprise of the New South Wales Labor Government. We want more of that. We want more jobs to be built on that lower cost power. Those jobs, if there are to be sufficient of them, will be in manufacturing or in the secondary sector. For example, they will be in exporting our energy in the form of alumina instead of bauxite and in the form of aluminium instead of alumina. There are many other examples of this type of new enterprise, but there is not enough government energy, not enough government enterprise right now to ensure that there is more of this new investment taking place, more new jobs being created on advantages which we have. I repeat that we want more policy and more action, to hasten the trends in that direction. To an extent that requires government initiative. In many cases it requires government twisting of the arm. We are not getting it from this Government at present.

We also want many new jobs to be built on our skills. Our people have a relatively high standard of education. Certainly, it is higher than the general level of education of most of our neighbours. I believe that we should be building more jobs on those skills. Earlier in the day I was able to support the Minister for Productivity (Mr

Macphee) in his initiative concerning InterScan. But just as one swallow does not make a summer, one project such as InterScan is not enough. We want many more Interscans. We want much more in the way of active government policies in the research and development area. We want new jobs to be built on Australian research and development and on Australian initiative. Such an approach needs a revitalisation of policy. Last Monday Sir John Crawford acknowledged that his report had received careful consideration by government. However he said:

But it is unfinished business.

He went on to exhort his audience of industrialists with these words:

There is great danger if apathy on the part of government -

Let me stress that word ‘apathy ‘; he used it and I support him- to essential elements -

That is, elements of his report- is tolerated by undue passiveness on the part of industry.

In other words, he was seeking to persuade his audience at this Australian Industries Development Association annual meeting- probably Liberals to a man with an odd national Country Party member thrown in- to put a pitchfork into the backside of this Government. His message was: ‘They need to do a better job’. This is the Labor Opposition’s view too. This is why we have raised this very important subject of better industry development policies in this Parliament today. Too much emphasis has been put on resource development. Complacency has been seen to be the answer. Of course, resource development is essential. One of the points I have made in this debate so far is that many of the new manufacturing industry jobs have to be based on resource development, but from the announcements that we have had from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and from the sorts of things that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has said, we can only come to the conclusion that there is extraordinary complacency on the part of government at present and that it believes that the necessary number of jobs will be created by Australians continuing to be merely the quarry for the rest of the world. The Labor Opposition does not believe that that position is satisfactory. It believes that Australia needs better research and development policies, better export market development policies and better policies for training and retraining the workforce to build the skills of this nation. It is the job of the national government to be able to institute those policies. This Government is not carrying out that job satisfactorily.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3082

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to add to an answer which I gave this morning at Question Time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Minister may proceed.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I wish to add to the answer I gave the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) at Question Time this morning. So as to avoid any possible misunderstanding about the matter raised, the House should be aware that moneys are appropriated by the Parliament for national security. In accordance with longstanding practice I propose not to add anything further.

page 3082

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Debate resumed.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– Let me begin by saying that the Opposition has no credibility whatever on the subject of industry development policy. The recent Labor Government- the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) was the key figure in that Government- initiated and presided over a thorough-going demoralisation of Australian manufacturing. When that Party took office industry was prosperous, confident and growing. After three short years it left a legacy of surging unemployment, shrinking exports and a significant movement of industry off-shore. The specific steps which caused this fundamental turnaround make a sorry record. Without any form of warning or consultation the Labor Government instituted overnight a 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut. The investment allowance was withdrawn and export incentives discontinued. Inflationary wage rises were supported in every forum. Average weekly earnings increased by 28 per cent in 1 974 alone. Our Australian industry lost its competitiveness with overseas rivals. Instead of exporting goods, we exported jobs. Factories were idle and employees laid off

Between June 1974 and June 1975 manufacturing employment fell by 124,000. The Labor

Government pursued such irresponsible economic policies that in 1974-75- its last financial year in office- the consumer price index increased by 16.7 per cent. The Australian people could reasonably expect that the Opposition would have learnt something from this disaster, but obviously it has not. It still publicly proclaims its intention to persecute multinational companies. It still calls for a range of disincentives to productive investment, including a resources rental tax, a capital gains tax, elimination of the investment allowance, restructuring of company taxes to discourage productivity improvement, wealth taxes and steeper income taxes which would cripple the small businessman.

It still calls for yet greater political bureaucratic control of industry- twisting the arm of the private sector, a phrase which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) used in the House late this morning. To cap it all off the Labor Party publicly proclaims an intention of repudiating any valid international contracts for the export of uranium entered into by prior governments. Beyond this it wants to give trade unions a free range to wreak industrial havoc in the pursuit of sectional interests. It calls for wages to be indexed by the full value of the CPI increases, plus productivity increases, plus anything else unions can win by unrestricted use of industrial muscle.

We have already seen the effects on inflation of Labor’s big spending policies. The new proposals are even more radical than those it implemented when in office. It is obvious that the Labor Party simply fails to recognise that sustained industrial growth can occur only in an atmosphere of confidence- confidence that the Commonwealth Government will act responsibly to maintain an appropriate and stable economic environment. In the last four years this Government has made a great deal of progress towards undoing the damage perpetrated by the Australian Labor Party while in office. A key feature of our policy has been the underlying theme of achieving a return to economic stability. Stability is an essential precursor to the restoration of investor confidence and the levels of investment which Australia needs if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities before us in the 1980s.

A high priority objective has been bringing inflation down to a level comparable with that of our trading partners. In 1975 Australia had an inflation rate of 15.3 per cent compared with an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 10.6 per cent. By 1978 our inflation rate was down to 7.9 per cent and the OECD average was 8.5 per cent. In the six months to August the OECD average of inflation accelerated to 12.7 per cent while we were able to hold the Australian rate for nine months to December to 9.2 per cent.

The international competitiveness of Australian industry has been very significantly enhanced. The Syntec index level has risen by 22 per cent since our return to office and is now at the highest level it has ever reached since it was established in 1971. As a result, manufactured exports are on the rise. In 1978-79 the value of Australian exports of manufactures was 30 per cent above that of the previous year and set an all-time record in volume terms.

A record of responsible economic management has also restored our national reputation as an investment location. A survey of investment intentions conducted by my Department in October revealed that mining and manufacturing projects to the value of $16.3 billion are either committed or in the stage of final feasibility study. As I mentioned in my Press statement which accompanied the release of the survey, there is a possibility that this figure could include some duplication of mutually exclusive projects, but the very rapid upward trend of successive survey results over the last year or two provides a clear indication that projects are now proceeding at a rate unprecedented in our history.

Mr Hurford:

– A quarrying promise.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable member says quarrying’. If he looks at the survey he will find a very significant investment by Australian manufacturing industry. He ought to be the first to recognise and applaud that result. This Government’s success in bringing about a renaissance of investment and confidence reflects the orderly approach, which we have taken to policy development in the industry area. As a government we accept the responsibility for providing industry with an appropriate environment and suitable policy guidelines, including industry specific policies where these are needed. This Government has made it quite clear that it believes that, as a longer term objective, the community will best be served by a manufacturing sector with a structure requiring minimum levels of government support. Under this policy approach the Government is committed to the encouragement of activities which will be more specialised, more efficient and more competitive, innovative, and more orientated to the export markets. The Government acknowledges that movement towards this objective will involve the achievement of a less complicated tariff structure based on gradual progress towards lower and more stable tariff levels.

However, we have stressed that in the taking of specific decisions on protection policy careful attention must be given to the community’s capacity to absorb change and to accommodate the economic and social consequences of change. Accordingly we have pursued a policy of gradualism in respect of tariff reductions and, where appropriate, have provided for reductions to be phased in so that industry has advance warning of those changes and time to adapt to operating in an environment of lower levels of protection.

Having said that let me emphasise that significant progress has been made over the last decade in reducing the level of tariffs on manufactured imports. Average nominal rates of assistance have declined from 24 per cent in 1968-69 to 15 per cent in 1977-78. The average effective rate of assistance has fallen from 36 per cent in 1968-69 to 26 per cent in 1977-78. The Government welcomes this progress but believes that further gains can be made over time with a view to achieving improved overall utilisation of productive resources and consequential benefits to community living standards.

I make specific reference today to one very significant industry which was virtually ignored by the honourable member for Adelaide and that is the automotive industry. The honourable member for Adelaide has proposed that an automotive industry authority be established to monitor the industry and to advise the Govern-‘ ment. The creation of yet another government authority would superimpose the dead hand of bureaucracy and is hardly the way to revitalise Australian industry. The automotive industry does not need more regulation and increased government intervention. It needs a gradual and appropriately timed movement towards an. increased reflection of world trends and international economies of scale. We are providing the means to achieve this objective through export complementation. After the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry we will determine the longer term policy in 1980 well before the present policy expires in 1 984.

There is little value in an industry which is doomed to outmoded higher priced products of shrinking customer appeal. I take issue with the honourable member for Adelaide’s continuing and recurrent proposal for government dictated use of a common four-cylinder engine in all local vehicles. I am surprised that he continues to advance this idea in view of the announced decision of General Motors-Holden’s Ltd to construct a $2 10m plant to produce engines for export. I am sure that all honourable gentlemen will recognise that there is great value in an internationally competitive facility of this type with a predominantly export orientation in preference to a smaller scale facility making engines strictly for local use and existing only by virtue of a government dictated program. Insistence on the use of the engine by manufacturers who do not want it in their own products which are not designed for it would be very unhelpful for the Australian automotive industry and for this country.

The impracticability of the Opposition’s industry proposals is not confined to the automotive area. In the sensitive and critical area of protection policy the views expressed by various Opposition spokesmen are so diverse as to create in this chamber and outside a totally incoherent picture. It is not surprising that the honourable member for Adelaide today completely ignored the issue of protection in proposing the matter of public importance. For example, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) does not appear to accept the central theme of the honourable member for Adelaide’s speech, that is the need for change. I gather that if the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is to be regarded as authoritative, industry can cancel all plans to adjust to emerging realities and expect to be supported indefinitely regardless of efficiency or cost. Whom do we believe? Do we believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition spokesman on industry, or the shadow Treasurer? Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on what is a very significant question before the country. We have heard the expression ‘a mail for all seasons’. Obviously, the Opposition interprets this expression a little differently and supplies a different man according to the particular season. No doubt it dispatches the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith whenever the opportunity arises to address the more protectionist industries. I am not sure at this stage where it would send the honourable member for Adelaide to make whatever address he might have in mind. It would certainly not be to our efficient and export orientated industries which would dismiss his interventionist nostrums completely out of hand.

This Government believes that an opportunist and incoherent approach to industry policy simply is not good enough. We have adopted a clear and suitable pattern towards a more competitive outward looking manufacturing sector. In support of these objectives we have provided a diverse range of incentives for industry to make the necessary adaptation to the process of change. The current Budget provides a total of $585m in assistance to manufacturing industry compared with only $181m in the 1975 Hayden Budget. This represents an increase of some 230 per cent in real terms. The paucity of assistance to manufacturing provided by the last Labor Government is paralleled by the complete lack of credible and constructive incentives in what we have heard today from the honourable member for Adelaide. Over the past four years we have produced a succession of efficient industry policies which have been instrumental in achieving significant progress in needed directions. Today, the honourable member for Adelaide has done nothing but propose a huge web of authorities, bureaus and other bureaucratic interventions into the manufacturing sector. In short, we have heard nothing constructive and a monumental evasion of the real issues. The Opposition has raised in the Parliament a very important subject but as yet it has failed to deliver anything of substance. The lack of concrete and constructive comment is paralleled only by its lack of credible policies in this area. The Government firmly rejects the matter of public importance before the House.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

– I claim to have been grievously misrepresented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr HURFORD:

-The Minister for Industry and Commerce in the course of his remarks suggested that I had said earlier today, or on some previous occasion, that I believed that we could return to the excellent Labor Government program of rationalisation of parts. He cited, in particular, the four-cylinder Astron engine. At no time have I suggested, in view of government policy in encouraging the General MotorsHolden’s Ltd complementation scheme, that we could return to the four-cylinder engine plant at Chrysler Australia Ltd as being the manufacturer of the common engine for all the motor manufacturing companies. I would like this to have happened. I am appalled at what has happened during -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not entitled to debate the issue. He may explain where he has been misrepresented.

Mr HURFORD:

– I want to show where I have been misrepresented and indicate at the same time that what I have called for in an automotive industry authority would seek complementation of the rationalisation of parts manufacturers in this country which policy has been abruptly halted by the present Government.

Mr LYNCH (Flinders-Minister for Industry and Commerce)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

MrDEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr LYNCH:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) in a Press release of 13 November 1979- this is the point to which I was referring- said:

Regrettably, three and a half years ago, the incoming Fraser Government dumpedLabor’s plan to achieve the agreement of the industry for Chrysler’s four-cylinder engine to be the one used extensively by other motor manufacturers.

The claim that the Fraser Government dumped Labor’s plans for industry-wide use of Chrysler’s four-cylinder engine is totally incorrect and misleading. When we came to power inlate 1975 the negotiations regarding the proposed Chryslerbased engine consortium were at a virtual standstill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The minister is starting to debate the matter. He has established in what matter he was misrepresented in a literal sense. The discussion is concluded.

page 3085

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 7 October, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Opposition is not opposing either of these Bills. However, we have reservations about each of them which we will be incorporating in second reading amendments which I propose to move at a later stage. Let me first of all deal with Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 and state early in my speech that I will have some difficulty rivetting the attention of those people sitting on their tractors in the countryside and those ladies in their kitchens who may be listening to the broadcast of the national parliament because discussion on customs tariff legislation is not heady stuff.

This Bill seeks to amend the Customs Tariff Act to exempt two more areas of imports from the application of the iniquitous 2 per cent revenue duty which was imposed by the Fraser Government from 1 July last on most duty free imports. Of course we have to support the fact that some areas are now being exempted from this iniquitous duty. The ones now chosen to be exempted include ships temporarily imported into Australia and goods used in the exploration for petroleum or the development of petroleum wells.

This legislation opens up a debate on the 2 per cent duty, and it is against that duty in general that the Opposition is waging a war at this time. The 2 per cent’ duty was introduced in a statement made on 24 May last, which was then dubbed the mini-Budget. It was merely a revenue raising measure. Indeed, it is incredible that not sufficient revenue was raised through the petrol taxes which the Fraser Government imposed on the Australian people. It had to go further and impose a duty of this sort. Initial exemptions included goods covered by rates bound by international trade agreements; crude and enriched petroleum oil; motor vehicle components; noncommercial goods such as outside packaging and re-imports; and government purchases. Later the first change was made when magazines and newspapers were added to the list of exemptions when the Government discovered that it had overlooked the Florence Agreement on the free flow of educational, scientific and cultural material. We in the Opposition argued, initially when the measure was first brought into this Parliament and indeed when the first of the changes was made subsequent to our being able to show that the Government was acting in contravention to the Florence Agreement, that this measure was living proof of the foolishness, deception and hypocrisy associated with the mini-Budget. The decision not to abolish the duty means these arguments are still valid today.

Let me substantiate the charges that I have made. The measure is foolish, I assert, because it is both inflationary and makes many Australian products less competitive with imports and less viable in export markets. It adds to costs. The impact of the 2 per cent is being predominantly felt in the basic cost structure of our secondary industries. Only a few minutes ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) suggested that his Government had taken measures which have made Australian industries more competitive internationally. I suggest that what has happened to Australian industry in earlier years, and subsequently, has been mainly due to international forces, and has not had anything to do with the policies promulgated by this Government. One policy which has been instituted by this Government is the imposition of this 2 per cent duty, which has added to costs and helped to make our industries less competitive. Not only will this tax impost feed through to increased prices and higher inflation but the effective protection available to the final products of many of our manufacturing industries will be reduced as a consequence of the higher duty on inputs either fully imported or using imported components. I repeat that so much of what is the subject of the imposition of this duty is adding in to the costs of Australian products and making them less competitive with fully imported items and less competitive on export markets.

The second charge I made was that the measure is deceptive. I believe this is so because it represents an inequitable form of indirect tax. It could almost be described as a form of turnover tax. This measure indicates a resurgence of attitude in Government thinking favouring the use of tariffs for revenue raising purposes. In addition to the present measure, last year a 12 te per cent ad valorem duty was imposed on goods subject to quotas for similar revenue raising reasons.

The third charge I made was that the measure is hypocritical. I believe this is so because it is in conflict with the Government’s posturing in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. It is all very well for suggestions to be made that there are differences of opinion on this side of the Parliament in relation to these matters. I reject those suggestions. What we can say is that when it comes to tariffs and posturing in the tariff policy area there are several schools of thought on the Government side. The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) leads one school; the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) leads another school; and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) leads a third school. That is where we find differences of opinion in this area- on the Government side.

The continued imposition of the 2 per cent duty is in blatant disregard of article 37 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which involves a commitment to refrain from increasing customs duties. The imposition of this duty cannot be justified by article 19 of that Agreement because it cannot be excused on the ground that increased import competition was threatening to cause serious injury to domestic producers. As I have suggested, this measure is merely a revenue raising measure.

In spite of these considerations the Government has decided to retain the 2 per cent duty. This decision follows a review of the operations and application of the duty following a large number of complaints about the measure and various calls for exemption from it. For example, the Confederation of Australian Industry, when it made submissions to the Government prior to the last Budget, urged the Government to abolish the duty. The directors of the Chemical Importers and Exporters Council of Australia also protested strongly about the duty, particularly as it affected raw materials imported into the country for reprocessing or for inclusion as a constituent in the products marketed for home consumption. They are only two examples. I could have mentioned many other examples of protests against the imposition of this duty.

Apparently this storm of protest has forced the Cabinet to agree to an interdepartmental review of the duty, which commenced late in July, shortly after the measure commenced operation. The interdepartmental committee was to look at whether the arrangements should be continued in their present form without alteration and whether the duty should be abolished or certain exemption categories should be introduced. Because we do not have a Freedom of Information Act we have to rely on leaks to the Press. Press reports of the results of this review have indicated that it was recognised that a number of anomalies existed in respect of the application of the duty. It is also understood, however, that the interdepartmental committee report did not make any recommendations as to whether the duty should be abolished or whether certain exemptions should be introduced. All departments represented on the IDC are understood to have stated in the report that the question of whether such action should be taken was a political one which Cabinet itself should decide upon and, as such, they could not advise Cabinet what it should do. I assert that this was a thinly disguised admission by the members of that interdepartmental committee that normal economic policy criteria did not apply to this measure but if they did apply the committee would recommend that the measure be abolished; that it be terminated; that we should no longer have this 2 per cent duty.

We also understand that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) tried to get Cabinet to abolish the 2 per cent duty just prior to the Budget. The Minister for Finance is sitting at the table. I do not know whether he will respond in this important debate. If he does, I would like him to confirm or deny what I have said about the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who I understand is today in Darwin on Government business. He paid me the courtesy of letting me know about his absence from the House. Perhaps the Minister for Finance could tell us whether the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs tried to get the Cabinet to abolish the 2 per cent duty, just prior to the Budget and after the interdepartmental committee had reported, his reasons being the problems involved in administering the measure. If that was his reason and his attitude, I support him. It is believed that Cabinet rejected the Minister’s proposal- the Minister for Finance could tell us for certain about that- and that it rejected his entreaty on the grounds that politically the Government could not abolish it after it had been in operation for little more than a month. I find that excuse for not taking the correct course unsatisfactory.

There have been many other occasions when the Fraser Government has had no compunction about doing a U-turn and changing its direction overnight. I use as an example of that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) eating humble pie in this Parliament at about this time yesterday afternoon, when he had to admit that he had been rolled in Cabinet, rolled in his party room. No longer can he pursue all those good measures to close taxation loopholes, which are so wide that trucks were and are being driven through them, particularly in relation to trusts. Some $55m worth of Government revenue that was to have come from those who are better off in this community, from the haves of this world, is no longer to be collected because the Treasurer does not have the numbers in Cabinet and in the party room. So the U-turns are there, and we had an example yesterday. It is a pity that the U-turn was not able to be put into effect in relation to this measure and the abolition of the 2 per cent duty. The Government, so one hears from Press reports, did not wish once again to be charged with ad hockery and having on-again off-again policies. The Government already has that reputation, and one more example would not have made any difference.

By not reversing this foolish measure, the Government is open to much more serious charges, which I have repeated. All that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs was able to say in his second reading speech on this Bill to those many businesses adversely affected by the continuation of this measure was that, whilst the Government appreciated that the 2 per cent revenue duty was affecting goods and areas of industry other than those to be exempted, it could not see its way clear to extend exemptions beyond the areas indicated. That gives little comfort to those who have had this impost placed upon them, those who are now bound to pay the duty and are the victims of this revenueraising measure. I repeat: As if it is not good enough for the Government to collect millions of dollars of extra tax from the people of this country through the petrol taxes that have been imposed on them, it now adds insult to injury by adding to the costs of manufacturing inputs by applying a 2 per cent duty.

One also wonders just how the two exemptions the subject of this Bill were decided on. For those who were not here at the beginning of this debate, I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill because at least it brings about two exemptions to the impost. But how were they arrived at? If Press reports are correct and the IDC did not recommend specific goods deserving such exemption, how on earth did we come to these two exemptions? One wonders what influence companies associated with the two categories of goods had with the Government, and why this influence was greater than the influence of companies associated with other goods which failed to get exemption? What pork barrelling is going on? I wonder whether the Parliament will receive a proper report on this matter. The Government’s decision fails to conceal the foolishness, the deception, and even the hypocrisy associated with the retention of this 2 per cent duty. It is for that reason that later I will move an amendment to this measure.

As this is a cognate debate, I wish to refer to the other Bill before the House, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. 1 am afraid that those who are listening on their tractors or in their kitchens will not find this any more riveting. The purpose of this Bill is also to enact tariff changes- changes which have been made by Customs Tariffproposals Nos. 16 to 30, 1979, which have been introduced into this House at different times since April of this year. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill either. The changes largely conform with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. Where Government decisions are at variance ‘with the advice of the Commission or Authority, the changes either are being phased in more gradually than recommended or involve less severe changes than those recommended. As an advocate of change being non-abrupt- I do not know what the opposite to abrupt is- or as smooth as possible, I could not but support, where there are differences with the Authority and the Commission, those that have been chosen by Government.

Let me outline a little more of this Bill as it is / some time since it was introduced into the House of Representatives. Of the 1 7 commodity groups affected by these proposals, one change was the result of trade negotiations with New Zealand; eight of the changes represent the complete acceptance of the IAC’s advice; live changes involve a larger degree of acceptance of the IAC’s recommendations; one continues present assistance levels while the Government considers a report from the IAC; and only two involve substantial rejection of IAC advice. I chose to do most of my research on the two matters which involve a certain amount of rejection of IAC advice. These two proposals relate to imports of orange juice, and bags and sacks. For example, on 29 March 1979, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the then Minister for Primary Industry announced that the Government did not accept the Commission’s view of substantially lowering assistance to the citrus industry. In explanation, all that the Minister said was this: the Government had taken its decisions after very careful and protracted consideration of all the factors concerned, both domestic and international, bearing in mind the importance of maintaining a viable Australian citrus industry. The Government had taken into account and given full consideration to the many representations it had received.

I do not wish to examine the precise changes or individual proposals in any more detail than this. What I wish to do is again to make my plea about the way in which the Government treats the Parliament on these matters and to show how the House is forced to consider tariff changes without proper parliamentary debate. The Parliament increasingly is being side-stepped or kept in the dark, making us all members of that mushroom club, concerning variations in the level of assistance to industry. It has occurred to me that the Minister for Finance, who is at the table, was a member of a more famous mushroom club.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Not so! That was before I got here.

Mr HURFORD:

– Not so? It happened before he got here. I now belong to a mushroom club because I am kept in the dark on many matters in the tariff area.

Mr Martyr:

– What are you fed on- orange juice?

Mr HURFORD:

– I am fed on some of that fertiliser which could well be the subject of one of the tariff changes in the proposals that are before us. The procedures adopted by the Government in announcing and explaining decisions on advice from the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority are inadequate. I have raised these matters in the House before, and I have hoped for some positive action from Ministers and from the Government generally. However, I have not received any positive response and, therefore, I will move, with the support of the Labor Party in Opposition, an amendment to the second reading. The amendment- and I direct this remark especially to the Government, back bench members who pay considerable lip service to the need to defend and extend the watchdog activities of the Parliament- would set up the necessary standing committee for us to look more closely at the excise and tariff matters than we do at present with the machinery and methods of debate which we employ in this chamber.

I have placed on record several times the antiquated procedures which effectively prevent debate and consideration of individual tariff changes. In brief, when individual proposals are introduced, the Minister makes the shortest possible speech. Debate is then adjourned. The Opposition does not get a chance to talk at that stage and, indeed, it could not do so because it does not get any prior notice of what is going to come before the House. After the debate is adjourned, the item on the Notice Paper never conies up for debate again. At the end of each session, such as now, a tariff amendment Bill is introduced which formally amends the tariff schedules, with the Minister’s second reading speech referring to the fact that the Bill is merely the formal enactment of changes which have been made long ago.

This procedure has been in operation for over 15 years. The consequence of this procedure, which is also followed for excise changes, is that individual tariff and excise changes are never given the same scrutiny through full debate in the House as that given to other legislative changes, such as assistance given through bounties. In effect, the Parliament is presented with a fait accompli, and is expected to accept it. Not only is debate on each change virtually stifled but also the system encourages lazy and slipshod government. I will leave to the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who will be the next speaker from the Opposition side in this debate, the job of substantiating the charge I have just made. He is one of the many able members on this side of the chamber and I am very glad that he will be seconding my amendment and giving the House an opportunity to learn why the changes should be made to the procedure.

The time is long overdue for such a change so that decisions relating to varying levels of assistance in excise are better explained and debated and not just announced. We do not deny that it is the Government’s right, indeed its prerogative, to make the final decision. What we do expect is full and candid disclosure by the Government of its decisions on the independent advice it receives, as well as some explanation of those decisions. With this in mind, I suggest that the most feasible way of achieving proper consideration is to set up a parliamentary standing committee to examine and report on each measure, as I mentioned earlier. This would have the dual effect of fostering proper scrutiny of government decisions and of compelling the Government to consider and explain its decisions more carefully.

At this stage I indicate to the House the amendment that I will be moving to the motion for the second reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. It reads:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Tariffs and Excise should be established to examine each change in tariffs and excise following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other hand ‘.

I conclude my speech by moving the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Government should be condemned for continuing to impose the 2 per cent ad valorem revenue customs duty on most goods imported duty free prior to 1 July because the duty-

is inflationary and further erodes the competitiveness of Australian industry as the commodities subject to the duty are predominantly production inputs;

2 ) is really a form of indirect taxation, and

is in conflict with the Government’s posturing in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later point in the debate.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I have listended quite a number of times to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and I have even taken the trouble of reading his speeches. I am damned if I can find out whether he is a protectionist or a free trader. I wonder whether he knows himself. The honourable member for Adelaide, in speaking to these two Bills, occasionally collided with the matters that are on the agenda today. But short of that, we did not hear anything really important from him. The only matters in the Bills to which he referred were bags and sacks and orange juice- very appropriate things in his particular case. I will not give him any advice as to what to do with the bags and sacks, but if he were to drink the orange juice it would probably help him to get himself straight on whether he is in favour of free trade or protection.

Mr Hurford:

– Which are you? Are you a free trader or a protectionist?

Mr MARTYR:

– If the honourable member listens to me with patience he will hear what I am. I know that there are other descriptions of me around this House and they are usually unprintable, so we will not go into that. We are debating cognately the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Most of my remarks will be associated with the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4), a copy of which I have in my hand and which consists of 66 pages concerning protection. Let us hope that in time to come the introduction of these and other Bills of a like character will become less and less frequent. I see that the idea of less and less protection has now become of interest to no less a body than the Australian Industries Development Association. It is quite timely that there is an editorial on the question of protection in today’s Australian Financial Review. It is not a newspaper that I often read or that I often agree with, but when I saw in it this morning something that I did agree with, I thought it would be worth while incorporating it in what I have to say. I see that the President of the Australian Industries Development Association, Mr Hamer, was reported as saying that:

There seems to be developing a general concensus that, subject to our capacity to adjust, we must move away from our traditional high levels of protection.

This is a most timely and appropriate statement. I think that it indicates the degree of concensus that is developing not only in this Parliament but also outside in the community. I believe that a great deal of this concensus is due to the work of the Industries Assistance Commission. I now will quote a paragraph from this morning’s Australian Financial Review. It reads:

The Industries Assistance Commission, however, despite its occasional naive dogmatism and an unfortunate style of argument, has remained firmly committed to the fostering of a healthy, competitive growth-oriented capitalist system in Australia. Whatever its defects, it has consistently and courageously defended the long-run interests of the system, and the welfare of the Australian community, against sectional interests and propagandists.

I would like to pay my own personal tribute to the people in the IAC. I sometimes wonder how they have mustered the intestinal- not the institutional- fortitude to continue with their battle which in many cases has been very difficult. What is basically wrong with protection? I find that every time we debate these matters the ghost of Bert Kelly, the former honourable member for Wakefield in this Parliament, is always hovering. Indeed, whatever inspiration I have in this debate and I have had in previous debates, I owe a lot of it to Bert Kelly. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote a few lines from his book. I think that in one paragraph of the book he might not have been very kind to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So if you will be tolerant, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote a paragraph- but I will not refer to you. The book is entitled One More Nail and is by the Honourable Bert Kelly, the former honourable member for Wakefield. He states:

There are many foolish people who advocate that the government should have more influence in the way industry is arranged, which industries should be encouraged to expand and which should contract To such people I give the Australian car industry as a glaring example of government intervention. One day the inevitable and painful reconstruction steps will have to be taken, and the longer they are left the more painful will they be.

There is another aspect of industry’s view of tariff protection that should be mentioned here. Whenever I attend a meeting of secondary industry leaders they spend most of the first part of the program extolling the virtues of free enterprise and how they hate government intervention. Then they fill in the rest of the time growling at the government because it isn’t giving them enough tariff protection. Yet isn’t the awarding of tariff protection a government intervention of a most definite kind? And even secondary industry leaders now admit that tariff protection is not costless and has to be paid for by other sectors. Yet some of them still polish their free enterprise halos as they sit in the government waiting room to get another helping of protection.

Mr McLean:

– Incorporate the book.

Mr MARTYR:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I would love to accept the suggestion of the honourable member for Perth to incorporate the whole of this book in Hansard, but I do not believe that you would agree to that course being followed, so I will not proceed with it. This particular argument of protection is a very old one. It goes back almost to Federation, and it is of interest to those of us who come from Western Australia. We find that we have to buy the high priced protected goods from this part of the world while it is our money and the revenue that is raised from our mines and agriculture which is keeping this country prosperous. Sometimes we think that we are hard done by and that we have a terrible load to carry. As I have mentioned before in this House, what I am talking about has been the basis of secession talk in Western Australia for many years. I believe that it has also been mentioned in Queensland. I do not know whether it is sedition to mention the word secession in this House. It is certainly a popular word in Western Australia. I now turn to a paper from 1943 from which it is worth quoting. It reads:

It is often said that ‘Protection is the “settled policy” of Australia ‘. This is an absurd contention. It is nearer the truth to assert that ‘ Protection has almost settled Australia ‘.

I think that that sums up the argument rather well. I want to mention two other documents and quote a couple of passages from them. I would say this for our friend Mr Bert Kelly: He puts his money where his mouth is. He just did not sit here for years and years extolling the virtues of free trade to all those honourable members in the House who wanted to listen, and to those outside the House as well. He was prepared to put his money where his mouth is. He put his money into the publication of this particular book and he put his money into the establishment of what some of us here hope will be a perpetual memorial lecture in honour of his father who was also a free trader.

Mr Hurford:

– Did he get $5 from you for the book?

Mr MARTYR:

– I always pay for everything that I get, not like some people here. I wish to quote from a statement made by Sir John Crawford who gave the inaugural Stan Kelly memorial lecture last year. He said:

The Tariff Board itself (I am talking of pre- War days) became afraid of what it called The Tariff Habit (perhaps today it is becoming the Quota Habit) and of sudden Government actions such as the effort to direct trade from Japan back to UK in 1 936.

The sort of difficulty about which he talks is the sort of difficulty that our Government, the government before it and every other government has had. Governments get themselves tied up completely in trying to protect industries which of themselves would not live without protection. I quote from the second Stan Kelly memorial lecture given by Mr Uhrig who is the managing director of a firm in Adelaide from which place the honourable member who interjected before comes. This sums up quite a lot in this particular argument. He stated:

For fifteen years or more we have been engaged in a national debate on the question of what should be done about our manufacturing industry and its structure. This long running discussion has been punctuated by various inquiries and reports leading up to the recent publication of the Crawford report on structural adjustment. It seems to me that now, the debate must be considered to have been exhausted. Everything that can be said has been said on subjects like tariffs and the need for industry to become export oriented. The community has become bored with the whole thing. All of this seems to be against a background of emerging consensus that we will be better off with freer trade and an outward-looking manufacturing industry if we can only find a way to do it without too much social disruption.

On that particular point I am sure that I express the consensus of my friends from Western Australia, who are around me, and of Mr Bert Kelly, when I say that not a single one of us wants to drive a bulldozer through the wall of tariff protection. We understand social disruption. All that we want is for our Government to take just a few courses of bricks off the top of the tariff wall.

Mr Hyde:

– Hear, hear!

Mr MARTYR:

– I see that my friend the honourable member for Moore is assisting me. In that way we can move to a point where there will be reasonable competition and we can get on with running the country in an economic way. Now my own basic premises on these matters are that the Australian economy will derive its strength in the future- as it has in the past- from its ability to trade with the rest of the world. In future we must rely on trade to sustain improvements in living standards. Policies which have protected sections of our manufacturing industry have had a significant bearing on Australia’s fall in living standards, relative to other industrialised countries. A new package of policies featuring direct and tax based incentives for exporters and reduced protection should replace current inward looking policies for manufacturing. The objectives should be an economy more responsive to world market signals and capable of achieving catch-up growth to bring it back into line with other developed countries. The Government must take a less interventionist role in the Australian economy, allowing it to operate more according to the free market. Suggestions made here will allow the Government to project broad goals to the business community, while avoiding the disadvantages of piecemeal intervention. The result will be a more responsive, self-reliant and resilient private enterprise sector.

B”t an important trading role could and should remain for manufacturers if the cost advantages deriving from economies of scale, which are achievable in this country, can be captured. This involves looking upon the world as the major market from which costs must be recovered, with Australia becoming a marginal cost segment of it. Preliminary processing of primary products is the most likely source of this kind of trade growth. Relatively high technology and specialised manufactured goods, provide a different opportunity relying on a smaller production base.

Now Australian manufacturing has not reached other advanced economies in a degree to which it has developed trade. A comparison of trade performance by manufacturing industries in Australia, Canada, France and West Germany suggests that the Australian manufacturing industry imports less of total domestic supply and exports less of total production than the other countries. Intra-industry trade figures, which I think provide a measure of the degree of specialisation amongst firms within industries, support the contention that domestic production is scattered across a wide range of import competing industries and has not concentrated on lifting export performance. An examination of statistics for individual industries adds further evidence. Possibly the most important fact to emerge from this is the particularly poor performance of Australian manufacturing in relation to exports. Amongst other factors this no doubt reflects high inward costs and inward looking attitudes which have already been mentioned.

Another explanation for poor productivity performance is that inputs of two factors of production- labour and capital- increased too rapidly for a small and growing economy to raise productivity measures, such as output per man, other than slowly. For example, the labour force grew quickly under the influence of immigration and increased participation rates. Also, substantial capital investment occurred in transport and communications during the 1950s and 1960s. So that whilst investment levels may not have appeared unduly low the nature of investment was important. Furthermore, in 1971-72 industrial research and development expenditure in Australia was estimated at slightly less than two per cent of the manufacturing sector’s contribution to the gross domestic product. Corresponding ratios for Britain and the United States of America appeared to be around five per cent, and for Canada and Sweden about two to three per cent.

Other reasons could be advanced such as ineffective managerial performance, opposition to change from the trade union movement, insular attitudes which resulted in insufficient consideration of the potential benefits of economy of scale arising from exports, and a lack of adaptability to change. Each reason reflects social conservatism and rigidity of thinking. The creation of protective structures around sections of the Australian economy seems both to have resulted from and to have exacerbated these tendencies. Lack of exposure to international competition, with its concomitant pressures to adapt and innovate, has had profound though not always quantifiable effects on our industrial development.

An indication of this lack of exposure was given in some tables published in the Industries Assistance Commission annual report for 1974-75. The report compared average tariffs on total and most favoured nations imports at 1970, and ranked Australia as the most protected country, apart from New Zealand, in a group of 18 industralised countries. This situation of high average tariff rates is further compounded as shown by evidence in the same IAC report. Whilst only about 3 per cent of world imports incurred duties greater than 20 per cent, in Australia 25 per cent of imports incurred tariffs greater than 20 per cent with a significant proportion incurring tariffs over 50 per cent. This is a very serious situation. The result for the economy as a whole has been a continuing reliance on mining and agricultural exports and a stagnation of the share of manufacturing exports in total. Devising a strategy to overcome this problem, I admit, is very difficult. We are fortunate that we have such tremendous physical resources in Australia. If we were like the Japanese and entirely dependent on manufacturing industry, I doubt that we would be sitting as comfortably in this Parliament as we are today.

Because we have these resources we are a significant force in world trade in a wide array of mineral and agricultural products; which we are all familiar with and which I think were mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Adelaide. Inevitably demand for these commodities will rise as developing countries raise their per capita incomes and Australia’s position will strengthen as alternative sources- especially of minerals and energy- are utilised. Supporting these resource stocks are other factors. There is a relatively well developed infrastructure. The Australian labour force is generally well educated and managerial and labour skills are available. Domestic savings, together with overseas borrowings and equity investment, should provide the capital necessary to finance development of resources and of high growth in the economy generally. In particular, foreign capital will continue to be attracted to Australia over the long term because of Australia’s political and social stability and its physical resource endowment.

It seems to me that a taxation policy which could provide a stimulus to growth by allowing a rapid depreciation of industrial investment would also help. Taxation and other incentives to export oriented industries could be a much more significant factor in the strategy than action to reduce tariffs and other protective structure. I believe it is important that the emphasis be on a teaching kind of adjustment rather than a forceful kind. At the very least it is imperative that this kind of policy be implemented alongside any action on tariffs.

The changes which could be expected to flow from this new approach can be gauged to some degree. Increased productivity could be expected and the share of gross domestic product taken up by the mining and manufacturing sectors would probably rise. Resources would tend to move away from industries which are currently highly protected into industries which could achieve higher growth and lower unit costs because of greater export volumes. A higher rate of growth would make manpower scarcer for labourintensive functions and may provide incentives to rationalise employment in the services sector. It seems to me that if we do just a few of the things that I have outlined, we will be doing away with protection gradually and in a sensible way which is least disruptive. We would then move into a new stage of prosperity for all industry in Australia.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was pleasant to sit here and to listen to the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) pontificating and quoting from the Bible according to the modest farmer and building a cogent case as to why he should come across to this side to support our amendment. I do hope that he supports his academic case with a certain amount of physical effort. It would be a short step physically but a large step towards honesty, if he moved over here to vote with us on our amendment. The honourable member should not make a martyr of himself to the cause. I thought it might be a step towards an honest assessment.

In the first part of my speech in this cognate debate on Customs Tariff Amendment Bills Nos (3) and (4) 1979 I wish to make the observation that when this Government moves, it takes great strides. The only problem is that they are strides backwards. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) set upon a certain course in May of this year when he sought to stagger the impact of his Government’s economic policies by introducing a miniBudget in which the Government imposed a 2 per cent import duty on top of the last year’s 12 Vi per cent ad valorem duty imposed on certain goods. Let us forget for a moment the cogent arguments put by the Opposition at the time of the mini-Budget that such a duty is inflationary, makes many Australian products less competitive in relation to imports and places in jeopardy their viability in the export market. Those arguments were certainly true then as they are true now. But disregard them for a moment. The fact is that the Government set upon a course in May when it introduced the levy despite our opposition. By December it got cold feet. Now it is increasing its exemption categories. We have no argument about the latest exemptions except to say that the 2 per cent duty should never have been imposed and that, given that it was imposed, those items involved should have been exempted from the very start. The point I want to make is that the Government has somersaulted yet again, just as the Treasurer did yesterday on trusts. We have a circus for a government. The Ministry is full of acrobats and jugglers. They are somersaulting here and juggling figures there. The Government even has a few resident clowns. I would not include the honourable member for Swan in that category. He really does not make me laugh; more like cry.

The Opposition calls on the Government to recognise and to admit the folly of increased import duties. We suggest to the Government in the strongest possible terms that it accept the pleas of a fairly reasonable authority, the Confederation of Australian Industry and, I understand, the Government’s own Minister for Business arid Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), and abolish the duty. By introducing exemption categories the Government’s recognition of its mistake is tacit. It ought to wipe the slate completely clean and have done with the duty altogether. That sort of complete policy somersault may not do much to remove the public image of an acrobatic circus that surrounds this Government, but at least it would be a step in the right direction, which is somewhat different from the steps that it normally takes, which are backwards.

As to the second Bill, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979, we do not oppose it either. As my colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has already stated, the procedures by which the Government alters Customs and excise tariffs do not provide the Parliament with adequate opportunity for review and scrutiny of the fine detail. Furthermore, the debate on increases in such duties post dates the actual enactment and collection of those charges. If the Parliament, Heaven forbid, should ever actually get its back up on any of these changes, to the extent that it votes them down, we would be closing the door after the horse has bolted. If the Government desires changes to Customs and excise tariffs and the House is not sitting, the intention to introduce the proposal is gazetted, and the new duties are collected from that time.

But if the House happens to be sitting the Minister delivers a speech in unaccustomed and unbecoming brevity, informing members that he intends to move an amendment to the tariff, and again, the new duties are collected from that time. It would not be so bad if it really were a case of pay now and debate later, but what happens to the debate on these changes? Standing procedures dictate that the debate on the matter be adjourned, and the item is condemned to a slow death and lingering obscurity on the Notice Paper, never to see the light of debate in the Parliament.

I can do no better in expressing the Opposition’s attitude to its approach in these matters than to quote my colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide, who, I might add, will be this country’s next Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He has given notice that in government we will avail the Parliament of the opportunity to debate properly each and every tariff and excise change as it is implemented. I wish to quote my colleague. He said:

If it is sufficiently important for the IAC to put time and effort into making individual recommendations, it is good enough for the Parliament of Australia to be involved in the scrutinising process.

They are words of wisdom, I might add. For a number of reasons, that scrutinising process, which is the function of the Parliament by right and by duty, is more important today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Chief among those reasons is that the Government has adopted the customs tariff measure as an instrument for raising revenue. This Government, of course, is obsessed with raising revenue and the people of Australia realise it. Just as the Government, through its own crude oil levy, has made every service station attendant a tax collector, so too has it transformed the Bureau of Customs into an arm of the Taxation office. Just as the Government latched on to the crude oil levy solely for the purpose of raising revenue and as a means of indirect taxation, and then constructed a weak excuse about energy conservation to prop up and justify that policy, so too is it fastening onto tariffs as a means of augmenting revenue in the form of indirect tax. It is doing so without thought for the consequences that those tariff increases hold for Australian industry or for employment. It is a thoroughly irresponsible, short term attitude which will prove ruinous to industry and the labour force.

The outcome of this revenue fixation of the Government is that the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission are accepted, rejected or amended, not on the basis of serious long term consideration of the flow-on to industries, trade and employment, but on the flimsy basis of temporary, short lived political gain and revenue raising reasons. What insight is permitted into the processes which the Government applies in its analysis of IAC recommendations? What policy guidelines does the Government follow? The Government is no more open and frank in this area than it is in any other. We get the clear impression that the Ministers of this Government go around in trench coats and dark glasses and hold meetings in closets and back alleys. Decisions are shrouded in darkness and secrecy. So much for open government. As far as policy guidelines are concerned, there do not seem to be any. Anything goes. By such action, the Government reduces the function of the IAC and the Temporary Assistance Authority to the level of farce. I do not believe for one moment that the Government must either reject or accept unconditionally all reports of the IAC or the TAA for it to be shown to be applying a policy consistently. But we are not even told by the Minister whether the Government has accepted, rejected or amended the advice from those independent statutory authorities.

Typically, the Minister, in his rubbery speeches, announcing tariff changes, makes no mention at all of the following: Firstly, the IAC’s or the TAA’s recommendations; secondly, whether the Government’s decision involves the acceptance, rejection or variation of this advice; thirdly, the reasons for any non-acceptance or variation; or fourthly, the rationale underlying the level of assistance actually set by the Government. Now there is a nice catalogue that illustrates how irresponsibly the Government and the

Minister treat these recommendations. Instead, the House is a captive audience to the Minister’s old act of juggling figures and words. Just imagine the scenario of the Minister saying: ‘Following advice and recommendations from the Industries Assistance Commission . . . ‘. But does he say whether the Government has accepted the advice and recommendations of the IAC or rejected them? No, of course he does not. His language is deliberately misleading. Sometimes I wonder whether he knows any other way of speaking. His misleading language has the effect of lulling the listener into the sometimes false belief that the Government has accepted the independent advice of the IAC or the TAA. Of course this is not so.

Let me illustrate my charges concerning the Government’s irresponsible and lazy approach to these matters. I shall refer to the Government’s handling of the two tariff changes in which it substantially rejected the advice of the IAC. These changes related to tariffs on orange juice and on bags and sacks. I am not suggesting that the Government is composed of old bags or that it is a sad sack, but I think it should have given us the reasons why these recommendations were refused. In his brief speech introducing Tariffproposals No. 17 covering the citrus industry, the Minister failed to comment on the fact that the Government had not accepted the advice of the IAC. Instead, the Minister talked about formalising changes arising from the Government’s decision on the IAC recommendations. Further, the Minister made no attempt to explain where his decision diverged from the recommendations of the IAC, or to explain why the Government thought it necessary to reject that advice. In sum, the Minister’s submission to Parliament was brief and sparse in detail. In the ministerial Press statement announcing the Government’s decision on the citrus industry, however, the Minister was a little more forthcoming. At least here the Minister acknowledged that the IAC advice had been rejected. Again, however, the reason was not given.

In his speech on Tariff Proposals No. 20 concerning bags and sacks, et cetera, the Minister informed the House that the Government had rejected the advice of the IAC. However, he failed to follow up this revelation with any explanation as to where the advice was lacking or inconsistent with the aims of the Government. Again, the Parliament was being less than fully informed. However, in his Press release announcing the decision, the Minister failed to inform the public that the Government had rejected the advice of the IAC, and again failed to give any explanation for the Government’s actions. Both these cases show up the inadequacy of the reporting procedures of the Government, both to the Parliament and to the public. The Government’s failure to identify and explain adequately its decision on independent advice, whether on tariff, bounty or quota changes, generally has two effects. Most obviously, by denying easy access to information as to whether or not the Government has substantially accepted the advice of the IAC or the TAA, it makes a sham of the independent advisory process. It would be more honest and less hypocritical if the independent advisory process was dropped completely. Less obviously it enables inconsistencies and pork barrelling to creep into the process.

There may be good reasons for many Government decisions, but as long as they are not explained properly we can only guess at those reasons and inevitably suspicion remains. These misleading procedures are contrary to the intentions of Sir John Crawford when in 1973 he recommended the establishment of an independent advisory body to make recommendations on assistance to industry. It certainly was not the intention of the Whitlam Labor Government when it established the IAC and the TAA, but it is the way in which this Government is abusing the system. The time has come for the Government to approach the whole matter with more honesty and more candour. Whilst these procedures may have been satisfactory during the 1950s and the 1960s, they are not satisfactory today. With 750,000 Australians who want a job being unable to find one, with enormous changes taking place in the countries that are our trading partners and so on, each one of the IAC reports and the tariffproposals which flow from them is far more sensitive in nature than previously. I support fully the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Adelaide. I look forward to the honourable member for Swan joining us on this side of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I merely wish to take the opportunity- it may require a little indulgence from you, Mr Deputy Speaker- to explain that the Government has the numbers to push through not only its Bills but also the matters on the Notice Paper. Rather than spend time sitting in divisions where, in spite of what they say in debate, Government members will not support amendments which are drawn up in such a way that the Government members should support them, we believe it is better to spend the time in debating other measures on the Notice Paper. This explains why the Opposition did not call a division on the second reading of the Bill. However, during the second reading debate the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr), who has now left the chamber, was against duties. Our second reading amendment condemned the Government for the 2 per cent duty impost. He should have been here to support the Opposition’s amendment. Had he been here, I would have called for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3095

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I take this opportunity to carry through what I foreshadowed when I spoke in the cognate debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 with this Bill, namely, to move an amendment which I neglected to say earlier but which I say now, is totally along the lines recommended by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he was Leader of the Opposition. My amendment proposes the setting up of a standing committee for this Parliament to examine in greater detail customs duties and excise generally. Mr Malcolm Fraser, the right honourable member for Wannon, Leader of the Opposition as he then was in 1975, on a private members day, brought a proposal to this Parliament with some other proposals for other types of committee proposals along these lines. I will be very surprised if members on the Government side do not support this amendment on this occasion because, by not doing so, they will not be supporting their own leader. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Tariffs and Excise should be established to examine each change in tariffs and excise following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other hand ‘.

I wish that the Prime Minister were here and not at Nareen so that he could sit with me in supporting this amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment as such, but I would like to say something about it. It has been said by a number of people in this Parliament that there is virtue in having more debate on tariff issues, and with that I concur. I certainly will draw the sentiments contained in the amendment and comments of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). One of the occasions when the House can discuss tariffs is during debate on this Bill at the end of each session and on the Bill which has just been dealt with. Whilst I was not able to hear all of the debate, I did hear the comments of a number of honourable members.

I am bound to say, though it grieves me, that the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) was misinformed in a number of his understandings about decisions made by the Government from time to time concerning tariffs. Indeed, most of the Industries Assistance Commission reports dealt with by the legislation to which he was addressing himself have resulted in tariff reductions in line with recommendations of the IAC. I will ensure that the views of the honourable member for Adelaide are taken notice of, not only by the Leader of the House but also by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) who regrettably is in Darwin today. I am sure that the Government will take notice of the honourable member’s views. But in my view, it will not always be appropriate for a precise debate to take place on each tariff adjustment. But there certainly is normally and should always be an opportunity for a discussion on general tariff policies when honourable members can then raise any decision of the Government pursuant to any IAC recommendation which they wish.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Again, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee), who is at the table, for his remarks and promise to bring our amendment to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). I hope that he will bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) because I am sure that there will be a spark of recognition in the memory of the Prime Minister as the amendment is along the lines that he himself promoted, namely, that we should debate these matters in a committee setting so that we could look in greater detail at the particular proposals for customs duties and excise changes coming before this chamber.

Whilst focusing on giving attention to such complicated proposals, I should mention that as so often happens, these proposals come before the House at a busy time when the Notice Paper is very full. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) on the Government side sat through this debate. He was listed to speak but did not have the opportunity to do so because of the constraints of the time table. Therefore, it is not true to say that these matters get sufficient attention when debate comes before this chamber. The only way such attention could be given is if we set up a standing committee and work in a committee setting. I hope that point will be made also to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister when the Minister for Productivity brings this matter to their attention. Because of his assurance and because sitting in a division would be merely taking time from the debate on a Bill which is still on the Notice Paper and due to be debated today, the Opposition did not call for a division.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I wish to add to my earlier assurance. I assure the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) that I will bring his subsequent comments to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) and also to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I am bound to say that it is a cause of concern to the Government that sometimes the legislative program seems to have become congested, sometimes with interruptions by matters that are of concern to Parliament and sometimes by trivial matters, and that sometimes matters of substance such as this are not given the adequate attention which they ought to receive in debate. I will certainly pass on the comments of the honourable member for Adelaide.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3097

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1980 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariffproposals Nos 3 1 to 35 introduced into the Parliament at various times since 25 October 1979 and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 which was introduced into the House during this sitting. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to enact formally the changes contained in the Proposals.

The tariff changes validated by the Bill relate to:

Decisions of the Government resulting from Industries Assistance Commission reports on-

Furniture- Proposals No. 31;

Grapes and Wine; Spirits and Spirituous Beverages, etc.- Proposals No. 34;

Administrative changes only. No change in duties is involved- Proposals Nos 32 and 33;

Changes to certain developing country duty rates following a limited review of the Australian system of tariff preferences for developing countries- Proposals No. 35.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3097

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to validate all duties of excise demanded or collected on or before 30

June 1980 in respect of stabilised crude petroleum oil, saccharin and cyclamates and grape brandies pursuant to Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which were moved in the House on 21 August 1979 and 8 November 1979 respectively. The increase in the excise duty on stabilized crude petroleum oil from $70.98 to $102.27 per kilolitre with effect from 1 July 1979 followed determination by my colleague, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman), of new import parity prices in accordance with the Government’s decision that all crude oil be priced to refineries at import parity levels.

Abolition of duties of excise on saccharin and cyclamates has been made as a result of the Government’s decision to adopt the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission contained in its report No. 2 12 of 4 May 1979 on chemical products (part A). Duties of excise payable on grape brandies have been reduced by $2.75 per litre of alcohol as a result of the Government’s decision to enhance the competitive position of this product following consideration of the recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on grapes and wine and spirits, spiritous beverages, et cetera. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3097

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr Groom:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill gives us one of the rare opportunities to discuss in this House aspects of housing. We know that the Government normally brings before the House each year legislation to allocate funds from the Commonwealth to the States for public housing. Now, under the Government’s new formula, that matter is not brought before the House for debate. Because these matters are inter-related we might to able to discuss in the debate on this Bill, which seeks to amend the Home Savings Grants Scheme, the inadequacies of housing in this country. I wish to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I move:

The Home Savings Grants Scheme was introduced as a means of helping young people get their foot on the first rung of the ladder of home ownership. It was first introduced by Sir Robert Menzies prior to the 1963 elections. Of course, conservative governments have updated it from time to time. The aim of the Scheme is not opposed in principle by the Labor Party, and I stress that point. We are concerned, however, that the Scheme is not achieving its aim. The Bill before the House which seeks to place a new ceiling on the value of homes that qualify for a grant fails to acknowledge the real problems facing home buyers, especially those in the capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth, who wish to apply for the Home Savings Grant. But I do not limit my comments just to those cities. I will give details of figures from the Real Estate Institute of Australia of median priced housing. My figures will reveal a great disparity in the cost for housing from city to city. The two cities with the worst crisis, of course, are Sydney and Melbourne. We know that the great majority of Australians reside in those two cities.

The Home Savings Grants Scheme as it currently operates, and as it will operate under the provisions of this Bill, does help some people. But more and more the price of housing and land in the capital cities, were the majority of people live is rising to such a high level and at such a fast rate that the Scheme is becoming almost irrelevant. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to aim my remarks at the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). You know that a person can not acquire a house in your electorate for $35,000, thus making himself ineligible to receive a grant under this Scheme. You know that there are real problems facing anybody wishing to acquire a home in your electorate for that price. Let us look at the situation in other electorates in the Sydney metropolitan area.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You couldn’t buy a block of land for $35,000.

Mr UREN:

– The honourable member for Hughes will give more details about the crisis situation, of housing costs in the electorate of Cook and about how this scheme is completely irrelevant to the constituents of someone like the honourable member for Cook who will be struggling to survive at the next election. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is going to follow me in this debate will find grave difficulty acquiring a house for $35,000 or even up to $40,000 in his electorate when the Home

Savings Grants Scheme cancels out. He will contend they are available at Riverstone for this price. Although he represents a metropolitan area of Sydney he will have to go out as far as Riverstone, 50 miles from the central business district or the General Post Office to obtain a block of land and a dwelling for that price. We should also look at certain other electorates such as the electorate of Barton and the electorate of St George. Let us ask the honourable members who represent these two electorates- they too will have trouble surviving the next electionwhether constituents, particularly the young seeking their first home, living in those electorates could acquire a block of land and a house or even an existing dwelling for $35,000 so that they could obtain the full homes savings grant. I question whether such a person could get even a partial loan for a home worth less than $40,000.

Let us ask the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) whether it is possible in the suburbs in his electorate such as Bondi Beach, Bondi, Bronte, Clovelly, Coogee, Randwick or Tamarama to buy a block of land and build a house for $35,000 in order to obtain the full homes savings grant, or to build a house for $40,000. 1 ask the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) whether anyone could buy a block of land in Strathfield, Burwood or anywhere within his electorate and build a house, or buy an existing dwelling for $35,000 to get the full home savings grant or $40,000 for a partial grant. We know that it is impossible. I refer to the marginal electorates whose members are under pressure, such as the electorate of La Trobe in Melbourne. Can homes for $35,000 or $40,000 be acquired in that electorate? Can they be acquired in the electorates of Isaacs or Henty? Certainly Joan Child will be making sure that people of the electorate of Henty know about the inadequacy of the Government’s housing policy. Can such homes be acquired under this Act in the electorates of Hotham or Deakin? I could go on and on. We know that this Home Savings Grants Scheme is irrelevant. It will not really solve the housing problems nor the housing needs of the majority of the people of this country.

As the Opposition spokesman for housing and urban affairs, I make the Labor Party’s position clear to those members on the Government side who will ask what the Labor Party proposes to do to improve access to home ownership. We will not abolish the Home Savings Grants Scheme after we gain victory in the 1980 elections. The scheme will not be abolished by us. Possibly, the majority of people will contract out of it. We intend to put forward an alternative home ownership assistance program, a superior program, to assist low and middle income earners to buy their own homes. Details of that program will be announced at the appropriate time by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). The Home Savings Grants Scheme will remain an option for those who are presently saving under it. If they can benefit from it and if they want to proceed with it, that is their option. We will permit them to do so. But they will be able to transfer to our new home ownership assistance program which will be much superior. I believe that most people will opt out of the existing scheme and shift to Labor’s new program. The Home Savings Grants Scheme is just not good enough to meet the problems confronting the people who want to acquire their first home today, particularly young people.

I will demonstrate the inadequacies of the Home Savings Grants Scheme in a moment. Firstly, I refer to Labor’s program of helping young people to get their first foot on the ladder in the context of a broad response to the problems facing people on low incomes in terms of basic housing security- the problems that are getting worse every day. They are problems this Government turns its back on. This Government does not want to even try to control the crisis that is occurring. The housing problem in this country, next to unemployment, is the most serious social problem in this nation. For thousands of people the problem has now reached crisis proportions. Thirty thousand homeless people live in both Sydney and Melbourne. Many thousands of people in other cities and country towns cannot find homes. Two hundred and fifty thousand people are permanently living in caravan parks. Seventy-five thousand families are on the long waiting list for public housing. Thousands of tenants of private rental housing face eviction because they cannot afford to pay their rents or because the houses have been sold from underneath them. For all these thousands of people whose housing security is threatened there is an urgent need for an expansion of the provision of public rental housing in this country to provide secure accommodation. For those people that will be a major priority in Labor’s public housing policy.

Some of the need can be met by the construction of new government dwellings in selected areas, the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing private rental stocks for the use of public housing or from the expansion of emergency accommodation services which at present are able to cater for less than half of those who are making requests. To tackle the problems facing people in need of housing we need to develop programs on several fronts at once. They have to be solved on a broad front if they are to be solved at all. There is no single program that can solve the many housing problems that this Government has allowed to develop over the years. We need a range of constructive programs consistent with the integrated approach to the planning of our cities and country centres.

A home ownership assistance program is one of the ways for a government to assist people in their housing needs but it is not the only way. The Federal Government has relied too heavily on the home savings grant scheme as the only response. Of course, as we know, that response has been inadequate. The Government has neglected the need for emergency accommodation. It has reduced the provision of public housing. The housing problems that are now so obvious are a result of the narrowness of the Government’s housing policy and the meanness of its spending priorities. One of the reasons we do not discuss each year as a national priority the transfer of funds from federal revenue to the States for public housing, as has been done since 1 947, is that there has been such a substantial cut in those funds. In 1974-75 the Labor Government made 3.9 per cent of all government expenditure available to the States for public housing. That amount has been cut to 1.1 per cent of government expenditure this year. That is why the Government does not want to debate the matter. It wants to sweep the matter under the carpet and keep it hidden because it is fearful of being exposed.

Let me examine building programs. In 1975-76, the first half year of this Government’s administration, loans averaging $22,400 per dwelling were approved by banks and building societies in Australia for 134,000 new dwellings. However, between 1975-76 and 1977-78 the number of new private dwellings fell by 12 per cent while the average value of loans approved rose by 30 per cent. In 1 978-79 loans amounting to $3.5 billion were approved for 118,000 new dwellings in Australia. The average loan was $29,000 per dwelling. The Government tries to make out that the rise in housing loan approvals from a trough of 1 1 1,000 last year to 1 18,000 this year is a great upward surge. But in 1 975-76, the first year that it came into power, 134,000 new dwellings were approved. The figure for last year is up to 11 8,000. If the Government wants the construction of new dwellings to reach its former level then it is a long way behind. That demonstrates the phoneyness of the claims of this Government. It is true that in the last 12 months there has been an upturn in the construction of new dwellings but we have to remember three things. Firstly, new dwelling commencements last year reached their lowest level for 13 years. The decline in building activities has had a large impact on the capacity of the building industry, as the Indicative Planning Council has noted in its last two reports. Between August 1974 and August 1979, over 60,000 jobs were lost in the building and construction industry. This was caused in large part by a reduction in this Government’s spending on capital works, health, education and social services. I have already given figures on reduced government spending in the public housing sector.

The industry has also suffered as a result of increasing spending on renovations and repairs to existing housing stock, which in turn has created an upward pressure on the price of established housing. This has its positive and negative aspects on the building industry. A second related point to remember is that the price of housing has risen considerably over the last four years. The apparent upturn in housing construction is now occurring at a price level that is beyond the reach of most single income families. I want to stress over and over again that the real problem facing the single income families, earning up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings, whether they live in Sydney or Melbourne, is that they are in a crisis situation when it comes to acquiring a home. That is a problem that we will have to overcome. This Government is doing nothing at all to overcome that problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member for Reid. The Chair has been pretty lenient. This is a debate on the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill; not on the building and construction industry generally. The honourable member’s amendment applies to home savings grants. I wonder whether the honourable member would try to tie his remarks in to the Bill.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, it would take a miracle man to show that the Home Savings Grants Scheme does not relate to the housing industry across the board. I would be very surprised if you could do it. Unfortunately the problem with this Government is that it likes to put things into little boxes. The questions of housing and the provision of shelter for people are interrelated. No section can be divorced from the other.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If I may again interrupt the honourable member, the Chair is interested only in the Bill before the House. The Standing Orders allow the honourable member to make passing references to other matters but he should confine his remarks in the main to the Bill. I ask the honourable member to do so. I would hate to have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr UREN:

– If you do, we will argue the point to the extent of moving a motion of dissent from your ruling. I do not want to have to do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not impressed by threats. I suggest that the honourable member get on with his speech and talk to the Bill.

Mr UREN:

-I am talking to the Bill. I am putting the point that one cannot divorce any one section of housing from other sections. I am saying that all of the Government’s efforts are in respect of the Homes Savings Grants Scheme and that its approach is inadequate. A problem cannot be solved by attacking it on a single front; it has to be dealt with across the board or as a whole. According to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the median price of an established home in September 1979 was $59,500 in Sydney; $49,100 in Melbourne; $39,400 in Perth; $37,500 in Canberra; $34,100 in Adelaide and $32,600 in Brisbane. In Sydney in June 1 978 the median price was $42,700. It is now $59,500- a rise of $16,800 or 40 per cent in 15 months. We do not want to put too much stress on the median price. We are most concerned about those people who are trying to get into home ownership on the bottom rung. But their ability to buy a home is constrained by several factors. These include their income, the price of housing, the lending policies and the interest rates of lending institutions and the location of housing. In the metropolitan area of Sydney the price of housing has been rising on average at $1,000 a month or 10 per cent every three months. In the inner city areas, housing prices have risen even more rapidly. The people we are concerned about are being forced out of those areas- areas where jobs are available, where they have resided all their lives, and where the community services and cultural facilities are provided- because they cannot afford to buy homes that are being bought by people on higher incomes. In many metropolitan suburbs particularly of Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth it is impossible to buy a home for less than $40,000. In those areas which are covered by this Homes Savings Grants Scheme, the high cost of housing makes this Scheme almost useless.

The third point, which is related to the other points I have made, is that this Government allocated in the 1979-80 Budget less than onethird of the amount of funds which the Labor Government allocated for housing in 1974-75. The present Government’s housing program is a program on the cheap. It has been a squeeze on the social wage. It not only provides a minimal amount of funds to assist home ownership but also it reduces the size of public housing significantly. In 1974-75 there were just under 20,000 new government dwelling approvals. But in 1978-79 there were fewer than 10,000. Some of the State Housing Commissions are actually selling off more public housing than they are constructing. In Victoria, all of the funds provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement were directed to home purchase, to the neglect of public housing. The Government has a very narrow view of the role of public housing. It seems to think that public housing represents a threat to private enterprise in the housing market. But public housing is one of the few ways the Government can intervene to plan the use of space in cities. Public housing is a means of ensuring some equity in the area of housing. It should not be an area for profitable exploitation by speculators. Public housing is a lever that the Government can use to contain some of the inflationary pressures in the housing market.

In 1978 there were about 700,000 tenants in Victoria. Only 40,000 rental units were publicly owned. The expansion of public housing cannot, by itself, threaten private home ownership. What it can do is to ensure that there is some sanity in the way governments respond to housing problems. It can take the heat off rising housing prices and therefore make home ownership more accessible to the majority of people rather than restricted to a few who can afford the exorbitant prices that exist in this country. Most importantly, public housing can provide a necessary minimum of security for low income earners in need of shelter. The decline in public housing commencements is one of the reasons for the escalation of housing prices and rent levels in the major capital cities. The rising housing prices will be aggravated by the increases in the costs of home building materials, which rose by 5.4 per cent in the year to September 1978 but by 1 1.4 per cent in the year to September 1979. The ability of people to buy homes and to keep up their repayments will be further restricted by any rise in interest rates. This Government has no policies for responding to these problems. It wasted over $400,000 on the housing allowance voucher experiment. Its housing policy is dangerously narrow. As a result, the needs of many people for shelter are seriously neglected.

I want now to turn specifically to the Home Savings Grants Scheme. The Government argues that about 60 per cent of home purchases in 1978-79 that attracted some grant, which on average was $1,100, were of homes priced below $35,000. According to the figures the Government has provided, a sizable majority of home buyers eligible for grants bought homes at about that price, particularly in Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. In Victoria 41.2 per cent of homes purchased under the scheme were below $35,000. In Sydney 22 per cent of eligible housing purchases were above $40,000. On the whole, 20 per cent of homes purchased under the Scheme in 1978-79 were valued above $40,000. 1 also pointed that pressures are causing prices in Sydney to rise at about $ 1,000 a month. One has to recognise that. There is no understanding it. Surely, people in a member’s electorate are entitled to understand. The value limit on the price of homes eligible under the Homes Savings Grant Scheme operates nationally to reduce grant recipients by about 20 per cent. In normal circumstances, we would support the application of a means test so that the priority funds are directed to those in need. Normally, the Labor Party would support that concept, but these are unusual circumstances created by a government’s negative economic and housing policies.

Let us look at the position of the Home Savings Grants Scheme. The people most affected by rising housing prices are those who are renting. The Home Savings Grants Scheme does not begin to address the needs of those people who have no security of shelter. The Scheme is not very useful to those people on single low and middle incomes up to around $15,000 a year who are trying to purchase a home. A single income family on an income below $15,000 a year is virtually excluded from the Scheme. The people who can make most use of the Scheme are single persons on high incomes and young couples on two incomes. But there is a sizable group of needy people whom the Scheme does not help at all. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables setting out a person’s ability to purchase a home in New South Wales. The tables have been prepared on request by the Parliamentary Research Service. The first table shows the situation for people obtaining a housing loan from the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The second table shows the situation for people obtaining a loan through a permanent building society.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House for that courtesy. Table 1 shows that for a person on a gross annual income of $12,000 a year, that is, about average weekly earnings, the maximum mortgage obtainable from the Commonwealth Savings Bank is $26,250. The full homes savings grant of $2,000 covers the stamp duty and legal fees and leaves a remainder of about $500 to put towards the purchase of the home. If a person saved 1 5 per cent of his or her weekly income, it would take him or her five years to raise the $8,259 deposit required to obtain the loan. But by that time the price of a house in Sydney would have risen to well over $45,000. What about the family on an annual income of $8,000? We have to remember that 70 per cent of wage earners receive an income less than average weekly earnings. For a person on $8,000, the maximum mortgage obtainable from a permanent building society is $17,600. Table 2 shows that a person saving 1 5 per cent of his or her income would have to save for 17 years to get the deposit of $16,439 that is required to obtain a loan. The home savings grant is not much help to people on those incomes. It does not help the home seekers to bridge the deposit gap and it does not bring a home within their economic means.

Let us consider the case of a single income family in a suburb in Sydney such as Auburn or Burwood, receiving a gross income of $10,000 and wishing to buy a very average home in that area for $45,000. Even if the family saved 20 per cent of its income, it would take 1 5 years to save the required deposit. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a further table showing the deposit gap for persons on the average weekly earnings seeking to purchase a medium priced home in the five capital cities as at June 1 979.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The table shows the inequity that exists between the different capital cities, to such an extent that the situation in Sydney at present is that a person would need something like 200 per cent of average weekly earnings to buy a median priced dwelling. This is a long-term problem that has been created by this Government. This government has done nothing to overcome the problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Mitchell, I have had a chance to read the Minister’s second reading speech. As far as I can see, there is nothing in it which broadens the scope of the debate. I ask honourable members to try to restrain themselves from reacting to the honourable member’s speech, excellent though it undoubtedly was. I will try to insist that passing references to the building industry generally be allowed, but we should concentrate this debate on the Bill before the House.

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order. So that there is no interruption of speakers on this side of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, do you mean that no matter how broadly honourable members talk about the housing industry, they would be talking outside the terms of this legislation? I am now talking about the housing industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Yes, frankly I do, but let us look at it as the situation develops. I hope that honourable members will stick to my ruling.

Mr Uren:

-i do not want to make a personal reflection on you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am saying clearly that this is the only opportunity we have to discuss the housing industry in this House. It is the only piece of legislation we have which enables us to do that. It is the only legislation that comes before this Parliament that deals with housing for the people. You are saying that you will narrow discussion on that Bill and not permit members on this side to deal with housing. Again I argue that you cannot put any one -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. He ought to wait to see how the debate develops. I think that the House primarily ought to take note of the Bill before it.

Mr Bourchier:

– The point of order raised by the honourable member for Reid is quite irrelevant. You are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you judge exactly what the Bill is about. This Bill is about homes savings grants, not the housing industry generally. The honourable member for Reid and every other member of this House have the opportunity, through matters of public importance, statements, the adjournment debate, and the grievance day debate to talk to their hearts’ content about housing. If they could only elicit something of interest about it we would all be interested.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I thank the honourable member for his remarks.

Mr Cadman:

– On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that if your ruling is followed I will be denied the opportunity of debating in the same way and raising the same matters as the previous speaker. At one stage during his speech you intervened to direct him. He overrode your direction and continued in the same vein as previously.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. The Chair has asked for the co-operation of the House to spend the majority of the time in debate on this Bill on matters directly related to it. If members need to give background information to demonstrate a point, that is obviously allowable. I ask honourable members to try to do that. The honourable member for Reid has moved an amendment. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment, and I am very pleased that you have had second thoughts about your earlier unreasonable ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He must not reflect on the Chair.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was about to congratulate you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! My views are not inconsistent with those I expressed earlier. Is the honourable member speaking -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I wish you would make the situation plain.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Since you have curtailed the congratulatory remarks I was making about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say that in the 24 years since I came here, and certainly since 1964 when this legislation was introduced you are the first person to preside in the Chair who has taken this view the home savings grants legislation cannot be related to the housing industry generally. I thought that you had suffered some remorse and I was congratulating you. I withdraw my congratulations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Thank you. The honourable member for Hughes has seconded the amendment and reserves his right to speak. Is that correct?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this legislation on behalf of the Opposition. I find the amendment interesting because it proposes the withdrawal of the Bill and a redrafting of it because it does not set out and does not do what the honourable member would like it to do. Within the last few months, the honourable member for Reid has called for a limitation on expenditure in the Home Savings Grants Scheme. That is exactly what the Government is doing in this legislation and exactly what the proposals are. On 24 March 1979, the spokesman on housing for the Opposition said that the average cost of an established home bought with the assistance of the Scheme was $32,000 but that 6 per cent of recipients, or 44,600 people, bought homes worth more than $40,000.

Mr McVeigh:

-Who said that?

Mr CADMAN:

– It was the honourable member for Reid. In fact, what he said was that he wished to see the imposition of a limit of $40,000, which is exactly what the Government is doing in this legislation. Yet the honourable member comes into this chamber with an amendment which seeks to throw out the legislation. It seems to me that the honourable member who speaks for the Opposition on housing matters is inconsistent. He does not know what he requires. One month he proposes one thing and when the Government does it, he proposes that the Government then do something else. That is not the way in which to run the housing industry in Australia. What is needed is consistent and careful nurturing of the ability of people to purchase their own homes. The honourable member was reported right throughout Australia in a whole series of newspapers- the Sun News-Pictorial, the Hobart Mercury and the Australian- &s saying that he would like to see a limitation placed on the Home Savings Grants Scheme. This legislation does that.

The Government has moved to apply a rule of assisting those people most in need to purchase their own homes. In fact, one is impressed by the continuation of the main theme in the legislation now before the House. Grants will continue to be payable to single people as well as to married people and for both established and newly constructed homes. The fact is that two-thirds of people buying their first home buy already constructed homes. That is their decision because that is the price area which best suits them. Most of them set to work in their own time using their own skills to renovate that house. They then sell it and move on to something more desirable or into another suburb which may be preferable.

Although the legislation does limit the value of the home, the type of home is not limited in any way. It can be purchased or constructed through a building contractor or by an owner-bulider. I think this is sympathetic and good legislation, lt will be of great assistance to young home buyers. The grants will apply to separate houses, semidetached dwellings, home units and flats, whether they be in suburban areas, in country towns or on rural properties. So there we have a piece of legislation that takes in the whole scope of suiting the ambitions and desires of young people who wish to purchase their first home. I think the Government, in reintroducing this legislation when it came to office, is to be commended for its thoughtfulness in assisting young home buyers.

Of course the scheme proposes that in order to qualify for a maximum grant of $2,000, an applicant must have held acceptable savings of $6,000 or more over a certain period and in a prescribed form. So the young person, the young couple or the person of whatever age, in buying their first home, is entitled to a grant of $2,000. The Government has gone on to say that they may not be entitled to the full amount of $2,000 but to a smaller amount, depending on their capacity to save. A limitation has been introduced into the scheme. This limitation means that the grant cuts out at $40,000. A grant will not be payable if the value of any building, land, dwelling or other improvements exceeds $40,000. People purchasing a house and land get the full benefit up to $35,000 and then there is a graduated scale up to $40,000 where the Scheme cuts out.

The value will be the value of the home and the land on which it is erected in its completed state, including the value of any work not completed at the date at which the value is determined. That means that the contract price for a house is the valuation. It does not mean that if a person decides that he will not paint his house at the outset but will paint it when and as he can afford to do so, the value of the painting is included in the cost of the house. What it does mean is that if a house is completed to the best ability of the builder to the plans and the contract as assessed and valued and comes within the $35,000 limit, the owners will be eligible for the full amount of the grant. But if its value is between $35,000 and $40,000 they would be eligible for a smaller amount of the grant.

To give honourable members an idea of the scope and the scale of this program, I draw their attention to the Homes Savings Grant Act and to a report by the Department of Housing and Construction which indicates that in 1977-78 there were about 58,000 applicants for a home savings grant and in 1978-79 there were 45,000 applicants. So each year in Australia over 50,000 young people or first home buyers are being given a grant to help them purchase their first home. The cost of this scheme to the Government in 1977-78 was $36m. Last year, 1978-79 the cost was $5 5m, and in $1 979-80 the Government will be paying out $70m to first home buyers in this country, people who are seeking to establish themselves in a home which they will own and which will be their first home. Therefore the commitment by the Government is increasing on a massive scale. From a level of about $36m two years ago it has now doubled to $70m. Of course the scale and the payment of grants rise as the program extends and the

Government felt that it was necessary to limit the scope of the grants to those people who were most in need.

To indicate to the House some idea of the characteristics of successful applicants- this is where the whole thrust of the Scheme denies the argument put forward by the honourable member for Reid- 67 per cent of the people availing themselves of the grant were married couples; 13 per cent were engaged couples; a further 1 5 per cent were single applicants; and 3 per cent were widowed, divorced or permanently separated. The most common age group is the most important factor. Who are the people buying these houses? Who are the people availing themselves of the Home Savings Grants Scheme? The most common age group is the group aged between 21 and 25 and most of these people are married.

Mr McVeigh:

– Young people.

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, young people in the 2 1 to 25 age group buying their first home. These are the people that the Scheme has been devised for. These are the people who, of course, cannot live at Vaucluse, and they never have tried to purchase a home there. What these people do is purchase their first home, improve the gardens and improve the home, and then sell it and move on to something better. That is the way Australia works. The Opposition would have these people live in a suburb for the whole of their lives. The thrust of the speech of the honourable member for Reid was that these people should not seek to change their suburb. He tried to restrict them by saying that these people cannot live in Vaucluse. Of course they cannot live in Vaucluse because the cost of housing there has always been expensive. But people upgrade their position and the type of accommodation in which they live. We have to have a program which is flexible, which allows people to improve, to sell, to move on and to reinvest. In fact, 87 per cent of the men, and 89 per cent of the women, were under the age of 35. The total program is designed for the younger members of our community who are buying their first home. But it is not restricted to them. Everybody has a chance if it is his first home.

It is interesting to note that 67 percent of these homes were built in capital cities and the rest were built in country areas and country towns. This Government allowed that provision. This Government allowed country people to share in this program and it allowed them to build outside city areas and on rural properties. In country areas many young people have benefited from this program. The average cost of all homes purchased was $33,500. To me that would seem to indicate that the argument we have heard that there should not be a limitation, and all the talk of median cost, means nothing. By talking of median costs we are striking an average price. The Opposition is including all sorts of nouses in the proposition it put forward. It is not putting in the houses that young people can buy.

As is shown by the statistics of this scheme, the houses that people do buy have an average price of $33,500. Therefore, the scheme is working as it was designed to work. As prices rise the Minister has the capacity to extend the limit. He can extend the limit by regulation only. I am sure that that must be done. I am not saying that the limit should be held at $35,000, or an absolute limit of $40,000, forever. There has to be flexibility within the scheme. The Minister has the flexibility in this legislation. But at the moment the Opposition claims that the price of a house and a block of land is rising at the rate of $1,000 a month-or $12,000 a year. This is just not on. I do not know where the Opposition is getting its statistics. That just does not make sense to me. People are buying houses at an average price of $33,500. This is shown in the scheme.

If we then seek to analyse a little bit further the type of person involved, and where he will build, we will see that the statistics that the Department has furnished indicate that the cost and the limitations of people in New South Wales and Victoria does slew the scheme in favour of those people living in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, and, only to a moderate extent, those in the Australian Capital Territory. This program must be monitored or it will cause the problems referred to by the honourable member for Reid. He said that the scheme was a disaster and that it should be wiped. Only six months ago he was saying to us that we ought to do what we have done. The program does need to be monitored and I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) and his Department will do that. Therefore, if there is a need for an indexation process it should be carried out. I am confident that there is every chance of it being carried out.

I now come to some of the matters of a general nature which were raised in a speech made by the honourable member for Reid. I am concerned about his statement on the Home Savings Grants Scheme. At page 5 12 of Hansard dated 8 March 1 978, 1 noticed that he says that he would drop the Home Savings Grants Scheme.

Mr Uren:

– What did I say?

Mr CADMAN:

-On 8 March 1978, in reply to a comment made by the Minister, the honourable member said that he would drop the scheme again. This is to be found in Hansard.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. That was an interjection -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The honourable member for Reid is speaking to a point of order?

Mr Uren:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Uren:

– The honourable member is referring to a statement which has been clarified by a personal explanation. I spoke to the Minister and he knows that I never made that statement. I objected to Hansard printing it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Uren:

– Look, I am sick to death of dishonest statements being made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can be sick of anything, but there is no point of order. I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– It is a dishonest statement and the honourable member must withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr CADMAN:

– I am accurately quoting from Hansard of % March 1978 at page 5 12.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want the honourable member to quote it again. I have spoken to Hansard. That was an interjection that I did not make. It was taken up incorrectly and 1 am making it quite clear now that if the honourable member repeats it I will say that he is just -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Would the honourable member like to take this up as a personal explanation?

Mr Uren:

– Of course I would.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Would the honourable member now resume his seat?

Mr Uren:

– But the honourable member keeps on repeating it. He is doing the damage. The statement is dishonest and I am asking him not to proceed here.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is in accordance with the form of the House.

Mr Uren:

-i am asking the honourable member not to proceed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr McVeigh:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am most interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell. Could he please repeat them so that I can be sure of what he said?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr CADMAN:

– I will drop the matter but I do not see any explanation recorded on that day at the end of the speech made by the Minister. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Reid asked for that statement to be publicly withdrawn in the House. But I am quoting from Hansard as I have it. Under those circumstances I would think that there has been some adjustment within the Labor Party for a change of view on this matter. But the Opposition again comes forward with this concept of public housing and expenditure and this is what really concerns me. In funding public accommodation in the country, the best the Labor Party could do at the height of its program was to allocate a total of 8 per cent of expenditure on housing. In a large industry that is not a significant amount. In a period of one month the savings banks loan funds which amount to more than the total made available for welfare housing in Australia in any one year. Therefore, what the Opposition is holding out to the community has to be considered in context. I do not believe that what it proposes as a movement of massive expenditure on public housing will achieve any more- if the Opposition were given the opportunity to introduce their scheme- this time than it did last time. The Labor Government then achieved a maximum 8 per cent of total housing expenditure. It is of concern to me that with costs and with the number of applicants who are seeking State housing commission accommodation, which means it is falling, the Opposition is now coming forward with a program such as this. The facts that I have, based on six-monthly periods over the last two years, indicate that the number of people seeking housing commission accommodation has dropped from a peak of 105,000 in 1974 to 73,000. Since this Government has come into office there has been a reduction of over 30,000 people on the waiting list.

The Opposition says that the Government’s policies are not working. The people who are most deserving and most in need of housing assistance are being helped. There has been a reduction of 30,000 in the number of people seeking housing commission accommodation. The Opposition says that it is not a package. Of course it is a package. Any Government which comes into this country and which does not have as a basis for operation a commitment to reduce inflation and to reduce interest rates, will contribute nothing to the ability of people to purchase their own homes. That is the thrust of Government policy and in fact that is the thrust which has allowed so many young people, and citizens of all types, to start buying their own homes; to move off the welfare list and to be able to afford their own homes. This concept of a commitment to the underlying economic factors, and a commitment to encourage home ownership, is what is enshrined in this legislation. It is confined to those most in need and it will be carried out by a government committed to the need to encourage people to own their own homes.

Mr UREN (Reid)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr UREN:

– Firstly, at no time have I said that the price of housing should be restricted in the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I make that point adamantly and clearly. I have been a member of this House for 2 1 years and when I say something my word is accepted. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) may giggle if he likes, but any member of long standing in this House knows that my word is accepted. Secondly, I am disturbed that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) would use a daily Hansard to quote an interjection that is supposed- I use the word ‘supposed’ -to have been made by me in a debate. Even after I protested, he continued to use it. Honourable members know that a daily Hansard is only a proof copy and. it can be questioned and altered. Immediately upon seeing the report of that interjection I rang the Hansard staff and rectified the matter. I have not seen the weekly Hansard but I remember the matter well and I remember mentioning it to the Minister. At that time the Minister complained that I had altered Hansard. The Hansard staff accepted the alteration. I know what I said. I ask honourable members to read any of my public statements. I made public statements on the Home Savings Grants Scheme before the last election. I have never at any time made any allegation that I would abolish the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I am the Federal spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on housing and I am not going to have any member here distort the facts, for what I say will be attributed to our Party. I am asking for an apology from the honourable member for Mitchell because I believe that he has used the forms of this House dishonestly. I believe that he should rectify that matter because it is a reflection on a member -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member must not reflect on another member by use of extravagant language.

Mr UREN:

-I am not being extravagant; I am saying clearly that he is dishonest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Uren:

-i will not withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member. He will withdraw that remark.

Mr UREN:

– You can warn me. You can please yourself and warn me if you like. I am saying that the honourable member for Mitchell is a dishonest member because he is using something -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not a very serious matter but I warn the honourable member for Reid for the last time that if he does not withdraw that remark he will leave me no recourse but to name him.

Mr Uren:

-i will withdraw only if the honourable member admits that he used that quote knowing that the daily Hansard is only a proof and that I did not say that. Otherwise, I will not withdraw because at this stage the use of that quote is bloody dishonest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has no reason to know what is in the mind of the honourable member for Mitchell. But the honourable member for Reid has trangressed Standing Orders and I ask him to withdraw. We will deal with the second matter later.

Mr UREN:

-On the top of the daily Hansard is printed ‘Proof.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I realise that. Will the honourable member withdraw his remarks?

Mr UREN:

– My remarks will be withdrawn only if the honourable member for Mitchell recognises that the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I give the honourable member a last warning. He will withdraw those remarks or I will be forced to name him.

Mr Hayden:

– I think you will withdraw.

Mr UREN:

-I have been encouraged by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to oppose him because I am right on side with the Leader of our Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I gather from that remark that the honourable member for Reid has withdrawn.

Mr Cadman:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for Reid finds the material that I used that was in Hansard offensive -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There will be no conversation across the table. The honourable member for Mitchell will address the Chair and the honourable member for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr Cadman:

– If the honourable member for Reid finds it offensive I have no hesitation in withdrawing any imputation. But if he apologised to me only because the Leader of the Opposition is in the House, I want a proper apology.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no such point of order before the Chair.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-In this calm, temperate and rational atmosphere I would like to contribute to this debate on the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I take the opportunity of saying that it is always good to listen to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) because he is one of the few Government members who endeavour to participate in housing debates of any kind. I have never felt that he has mastered the subject, but if the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) is his mentor that is perfectly understandable. The homes savings grant legislation had its genesis in 1964; 15 long years ago. It represents the only housing idea that has come out of the Government in decades. That is in contrast to the position that prevailed from 1972 to 1975 when there were a mass of new initiatives. As the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has pointed out, regardless of what has been put by the honourable member for Mitchell, the people outside are not convinced that housing is coming easy to them. The honourable member for Mitchell has been seeking to convey the impression that this Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill is a panacea to all the Government’s housing problems.

But if honourable members got out into their electorates and asked the people the extent to which the Scheme is fulfilling their dreams they will point out that it is of little consequence. From the time that this Scheme was first introduced in 1964 there has been a contention to the effect that whereas some people benefited from grants because of their savings that attracted those grants- I am not sure whether the original grants were $500 or $750- housing costs for everybody rose to a like extent. The home seeking community did not necessarily derive any benefit. I see this sole bit of housing legislation as an edifice to indifference. I have seen the policy statements of some years standing. They were to the effect that the Liberal-National Country Party Coalition in the Federal area did not accept that it had any constitutional prerogative in or responsibility for housing; that it was a matter for the States. All the things that the Government has not done bear testimony to that situation. It is important that details of this legislation and the operation of the Home Savings Grants Scheme be itemised. The Scheme represents the only direct Commonwealth initiative to assist Australians to obtain their own homes or to be adequately housed.

From time to time we hear facetious comments that the Labor Opposition is not interested in home ownership. The fact is that we achieved the highest level of home ownership in the country’s history when the Labor Party was last in government. Of course maximum home ownership is still our aim. The record of the Fraser Government in housing has been destructive and marked by failure. For example the Australian Housing Corporation, which was established by the Labor Government to provide assistance to home owners to reduce the cost of land and housing in Australia, has been abolished. Then there was the much vaunted Government Housing Allowance Voucher Scheme, called HAV which was going to be a partner to this Home Savings Grants Scheme and which was going to break down the barriers to home ownership. It was intended to assist people particularly with rental accommodation. This has been abandoned. In the August 1977 Budget I think about $lm was allocated for this failure. Tax deductibility for home mortgate interest payments has been sabotaged but not eliminated altogether. It used to be generally applicable to everybody. Now it is available to people only in the first five years of paying off their first homes.

There has been a reduction in the sums available to the States and the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Budget advances for 1979-80 are estimated to fall below the sum allocated last year by over $150m. In real terms the purchasing power lost is far greater, as this figure does not take into account the effects of inflation.

The Government has announced also its intention to sell the assets and business of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, not because it is failing but for the simple reason that it is an outstanding success. This means that home owners will lose the freedom to choose to be insured by a successful government-owned insurance corporation which is required to charge the lowest possible premium rates, having regard to the need to secure sufficient revenue to meet expenditure to pay the Commonwealth a reasonable return on capital. There ought to be some debate about that because it links into this matter. That was another process by which home owners could be assisted. That insurance corporation was making a considerable profit. The last Labor Government had objectives about putting that profit to work. In 1978-79 the Corporation had 52,000 loans insured for about $ 1,400m. Its market share of the business was over 60 per cent.

There are so many other things that one could refer to. There has been a negative attitude which leaves this Home Savings Grants Scheme standing in splendid isolation. We have abandoned the Australian Government’s estate development and construction activities, which were designed to provide at minimum cost land and housing for welfare purposes. I refer especially to those activities which prevailed under the Defence Service Homes Scheme. We are now in the process of selling off the land that was acquired at bargain prices.

Let me say that this legislation has been plagued by antipathy and controversy and by hardship on the part of the applicants ever since it was introduced in 1964. There are several members in the chamber who could probably recall its genesis. It was introduced, of course, when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister. He was always a percentage man. He thought of elections in terms of how he could pick up a couple of per cent of the votes here and a couple of per cent of votes there. The science grant legislation was a case in point. Another case in point concerning gimmicks and picking up percentage votes was this Home Savings Grants Scheme. He saw this as having some electoral appeal at’ that time. I suppose it did, but it has been plagued by great difficulties. A series of amendments have been made. It has been patched up along the line.

We used to have a valuation limit, I think of about $22,500. There has always been this raging controversy about valuation limits. An army of bureaucrats has gone out and put values on the improvements that home owners or home builders have sought to effect to their carport and things of that nature. It has considered whether the air-conditioning or the heating system should be taken into account, whether the Venetian blinds or the things that hold up the curtains would put the applicants over the limit or just under the limit to enable them to receive the benefit. That is a most pedantic operation for a Commonwealth Government to be involved in.

Then there was this problem about having savings in the prescribed form for three years. Savings had to be in specially approved accounts. Not everybody devotes his life to the study of these matters. Thousands and thousands of applicants have been destined for ultimate disappointment in discovering that their assets were in the wrong account. They had to be put in the prescribed account. Of course, it takes some years for a comprehension about these things to develop across the board in the community. Sensibly enough some young people such as successful business people and even some parliamentarians, have chosen to put their money in cheque accounts, but no, that is no good. We found that hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants foundered on that very point, that miserable technicality.

A three-year residential requirement plagued the legislation for years. It particularly affected migrants, who desperately needed a house. They did not have an extended family to accommodate them. They lived in migrant hostels before graduating to boarding houses and places of that kind. Probably the most deserving people in this community, those who came from war-torn countries, were unable to get a home savings grant because they could not meet the three-year residential requirement.

Then we had the age barrier of 36 years. The anomalies that used to loom up with great frequency in this respect were absolutely staggering. Servicemen, who by virtue of their occupations were moved around the country and given Service accommodation, suddenly came out of Service as a major or a captain just over the prescribed age limit of 36 years. They had never had a home before in their lives. The first time they had a chance to settle down they were unable to qualify because they were over 36 years of age. I recall that there was a high incidence of school teachers in that same difficult dilemma.

Housing Commission tenants were unable to qualify for a long period. People who were making application in respect of a home other than their first home constituted another substantial category deprived of benefits under the Home Savings Grants Scheme because they had had some tinpot fishing shack somewhere- a weekender, one might call it or a glorified caravan on a piece of land. So it went on.

I know that one of the anomalies that prevailed for a considerable time affected widows. They were not eligible. Their husbands could be killed in an industrial accident and the first thing they would want to do would be to secure their home, to get the compensation that came from their late husband’s death and apply it to the acquisition of a home. But because they were widows they were unable to derive any benefit. So the patching up of this messy, badly conceived legislation goes on and on. Of course, there are waves of victims left behind who have been deprived of benefit, never to qualify.

If we look very carefully at the matter we find that one of the things that is primarily wrong with the concept is that the Government is very concerned about assisting people who have the proven capacity to save substantially. All the expenditure in this world under this legislation, whether it runs to the $ 19m or so of last year or the much larger amount of about $70m this year, will not solve the problems for many people. The Government is giving the benefit to people who have the capacity to save and is cutting down on the housing programs that are designed to assist people who do not have the capacity to save. In that respect, I refer particularly to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which is designed to finance public housing authorities around Australia. Other anomalies, of course, are such issues as how bona fide and genuine are the savings that are referred to. It helps a lot in matters of this kind if one is the son or daughter of a wealthy grazier in an electorate such as Darling Downs.

Mr McVeigh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would just like Hansard to record that I am neither wealthy nor a grazier.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Darling Downs represents an area where there are many wealthy people- I suppose some of them could be described as indulgent parents- who would be prepared to facilitate transfers from one bank account to another to keep the maximum amount of savings coming into the bank account of their son or daughter so as to attract the maximum benefit under the

Home Savings Grants Scheme. Does that represent any high principle? I rather think that that is a matter that should cause very widespread concern. As I have said on previous occasions, in giving money to people, this Government does not care whether they need it or not. Obviously, this is the situation under this legislation. There are many people qualifying for the maximum home savings grant who do not need this money for housing purposes. They are affluent or are assisted by parents and they can do what they like with this money. They can take a holiday, or, if they like, trip around from Bali to Bangkok, from Suva to Shangri La or from Rangoon to the Riviera. The can buy themselves a mink coat or a Mercedes. Is this what a priority housing assistance program ought to be about?

I think the Government still has a long way to go to cull this program so that the most needy people in the community benefit. The situation is that, to obtain the full loan of $2,000, one needs to be able to accumulate savings of $6,000 over three years, that is, one needs to be able to save $2,000 a year. All of us here- in fairness I say even honourable members sitting opposite mewould know that most people cannot effect savings of that kind. Why, $2,000 a year is 1 7 per cent of gross average weekly earnings. A saving of $38.46 a week is necessary if one is to qualify under this legislation. Frankly, I think that there are many deserving people who are unable to meet that requirement. The Bill provides that, as from 24 May 1979, a grant is not payable if the value of the home, including the land, exceeds $40,000. In other words, a value limit is introduced on homes on which grants are available under the scheme. The Bill also provides that the full grant is payable only if the value of the home is less than $35,000. Where the value of the home is between $35,000 and $40,000, the grant will be reduced progressively as the value increases. The Bill permits variation of these limits by regulation. The existing restrictions remain in force. Grants at a rate of $ 1 for each $3 saved are payable- only in respect of the first home- to eligible applicants who have savings in an acceptable form from January 1976. The maximum grant is $2,000 in respect of that three years savings. Last year, the Government deliberately allocated only $20m for this scheme. It knew at that time that the amount was far too little. As a result, applicants have had to wait nine months to receive their grant. At 30 June 1979, there were some 33,781 applications approved but awaiting payment until further funds became available. The August Budget provided $75m for the home savings grants program for this financial year. However, as the Budget Papers disclose, it is not anticipated that the waiting period of nine months between approval and payment of the grants will diminish. Thus, even with the limitations of the scheme, the Government has not been prepared to, provide the funds required to assist first home applicants at the time when they require the money to pay for their home. In any event, there are many other points to be made. There are many parts of Australia where applicants are excluded because of the valuation limits. One simply cannot buy a home and a block of land for the kind of money that is mentioned. In my own electorate, some 20 miles south of Sydney, in the Engadine and Menai areas, one would be very pleased to find a quarter acre block of land for $25,000. Of course, any block with status value or a view would cost more again. Those is such areas are supposed to be the industrious people but, by virtue of this Government’s approach to this housing schemozzle, they will be disinfranchised from the only initiative, the only concept, the only idea that the Government has about assisting the home-hungry people of this country.

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

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr UREN (Reid)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-Yes, I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr UREN:

– It is supplementary to the explanation I gave immediately after the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) resumed his seat. Since then I have had time to examine the weekly Hansard. As my memory at that time served me, the debate I mentioned concerned the home building industry. It took place on 8 March 1978. The daily Hansard of that date recorded this interjection:

Mr Uren:

-i would drop the scheme again.

Seeing that remark in the daily Hansard, I immediately corrected it. The daily Hansard is a rough proof whereas the weekly Hansard is the accepted record. The weekly Hansard of 8 March 1978 records:

Mr Uren:

– I will drop a confidential document on you, if you do not watch out.

I have the confidential document here. It is a Cabinet submission of the present Government under the signature of Kevin Newman and dated 31 October 1977. To prove my bona fides, I do not mind including that confidential Cabinet submission in Hansard.

Mr Groom:

– That is taking it a bit too far.

Mr UREN:

-I do not mind doing it to prove my point that I was talking about this document at the time. I was greatly concerned that the honourable member would use this against me even though I was protesting. In fact, I intimated that to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom), and the Minister was aware of this. I will table a copy of the Cabinet submission which related to a home savings grants scheme. It shows that the Government was going to phase this home savings grants scheme out. So that honourable members can see the confidential document about which I am talking, I do not mind tabling for everybody to see the document that was on my mind at the time when I made the interjection. The Government knew that I had a confidential document- one of the Cabinet submissions- relating to the home savings grants scheme. I make it perfectly clear that that is what I was talking about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders prescribe that a Minister can table a document without leave. A private member can table a document only with leave. I address the Minister at the table. Is leave granted?

Mr Groom:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr UREN:

-I did not think I would get leave. So the Government would know I was fair dinkum about it, I thought I would table the confidential document that I talked about at that time.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-At the outset of my speech, may I comment on the debate that we have had. We all understand and appreciate the reaction of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). He was personally upset that a statement had been wrongly attributed to him. It is quite in order for the honourable gentleman to draw the attention of the House to that incorrect entry. I can understand and fully appreciate how upset he was and how quite rightly it was an affront to the good name that he has established in this Parliament over a long period. In defence of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), I say that all of us know that he is a most honest and frank person. He certainly would not have quoted the statement in a spirit of deliberate intent. Obviously there has been a mistake. On his behalf I want the House to understand that he did not set out deliberately to attribute words in a wrong context to any person. It is distressing when these instances happen in the Parliament. I wish to set the record straight. We must appreciate the fact that a mistake may have been made.

What does concern me is that we have a Bill here which seeks to assist young people to obtain a home of their own. As far back as last May, notice was given of the intention of the Government concerning the home savings grants scheme. That notice was adequate. Yet here, in the twilight of the Budget session, we have an amendment moved and seconded, by two members of the Opposition who are quite conversant with housing policy. One is a former Minister and the other the present shadow Minister who had a very close and personal association with the problems of housing when he was a member of the Government. Their amendment seeks to delay and to deny young people having access to funds which will assist them to obtain a deposit to put on a home of their own choosing, of a type that they like, in an area where they want to live. The parameters are very, very wide. It distresses me to find that we have in Opposition today a Labor Party which in bygone days sought to look after the poor people but which now seeks to deny housing opportunities to people.

Mr Jull:

– They don’t care about the young marrieds.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The honourable member for Bowman quite rightly said that the members of the Opposition do not care. How disappointing and distressing it is to see this amendment moved by the Opposition. The amendment asks for the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted. These are delaying tactics. The Labor Party is trying to stop finance flowing through the system to young people. We are disappointed at that outlook.

We of the Government parties, of course, are proud of the success story of the Home Savings Grants Scheme. It would do us well to analyse and to absorb the facts and statistics. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), who preceded me in the debate, said that the Scheme commenced in 1964. A half a million grants totalling $300m have been channelled into this area to help young people to own their own homes. This year the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) almost achieved a miracle. In a tight budgetary situation he was able to obtain $75 m to help to satisfy the aims, aspirations and hopes of our young people. It was disappointing to have to listen to a welter of irresponsible verbiage and suffocating nonsense from the two previous speakers from the Opposition in their criticisms of a wonderful plan.

Indicative of the support of the Scheme and a realisation of the place it plays in overcoming the overall housing problems is the fact that from July 1978 to June 1979 57,178 applications were received and grants approved amounted to $55.5m. There were 57,000 people who, without the Scheme, would not have had the wherewithal to buy their own homes. Since the Scheme has operated- it is a scheme that we resurrected- from 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1979, 127,461 applications were lodged and the total amount approved was $97,136,000. The previous speaker made a few disparaging comments. I remind him of a couple of occasions about which it is more pertinent to remark. On 1 6 April 1975 the honourable member for Hughes, who was then Minister for Housing and Construction, actually introduced -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is this a genuine quotation?

Mr McVEIGH:

– Is it not a quotation; it is a statement of fact. Of course, the honourable member’s memory is a little bit hazy. He does not really remember because he is in the twilight of his career; some people get a little childish at that stage. He introduced a Bill to abolish the Home Savings Grants Scheme. He does not remember that he introduced a Bill to abolish the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I allow him a little bit of latitude. The Bill was No. 49 of 1975. He introduced a Bill to abolish a scheme which, since its reintroduction by the Fraser-Anthony Government, has allowed 127,461 people to own their own homes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask for your protection. The honourable member is expressing a half truth in this situation. I recall very well the occasion that he is referring to. He is failing to make any mention of the fact that this was the occasion that coincided with the announcement of the Labor Government that a scheme of tax deductions for mortgage interest rates was to be introduced. So a much better scheme was to supersede the one to which he has referred. I ask him to be complete in his account of the historical incidents that he is seeking to give to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-If I thought the honourable member for Hughes were in need of protection I would certainly give it to him.

Mr McVEIGH:

-I am a kindly soul, I would not attack him. I refresh the memory of the honourable member once again. At page 2265 of the Hansard of 1 4 May 1 975 this appears:

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply-The legislation is in very simple terms. It is basically and primarily a matter of winding up the Home Savings Grant Act, which has never been regarded as an Act of high principle by the present Government and was not regarded as such over the years that the present Government was in Opposition.

The Labor Minister for Housing and Construction was winding up a scheme which, as I said, has brought housing within the reach of 127,461 people. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in a most excellently delivered speech, superb in tone, itemised the problems and hit on the kernel of the matter. He said that most of these people are young people. I am delighted with the statistics that he gave. I will repeat them. Young people in the 21 to 25 age bracket constituted 34. 1 per cent of those making application for the grant. For those in a little older age bracket, 26 to 30- it is a long time since the honourable member for Hughes has been 30; he cannot even remember something that happened two or three years ago- the figure was 32.6 per cent. In the age group 31 to 40 it was 2 1.5 per cent. I want to build on the excellent arguments advanced by my colleague, the honourable member for Mitchell who has shown a continuing and absorbing interest in matters relative to housing. He said that people who were contemplating marriage constituted 1 1.8 per cent of applications. We find that for those in the first year of their married life, that wonderful year, the figure was 1 8.3 per cent. One year after that the figure was 15.2 percent.

All of these things are of tremendous importance. They indicate the philosophy behind the Government’s action and the interest and the determination of the present Minister to ensure that adequate sums of money are made available to meet these demands of the young people. How well the Minister has tailored the available funds to meet the demand. Let us look at homes in the price bracket from $25,000 to $35,000. In Queensland, 53.8 per cent of the applications fit into that range. The scheme was introduced to help the ordinary people. It was not introduced to help the rich people who live in the suburbs where houses cost $100,000 but the ordinary people, the people who want to buy homes ranging from $25,000 to $35,000. In Queensland, 31.7 per cent of applications were in respect of houses in the price bracket from $30,000 to $40,000.

It is interesting to note that the cost of housing has not shown the substantial increase that some of the previous speakers from the Opposition have endeavoured to indicate. From 1975 to 1977 the cost of a home of average size has gone up about $6,500. It is interesting to note the record of the increases. Materials represent the main cost in building a home. The price index of materials used in home building on a mix of so much cement, so much timber, nails and iron and so on showed an increase in 1976-77 of 1 1.9 per cent. That was at a time when the Government had not quite overcome the serious inroads of inflation and the enormous demands on costs caused by the previous Administration. The next year the figure had decreased to 8.2 per cent, indicating that the tools of control were chipping away and endeavouring to contain costs so that people were able to buy their own homes. Last year the figure was 6.4 per cent.

Those are the parameters in which we should be discussing the housing situation. Because of the totality of the Government’s policies- its onslaught on the control of inflation to keep interest rates down and its overall fiscal policy- we find that costs have been contained. We can look forward, therefore, to the future with some degree of confidence. The people of Australia can be assured that the policies of the Fraser-Anthony coalition Government have given and will continue to give economic stability. We will give that essential ingredient in the housing area. Let us not isolate certain factors. Let us look at the total picture of financial policy and the containment of costs so that housing, in the final analysis, will be within the reach of all Australians. It is difficult to assess the results of our policies in absolute terms but the Fraser-Anthony coalition Government has a wholehearted commitment to houses for every Australian person. Our policy is obviously paying dividends.

When listening to the debate and to the speeches of Opposition members, I was reminded of one of Labor’s previous Ministers for Housing. Honourable members will recall the rapid changes in the Labor ministry. Ministers were coming in and out like jack-in-the-boxes. When the attention of the former Minister for Housing was drawn to the rapid increase in the cost of housing he did not blink an eyelid but stood up and said: ‘Well, people will have to live in smaller houses’. He suggested that the Australian people would have to tailor the size of their houses to the available finance, the value of which was being seriously eroded by the Labor Government’s financial policies.

Mr Dawkins:

-Who said that?

Mr McVEIGH:

– It was the previous Minister for Housing who is no longer with us. I can understand how honourable members opposite are upset at this type of policy. The Government is interested in people having adequate sized bedrooms and rooms with an outlook where meals can be properly prepared so that a family can live as a family. How distressing it is that under a Labor government’s policy they would have to live in smaller houses.

I was reminded by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) of the Labor Government’s proposal for an imputed rent on the value of houses. It was to be included in the overall taxation scale. Blood, sweat, toil and tears allow a person to purchase his own home, his little castle, his bit of Australia. All the better if it is a little bit of that glorious land, Darling Downs, but wherever it is it is a little bit of Australia. Yet the present Opposition, if it ever returned to government, would endeavour to put an imputed rent on the value of the private home. It does well to remind the Australian people of those policies.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Because so many incorrect assertions are being made which are far from the truth and which are very disturbing, I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the state of the House. I have never been so indignant in my life to hear such a pack of misrepresentations. What the honourable member said has nothing to do with Labor policy. (Quorum formed).

Mr McVEIGH:

– I am disappointed that the people of Australia have had the opportunity of witnessing once again deliberate attempts by the Labor Party to deny housing to the young people of Australia by its approach to this Bill. I remind them that this scheme, so excellently advocated by the Minister, has the approval of the Australian Bankers Association Research Directorate and the Real Estate Institute of Australia. I think that those bodies know a little more about housing than the Opposition does. There are a couple of points which I would like the Minister to take up. I am a little concerned about clause 6 of the Bill, particularly as it relates to the valuation of houses built on rural properties. I suggest to the Minister that rather than have the secretary of his Department build up a massive bureaucracy, he could very well go to the State valuing authorities- in Queensland the ValuerGeneral’s Department- which already have the facts and figures and can give adequate information as to the unimproved value of a piece of rural land. How good it is that people in rural Australia have the opportunity to participate in this Scheme. Why should the farmers in this great country be denied the opportunity of participating in decent housing? The FraserAnthony Government had developed the scheme along these lines.

The second point which I would like the Minister to take up with State Ministers for Housing at the next housing conference is the stamp duty applicable on the homes which young people buy. In Queensland it can amount to a sum of $600. An excellent item on the agenda for the next conference of housing Ministers would be a discussion on the relief that could be given from stamp duties, particularly on a first home. The Home Savings Grants Scheme has been an excellent scheme. It is disappointing that there is a nine-month delay, but through the good efforts of the Minister, a man of sound practical commonsense, he was able, when the problem was brought to his attention, to arrange for the various lending institutions to receive advice that a grant would be paid in eight or nine months’ time. The institutions were able to accept this as part and parcel of their on-going lending commitments. The problem with housing in Australia is that we have not had the opportunity of getting over the boom and slump conditions under the previous Administration. We are now getting to the stage of sound indicative planning which will ensure that all Australians have access to their own homes.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– We have just heard a reliable account of the Government’s housing policy from a true representative o( rural socialism in Queensland. If anyone but he /had falsely misrepresented the attitude of the Australian Labor Party on an earlier occasion on the matter of the worth of imputed rent for taxation purposes on an owner-occupied home one would accuse him of being dishonest. But in fairness to the honourable member one must acknowledge that even a liar needs some application and intelligence to make his lies stick. ^

Mr McVeigh:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. One can understand the remarks of a person who is always looking over his shoulder.

Mr Howe:

– Let us have your point of order.

Mr McVeigh:

– Will you keep quiet, Snowy? The Leader of the Opposition imputed that 1 may have been a liar. I am not a liar. In a spirit of charity he should at least withdraw any such imputation. -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Mr HAYDEN:

-With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not accuse the honourable member of being a liar. I said that the challenge was beyond his ability.

Mr McVeigh:

– Withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With due respect when a point of order is taken and an honourable member is asked to withdraw an unparliamentary remark the withdrawal is supposed to be a straight out withdrawal and not a qualified statement. I suggest that you did not ask for an unqualified withdrawal. With respect I ask you to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition said that he did withdraw. He sought to say that he did not actually call the honourable member for Darling Downs a liar. He did withdraw and I accept it as an unconditional withdrawal.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I did acknowledge that the honourable member for Darling Downs gave the House a reliable account of the Government’s housing policy, that is, it was incomprehensible and therefore it was specific and accurate in its outline of what the Government is about. The Homes Savings Grant V, Amendment Bill which is before the House is a Bill which proposes to take benefits away from people. It is a Bill which proposes to deprive many Australian families of financial assistance which hitherto had been available to them. It Will make many Australian families worse off. That will be the consequence of this Bill. What one must make clear in all of this is that this is different from the full-blooded dishonesty of Government spokesmen in the past in relation to the matter of honouring promises. This is a halfhearted destruction of a solemn promise. There was, after all, the full-blooded destruction of Medibank; the full-blooded dishonouring of the promise to establish and maintain tax indexation, the promise to preserve wage indexation and a whole range of other solemn undertakings. This one goes only part of the way to demolishing another solemn promise but there is still time ahead of this Government. As I said, this Bill is a Bill to disadvantage -

Government supporters interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinaOrder! There seems to me, as an impartial Chairman of Committees and a Deputy Speaker, to be some organised move to disrupt the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that all honourable members take note of the fact that the Standing Orders state that all interjections are out of order.

Mr Bourchier:

-I raise a point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The honourable member for Bendigo, with his interjections, is as sparkling as last week’s flat beer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Bendigo on a point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must argue with you on that point because the only reason there are any interjections simply is that the Leader of the Opposition -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Bourchier:

– But you have not heard my point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not for the honourable member for Bendigo to argue with the person in the chair, and he well knows it.

Mr Bourchier:

-But the Leader of the Opposition is saying that -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. I suggest that a little less provocation on both sides might be the order of the day. I call the leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

-This Bill will result in one in five families who would otherwise have been entitled to benefits under the Home Savings Grants Scheme being denied any benefit at all. It will result in another one in five being entitled to only a reduced benefit. That means two in five Australian families will be disadvantaged as a result of this Bill. The way in which it has been imposed on home savers in Australia is dishonest. On 24 May, without any heralding, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced that henceforth certain changes would take place in relation to the arrangements for eligibility for home savings grants which would eliminate 40 per cent of those people who to that point had derived some benefit from the scheme, that is, they would be denied totally or largely the sorts of benefits they had been saving for. Such is the measure of the dishonour of the Government in this Bill. As to the remaining three out of five families that will draw benefits under the established scheme one cannot help querying what real benefit this is in terms of assisting people to obtain their own homes when in fact there is a nine-month waiting period before payment is made to applicants, that is, nine months after they establish their home. The real reason for this Bill has nothing at all to do with the Government’s sense of equity. The Government has no sense of equity or justice except in an inverse way, as a consequence of which it believes that lower income earners should pay more tax and higher income earners should pay less tax. As the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has pointed out, since this Government came to office the tax burden on lower income earners has gone up 10 per cent and the tax burden on higher income earners has gone down 10 per cent. In this area of housing we see the whole thrust of what the Government is about. It is about saving money. It is about saving approximately $20m at the expense of Australian families that want to establish their homes. That saving is about half the cost of the outlay this year by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his self-indulgent Boeing 707 aircraft acquisition.

The Government’s record in housing is as antifamily as its record in a wide range of other matters. In fact, broadly in the field of housing policy the Government has been recreant in its responsibilities to Australian families. It is as antifamily in its neglect in the housing area as it is in so many other areas. Let us look at the range of neglect in housing policy. This is the Government that abolished the mortgage interest tax deductibility which Labor had introduced when it was in office. The great benefit of that policy was that it subsidised the repayments that home owners had to meet in paying off” the mortgage necessary to acquire a home. It meant for someone on $135 a week the loss of $7.20 a week. It meant for someone on about $190 a week a loss of nearly $6 a week. That is the measure of disadvantage that this Government has been prepared to impose on people in the housing area.

Let me deal with the public sector waiting list for housing. Seventy-four thousand families are seeking housing in the public sector. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) had the gall today to suggest that the reduction in the total number had come about as a result of Government policies meeting demand. That is totally dishonest. That is a fiction, and a very shallow one at that. The fact is that the introduction of market rental rates in the public sector by this Government has completely demolished the expectation of many people of obtaining a home in this sector, not because the market rating for rentals is a fairer system but because the way in which the Government has drawn up this scheme discriminates against so many people who otherwise over time would have expected to have successfully obtained a home in that area. So there is disadvantage in the public sector.

Let me refer to the statistics on commencements in the public sector. In 1974-75, when the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) were involved in this area as Labor Minister commencements totalled 19,000. For the year just commenced they are down to 9,500. There is massive unemployment in the home building industry. This is reflected by the fact that overall in the construction industry there has been a reduction in employment of about 50,000. These things are significant because they show that over four years of conservative governments there has been very little attention to and much less concern about the housing needs of the Australian community.

Let me take up another facet of the problem of home ownership in Australia today- the massive explosion in home purchase costs that has occurred in recent times. In the year to June just completed the cost of a median home in Sydney went up 30 per cent- by $14,500 in one year to over $62,200. That is the median cost of a home. It reflects the nonsense of a home savings grant of $2,000 when the median cost of a median home in Sydney in one year rises by $14,500 to over $62,000. The cut-out point for a home attracting any benefit at all under this scheme is $40,000. It is up to the Minister either to outline a program of controlling costs in the home building industry or to introduce programs which will mitigate the rapidly rising cost of acquiring homes for Australian families. He has done neither. In fact, this Bill diminishes the access to benefit in the home building area coming from the Government. Market interest rates are moving; that is clear. A one per cent increase feeding through the housing mortgages on a $25,000 loan will increase monthly repayments by $ 1 7 to nearly $250 a month. That is a substantial slug for any young family trying to establish a home in this country today.

Those are only some of the ingredients of the neglect for which this Government is responsible and the disadvantage imposed on Australian families as a result of Government neglect. It is undeniable that the government’s housing policy has created an area of social distress. Australian families are being disadvantaged because of the indifference of this conservative Government to their needs. Home ownership has gone down under this Government. In 1966 owner occupied homes accounted for 73 per cent of the total number of occupied homes. In 1977 that figure was down to about 63 per cent. It is still going down. If we look at the average size of a home in Australia today, we find that there has been a notable reduction in the floor space area. In 1974-75, the average size of a home in Sydney was 153 square metres. In 1977-78, it was down to 143 square metres; and it continues to decrease. If honourable members on the Government side have any genuine involvement in the needs of Australian families in terms of home ownership and talk to people involved in the home building industry, they will recognise that the contraction in floor space area available for Australian families continues. This means that Australian families increasingly are being forced into cramped conditions. With the enormous accumulation of unmet need in the public sector and the general deterioration in home building activity in Australia in the last couple of years- improving in the private sector lately, but still well below the optimum capacity of the industry- there is an enormous pent-up accumulation of unmet housing need in Australia today. That need will be measured in various unpleasant ways. It will be measured in terms of social costs imposed on the rest of the community, with things such as cramped accommodation, where two and three generations are forced to share accommodation which was designed, in a very cramped way, for one family alone.

Let us look at the present proposals and the unevenness between different areas in Australia caused by what the Government has done. It has established a $35,000 threshold, beyond which there is a reducation in the amount of grant available, cutting out at $40,000. This means that the payment will be terminated or cut back for 60 per cent of home buyers in Victoria as against 40 per cent for the whole of Australia. That indicates the lack of perception on the part of the Government about the nature of home ownership problems throughout Australia today and the distribution of differential costs between various parts of Australia. This proposal, which Government spokesmen have extolled as the cornerstone of the Government’s housing policy, shows that that policy is collapsing because its cornerstone does not stand up and does not support anything.

Let me deal now with the unevenness of the distribution of this benefit. In the metropolitan area, one in every two intending home purchasers will now be excluded from drawing on benefits as against the proportion who would have been eligible up until this change. In the non-metropolitan area, however, only one in every four persons will be excluded. If one looks at Sydney and Melbourne, a greater proportion of intending home buyers will be excluded or will find that they have eligibility for markedly reduced benefits as against the rest of Australia. These are matters which have not been considered at all by the Government or, if they have been, it has shied away from them as being either too hard or not worth the concern of government. Under this program, it is hot so much a matter of equity or need as a matter of where one lives. A person can have an enormous claim for support on the basis of equity and need but be discriminated against greatly. The Government is subtle in selecting who will be entitled to its benefit. It is using a sledgehammer to carry out filigree work.

Turning to another aspect of this proposal, I point out that there is still a nine-months waiting period before the subsidy, the home savings grant, is available. Effectively, this is not a subsidy to acquire a home. It will not help people to acquire a home. It is a subsidy for furniture or perhaps a holiday rather than for a house. Again, the Government fails to recognise that, because that money is not available for nine months, people desperately need assistance to bridge the deposit gap and they are forced to resort to second mortgages. So many of the lower income earners, who are the people disadvantaged by this sort of delay, have to resort to financial institutions, with their extortionate rates of interest. For that nine-months period, people resort to bridging loans at exorbitant rates of interest. Again, it does not explore one simple but very important flaw, and that is the whole conceptualisation behind this program. Very simply, it is that saving is very largely a function of income. The higher one’s income the easier it is to save. Accordingly, it is an easier task to save $6,000 over three years for someone earning a high income than for someone on a modest or low income, someone who is socially and economically disadvantaged in the community. This program does not reach into that area at all. Given the neglect in the area of public housing development which I mentioned statistically a few minutes ago, these people represent one of the greatest social disaster areas, one of the greatest areas of neglect, when it comes to Government housing policy.

I move on to the dimensions of the housing problem for families. A person on a median wage of $200 a week, with a building society loan of $22,000 over 25 years at 1 1 per cent per annum, which is roughly what they would be entitled to, would have to meet a deposit gap of $12,000 on an average price home. If he saves $6,000 over three years and gets his $2,000 grant, bearing in mind that it is nine months later and therefore not relevant to this exercise, he will have a deposit shortfall of $4,000.* If he lives in Melbourne or Sydney the gap will be $8,000. To put this exercise credibly,’ the $2,000 home savings grant, which is not available for nine months after a person enters into a home contract, should also be added to the shortfall. That is the dimension pf the neglect by the Government. The Government is not really grappling with the heartland of defects in home ownership policies in Australia today. I will give honourable members another illustration of this from the home savings grants data. Some li per cent of applicants have a second mortgage. The average first mortgage is $23,000, with repayments at 1 1 per cent amounting to $2,790 a year over 25 years, that represents a payment of $233 a month. A second mortgage of about $6,000 at 1 5 per cent over 10 years involves a payment of nearly $2,000 a year or $ 1 66 a month- People are paying $400 a month, or $100. a week. In aftertax terms they are paying over 50 per cent of average income on their homes.

This is an impossible burden, and it shows that there is no genuine concern for the home ownership aspirations of Australian families. They are enormously disadvantaged by the neglect of this Government. The policy program before us does nothing for them. It is merely a Bill to amend an Act for two purposes. The first is to disadvantage 40 per cent of Australian families acquiring a home who previously would have been entitled to some benefit. More importantly, the second purpose is to raise half the cost of the Prime Minister’s self-indulgent acquisition of Boeing aircraft to aggrandise his trips overseas.

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

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– I was surprised when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) entered the chamber to take part in this debate. From my recollection, it is the first time he has debated the subject of housing in this House in a period of four years. In this debate we are talking about the Home Savings Grants Scheme. In the present financial year, we are providing $75m. an increase of $55m over the previous financial year. As I said earlier today, this is the largest amount of money that any government has provided for this Scheme. I do not apologise for being an enthusiastic supporter of home ownership. I wish I could say the same thing about the Leader of the Opposition and honourable members opposite. They have shown, through their record, that they do not have the same sort of support for home ownership or for the Home Savings Grants Scheme.

What cheek and hypocrisy it is for honourable members opposite to come into this House and debate this issue and to criticise the structure of the Home Savings Grants Scheme and the detail of the administration of that Scheme, when they abolished it in 1975. That was a great disappointment to many young future home buyers in Australia. The Labor Party let down home buyers. Our policies as a government have been most successful. The welfare waiting lists around Australia have been reduced. They are smaller now than they were when the Labor Government was in office. At that time, the number on the waiting lists was over 100,000; now that figure is down by over 20,000. So we are having some success in reducing welfare housing lists.

Inflation is the key to home ownership. If we are to improve access to home ownership, we must get inflation under control. Again, we are proving to be far more successful in this area than the Labor Party was when it was in office. The rate of increase in the cost of building materials has been reduced. We are now looking at a rate of 9 per cent or 10 per cent. There is some pressure on in that area at the moment. When the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was a Minister, the rate of inflation for home building materials was over 26 per cent in one year. We have halved that rate. So again we have been most successful. The rate of increase in interest rates has been markedly reduced. Since we have been in office, interest rates have remained essentially stable for housing loans around Australia. In some cases, they have been reduced. We all remember that when Labor was in office, month after month, young couples received notices from their building societies or their banks saying: ‘I am sorry, but your interest rates are going to go up’. So that was the record of the Labor Government. Young people received notices saying: ‘Your instalments on your repayments are going to go up’. Those notices arrived month after month. That was the Labor Government’s record. Are Opposition members proud of that record? On average, people are now paying less out of their weekly incomes for home repayments or for rent than they were when the Labor Government was in office.

The Leader of the Opposition cited a few figures in regard to home ownership. I do not know where he got them from, but they are not in accord with the official figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The latest survey, taken in November 1978, shows that there is a home ownership rate in Australia of 73 per cent.

That is the highest home ownership rate that we have ever had. So overall, the housing situation has improved since we took office. Access to home ownership has improved since we took office. Of course that is not to say that there are not problems. There are problems and we are seeking to overcome them. But I suggest to all honourable members that those problems were greater when the Labor Party was in office because it did not appreciate how those people who want to purchase their own homes can be assisted. As I say, the primary way of doing that is to get inflation under control. The whole of Australia knows what a poor record the Labor Party had when it was in office in trying to control inflation. The Labor Government totally failed the Australian people; it totally failed young home buyers, the young people seeking to own their own homes. The record speaks for itself.

Access to home ownership has improved. The report of the housing cost inquiry showed that between 1966 and 1977 access to home ownership improved in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. The inquiry did not look at the other capital cities; they were not covered. A recent study conducted by Mr R. Cardew concluded that accessibility to home ownership in Sydney improved between 1974 and 1978. For the period since then, estimates of average prices paid for dwellings by first home buyers in each capital city and around Australia show that there has been a continuing improvement in accessibility to home ownership between 1977 and 1979 in all Australian capital cities. The overall improvement in access to home ownership reflects the steady improvement in the availability of housing finance. In the last financial year, we saw a 21 per cent increase in the gross amount of housing finance provided by the banks and the permanent building societies around Australia. Average weekly earnings are growing at a rate faster than that of dwelling prices. For example, average weekly earnings in Australia in 1978-79 grew by 7.7 per cent compared with an increase in dwelling prices of 4.4 per cent. Reductions in personal income tax rates are enabling families to save the deposit for a home more quickly than they could, again, when the Labor Party was in office.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr GROOM:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1979. As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, this financial year the Government is providing additional funds for the Home Savings Grants Scheme to help those people in Australia who are seeking to purchase their first home. This financial year we are providing $75m-the most that has ever been provided by any government in financing this scheme. The amount payable by way of a grant was increased to $2,000 in January of this year. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the general eligibility provisions have been widened so that not only married people but also single people can qualify for a grant. There is no longer any age limit. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the money made available for this scheme to provide grants for people buying their first home should go to those most in need. That is the purpose of providing for the value limit. What I would like to know is this: Does the Opposition support a value limit, given that there is a Home Savings Grants Scheme which will continue into the foreseeable future? Does the Opposition accept that there should be a value limit? I suspect that it would probably agree that in all the circumstances there should be a value limit, and that people who can afford to purchase a home for $60,000, $80,000 or $100,000 should not be provided with substantial assistance out of taxpayers’ funds and that, if possible, the money available should go to those in most need to enable them to get into a home of their own. As I have said, that is the purpose of this Bill.

The Government opposes the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Reid. It refers specifically to Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, and comments have been made about the prices being paid -

Mr Uren:

– And Darwin.

Mr GROOM:

– I am sorry. It also refers to Darwin. Honourable members opposite have commented on the prices paid for houses in those cities. It has been suggested that the value limits will not provide assistance for those people. I mention to the House that the interim statements on the operation of the Home Savings Grants Scheme in 1978-79, which I tabled last week, indicate that of the people who purchased homes in Sydney- these are first homes- 73 per cent bought homes for less than $40,000 in that financial year. In Melbourne the figure was 69 per cent, and in Perth 86 per cent. So from those figures it is clear that the majority of people buying their first home will still qualify for a grant. Of course, in this financial year we anticipate spending $75m to assist these people to get into a home of their own. Therefore, the Government does oppose the amendment and I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I wish to reply briefly to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom). He asked a question of the Opposition: Does the Australian Labor Party support a value limit? In other words, do we stand for a means test on this question of housing? We do not. We have looked at the costs of housing and land, and the level varies greatly from State to State. We recognise that it is necessary to have some type of means test, but we do not accept that the value -

Mr Yates:

– What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member for Holt will remain silent.

Mr Yates:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I put it to you that what the honourable member is discussing is not part of the Bill and is inadmissible on the third reading.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair will be attentive to the relevance of the remarks made by the honourable member for Reid.

Mr UREN:

-I assure the Chair that I will be brief. When the Minister was summing up he threw out a challenge to the Opposition as to whether we stood for a means test.

Mr Yates:

– It is not in the Bill.

Mr UREN:

-Of course it is in the Bill. The honourable member for Holt keeps interjecting that it is not in the Bill. The Bill provides that we will have a means test of $35,000 and that it will be totally phased out at $40,000. 1 discussed the matter broadly and said that the Opposition was opposed to that because it would disenfranchise -

Mr Hodges:

– I move:

Mr Uren- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just replying briefly to the Minister. I said that I would be only a minute, but honourable members opposite keep interjecting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Petrie has indicated that he withdraws the motion. The honourable member for Reid may proceed.

Mr UREN:

-I am only saying that, having regard to the means test of $35,000 and its phasing out at $40,000, we do not believe it is adequate because it disenfranchises too many people within the cities I have set out in my amendment. When the Labor Party brings forward its policy at the 1980 election we will have provision for a means test. But it will be a just means test which will allow the people of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin to acquire a home under our scheme.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3123

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the 12th report from the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 3123

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr John McLeay :

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1979 is a Bill to amend about 45 Acts on the basis that we are now establishing an Australian Federal Police force in lieu of what was formerly the Commonwealth Police force. It is a very simple amendment. We are simply changing the words from Commonwealth Police’ to ‘Australian Federal Police’. The Opposition has no objection to the Bill. We make the point that it means a consolidation of the former Federal police forces into one force. This was the policy of the Opposition some time ago. I might say that it did not receive a lot of support then in a number of areas, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory. But the process of time has proved the wisdom of the Opposition’s policy. We wish the force every success. A number of other Bills will come on next week on which we will be expressing different views in relation to the type of functions that the force should perform. Rather than delay the House any further at this stage and because this Bill is a very simple machinery measure, I conclude by saying that we do not oppose the Bill.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 3123

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr John McLeay:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I state at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1979. The Bill has the unanimous support of members of the Public Accounts Committee from both sides of Parliament. Some honourable members know and some may not know that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is made up of members from both Houses of the Parliament. It is one of the oldest committees of the Parliament. The Joint Committee of Public Accountswhich consists of seven members of the House of Representatives and three members of the Senate- was established under the Public Accounts Committee Act 195 1. This is one of the first occasions on which there have been substantial amendments to the Act since the Committee was established. There had been a Public Accounts Committee since the early 1900s. As an economy measure during the Depression years the government of the day decided that it would abolish the Public Accounts Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee Act was repealed.

The Committee was again established in 1 95 1 under the chairmanship of Professor Bland, who is the father of Mr Harry Bland, who was the permanent head of the Department of Defence, amongst other departments. I can well remember that when I was a young serving officer of the New South Wales Public Service, which I entered at the tender age of 15 years, it was necessary to pass what were called grade examinations. One of the subjects to be studied for the New South Wales Public Service grade examinations was a textbook on budget control written by Professor Bland. When he was elected to this Parliament he sought to introduce to its activities measures and controls which he felt should be introduced to control the expenditure of the Public Service. He felt that there should be a fairly extensive measure of control. It was mainly through his activities that the Public Accounts Committee, when it was re-established, assumed a type of aura, if I can use that expression.

Frankly, it saddens me somewhat that amongst the members of the Parliament there is so little known about the activities of the Joint

Committee of Public Accounts. It is one of the more worthwhile committees of the Parliament. I have been a member of that Committee since 1 March 1973- for 6’A years. I have been ViceChairman of it for four years. It does a tremendously good job. It is sad to think that on occasions, when reports of the Committee are brought down in this Parliament so little debate occurs. I see my colleague, the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Many famous people have used public accounts committees, primarily in England, as vehicles for advancement within the parliamentary system. Unfortunately this does not of necessity follow in Australia. I well remember reading a book on the life of Harold Wilson- who subsequently became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom- which was written not by him but by his private secretary. This book mentions that when Harold Wilson set out to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom he used both the United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee and the chairmanship of that Committee as vehicles. He was successful in achieving his ambition of becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom through the medium of the Public Accounts Committee.

I dare say that quite a few people in this Parliament who have served on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts- I could name them, but I shall not- have advanced to ministerial rank and to some of the high offices of the land by showing their wares on the Public Accounts Committee. I advance that information to any of our younger members of Parliament who have high ambitions. I can say this as an old stager who is leaving the Parliament at the end of this term.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You have served the Parliament well.

Mr MARTIN:

– I thank the honourable member for Burke for that remark. If some of the younger members of the Parliament really want to learn how the economy of the country functions and want to learn about the expenditure of the Public Service- which in a lot of cases is misspent- they could do no great harm to their careers by serving on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It is one of the more worthwhile committees of the Parliament. I realise that I am deviating slightly from the Bill, but I am extolling the virtues of the Committee.

Mr Kerin:

– I am trying to get off it.

Mr MARTIN:

– The honourable member for Werriwa had an illustrious predecessor in this Parliament who became Prime Minister. The honourable member for Werriwa is now a member of the Committee and, who knows, he may even end up as a Prime Minister of this country because of the work he puts in on this Committee. This Committee is charged with examining the accounts of receipts and expenditure for the whole of the Commonwealth and reporting on such matters to this Parliament. This is the only method that I am aware of by which the Parliament is able to scrutinise the Executive and the activities of government, and to do it in a fashion which is worth while. This Bill proposes to extend the duties of the Committee in order to strengthen its role. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) said in his second reading speech, the amendments are part of a continuing process in broadening parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure. They follow on from the establishment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which was formed in April 1976.

There is a difference between the roles of the two committees. The Public Accounts Committee has been and still is entrusted with overseeing expenditure that has already taken place. The role of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure is different. The establishment of that Committee was an attempt to go forward to ascertain the facts on expenditure before it is actually made. At present the duties of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts are limited in the Committee’s examination- this is prior to this amending Bill- of statutory authorities. Members of parliament may or may not be aware that statutory authorities have grown out of all proportion compared with Public Service departments. At present there are over 250 separate statutory Commonwealth authorities, compared with some 31 Federal Government departments. It is something that I think the Parliament has to make note of and take care about because I do not think that an overgrowth of statutory authorities is beneficial to the proper oversight of expenditure. This is one area in which the Public Accounts Committee has not been able to exercise the oversight that it is entitled to exercise, and should exercise, in order properly to carry out its functions. That is one of the reasons why these amendments are being made to the Public Accounts Committee Act. That is the purpose of the Bill.

One of the main amendments is designed to grant to the Public Accounts Committee the right to examine the expenditure of not only government departments- the Public Accounts Committee already has that right- but also all government instrumentalities and authorities, commonly called statutory authorities. Up to the present the only way in which the affairs of these statutory authorities could be examined by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was if the Auditor-General in his report to this Parliament made some mention of these authorities. At times huge amounts of expenditure were made by these statutory authorities, often without any proper parliamentary oversight. If the AuditorGeneral made some criticism of the spending activities of these statutory authorities it left the way open for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to investigate their activities. That was the only way in which it could be done. It was a subterfuge which the Auditor-General would often use- I think I can say this advisedly- to assist us in our activities. There has been a fair amount of liaison between the Government and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on this mater. The Government has decided, I think with some pressure from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, to extend the activities of the Committee to allow the Committee of its own volition to investigate the affairs of any Commonwealth statutory authority. I think it is a good move. The Opposition agrees with the amendments which are being made.

There is one matter about which I am concerned. I express only my own opinion on this matter. A tendency has developed within some of the committees of the Parliament, particularly some of the Senate committees, to try to gather unto themselves a little domain- if I may call it that- or area where they can conduct certain investigations in the economic field. There is a tendency to have a duplication of effort by some of these Senate committees in areas which normally and by statute are covered by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I remind members of this House that there is no necessity for such duplication because the Public Accounts Committee is a joint committee. The Senate is represented on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, as is the House of Representatives. It is a tendency which I think is growing. Maybe it is a follow-on of Parkinson’s law, of trying to build up activities for ourselves. Before we know where we are, we have a department. I think it is a tendency which should be frowned upon. I am raising the issue tonight on a personal basis, not on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I am voicing my concern that there is a tendency for some- only some- committees of the Senate to seek to move into areas which, quite frankly, are not their domain. I am not saying that the Senate does not have the right to do it, but I am saying that its facilities and resources could be better used by moving into other areas rather than by trying to duplicate the efforts of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

I do not say this as a means of trying to preserve our own domain or something which we have. I think this tendency can only lead to confusion with the Commonwealth Public Service. The Commonwealth Public Service has a healthy respect for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. In fact, I have seen very senior officers in the Service coming before our Committee with the Joe Blakes, as we say- the shakes. That is something which has surprised me. They have been called before the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to account for their stewardship. That is something that no department in the Commonwealth Public Service looks forward to. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has a good name. It is respected and I suppose to a certain extent we could say it is somewhat feared. I counsel caution to some people in authority in the other place who are trying to gather unto themselves a new little domain at the expense of what I consider to be a proper and good organisation of the inquiry processes of both Houses of the Parliament.

Just as a matter of interest, I would like to mention that even though this amending Bill, amongst other things, grants the right to the Committee to examine and investigate the activities of all statutory authorities- some 250 of them- the Committee has not been remiss in the past. I would like it to be included in the record that since 1966 the Public Accounts Committee has examined the activities of the National Capital Development Commission; the Norfolk Island Administration; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission; the Commonwealth Fire Board; the Australian Egg Board; the War Service Homes Insurance Trust Accounts; the Australian Broadcasting Commission; the Commonwealth Advertising Bureau, as it was at one stage; the Australian Dairy Produce Board; the Canberra Community Hospital; the National Library of Australia; the Australian Broadcasting Control Board; the Australian Wool Board; the Australian Tourist Commission; even that holy of holies, the Public Service Board; the office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency; the Commonwealth Railways; the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; the Australian Wheat Board; the Darwin Community College- may I say, as one who was in Darwin, that it was a real botch; and the Superannuation Fund. It is currently conducting an investigation into the affairs of the Canberra

Commercial Development Authority. They are just a few of the statutory authorities which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has investigated or is currently investigating. In addition to that, it has investigated on a regular basis most of the departments within the Commonwealth Public Service. There is hardly a government department which has not had its affairs investigated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

One old faithful which has received a lot of attention from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is the Department of Defence. I am sorry that the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) is not in the chamber, because I know that he is concerned and has been concerned at the number of occasions on which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has found it necessary to investigate the affairs of the Department of Defence. I would like just to instance a couple of incidents that occurred in the investigations of the Department of Defence. During the time of the Vietnam war the Department of Defence, through the then Department of the Army, decided that for the better care of the troops in Vietnam, who were doing a good job, it needed such equipment as transportable refrigerators. So it placed an order. After a lot of work the experts in the Department of Defence and other authorities drew up the design plans for these transportable refrigerators, which were to be used primarily in Vietnam.

Everything went well, except for the fact that they did not get off the production line until after the Vietnam war was over. They were designed so that they could be transported by the Royal Australian Air Force on its Caribou aircraft. When the officers concerned got to the stage of trying to fit one of these transportable refrigerators into a Caribou aircraft they found that it did not fit. They could not get into the aeroplane. There was no other way of transporting it. For many moons, those transportable refrigeratorswhich turned out not to be transportable because we could not get them in the aircraft- lay not collecting dust, but I think in the ordnance depot at Holsworthy Army camp. Millions of dollars were involved. It was not just chicken feed involved in this type of exercise. That was one matter which was originally brought up by the Auditor-General in his report and was subsequently investigated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

There is another matter which again happens to concern the Department of Defence, and the Army authorities. There were such things as demountable trailers. I think that these demountable trailers were to be used for carting stores and ammunition. There was a design study made for these trailers and they were manufactured by outside manufacturers to design specifications. The trailers were to be attached to the backs of trucks and were to be capable of being towed at a fair speed. Everything went along beautifully until such time as it was found that the trucks could not tow them and that they would detach from the trucks.

I have instanced these two cases which were investigated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts concerning the Department of Defence. Arising from the investigations and the severe criticism which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts made in its report to this Parliament, we hope that design mistakes of that type will not occur again, because in one case the amount involved was over $2m and in the other case it was well over Sim. Quite frankly, that was an absolute waste of public money. I instance those two cases to show some of the matters which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts does investigate. The Chairman of our Joint Committee of Public Accounts will be speaking after me. I am certain that he will have a lot more to add to what I have said. In the time remaining to me, I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we agree with the amendments which the Government seeks to make to the Act. The Bill will lead to a better service from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that can be only of benefit to the Parliament and to the nation.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-This is a very significant debate in the relatively uncluttered history of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts as far as the Federal Parliament is concerned. This Committee originally had its historical base in a similar committee established in the Parliament of the State of Victoria. When the first Australian Federal Parliament was established in that city, the Founding Fathers thought, and rightly so, that there needed to be within the structure of the Federal Parliament a committee system which would not only give to the House the capacity at all times to oversee the activities of the Executive in the wider sense but, more specifically, be able to support in the House, through it, the work of the Auditor-General; and be able to guarantee that public funds were spent not only according to the wishes of Parliament but also in the most effective manner to benefit the Australian people.

It seems extraordinary that during the early years of the Great Depression when there was a serious attempt by the Australian Government of the day to reduce the level of public expenditure, the Public Accounts Committee was one of the victims of that policy. For financial reasons, it simply ceased to exist. Nevertheless, in 1951, essentially due to the efforts of Professor Bland, the then member for Warringah, the Public Accounts Committee in its present form was reestablished as a joint committee of the Australian Parliament. Those of us who have served on the Committee believe that we have, over the years, performed a useful role. It is my personal view that part of our success rests on the fact that it is a joint committee of the Parliament. In other words it is made up of senators as well as members of the House of Representatives.

It is worth while remembering that in the Constitution, where reference is made to the Australian Parliament, we are told that the Parliament consists of two Houses- the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is a pity that in recent years there appears to be- the point was made by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin)- a tendency for the two Houses to grow further and further apart and for them more or less to run their own course, to seek their own objectives and to establish their own committees within the confines of the respective Houses. A joint committee has the unique capacity to give to the Parliament as a whole a consensus on the consideration of subjects of fiscal responsibilitythe matters which we are responsible for on this Committee- so that both Houses of the Parliament at all times are acquainted with the state of the nation’s expenditure so far as the public sector in particular is concerned.

The amendments which we are debating tonight are of particular significance in a number of very fundamental ways. This is the first opportunity, since 1951 when the Committee was reestablished, for us more or less to bring our procedures, our machinery of operation, up to date. Whilst there have been similar committees of the House, such as the Joint Committee on Public Works, the powers, responsibilities and administrative arrangements under which the joint committees have functioned have for some unknown reason been fairly different on a number of very significant points. For this reason, the changes which we are making tonight will, for example, remove the restriction on the number of sectional committees. Over the years this restriction has had the effect of limiting the Public Accounts Committee to two sub-committees operating at any one time. In view of the vast areas which we have tried to cover, it is obvious that if the Committee is limited on that basis, in the period of a three-year Parliament, or even less, the Committee cannot cover the number of departments and statutory authorities for which it is responsible. Therefore, the decision to lift that restriction means that we will be able to establish subcommittees of approximately three members. This could result literally in a doubling of our capacity in terms of the number of individual inquiries we will be able to conduct at any one time. This is significant because we have been told, as a result of a very good report of a Senate committee recently published, that there are over 250 statutory bodies in the Federal sphere which are meant to report to this Parliament.

It is strange that until the Senate committee conducted its review we did not know how many statutory bodies had been established by this Parliament since 1901. What this demonstrates quite clearly is that where at the moment there are some three committees of the Parliamentnamely, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the Public Accounts Committeewhich are in one way or another involving themselves in the activities of administration and Federal government expenditure, the field we are covering is so absolutely vast that, if each member of both Houses of Parliament spent his or her entire time working on committees of this type, I suspect that we would still not be able to cover the area adequately.

I think it is worth putting on record the fact that the Public Accounts Committee, in any average year’s activity, conducts a number of inquiries. These include inquiries into the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the Auditor-General’s report which is tabled in Parliament every year, and his supplementary reports which also are tabled. In addition, we conduct at least two, and sometimes as many as four, major vertical inquiries into some specific area of government activity and expenditure. This means that in addition to these general inquiries, such as into the Advances to the Minister for Finance or the Auditor-General’s reports, we are looking at approximately 12 to 15 departments at least every year. In addition, there are many, many internal areas of departments or of specific expenditure which we also look at in terms of these more general reports. In view of the substantial number of meetings that we hold and the fact that we table between five and seven reports in this Parliament every year, I think it is fair to say that the Australian people, and this Parliament, have in every sense of the word received value for money from the activities which we have carried out.

In that context, in particular I note with great satisfaction and gratitude the tremendous contribution which has been made by those who are members of the Committee because, as we all know, an Act of Parliament may establish a body but, unless we have within it a group of people who are willing to work hard, obviously the Parliament will not receive adequate results. I note particularly the activities and the tremendous help of the honourable member for Banks, who is Vice-Chairman. When I first went on the Committee after the Federal election in May 1974, he had been a member of the Committee. He has served on it consistently ever since. Whilst this is his last Parliament, I am sure that all honourable members will join with me in congratulating him on the significant role he has played over the years in developing the Public Accounts Committee, and in my opinion- and I am sure my colleagues would agree with me- establishing it in the role which it has always sought to have, namely, that of the premier financial committee of the Parliament. Other members of the Committee, in addition to the honourable member for Banks, include the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield), the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), Senator Lajovic, Senator Watson and Senator Georges. Other former members of the Committee have served extremely well in the interests of the Parliament and the constitutents. Taxation, after all, and the manner in which it is spent, should be the primary responsibility of this House.

I turn now to some specific matters concerning the amendments in the Bill. I mentioned earlier the significance of the statutory authorities. Under the current Act we have had a very fundamental problem in this regard in that unless a statutory body was specifically mentioned in a report to the Parliament by the Auditor-General the Public Accounts Committee was not able to conduct an inquiry into it. As a result of these amendments no restraints of that type will apply. We will be able, at our own initiative as well as on the basis of the report of the Auditor-General, to conduct an inquiry into any statutory authority responsible for reporting to this Parliament. This is a very significant amendment but we will not be able to look at bodies which are under joint control. I refer to a Federal and State body, such as the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, or a foreign government working with the Australian Government. We understand these limitations. For constitutional reasons it is obvious that we could not take unilateral decisions to make those examinations. However, provided the other body, whether it be a State or foreign body, agrees to the conduct of an investigation and ultimate report to the Parliament, that may of course take place.

In addition we are not able to look at the affairs of the Northern Territory or the external territories of the Commonwealth. We looked into this matter at great depth. It was our policy, I believe correctly, that since the Northern Territory in particular is rapidly proceeding towards full independence- it has a new constitution and the same rights as other States of the Commonwealth- therefore it would not be proper for a committee of the Federal Parliament to involve itself in its activities. Nevertheless there are a whole range of areas in which the Public Accounts Committee will be able to expand itself as a result of the proposed changes to the Act.

Another matter of considerable importance is that we are also being given the authority to look into efficiency audits which will be tabled in this Parliament by the Auditor-General. This is an area in which I personally and other members of the Committee have played a very close role in recent years, that is, introducing into the public sector and into this Parliament through amendments to the Audit Act the concept of efficiency audits which will widen the scope of the audit in the traditional sense. The Auditor-General will now, not only be interested in a regulatory audit, namely, whether in fact money is spent in accordance with government regulation, but at least as important if not more so- whether in fact those funds were spent as economically and efficiently as possible. Today that is regarded as the major element of review. It is an area which is gong to be of continuing importance as the role of government. Despite the fact that many of us believe that at the moment it is far too large, it will continue to expand with its involvement in various activities in both the private sector and, or course, the public sector. Therefore, the responsibility of this Parliament to carry out these reviews effectively will become more and more important.

This also raises for us the difficulty of staffing. This Parliament in recent years has had limitations placed upon it in the matter of increasing staff the same way that departments of state have had limitations placed on them. It is my personal view that the Parliament should be regarded differently from departments of state. Not only should the Parliament be responsible for its own budget but also it should be responsible for its staffing. In this regard it is particularly important to remember that in recent years a very significant number of reports have been tabled not only from this Parliament but also as a result of royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry initiated at the government level. Numerous reports have been tabled in the Parliament as a result of the work of specific committees of the two Houses of this Parliament. Those reports cover a whole range of activities- health, social welfare, the environment, law and government and so on.

I venture to suggest again that in terms of value for money the Australian taxpayer has done extremely well on the basis of the work done by members of this Parliament. For example, the total annual cost of running all of the parliamentary committees is in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars. If honourable members were to examine the estimates of expenditure of departments of state on running various inquiries they would find that the cost of the inquiry into public administration at one stage was in excess of $ 1.5m. That expenditure was incurred for one inquiry alone. Committees of this Parliament have never achieved that level of expenditure. When I consider the two reports tabled in this Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee in the last year or so on the introduction of computers and computer technology into the public sector it is worthwhile noting that the total cost of that exercise was less than $50,000. Yet we have been able in those two reports to point to areas where, on a conservative basis, we estimate that there will be direct savings if our recommendations are carried out of at least $6m. The trend over recent years has been that the reports tabled in this Parliament by its committees have had a much greater rate of success in having their recommendations accepted into policy by government than have many of the reports brought down by royal commissions and other bodies working from departments or at the behest of government. I do not wish to draw any conclusions from this. I merely state the facts as I see them. I therefore confirm my belief that parliaments and the committees of parliaments have a very real role to play.

I am reminded of the comment made to me recently by an honourable colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), when he likened the roles of the committees of the Parliament and the Parliament by saying that he saw the committees as the work room and the Parliament as the shop window. I think that is an appropriate and accurate way of making the distinction. The so-called role of parliament in the Westminster tradition, which was once seen as the Parliament being a place where gentlemen of leisure could come together to make their views known on whether the Government was doing what they thought it should, be it on fiscal matters, financial policy or any other domestic issues, is as relevant today as it ever was. We are today dealing with a highly sophisticated and technological world. We are dealing with a system of government which requires our total commitment as members of these houses. I do not accept the view that the committee system as presently arranged is, in a sense, destroying the Parliament or could possibly destroy the Parliament.

I think it is worth while noting the fact that the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster is at this very moment establishing a system of subject committees which will involve its members in actively pursuing the activities of departments of state, not just for a day or a week, not just on the basis of the odd subject, but for 365 days of the year. In other words there will be a group of parliamentarians continually overviewing the activities of the Executive. My interpretation of the Westminster system suggests that our ancestors would applaud such a trend because it merely emphasises once again that it is the Parliament which must hold the sword over the Executive. It is the Parliament to which the Executive must report. It is the Parliament which in turn must report to the nation which elected its members in the first place. If we do not allow ourselves in any degree to weaken this umbilical cord between the community which we represent and the right of parliament always to be assured that the activities of government are in the interests of the nation and that the funds gathered from the people by way of taxes are spent in the best interests of the nation, then we will assuredly be able to say to those who have elected us to this august body: ‘ We have served you well ‘.

There are problems, however. The responsibilities which rest upon committees of these Houses are great. Of fundamental importance is the ultimate quality of the reports which we table. For example, the people who are called to give evidence before us must always be of high probity whose principles are beyond question and who have a capacity to make a real contribution to our deliberations. Should there be any doubt on such a matter, it is always the responsibility of the committee and of its chairman to ensure that the committee is enabled to take whatever evidence is required, either by verbal means or by written submission. But the important thing is that we had the crucible of enormous power. We can destroy individuals simply by allowing a person to come before us in a public hearing, with the Press present, and to make various comments about somebody for whom he may not particularly care. The reality we are facing today is that the media tend to look for the criticisms and are not interested in the success stories. It is in that area that we as members of the Parliament and of the committees of the Parliament must always be on our guard. The rights of citizens and the rights of public servants, whose activities we have been expressly established to observe, must be taken into account. We must always seek for the truth. We seek to harm no person, provided that the work which he has undertaken was done at the request of government and was in accordance with the law of this land. For it is the law which, above all, must be paramount.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There is a popular stereotype that Parliament is a gladiatorial arena bitterly divided on party lines and that partisanship is so intense that every piece of legislation is contested and forced to a division and that only polar extremities are expressed in debate. There is, of course, an element of truth in every stereotype, but it should not be exaggerated. It is the public, highly exposed, element of our political activities in the Parliament. But there is another element in the parliamentary system which is not yet as important as what goes on in the chamber but which is growing in importance, and that is the parliamentary committee system. Committees meet both in public and in private. They take evidence in a quasijudicial fashion, on oath, in a style similar to that of a royal commission. While members are all nominated to the committees by their parties and they retain the political commitments that they display so vociferously in debates in the chambers of the House of Representatives and the Senate, nevertheless when they take part in committee deliberations there is little, if any, evidence of party division. I doubt whether the witnesses who appear before committees such as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts would necessarily be aware of our political allegiances at all, judging from the way the questions are put. Certainly in my two years on the Public Accounts Committee there has never been a decision based on party lines. There have occasionally been differences of opinion but these have sometimes involved members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party on one side and members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party on the other side.

Committee work is both exhausting and exhaustive. The Public Accounts Committee probably has the heaviest work load of any committee in the Parliament. Certainly I would have thought that it has the heaviest work load of any committee in the House of Representatives. The Committee is able to sit throughout Australia. Many on-site meetings have been held outside Canberra. That means, of course, that we meet very often, not necessarily on sitting days. Some of the matters examined have been of the greatest complexity, notably the on-going inquiry into the use of automatic data processing or ADP in the Commonwealth public sector, on which two reports have so far been published- No. 174 on the acquisition of systems in the public sector and No. 175 on the Mandata project. Still more reports on ADP are to be produced by the Committee. The Public Accounts Committee is not one on which members win a great number of friends. Certainly they do not win a great number of friends in Canberra or in the Ministry. For a party in opposition the latter is perhaps no bad thing. But I can imagine the difficulties faced by some members of the Government parties. Nevertheless, if the committee system is to work properly there must necessarily be some degree of confrontation between the committees and the Executive.

It is striking that in the United Kingdom the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is invariably a member of the opposition party. If there is a Conservative government in Britain, as at the moment, an opposition member is chairman. In Australia we have had a different tradition. The chairmanship has always been held by a member of the government party. There are certainly no direct rewards- there may be some penalties- for being on the Public Accounts Committee. Nobody ever won a vote in a preselection ballot or out in the electorate at large because he had done valuable work on any parliamentary committee. Committee work is the invisible part of the parliamentary iceberg. In future committee work may prove to be the most important work done by non-ministerial members.

Mr Yates:

– You should get a knighthood at the end of that service.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Perhaps there is something in that. In the case of members of the Labor Party it would have to be the Order of Australia, but in the case of the honourable member for Holt an imperial honour would be richly deserved, perhaps half on a recommendation from Great Britain and half on a recommendation from Australia.

If the Westminster system is to survive- that is by no means certain at this stage of our political development- it must depend on two elements. Those two elements are ‘disclosure’ and ‘accountability’. A parliament cannot work unless it has access to the facts and unless it knows the truth. Ministers, even the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) who is a man of extraordinary candour at times, particularly when he is talking about the Liberal Party in Victoria, have to recognise that the Parliament cannot work unless there is a full and candid disclosure. When mistakes are made they have to be freely acknowledged. There also has to be accountability. President Truman had a plaque on his desk which read ‘The buck stops here ‘. That means that ultimately if anything goes wrong the blame, broadly speaking, will not be taken by public servants who are guaranteed protection through the Public Service Act and other social welfare benefits. The blame has to be taken by the Minister. If something goes disgracefully wrong it is the Minister who ought to get out; it is the Minister who ought to be censured.

We live in a period of extraordinary complexity. One of the reasons it is so difficult for committees such as the Public Accounts Committee to operate effectively is that we hardly know where to start. There are many hundreds of qangoes or quasi autonomous national government organisations- we are not sure of the exact number but there appear to be about 260- quite apart from the 31 departments. We never know whether in many of these 290-odd entities there may be many skeletons rattling behind the doors. One never knows where to find the right key to apply to the appropriate door so that the bones can fall out. Ministers no doubt live in dread that those doors will be opened but they hope, too, that the sheer pressure of business will make it impossible to examine properly what is going on inside government.

I must say that I am heartened by this legislation. It is the most encouraging piece of legislation put before the Parliament this month. Perhaps it is the most encouraging piece of legislation to be put before the Parliament this year. The reason is that it is a small but encouraging increase in the ‘fight back’ capacity of the Parliament in its never-ending struggle against the Executive and the bureaucracy. I do not want to traverse some of the past legislative horrors. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, would ruthlessly pull me up if I attempted to do so. We have seen some bad examples in the recent past when the Parliament has divested itself of power and said: We are prepared to give power to other peoplethem’. The Parliament will have less and less power in particular areas’. Here is one example of where the Parliament is exercising ‘ fight-back ‘ capacity. It is saying: ‘We want to strengthen the power of the Public Accounts Committee to report back to the Parliament’. Whilst no doubt there will be joy and singing in heaven when the legislation is finally carried, I do not know whether there was really a great deal of joy in the Cabinet room or the Public Service Board. But it is very important that this Parliament show that it does have an effective ‘fight-back’ capacity so that we can report to the Parliament and Parliament is not seen simply as a kind of a rubber stamp organisation which is here for the purpose of docilely agreeing to every piece of legislation that is brought down by the Government. I direct attention to some of the deathless prose in our 175th report, which perhaps has not been as widely read as it ought to have been. On page 4, for the benefit of those who are listening at home on their crystal sets and following the text of our report, we said: 1.18 The Westminster concept of ministerial responsibility evolved at a time when government operations were much more simple and it was possible for a diligent minister to comprehend the full range of activities of his department and take full responsibility. The vast increases in complexity, sophistication and the increase in the volume of work in the last decades have put the Westminster tradition under severe stress. 1.19 This makes the need for scrutiny by parliamentary bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee even more important and reduces the justification for failure to provide relevant information under the excuse of privilege where documents relating to Cabinet submissions or other interdepartmental activities are denied. We do not accept that a general embargo should be placed on the access to all material needed in the preparation of Cabinet submissions. An extension of this principle would make the work of this Committee- or even the Parliament- impossible.

I put it to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport, that there are times when committees like this are important to protect the Minister against himself; to protect him so that he is fully aware that there is a different point of view, perhaps an adversarial point of view, from his Ministry. The original concept of ministerial responsibility to which we refer, when it was possible for a Minister to comprehend everything that was going on, now seems a very long time ago. I remember reading in one of the biographies of Lord Palmerston that he told his ministerial colleagues when, I think, he was reelected as Prime Minister for the last time, in 1 859, that he thought that within the next seven years- British parliaments at that stage were elected for seven-year terms- Parliament would have exhausted its legislative options; within five or six years there really would be nothing left to legislate on; Parliament would have legislated on all the matters that a government could conceivably deal with. Of course, Palmerston is not exactly vindicated by history. We now deal with legislation at a very rapid rate, and I imagine that by the end of the year more than 200 Bills will have been carried.

We also need to remember that the Public Accounts Committee which has the power of scrutiny, is only one of 17 committees on which members of the House of Representatives take part. The Public Accounts Committee has a much wider range than any of the others because, after all, the key to all government administration is the spending of money. We are conscious that in the curious system we have in Australia the Budget is responsible for only 40 per cent or 41 per cent of the annual expenditure and the remaining 59 per cent or 60 per cent of government outlays is provided for under permanent appropriations. This is not something that the House of Representatives and the Senate can be expected to scrutinise year in year out. It cannot do it on every sitting day of the year. Many pieces of legislation have to be pushed through. The result is that it is essential that the Public Accounts Committee be given all the possible assistance. It should not just be supported by legislation but also it should have some kind of recognition in the electorate of the work that it is doing. That work is being done, as I have mentioned before, on a bipartisan basis.

There has been an element of congratulation in some of the earlier references to the Public Accounts Committee. I acknowledge the role of the Chairman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), and his work in inducing the Government to introduce this legislation. It is legislation which essentially is in the interests of the Parliament rather than legislation in the interests of the Government. I commend the honourable member for that. I also commend the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin), for his work. I point out that as this is the first time since 1951 that there has been any legislation to amend the Public Accounts Committee Act I can fairly assume that not many of us will still be members of this place the next time that the Public Accounts Committee Act comes up for amendment. I am glad that this Bill is about to be passed. It is a great day for the Committee to see that its powers have been strengthened in the ways that were pointed out in the speech by the honourable member for Bradfield. This is one of those rare occasions when I can emulate the formula that Ministers use to end their speeches and say: ‘I commend the Bill to the House ‘.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-As a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts it is a pleasure to support this legislation to amend the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. Members of the Public Accounts Committee who have already spoken in the debate have covered this legislation very thoroughly indeed. The committee is possibly the most active one in this Parliament, meeting more frequently than any other committee. We have at least two meetings a week and sometimes as many as three. Indeed, when the door of a member of the Public Accounts Committee opens, frequently it is a staff member of the Committee with some information for the next meeting. Our Chairman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), is an extremely active and capable leader. All honourable members who have spoken tonight in this debate are members of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee meets in a most harmonious manner and transacts a lot of very important business. Indeed, it could be a lesson to the Parliament and to other parliamentary committees.

The purpose of the legislation is to broaden the power of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It consists of seven members of the House of Representatives and three members of the Senate. It was established under the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. It is astounding that this is the first amendment to that Act, which has lasted for a very long time. The Committee is charged with examining the accounts of receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth and reporting on such matters to the Parliament. The Committee provides one of the methods by which Parliament is able to scrutinise the Executive. This is indeed a very important part of the Committee’s work. The Bill provides for the affairs of all Commonwealth statutory and other bodies, including companies in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest, to be subject to the Committee’s scrutiny with some exceptions. These exceptions are intergovernmental bodies which require the agreement of all governments concerned for the Committee scrutiny and the financial affairs of the Northern Territory and the external Territories. Various sections of the Act concern the operations of the Committee, and the changes to the Act that we are debating tonight can be summarised in this way. They remove doubt about where and when the Committee can sit. They remove any doubt as to the powers of the vice-chairman of the Committee in the absence of the chairman, and that is a very important part of the Bill. The legislation provides that four members shall constitute a quorum, and it removes the limit on the number of sectional committees. It provides for the extension of the duties of the Committee in order to strengthen its role.

In the Minister’s second reading speech, he informed the House that the amendments were part of a continuous process to broaden parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure and follow on from the establishment in April 1 976 of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. At present, the Committee’s duties are limited, in its examination of certain statutory authorities and government bodies, to information contained in the AuditorGeneral’s annual report. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 8 to enable the Committee to examine the financial affairs of all statutory and other government bodies, including the financial statements transmitted by those bodies to the Auditor-General. The Committee will also be able to examine any special reports made to the Parliament by the Auditor-General, and that is an important provision. It will enable the Committee to study any efficiency audits carried out by the Auditor-General and reported to the Parliament. As mentioned previously, section 8 of the Act is being amended to exclude examination of the financial affairs of the Northern Territory and of the administration of the external territories. The Government has decided that, in view of the changed and changing relationships between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory and the external territories, the financial affairs of their present and future administrations should not be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. Expenditure incurred by Commonwealth departments in the territories will continue to be subject to scrutiny by the Committee.

The opportunity has been taken to introduce certain measures to improve the operations of the Public Accounts Committee. At times the Committee has experienced difficulties in forming a quorum because many of its members are also members of other parliamentary committees. It is therefore proposed to reduce the number required to form a quorum from six members to four members. There are many parliamentary committees operating under that procedure at the present time, and I believe that this is a wise move. It will assure the Public Accounts Committee of the quorum necessary to carry out its important work. This proposal is in line with the recommendations made in relation to certain other committees by the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. A further provision will remove the present restriction on the number of sectional committees- currently not more than two- which can exist at the one time. That change will enable more inquiries to be held simultaneously.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, one element that has impressed me is the magnificent assistance given to the Committee by the staff allocated to it. The Committee secretary and his staff are absolutely magnificent and are wonderfully dedicated. As one who has had a fair amount of parliamentary experience, I can say that their dedication is unsurpassed. It is a great pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This piece of legislation will bring the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee substantially into line with those of the Public Works Committee. They are two of the longer running parliamentary committees, and they are committees which have very specific powers entrusted to them by legislation. With the changes that have taken place in the Parliament and in the operations of the Parliament, it is necessary that a continuing review be undertaken of the legislative process and the process by which this Parliament monitors not only the activities of the Executive but also the changes in the general expenditures and procedures which occur from time to time in the expenditure and accounting areas of government. The Public Accounts Committee serves one of the functions with which this House is charged.

The major function, the historic function, of the lower or representative houses of parliament has been to monitor the expenditure of the Executive. This parliamentary system derived originally from the need to curb the excesses of the monarch and give the ordinary people some say over taxation and the expenditure of public funds. We lack in this parliament a degree of support for the means by which we carry out that role, and in the 30 years during which the economic powers of the Commonwealth have been gradually centralised within this Parliament and the Executive there has been an erosion of the influence of Parliament and a transfer of responsibilities to the Executive government of the day. We have some instruments. We have attempted on occasions to seek other instruments by which we can more effectively carry out the functions of the scrutiny of government by a representative parliamentary body. Some of those functions are inadequately performed. We did have a situation where for a time the responsibilities of this House were taken over by the Senate in that it was carrying out scrutinies of government expenditure more acutely than this House. This year we have had some experimentation with Estimates committees, and I believe that there is a need to examine what occurred in that experimental form. There is also a need for this Parliament to be in a position where it continually examines its own procedures and its adopted practices, including legislation of this type. It is for the Parliament and not the Government, and that should be remembered, to determine the means by which it will undertake its responsibilities for the scrutiny of government.

This Bill was presented by a Minister. I do not think that is a desirable practice. I believe it is desirable that where a piece of legislation has as its ultimate aim the strengthening of the Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government, it should not be introduced by a member of the Executive but by a person representing the interests of the Parliament. It seems to me that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee would have been the appropriate person to bring this legislation before the Parliament. Unfortunately, at this stage that is not possible or practical, but it is an area in which we should aim to achieve some independence from the Executive. It is most important for this Parliament to seek ways by which its authority can be maintained or strengthened, and to do that we have to examine our procedures very carefully. Some of our committees have a very good record in the activities with which they are charged. Others have a poor record.

The most important factor is that the Parliament does not control the finances it may require to carry out these functions. The Estimates committees recommended that those finances should be within the control of the Parliament and not the Executive. I hope that shortly we will see an acknowledgment of that resolution of the Estimates committees and an acknowledgment of the importance of Parliament having its own funding and having control of its own funds. That would also mean some expansion of the means by which this Parliament determined how expenditures took place and how expenditures within the parliamentary system were determined. I do not believe that it is acceptable that this power should be left exclusively to the presiding officers or to the presiding officer. There needs to be some additional structure whereby members of the Parliament have an input into decisions on the expenditure of funds which are the responsibility of the Parliament and not of individuals.

The Opposition supports these changes because they bring about a situation which improves the means by which this particular area of parliamentary scrutiny is undertaken. They strengthen to a very limited degree the role of the Parliament. But if scrutiny is to be effective and real, a great deal more has to be done.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-I welcome the introduction of the amendments to the Public Accounts Committee Amendments Bill 1979. I refer the House to comments made in 1951 by Mr Bland who was the then honourable member for Warringah. I notice that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) is at the table. He is not only the present member for Warringah but also a former member of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Bland, in the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General’s Speech, made particular mention of the re-establishment in 1951 of the Public Accounts Committee. He said:

I welcome the assurance of His Excellency that the Government intends to revive the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts that has been out of action since 1932. Only by having standing committees on legislation, accounts, and foreign affairs, will the Parliament be able to maintain its authority and prestige in any conflict with the Government. I was glad to hear mat action will be taken in this direction.

The very objectives which were sought during the period have been carried out by successive public accounts committees. It is a pleasure to serve on the Public Accounts Committee. The public scrutiny that is undertaken is extended by the legislation into the area of efficiency audits. The concept of efficiency audits in the Public Service and of actions of government is most significant because in the world outside- the world of private enterprise, the commercial world- one is aware of the pressures of the market place to maintain an efficiency and a level of competence and skill that is under constant scrutiny and constant surveillance.

The Public Accounts Committee has a responsibility to this House, to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. It is not strictly a process of government in any sense but one which seeks to protect the public purse and the expenditure of public funds in such a way that citizens of the nation can have confidence in the decisions of the structures of government. I should think that that confidence must be preserved at all costs and should be something that this House holds dear. It is, in fact, one of the very basic tenets of our responsibilities and the responsibilities with which we are charged when we come to this place representing a community, a constituency or an electorate. Mr Speaker, it would seem to me that at this stage I should seek leave to continue my remarks on this most important amendment to an Act that was reintroduced in 1 95 1 .

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3135

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr SPEAKER:

-I bring up the report of the Standing Orders Committee relating to the presentation of petitions and the method of raising matters of privilege. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr MacKellar) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3135

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The Public Accounts Committee meets in the committee rooms of parliament and is comprised of members of the House in the same way in which the House itself is comprised. This allows for a balance of decision-making. The Chairman of the Committee comes for the Government side of the House. However, the work of the Committee is done in a strictly non-partisan sense. Members seek to ensure that the expenditure of public funds is carried out in the best possible way and that full accountability is made to the Parliament and to the people of Australia.

During meetings of the Public Accounts Committee, observers from various specialised departments and sections of government attend to advise the Committee and to assist the Committee. However, they are not witnesses in the full sense of the word. The observers who attend Public Accounts Committee meetings comprise officers from the Auditor-General’s Office- this is because the Committee generally takes up matters which are raised in the AuditorGeneral’s report- officers from the Public Service Board who can advise and assist in matters of routine and relationship between various departments and personnel within departments, and officers from the Department of Finance, who have the responsibility for the assessment and the preparation of government accounts. I pay tribute in particular to the officers who attend and who observe and, as needs be, assist the Committee. The Committee has a good relationship with the departments and the sections of government with which it works. It is seeking to strengthen the understanding between the parliamentary responsibility and the responsibility which is of a functional nature and which prepares, guides and audits in the preparation of public accounts.

The powers of the Committee are wide. It has powers to call for papers or for people. In fact, the capacity of a witness before the Committee is that of a witness before the High Court. This charges members of the Public Accounts Committee with accepting a great degree of responsibility in everything that they do because it would be detrimental to the Committee to act out of political motive. It would be detrimental to that Committee to pursue vindictively individuals or departments or Ministers to the detriment of the well-being of the Australian people. To my knowledge, the Public Accounts Committee has never done that, and I do not think that it ever will. But I say to the House, that if we pursue committees in the way in which we are pursuing them, I am not sure that the work of the chamber itself will be as successful as it has been in years gone by. For it seems to me that we as a parliament must decide whether we are going to become specialists in committees and procedures that seek detail of government administration or whether we choose this place as a forum for political contest.

At the moment we have a sensible balance. However, if we pursue the committee system too far we will lose something of the political life and the commitment which we make here in the House. So the Public Accounts Committee, which is one of the longest serving standing committees of this Parliament, is having historic changes made to the legislation under which it operates. It is given the capacity to look at statutory organisations which were referred to by a member of the other place as qangoes or quasiautonomous national government organisations. These are organisations which are established by government to carry out governmental functions but which are not under the direction of a Minister. They have a head. They are an authority or a commission and they carry out activities with the powers of government, but they are responsible to government only through an annual report or by reporting to the Parliament in some other way.

The extension of the Committee’s power to cover statutory bodies and other financial institutions has been the concern of many individuals. The ability of the Public Accounts Committee to pursue those statutory organisations which it has examined in the past only through the Auditor-General’s report, is the important feature of this legislation. What I am saying is that in the past the Public Accounts Committee may have acted improperly in looking at statutory organisations. That will not be so following the declaration of this legislation. I feel that the Public Accounts Committee should divide its time between the formal function of examining Auditors-General reports, looking at the details of the operations and the functions of departments, and the pursuit of statutory bodies. I commend the Government, the Committee itself and my fellow members because I believe that they honestly pursue their work with dedication and capacity. I commend also the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and staff of the Committee. I look forward to a stimulating and interesting period as the Committee moves to take up the advantages presented to us by this legislation.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– I am pleased that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is pleased. These are the circumstances that move me to make a very short contribution tonight. Quite clearly I am the first member speaking tonight who is not a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The proposed Act will make clear where the authority of the Public Accounts Committee lies. It can then, at least with confidence, do those things which it has done over quite a number of years. Of the committees concerned with expenditure and finance the Public Accounts Committee has the longest history in the Australian parliamentary system. It is a history going back to the years before World War II and, more precisely, with a far greater deal of activity in the years subsequent to World War II. One thing has to be said. In the development of any committee of this House, or of the Senate, one has to remember that the committees are not Parliament. The committees are a creature of Parliament and they ought always to retain that position. This simply means that there will always be tension as to what committees can do, how far they can go, and the extent to which they can set themselves up as an alternative source of advice or recommendation to either the Executive or the Parliament.

Over a number of years the Public Accounts Committee has been aware of the extent to which it is able to go in its deliberations and what it ought to do. Earlier this evening I listened to the contribution of the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) to the debate. I am aware that he has been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for two or more years. In respect to his work on the Committee he was fairly brimful with enthusiasm. I want to make the point that it would not be wise to exclude -

Mr Kerin:

– I am enthusiastic about it as well.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The honourable member says that he is also brimful with enthusiasm. Looking at him I would say that he is brimful with excitement and enthusiasm. I am delighted to know that that is the kind of ethos that invades all the members of the Public Accounts Committee. One sees the very valuable work that they have done and do for the Parliament and for Australia. Speaking quite seriously for a moment, I point out that it is very important to have committees of scrutiny of expenditure operating successfully in the Parliament. After all, since World War II the characteristic of all nationsboth democratic and undemocratic nations- has been that public expenditures have come to operate an increasing proportion of the expenditures, the revenues and the flows of finance within any community. There are a variety of reasons for this. Some people put it down to the obligations governments undertook with respect to full employment. Others have attributed it to the monetary obligations undertaken by reserve and central banks. Yet others have put it down to the expectations of the communities with respect to governments.

Whatever the understanding happens to be the facts are that public expenditures and revenues occupy a far greater proportion of gross domestic product than they did 30-odd years ago. It has been almost a cyclical process. Sometimes it takes off wildly and has to be pulled back. But because this is not a political debate I will not follow that thought through to its logical conclusion. So far as committees of expenditure are concerned it means that they are very important, not only for the Parliament, but also for the confidence which the community needs to have in the parliamentary process. For a few moments I wish to go over the processes that are involved in public expenditure. These processes are important as it is within them that we can see where the Public Accounts Committee and other committees fit.

The public expenditure process can be divided into three processes. Firstly, the formulation of public expenditure programs; secondly, the implementation of those programs; and, thirdly, the review of those programs by the Parliament itself. The Parliament plays a role only in the last of those three processes, the review of those programs. It plays no role in the implementation of those programs and it plays a very small role in the formulation of those programs. It can play a slight role in the formulation of the Budget. Sometimes that process can be quite indirect. But quite overwhelmingly it is in the third of those processes, in terms of the review process of expenditure committees- I use that term generically- that the Public Accounts Committee plays quite an overwhelming role. Its role has been developed. It is a complete role in terms of compliance. If there is any doubt that it was complete, that doubt should be removed by tonight’s proposed legislation. It has played a role in terms of efficiency. Traditionally, it has had a significantly lesser role in terms of effectiveness. In terms of the review of policies and priorities we get into difficult areas in which other committees also will be involved.

If I may just develop one short commercial here, I would think that the Standing Committee on Expenditure of this Parliament, if it carved out a role for itself, it would be in terms of the program effectiveness of public expenditure processes. Of course, we are not able to delimit these precisely. It is impossible to do so. If we are going to look at program effectiveness we will also have to look at effectiveness itself and we will have to branch over into the work of efficiency to a significantly lesser extent. For example, the Public Expenditure Committee is not involved in the work of compliance. This illustrates a point: If there are three committees concerned with the expenditure process in the Parliament- and by the Parliament, I mean the Senate also- we have to work out the roles that are appropriate to each so that those roles can complement one another and in complementing one another give people in the electorate the appropriate reassurances concerning public expenditure that they deserve. I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee. The speeches that have been delivered tonight by the members of the Committee indicate that they are delighted with what has happened. I think that the country ought to be pleased also.

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 Mackellar) read a third time.

page 3137

LOAN (FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT) REPEAL BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1 979 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The first measure before the House, the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Repeal Bill, really involves the repeal of a redundant piece of legislation which is no longer operative because of changed circumstances in the relationship between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill, the second measure, includes the Northern Territory in the rural adjustment scheme on the same basis as the States. It extends to the Northern Territory benefits of the scheme which will enable rural adjustment loans to be handled by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or the Northern Territory Government. Rural adjustment is an area which has ebbed and flowed in importance over a number of years. It is unfortunately another one of those areas in which the present Government is exercising its double standards in primary industry. This year the funds allocated for rural adjustment have been reduced by $22m. This is part of a general reduction of Government assistance to rural industries which in this year’s Budget totalled the equivalent of about $ 120m. Taxation on farmers also increased by about $93m. That may be a measure of the prosperity of rural industries or it may demonstrate that the Government has a definite double standard in that what it said other people should do when it was in Opposition, it does not believe that it should accept as its responsibilities now that it is in power. A large number of Government measures introduced since 1976 contradict totally what was said by members of the then Opposition during the period 1973 to 1975.

Mr Yates:

– We had this yesterday.

Mr SCHOLES:

-It is always ‘yesterday’ when opportunists are caught out. They always choose to describe their opportunist statements in Opposition as things which were said at another time and in other circumstances. They certainly were said at another time and in other circumstances, when irresponsibility was the norm for the Opposition of the day which now as the Government claims it is responsible. The irresponsibility extended even to denying revenue to the then Government to expand the Commonwealth deficit in a manner which this Government now claims caused economic damage to the country. The people who were responsible for those measures sit on the Government benches but accept no blame and have no recriminations for the damage they did to this nation. Many of those who are currently unemployed and those who are suffering economic hardship in this country today should remember that it was members of the present Government who improperly and irresponsibly denied revenue to the Commonwealth Government by the use of numbers in the Senate.

This measure is a small one. It is not one on which the country will go to the barricades. I think it is important that the House should understand that in the areas of rural financing and government financing of rural activities the practice of this Government has been to adopt measures and processes in almost every case which it criticised when in Opposition as being financially disadvantageous to rural communities. It is the practice of this Government to reduce assistance to rural communities in areas in which it initially and openly claimed that the activities of a previous government were mean and an attack on the rural communities. If any government in the history of Australia has carried out an attack on rural communities through its policies, has denuded the non-metropolitan area of Australia of economic activities, this is that Government. I indicate that the Opposition does not oppose these measures. The extension of the scheme to the Northern Territory obviously is almost a machinery process and had to take place. The repeal of the other legislation clearly became necessary once that extension occurred. I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Government consistently, in almost every piece of legislation which comes into this House, practises a double standard in that it does what it says others should not have done.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the States and Northern Territory

Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill and to say how pleased I am that it has been introduced. It it just another stage in the handing over of autonomy to the Northern Territory Government. That handing over is a result of this Government’s policy of giving autonomy to the Northern Territory legislature. Honourable members can say what they like but the previous Government, although it made a lot of noise about it, certainly did nothing whatsoever from 1972 until it was put out of government in 1 975 -

Mr Yates:

– Years of disaster.

Mr CALDER:

– It was a disaster especially for the Northern Territory. Nothing whatsoever was done with regard to the Northern Territory getting the sort of autonomy which has been handed to it by this Government and which it is, frankly, shouldering very well indeed. The committee of this Parliament which recommended that the Northern Territory have powers given to it certainly was a committee which operated under the then Labor Government. The recommendations of that committee were not considered at all by the Labor Government. It took no step whatsoever. Having instituted the committee to see to it that the Northern Territory Government was given more autonomy, that was the Labor Government’s action. I think its action was to some extent flavoured by the fact that there was a colossal loss of support for the Labor Party in the electorate at that time.

I would like to pick up something that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) mentioned about double standards. In the period leading up to the election in 1972 the Labor Party was all the time offering all sorts of things to the Northern Territory and shadow Ministers were making statements about the package which had been introduced by the then Government, which virtually gave to the Northern Territory legislature a lot of the responsibilities which it inherited in the first phase of the implementation of the report which was subsequently brought down. The double standards are really on the Labor side. We had so much talk about self-government and responsibility for the Northern Territory; yet when the Labor Party came into government it did nothing whatsoever about giving the legislature any responsibility. In fact, I do not know whether it really had any significant talks about the matter. Certainly, I know that, as the member for the Northern Territory, I had no talks with the Minister- none whatsoever. That was not for want of trying. I know him and we all know him. He was, as we might say, one of the best of them; but he was too busy, too preoccupied, too embarrassed or too something to speak to the member for the Northern Territory about Northern Territory affairs. Double standards- heavens! The honourable member for Corio referred to opportunists being caught out. I remember when the report of the task force appointed by the Prime Minister in the Labor Government to conduct a review of the continuing expenditure policies of the previous government was brought into the House. The opening letter to Dr Coombs states:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm to you the outcome of our recent discussions, arising out of Cabinet’s decision that ‘ action be set in train to apply a close scrutiny to the continuing policies of the previous Government so that room may be found for our own higher priority programs. ‘

That Government talked of double standards and higher priority programs. What did it do? I would recommend the reading of the Coombs report. We used to discuss it at great length.

Mr Kerin:

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

Mr CALDER:

– He cannot take it.

Mr Kerin:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that we are talking about rural reconstruction, not the Coombs task force report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-The debate has ranged quite widely. The honourable member should be heard with respect.

Mr CALDER:

– We are discussing the Northern Territory and matters relating thereto. This legislation relates to an agreement between the Commonwealth Government, et cetera, in respect of a scheme to provide assistance to persons engaged in rural industries. Most of the matters which are dealt with in the Coombs report relate to what the Labor Government found it necessary to cut out from the Northern Territory and places in the outback. I shall just go through them. Capital assistance for dwellings in the Northern Territory was dealt with in the Coombs report. So was concessional rental on public service housing in the Northern Territory. The Tarcoola-Alice Springs standard guage railway line was another matter. That is a laugh. It was only last week that we actually saw that line cross the border, but there is a recommendation about it in the Coombs report. Talk about double standards! The Labor Party talks about supporting the Northern Territory. Heavens! The Labor Party has nothing whatsoever to stand upon with regard to anything relating to the Northern Territory. It does not matter what the next speaker says or what the previous speaker said. The Labor Party attacked the Northern Territory and the rural communities of which we are talking very significantly. The report dealt with cattle tick control and research expenditure, recommending a complete review with a view to scrubbing the lot. Even zone allowances were considered. A freight subsidy on breeding stock in the Northern Territory was dealt with. Honourable members opposite will say that they are the people who are interested in the Northern Territory. They were the people who castigated the Northern Territory and the outback. Another matter that was dealt with was railway freight subsidy in the Northern Territory. Bang, away they all went. Superphosphate transport subsidy in the Northern Territory -

Mr Scholes:

– Did they come off or are you just talking of the record?

Mr CALDER:

– I am not talking of the record at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio has already spoken in this debate.

Mr Scholes:

– He is nowhere near the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will keep quiet.

Mr CALDER:

– I am just bringing up a few matters. (Quorum formed). The Labor Party has claimed that this Government has double standards in its attitudes and policies towards the outback, and to the Northern Territory, in particular. I was enunciating a few items from the Coombs Report. That report- and I note that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who drew attention to the lack of a quorum, has left the chamber- virtually stopped private enterprise, including station business and, to some extent, mining, in the outback in its tracks. Yet Opposition members talk about double standards.

I was leafing through this interesting document from which we used to quote at length and was reminded of the fact that the Labor Government had the standard gauge railway from Tarcoola to Alice Springs under very strong scrutiny. Last weekend, some of us attended the ceremony associated with the crossing of the Northern Territory-South Australian border by that railway line.

Mr Dawkins:

– Who decided to build it, Sam?

Mr CALDER:

-Ah, I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for the question. As we all know, the Labor member for Fremantle wishes to be dissociated from a vessel because he thinks it might bring him no credit. It brings him no credit to be dissociated with any vessel that is engaged in the defence of Australia. He asked:

Who decided to build it? Let me tell the honourable member this: In 1968, the Government members transport committee -

Mr Dawkins:

– Oh, come on; that is a long way back.

Mr CALDER:

-Thas is how long it takes to get such works going. I repeat: In 1968, a transport committee of government members, of which committee the then honourable member for Grey, Mr Don Jessop, and I were members, gained the support of approximately 30 backbench members for a submission to Mr Keith Smith of the Australian National Railways for the construction of that railway line.

Mr Kerin:

– When did it start?

Mr CALDER:

-Just a minute. In the McMahon Budget of 1972, $3.2m was voted for construction to commence in that year. Unfortunately for the Northern Territory we lost government to the Labor Party. It was not until 1975, three years later, that a Mr Whitlam headed towards Tarcoola and hit in a golden spike. That is when the Labor ignoramuses who have recently arrived in this place consider that work on the railway line started. Our Government had voted the money for the project and -

Mr Wallis:

– That is not true.

Mr CALDER:

– It is dead right. If the honourable member looks at the Budget papers for that year, he will find that my claim is correct.

Mr Dawkins:

– Was the $3m going to build it?

Mr CALDER:

– The money was for construction work to commence. If honourable members opposite look at the 1972-73 Budget papers, they will see that that is what is set out in those papers.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is nonsense. I signed for that as the relevant Minister. It is total nonsense. Charlie Jones was the Minister for Transport.

Mr CALDER:

– Let me tell the honourable member another thing about the double standards of his Government. The Labor Party now claims credit for the railway line. Its then leader hit in the golden spike; but that is all that the Labor Party ever did in that respect.

I mention also the petroleum products subsidy scheme. That scheme provided some chance for people in the outback to obtain petrol to operate their transport, standing engines and pumping engines at a cost which was within a few cents of the price paid by people in the capital cities. What did Labor in government do? It scrubbed that scheme. That was one of the first actions that the Labor Government took. The honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), who is trying to interject, was not in this House when the former honourable member for Grey, now Senator Jessop, and I- we were supported by 30 or 40 members in this place- convinced the Government that that railway line should be built. Opposition members are now engaging in the nonsense of trying to claim the credit for that work. That is typical. It is absolutely typical of their attitude to the outback. They know nothing; they do nothing: But they claim credit for all.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– I have been informed that this is a wide-ranging debate. I thought it was about rural adjustment or rural reconstruction so I will take as my guide the previous speaker the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and I will talk about wombats.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-I suggest that, if the honourable member does, the debate will not be that wide-ranging.

Mr Baillieu:

– It is all he knows about.

Mr KERIN:

– That is your nickname. The Tarcoola railway has very little to do with this debate on rural reconstruction. I am amazed that this is the fourth major agricultural Bill that has been debated in the Parliament in the last two weeks. At no time has the Minister responsible for the legislation or the Minister assisting him been present in the House. Tonight, I understand there is one National Country Party speaker from the Government. But we had to call a quorum to get some support for the one Government -

Mr Calder:

– You called a quorum to stop me.

Mr KERIN:

– We had to call a quorum to get an audience for the honourable member. 1 do not think it is good enough for the Government to treat the rural sector in the way that it does. There are many matters in this legislation, as there were with respect to canned fruits, the wheat industry and the sugar industry, that require debate. Just because we are coming to the end of the session, there is no need to treat the rural sector in such a cavalier fashion.

Mr McVeigh:

– I take a point of order. I seek clarification. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition to talk in such disparaging terms of the rural industry when a colleague of his in another place on the canned fruit Bills mentioned -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr KERIN:

– I have here the speakers’ list. There is one speaker from the Government on this Bill. We have three listed.

Mr Baume:

– You have three members in the House.

Mr KERIN:

– We had to chase up Government members by calling a quorum to bring them in.

This Bill is touted as an advance in this Government’s rural reconstruction policies. It is true that there are a few administrative changes and advances in the Bill. They are mainly to allow transfers of funds from State to State and to allow for supplementary determinations. Government members are all leaving now that I am talking about this matter. The fact is that, in keeping with the Government’s growing antirural stance, the August Budget of this year not only savaged the rural sector, but actually chopped funds to rural reconstruction and adjustment by 63 per cent. I can say the ‘Government’s growing anti-rural stance’ with a fair amount of certainty because we must remember that it was the rural sector that suffered most in the May mini-Budget. Over $70m was taken off rural industry then, particularly the beef industry. As well as that, the rural sector has to put up with the Government’s crazy fuel policy. In 1977-78, $43.2m was spent on rural adjustment. In 1978-79, $47m was spent on rural adjustment. But lo and behold, because conditions have become a little better in the agricultural industry, funds are to be chopped to $ 19.2m, a drop of $27.8m estimated in the year ahead. That represents a drop of 63 per cent. That is the largest cut in any government program. The piece de resistance is the allocation of a whole $0.5m for the Northern Territory in this Bill. The Government will argue that the agricultural upturn has diminished the demand for adjustment assistance. This is nonsense. Farms just do not somehow automatically become viable because the price of some of the commodities has improved. The other escape hatch the Government will head for as a rationalisation of its anti-rural policies will be the fact that it has established the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. This is a facility for long term lending to basically viable farms. It is not concerned with adjustment assistance or farm build up when all avenues for assistance have been exhausted.

Let us be quite clear what this scheme is about. The rural adjustment scheme established under the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 provides assistance to the States for purposes of farm debt reconstruction, farm build up, farm improvement and rehabilitation, carry-on finance and household support. Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build up, farm improvement and rehabilitation is made available by the Commonwealth on an overall 85 per cent loan- 15 per cent grant basis. So all of those programs have been reduced by 63 per cent, with the Commonwealth contributing a further amount to assist in defraying administrative expenses. For the household support component, the Commonwealth finances all assistance and contributes towards administrative expenses. The States repay to the Commonwealth any principal and interest recouped by them. In relation to carry-on finance, the States share equally with the Commonwealth both the financing of loans and administrative costs and all principal and interest payments received from producers. For 1 979-80 carry-on finance will be available only to wine grape growers. Outlays under the scheme are estimated at $ 19.2m. That compares with $47m in 1978-79.

Let us look at these farm build up provisions because these are some of the most important ones, particularly as a continuing part of the Government’s program on rural adjustment. When the industries pick up, that is a good time to facilitate farm build up. The farm build up provisions are designed to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under current and forecast economic conditions. Under this scheme finance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property for the purpose of buying adjoining land to build up his property or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. Grants may be made at the discretion of the State administering authority to recover in whole or in part losses sustained in the disposal of assets, including the purchase price of the property, which are not usual for the farm build up property.

Under the dairy adjustment program, which is now winding up, assistance was available for the restoration of an uneconomic property to economic viability by improving the effective use of an existing farm without adding to its area. The 1 976 Act provided for assistance of that kind to be extended to the whole farm sector under the farm improvement provisions of the rural adjustment scheme. This was provided for only in 1976. Now the scheme is being wound down by something like 63 per cent in money terms.

To be eligible for such assistance the applicant must be in a position where he is unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms from any other normal source. He must also be able to demonstrate that his existing farm has been but is not now viable, that the property is of sufficient size and the proposed improvements are of such a kind as to offer sound prospects for restoration for long term commercial viability if assistance under this scheme were provided. Farm improvement assistance may take the form of advances for plant, livestock, carry-on expenses and further property development intended to restore the economic viability of the farm either in its existing form of production or in another form of production. Grants are at the discretion of the State authorities which may be made to cover in whole or in part losses sustained from the reduction in value of assets which are either not useful or are less useful because of the changed pattern of farm operation.

These are the farm build up provisions. They were introduced not quite three years ago and now the Government is virtually ditching them by not providing the funds. As I have explained, the arrangements do not really provide that the States can pick up the can. The rural assistance boards of the States, which have developed their own criteria to fit in with the needs of each State, will be in a rather straitened condition. The rural adjustment programs have contributed enormously to the viability of the agricultural sector as we see it today.

Let us try to quantify that. In the past, four main avenues have existed through which the rural sector has received publicly funded adjustment finances. There was the rural reconstruction program itself; then there was the dairy adjustment program which the Labor Government introduced as we phased out the dairy subsidy; there was the fruit growing reconstruction scheme which has now been terminated but which I think should have been continued, particularly in respect to some of the canning fruits; and there was the Commonwealth Development Bank. From 1975 to 1979 funds provided through those avenues were of the order of $330m. Of this about $300m was provided for farmers in the form of interest bearing repayable loans.

The economic arguments for rural reconstruction are clear and they do not relate to short term factors of boom and bust or the agricultural cycle or the various commodities. Economic arguments for rural reconstruction rest on the attempt to secure conditions for individual producers to make changes in their means or mode of production which increased at the same time the real income of the nation. To emphasise the long-run nature of change in the allocation of resources in the rural sector, it is useful to reflect on the kinds of impediments to the efficient allocation of resources in agriculture that there can be. For example, in practical terms, the problems of an area such as the Riverland may require a longer term approach for an individual with a farm in that area than it does for an individual whose farm simply is not big enough in another form of production. For the nation as a whole cases have existed where pricing and subsidy arrangements have fixed resources within an industry. This reconstruction requires an industry-wide approach, not a regional or individual approach. In this regard I think particularly of the dairy industry and the way policies of the early 1 960s caused misery in the 70s and the fact that the dairy adjustment program was one of the means by which we got the rural sector out of some trouble in that industry.

Another matter we can reflect upon is the occupational inability of farmers. That is another aspect of reconstruction that could be debated. It is a pity that we do not have the time or that the Government is not willing to provide the time to talk about that matter. It can be seen that the time that would have to be taken for social and educational measures to be taken into account, where farmers are locked into their way of living and yet wish to get out of it, has no relationship to the relative affluence of the rural sector in one season. The most recent full evaluation of rural reconstruction was carried out by the Industries Assistance Commission. It reported to the Government on 13 January 1976. The Bills introduced on 2 December 1976 were the ones that followed up this report. There were also four Industries Assistance Commission reports into the fruit growing industry. These reports recommended, in particular, the establishment of area redevelopment authorities as another means of effecting rural adjustment particularly for the regional irrigation areas.

The Industries Assistance Commission made 14 recommendations in 1 976. It is to the Government’s credit that it implemented most of them. For example, in the 1976 legislation- the former Minister for Primary Industry, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), delivered his second reading speech on 2 December- all the schemes were combined. That was the second recommendation of the IAC. It also pointed out that the closing date for applications for tree pull assistance should be extended to 31 December 1976. This was done. The new Federal-State agreement recommended that rural adjustment schemes should run for five years. The then Minister said in his speech in 1976 that the whole scheme would be reviewed in four years. The Government, by cutting off funds for the scheme, has almost prevented a sensible review of the scheme.

Many other recommendations were made in respect of the interest rate, rehabilitation assistance, the household support scheme, et cetera. As I said, the Government is to be praised for picking up these schemes. In many ways they follow some of the measures that the Labor Government introduced. The major recommendation which was not picked up by the Government was recommendation 13 which provided that an independent national authority should be established to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate rural adjustment policy and initiatives. That has not been done. This is a major scheme. As I pointed out, some $330m has been spent on it. Yet this year $ 19.2m has been spent. That is an absolute scandal. I am amazed that the State governments that administer these schemes are not protesting a lot more.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

– I intended to say many things on these two Bills, both of which I support, but I have only a couple of minutes available to me in which to speak. Therefore, I concentrate my remarks on picking up some of the comments made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) who talked about government irresponsibility in relation to the rural sector. I thought that the honourable member for Corio must surely have had a fundamental aberration. No government in Australia’s history acted with such great irresponsibility towards one section of our nation as did the Whitlam Government towards the rural sector. The honourable member for Corio mentioned the withdrawal of benefits by this Government from the rural sector. He obviously forgot what happened when Labor was in office. I refer to the abolition of the superphosphate bounty and the fuel price equalisation scheme, currency changes which mortally damaged the rural sector, and savage inflation which caused devastation to the rural sector in the form of crippling cost increases.

Mr Baillieu:

– The floor price for wool.

Mr SHORT:

– The floor price for wool is another example. The Labor Government also caused major interest rate increases which added very greatly to farmers’ debt structures as well as huge increases in inflation induced tax rip-offs which went to finance the insatiable demands of the Whitlam spending machine. So much for what Labor did to the rural sector while in government. It almost brought the rural sector to total and irretrievable ruin. Honourable members should contrast that with what the Liberal-National Country Party Government has done since it returned to office in 1975. Firstly, it has brought down inflation very substantially. No measure can be taken which is of greater assistance to the rural sector than that. It has also had an equivalent beneficial effect on interest rates. The work that the Government has done in developing overseas markets and assisting the rural sector in that area has been of major achievement and benefit.

It has done many other things. It has abolished estate and gift duties in many cases, improved tax averaging, introduced income equalisation deposits and established the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. I know that Opposition members think that PIBA is a worthless organisation. Let me assure them that thousands of farmers in Australia are benefiting for the first time from the ability to get long term funds at reasonable interest rates. Other measures have been the reintroduction of fuel price equalisation, assistance to the beef industry when it was in desperate straights and major restructuring assistance to the dairy industry. The farmers know this full well. They showed Labor what they thought of it in 1975 and 1977. They will do so again in 1980. They will vote against Labor for two basic reasons. Firstly, they know from bitter experience what a Labor Government did to them in 1972 to 1975 and what it would certainly do again if it ever regained office. Secondly, they know that a Liberal-National Country Party Government understands them. It has their interests at heart, not in any sycophantic way but in a balanced way which takes account of our nation’s overall interest.

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 Macphee) read a third time.

page 3143

STATES AND NORTHERN TERRITORY GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3144

ADJOURNMENT

Immigration -ANZ Bank -Hurricane in South Australia-Death of 23-Months-Old Boy-War Widows’ Pensions- Televising of Parliamentary Proceedings- High Court Building

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Iwill take a minute or two to raise an immigration matter which I think has very distressing and exceptional factors. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has refused to allow a three-year-old Filipino infant to be reunited with his mother in Australia. This case has received some mention in the Press. I know that it is known to the Minister. It concerns a family called Aussieker of Cronulla, a Sydney suburb. Over 20 months ago the family asked the Minister for permission to bring the child to Australia. Regrettably, he has refused.

I ask him to reconsider this case. It seems to me that he has, very unfairly, attributed motives to this lady. The Minister has taken the view that Mrs Aussieker sought deliberately to mislead the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when she was asked to indicate whether she had any dependants. Believing erroneously that the Australian immigration officials were inquiring whether she was economically dependent and, having a job, she answered no. One wonders whether her answer would have made any difference because the lady had married a man who has Australian residence. By virtue of the fact that he had Australian residence I think she acquired it, or possibly she acquired it in her own right. In any case, she acquired it. We now have a situation where there is a father and mother who have Australian residence and there is a young child approximately three years of age in the Philippines who is being denied the opportunity of being reunited with his mother. The Minister has some reasonable defence for the attitude that he has taken. He said:

Mrs Aussieker ‘s application is not an isolated one. There have been many instances where young women migrating to Australia have deliberately concealed the existence of children in the belief that this would reflect favourably on their applications. Language difficulties and the misunderstanding of rules are regularly advanced for excuses for the omission when the child ‘s admission is sought at a later date.

I think what he said next is important. He continued:

When Mrs Aussieker applied for her migrant visa in 1977 she completed her application in English and declared that she spoke English. Although the application form provided for the inclusion of children, whether or not they would be accompanying the applicant, details of Marvin -

That is the son- were omitted. Mrs Aussieker also stated quite definitely that she had no children. In January 1978 when Mrs Aussieker applied for Marvin’s entry she said that at the time of her own migration, arrangements had been made for him to be cared for by her mother until she settled in Australia.

She took the view that she had no dependants as the child was in the care of the mother. It seems to me that it just does not matter now what the circumstances were. It is quite inconceivable that in this country a Minister of the Crown could be taking an attitude which will have the effect of deliberately depriving the mother of being reunited with her own child. I ask the Minister before he closes the book on this case to talk to this couple, who I regard to be genuine. The husband is a most responsible person. He suffered an illness as a result of the shock of the news coming to him that the young child could not be reunited with the mother. I hope there will be an opportunity for him to put the case personally to the Minister, who is not an unreasonable man. I have never heard of such a case in our history of a parent being deprived of the opportunity of being reunited with such a young child. It is totally out of character for the Minister to take this view. There are many extenuating and extraneous circumstances which justify urgent and sympathetic consideration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

-Legend has it that Robin Hood robbed the rich to help the poor but in this day and age it seems that the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group is operating in reverse, that is, robbing the poor to help the rich. An elderly constituent of mine who opened and operated an account with the old ES & A Bank many years ago and carried on with the ANZ Bank after it took over the ES & A Bank came to me in some consternation when she discovered that she was charged $1.25 for cashing a $10 cheque. It seems that she approached a city branch of the ANZ Bank to cash the cheque and was advised that there would be $ < fee for cashing the cheque plus an additional 25c for a telephone call to certify her account at a local branch. It is bad enough to charge her a $ 1 fee but when it comes to making money by charging an old age pensioner 25c for a phone call I believe it is going a little too far, and I think that all honourable members would agree with me.

Mr Baillieu:

– Put it to the Campbell inquiry.

Mr BURNS:

– I thank the honourable member for La Trobe. I will come to that in a minute. I could not believe that what I was told was true, as I also bank with the ANZ. I decided to check it out myself. I went into a surburban branch of the Bank, presented a cheque for $10 and was promptly informed there would be a $ 1 charge plus the telephone charge -

Mr Neil:

-A rip-off.

Mr BURNS:

– Exactly. It is a rip-off, as the honourable member for St George says. Little wonder that the ANZ Banking Group is making such great profits. For example, for the year ended 30 September 1977 the net profit after tax was $43,916,000. For the year ended 30 September 1978 it was $62,01 1,000 and for the six months to 3 1 March 1979 it was $46,405,000.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Not counting the shillings and pence.

Mr BURNS:

– That is correct. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the charges and interest paid by customers of the ANZ Bank compared with customers of the Bank of New South Wales.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr BURNS:

-I believe that the Campbell committee of inquiry should seriously investigate these exorbitant charges by the ANZ Bank. I think they are scandalous and outrageous. I believe that the ANZ Bank has a charge to answer.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-Tonight I want to draw the attention of the House to the hurricane that cut a swathe of devastation through South Australia last night. I owe a considerable debt to my colleague, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles), who has returned to Adelaide, for giving me much of the information which I will use tonight and whose electorate has suffered the most severe devastation in South Australia. Although the honourable member and I disagree on many points, I hope that we can co-operate in this matter. I think it is important to know that in Port Broughton nearly every house has been damaged- half of them severely- and there are reports that in various towns throughout the mid-north of South Australia the damage is estimated at between $500,000 and $lm although as yet most of the communications have not been restored to these towns. In the Barossa Valley there has been a band of destruction. Two wineries have been virtually totally destroyed and numerous others have been damaged. The extent of the damage to the vines themselves is still uncertain but what is clear is that the promise of a record harvest has been destroyed. It is not yet sure how much the vines have been affected, not just for this year but also for future years. In the Adelaide Hills the hailstorms that accompanied the hurricane winds have virtually wiped out the apple industry for this year.

Across a wide area in my own electorate the market gardens and glass-houses have been flattened. I understand that across the Para River in the electorate of Wakefield the damage is even worse. In many cases market gardens often have small resources to enable them to recover. I understand that only a few weeks ago a new natural disasters agreement was signed between the State and Federal governments under which a State is responsible for the first $3m in disaster relief and then the Commonwealth comes in to support the State. I also would like to take the opportunity of thanking the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), who, I understand, has already promised to take action immediately to support the needs of South Australia. I also urge the South Australian Government to work on this as rapidly as possible. I am not suggesting it is not doing that, but of course the initiative lies very much with the State Government and it is the actions of the State Government which are in a sense the initiating force to get the resources from the Commonwealth Government.

There are two points I would like to draw attention to particularly. I think that in this situation we all want to see support in terms that are as generous as possible for the rural people who have suffered. I know that at the moment in some States certain loan disaster relief money is available at concessional rates of about 4 per cent to 5 per cent. I would like to see that kind of approach taken by the State Government, which is primarily responsible for the terms and conditions of these loans. I think it is important that these disaster relief funds as both grants and loans at low concessional rates be utilised. Another concern, as always in these situations, is that tendencies to exploit the situation arise. Already there have been reports in my electorate that the price of glass for use in glass-houses, which was already in short supply, rose today by 20 per cent. It is important that the Commonwealth Government and the State Government make sure that the suffering and devastation are not exploited in this way by prices such as these. One of the things governments need to do is to take firm action to prevent exploitation in this way of a disaster situation. Governments have to take action to prevent the kinds of things that, according to rumour, are already happening in my electorate, that is, the exploitation of the situation by people greedy to make profits out of it. I am sure that we will all co-operate to bring relief to the South Australian situation.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I wish to raise a matter about which I spoke last night during the adjournment debate. The short synopsis is that a coroner’s inquiry was held into the death at the Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth, of a Down’s syndrome child who was admitted suffering from respiratory trouble. Before I come to the coroner’s findings, I point out that it was acknowledged by the director of the Princess Margaret Hospital that the dead boy’s card was marked ‘No further treatment’ and further ‘No resuscitation, No ECM, No intubation’. These are standard procedures to revive people with respiratory trouble and they are used in almost every case, as far as I can ascertain. However, they were not used in this case. There was no evidence of when and by whom the notes to which I have referred were made on the boy’s card. The coroner found this note on the card alarming, and that is the word he used.

Dr Godfrey, who is the director of the Princess Margaret Hospital, had to admit that there was no evidence of any firm diagnosis of epilepsy in this child, although on his Princess Margaret Hospital record card he was described as having epileptic fits. Counsel for the foster mother tried to get Dr Godfrey to admit that he had told Mrs Stresnik, the foster mother, that the boy was better off dead, that it was best that they did not give him treatment, et cetera. The doctor insisted that he did not recall the details of the long interview he had had with the foster parents after the boy’s death. However, he did think it possible that he had tried to comfort them by pointing out the problems the boy had had and would have had. He had found that that approach often helped other bereaved parents of Down’s syndrome and handicapped children. Dr Godfrey also denied saying that one of the doctors had made an error in judgment.

The point I make now is that at the coroner’s inquiry two doctors and five nursing staff elected not to give evidence. Apparently that is the common law right in the cornoners courts in Western Australia. On his own admission, the coroner reluctantly ruled that he had to accept that in such matters a coroner’s court must operate under the common law rather than under the Evidence Act. However, in closing the inquest and reserving his findings, he gave his strong view that he did not like it, that it was unsatisfactory, and that a coroner’s inquest should not be thwarted and forestalled in such a way. He said that he would recommend immediately to the State Attorney-General that the law be changed to bring coroners’ inquiries under section 1 1 of the Evidence Act of Western Australia, which would oblige witnesses to give evidence.

I will repeat the main points of his findings, which I outlined last night. The coroner was unable to make a proper finding regarding the full circumstances of Christopher’s death because of lack of evidence. He therefore made an open finding. He found little room for criticism of the early treatment of the boy. He found little evidence that Christopher’s progress, treatment, or the medical attention he required or received had been recorded. He said that the hospital records had contained an alarming note: ‘No resuscitation. No ECM. No intubation’. I repeat that on the last day of the inquiry two doctors and five nursing staff refused to give evidence on the ground that they might incriminate themselves. I am trying to speak for this child. I am trying to speak for his foster parents.

Mr McLean:

– How old was he?

Mr MARTYR:

-The child was 23 months old. I am concerned because this sort of thing has been going on. I am concerned because I know that the massive abortion rate in this country has conditioned the Australian people to accept this sort of thing. I wonder whether it is not true that Hitler has finally won, that he may have lost the war but won the philosophical battle. I would hate to think that this country will have this or any other sort of horror going on. I hope that this Government will do something about it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– E raise a matter which I have raised in the adjournment debate on a number of occasions. As the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) is present, I take the opportunity to raise directly with him a matter I have already raised in correspondence. I refer to the case of a war widow who now has an illegitimate child, and I raise the question of the rights of the child and the rights of the woman. In correspondence with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), the only information I am able to obtain is that in order to receive coverage for the child under any form of benefit other than family allowances the woman would have to resign her war widow’s pension. I think that that is a penalty beyond the reasonable expectations of the widow of a serviceman who died as a result of his service to this country. She could then apply for a social security pension, which would result in a similar sum of money being available to her, but with reduced rights. That is not what I consider to be the expectations of Service personnel for their dependants, given that circumstances different from the norm exist.

I do not think it is the right of this Parliament or any government to pass moral judgments on people. It may well be that the expectation of a person receiving a war widow’s pension is that that pension will cover the children and the dependants of the ex-servicemen. I do not dispute that. However, I do dispute that the war widow’s pension should then be used to deny the woman social security cover for the same child. Surely it is a simple matter of natural justice that the child and the mother should be entitled to the same rights as a civilian widow with a child on a social security pension, without having to accept the penalty that she must surrender her entitlements as a war widow. That is the question I raise. It may be that the Repatriation Act is deficient, and it is certainly a fact that it is not long ago that the same child would have been denied rights under the Social Services Act. But those Acts have been changed to recognise the facts of life, to recognise that a moral judgment should not deny cover for a child or a parent in circumstances where the child exists, irrespective of the nature of its birth or its legitimacy.

I ask the Minister to give consideration to the answer that he gave to me in correspondence and to review the existing law, which provides that unless the widow resigns her war widow’s pension she can obtain no cover for the dependant child simply because of the interaction of that pension and the Social Services Act. The child is realtively young and will be in the widow’s care for at least another 10 years. She is entitled to the war widow’s pension because she is a war widow, and she should not be asked to surrender that pension in order to gain coverage for her child. She is denied cover for the child unless she resigns that pension, and that is a penalty based on a moral judgment. It may be an anomaly under the Act, but at this stage I have no indication that either the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs or the Minister for Social Security is prepared to do anything about it. I think it is improper, and I believe that the House, and certainly Government members, should express an opinion about such a situation being allowed to continue. If the Repatriation Act is not to be permitted to cover such a child, I ask the Minister to ensure that arrangements are made so that the child is entitled to be considered for a social security pension in the normal way.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-In the course of this year, this Parliament has made substantial progress in its effort to assert its authority over the Executive because in this Parliament there resides the sovereignty of the people. This evening we were very fortunate to hear a valuable debate concerning the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Nobody could be more pleased than the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) and other honourable members who have been taking -

Mr Shack:

– What about the honourable member for Batman?

Mr YATES:

– He was not here. He complained in the Australian Financial Review that he was not too happy about the proceedings in this House. However, he will now agree that the back bench members are doing their very best to supervise the public expenditure and that therefore we are doing our best to care for the public money which is placed in our trust as a result of taxation. Nevertheless, whereas we go around examining how government departments are getting on, people are asking whether anybody has suggested that we ourselves should be looked at in regard to the way in which we discharge our duties in this House. For example, I am not always content to have my contributions to this House portrayed in my own electorate by a third party through the media. I regret that there is no broadcast of the adjournment debates, for example. Somebody in the Executive decided that adjournment debates would not be broadcast. I wonder why.

Therefore, we are coming to a situation where the general public will say: ‘We hear a lot of noise on the radio. What is it that makes a parliament so nervous of appearing on the television and why do members of parliament seem so reticent about having a trial experimental period with the television?’ Some say that members of parliament would play to the gallery, but the television is a very subtle instrument and anybody who tried that game would soon be seen by his own electors. I dare say, too, that some electorate chairmen and some members of electorate committees might also take the view that the member whom they sent up to parliament was not in every respect performing the duties which he was elected to perform. Therefore, a trial period with the television cameras such as occurred in Canada would not, I think, do any honourable member any harm. I venture to suggest that the general public, who I am told are impassioned listeners of radio, would be very much happier if we allowed the televising of parliament. If that happens, it is quite certain that parliament itself must control its own television proceedings and its own television cameras. Apparently the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who is interjecting, is not interested in the televising of the House. Perhaps he and his colleagues from Western Australia who are so far away from their electorates will find that the televising of parliament will be of an enormous advantage to their own electors.

Mr Cotter:

– You would be a member of Actors Equity, for sure.

Mr YATES:

– We would see how those interjecting and this conducting of an ordinary adjournment debate would appeal to the average person listening to the proceedings in this Parliament. I suggest that if a television camera were now on the honourable member seated in front of me, he would be turning to the camera so that we could see how attractive he looked instead of turning around to look at me. I suggest that Mr Speaker be invited, without delay, to consult with members of this House concerning an experimental period of televising the proceedings of this House.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Tonight, in company with the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and Senator Peter Walsh, I walked across to the site of the new High Court building, following advice tendered by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). Members of this Parliament see the building site every day and have probably come to take it for granted. But I assure honourable members that they really ought to see the building for themselves. I had read criticisms of the cost and style of the High Court building and I went there to some extent, I admit, with a psychological predisposition against it. First, I should say that we had no difficulty whatever in entering the site. We wandered through the building and climbed up to the top floor level. We had a very thorough examination of it. The building is completely open and unguarded and the gates were open.

Frankly, and I can speak for my colleagues too, we were appalled by the High Court building. It is a monument on such a vast scale, completely lacking in human proportions, that it overwhelms by its vastness, its ugliness and its lack of human spirit. It is a vast example of totalitarian architecture with some elements of the architecture of Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Stalin’s Russia. Members of parliament ought to inspect it for themselves before any decision is made about the future design of the new and permanent parliament house, otherwise we may find ourselves saddled with a totalitarian monstrosity of a building larger than the Kremlin and the Pentagon and just as dehumanised. It is an awful warning for all of us of official architecture which gets out of hand.

The High Court building is supposed to accommodate seven judges- it may be nine by the end of the century- and provides space for three courts. I appreciate the dazzling wit of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) but I would rather make my speech unassisted. Courts are not normally intended to be places for mob scenes, but the entrance hall of the High Court building is big enough for a mob scene out of a Cecil B. de Mille film- perhaps a Pharoah’s court or an epic of ancient Rome by Federico Fellini. The open space could accommodate 200 families on the basis of space allocated to flat dwellers by the Housing Commission of Victoria. The entrance ramp to the High Court building is broad enough to accommodate an army and Centurion tanks three abreast. God alone knows what it is doing there in front of that building.

All that is intended is that a bench of three or five judges will sit and determine cases that will be presented to them by highly priced counsel who do not really need to have armed guards coming along to protect them from mobs. I cannot imagine that it is ever going to be a popular place, with people coming from all over Australia to visit it as a tourist attraction. I think it is a bad example of a project which has been allowed to grow without adequate scrutiny of the purposes for which the building was allegedly created by the Parliament. I cannot think of a worse example of the edifice complex that distinguishes many people in our community. I am bound to say that the building seems to be intended as a monument, either contemporary or posthumous, to the learned Chief Justice of Australia. I believe that there has been totally inadequate scrutiny of the whole thing. This is not particularly a partisan political matter and if mistakes have been made by -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Whitlam ordered it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-If mistakes have been made in previous administrations, all right. But that does not mean -

Mr Cotter:

– All wrong.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Do not be childish. My primary concern at this stage is what is going to happen in the future. It is not a matter of handing out post-mortems about the past. What I am concerned about is what is going to happen to the new and permanent parliament house. It is an omen that we would do well to examine. The High Court building is a monster because it completely lacks the human touch. I think we have to make very sure that we do not fall into the same trap with the new and permanent parliament house.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. There are just a couple of matters that I want to take up in the adjournment debate. For instance, I was interested in what the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) had to say about the televising and broadcasting of the adjournment debate. I will not respond in detail in that regard. That is not my prerogative or my right. But I make one suggestion as to why I think that over the years, in the wisdom of the Parliament, the adjournment debate has not been broadcast. I understand that the reason the adjournment debate is not usually broadcast is that it gives honourable members an opportunity to bring very personal cases to the attention of Ministers. Names and case histories which have a personal and private nature about them can be raised. It is my understanding that that is probably why the adjournment debate is not usually broadcast.

Mr Scholes:

– The Broadcasting Committee recommended to the Parliament that it be broadcast. The Senate will not agree with it and the Government will not bring the matter on for debate.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I do not want to debate that particular matter any further. I just raise that as a point of view which I think is worth consideration. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised with me a case which we have discussed before. I take objection to his accusing me of making a moral judgment. I am not making a moral judgment. In fact, it was the honourable member for Corio who called the child illegitimate. That seems to be more of a moral judgment than I would make. I wish to respond in this way: The war widow’s pension is to compensate a widow for the loss of support and companionship of a husband who died either at the war, as a result of war wounds, or was totally and permanently incapacitated. That has extended also to the dependants of the veteran for those same reasons.

The case which the honourable member raised with me concerned a war widow. Of course, she receives a war widows pension, and so her dependants- who were the children of the veteran- received, and perhaps some still do receive allowances. The facts are not fresh in my mind. They are the dependants of the veterans and they come under the category of loss of support and companionship. The reason that I suggested that the honourable member should approach the Department of Social Security was not based on a moral judgment. Under existing legislation there could be an opportunity for a war widow to receive that type of allowance and benefit more financially than she would have done if she had stayed under the Repatriation Act. If the war widow remarried she then would lose her war widow’s pension.

Mr Scholes:

– Yes, but she has not.

Mr ADERMANN:

– But just let me put this proposition to the honourable member. It is one of the factors that I am considering in the case. It does not mean that we reject the philosophy behind what the honourable member has said. If the war widow remarries she loses her war widow’s pension. If she does not remarry and if there are children born who are not the children of the veteran, ought the Repatriation Act extend to the situation to take care of those dependants under the repatration allowance? There are always a stringency of funds. The Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs, with alowances and pensions to veterans and their dependants, is paying out something over $950m this year in that area alone. That is quite a substantial amount. But despite that, there are areas of very great need. Our first obligation- as I said this morning- is to members of the forces themselves. I do not think the honourable member is arguing about that.

Mr Scholes:

– I am complaining about the interaction of one pension to deny cover for another.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I will follow that up. With the funds we have, and with that priority, we have to ensure that the areas of greatest need are met. As I said this morning, that is one of the reasons why it is very difficult to extend the service pension to a worthy section of people such as certain merchant seamen.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! The debate is interrupted. Does the Minister require an extension of time?

Mr ADERMANN:

– I wish to continue for another minute.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister may continue.

Mr ADERMANN:

– This comes into much the same category. We have to be very careful about extending in a wider sphere the concept of what the war widow’s pension meant to the war widow herself, and to the dependants of the veteran. With the funds we have available it reduces our capacity to direct as much as we would like into the areas of real need. Yet despite the fact that we have the best repatriation system in the world, not only because of the benefits it provides but also because of the accessibility to that system, there are still areas of need. There are increasing demands upon the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The average age of veterans is approaching 60 which means that there is a greater eligibility for service pensions and there will be a greater call on service pensions. There will be a greater need for treatment in our repatriation general hospitals simply because, as veterans get older and more frail and their disabilities come more to the fore, there will be a greater call on the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. In that light and for those reasons I find it very difficult to give any indication that I could extend the war widow’s pension beyond the range in which it is extended at this particular stage. I say again that that is not a moral judgment at all. No moral judgment was intended and I made the suggestion that the social security pension might be helpful in an endeavour to help the war widow. I certainly did not intend to cast any moral judgment upon her.

Mr SCHOLES (Corio)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Corio wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr SCHOLES:

-Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented as a part of my speech was misunderstood. I was putting to the Minister that it was not for him to extend the Repatriation Act, but that the Repatriation Act should not be used as a bar for seeking coverage under the Social Services Act. At the moment it is used as a means test to bar the child from cover. The child is then in no man’s land.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The debate having been concluded, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday next, at 2. 1 5 p.m.

House adjourned at 1 1.8 p.m.

page 3151

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

1 ) That if the House is not sitting when the Standing Committee on Expenditure has completed its inquiry into the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Committee may send its report to Mr Speaker or, in the absence of Mr Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation.

That the foregoing provision of this resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the parliamentary standing committee on public works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of National Biological Standards Laboratory and Australian Dental Standards Laboratory, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory

  1. condemns the failure of the Government to implement the recommendations and conclusions contained in the 1975 report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the construction of an Australian Government Centre at Parramatta, NSW, and
  2. ) is of the opinion that, as there is a need for additional Government-owned office accommodation in the Sydney area, the recommendations of the Committee should be implemented forthwith.

Mr Kerin to move That this House:

  1. recognizes that non-metropolitan Australia has 30 per cent of our population yet experiences 42 per cent of national unemployment; that the September 1975 unemployment vacancy ratio for non-metropolitan areas was 13.3 compared to 24.8 in September 1979 and that in September 1979 46 juniors were registered per vacancy in non-metropolitan areas compared to 23 registered per vacancy in the cities;
  2. deplores the rejection by the Government of a plan by the Australian Council of Local Government organisations that would have created jobs throughout non-metropolitan Australia;
  3. is of the opinion that the Federal Government has failed to recognize and deal with rural unemployment, and
  4. calls on the Government to urgently implement job creation programs particularly at the local government level.

page 3152

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Television: Impact on Children (Question No. 3207)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What measures has the Government taken, or does it intend to take, to ensure that commercial television in Australia is geared to, and caters adequately for, minority audiences including children.
  2. Which of the recommendations of the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children, has the Government (a) accepted or (b) rejected.
  3. 3 ) What is the estimated cost of those recommendations accepted.
  4. What would be the cost of implementing the rejected recommendations.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government is firmly of the view that matters of program regulation are best left to an independent statutory authority- namely the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Tribunal has introduced a ‘C classification for programs specifically designed for children between the age of 6 to 13. It has formed a Children’s Program Committee which makes recommendations to the Tribunal on programs submitted to it for a ‘C classification. The Tribunal has awarded a ‘ C ‘ classification to some 80 programs.
  2. to (4) The Government is presently considering the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts titled Children and Television. No decision has yet been made by the Government on the Report’s recommendations.

Treasury: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4317)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in pan ( 1 ).
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Parliamentary Question 4328 provided by the Minister for National Development (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2657).

Veterans’ Affairs: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4326)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s answer to Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1 979, page 2657. )

Post and Telecommunications: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4330)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s answer to Question No. 4328 (House of Representatives Hansard, 6 November 1979, pages 2657-8).

Capital Territory: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4335)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in pan ( 1 ).
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister for National Development of 6 November 1979 to Question 4328, page 2657, House of Representatives Hansard.

Sale of Rental Housing (Question No. 4584)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

What are the attitudes of each of the State housing authorities with regard to the selling of rental stock and what are their practices with regard to sub-section 20 (2) of the 1978 Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement.

Mr Groom:
LP

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

The States have provided the following information concerning their policies regarding sales of dwellings covered by the 1978 Housing Agreement:-

New South Wales: Sales are made to tenants at a price which is the higher of cost, or market value. Purchasers secure finance through banks, building societies or other financial institutions.

Since October 1976 sales have been prohibited in those parts of the metropolitan areas where the rental housing stock is regarded as irreplaceable. During 1978-79 many of the sales were in country towns.

Victoria: Rental dwellings are sold at market value. Sales are financed by the Victorian Housing Commission using Home Purchase Assistance Account funds. The Commission is an authorized lender under that program and lends exclusively to its own tenants who are purchasing a rental dwelling. At the date of sale the Housing Commission transfers the total value of the loan from the Home Purchase Assistance Account to its Rental Housing Assistance Account. This enables the Commission to replace the dwelling which has been sold with another rental dwelling. Security is normally by Contract of Sale, but can be converted to mortgage later.

Queensland: Rental dwellings are sold to tenants at replacement value less allowance for depreciation and the redemption amount paid in rents by the particular tenant. Depending on deposit availability, security is either contract of sale or mortgage.

The Queensland Housing Commission is an authorized lender under the Home Purchase Assistance scheme and sales are financed from this source.

South Australia: Only detached rental dwellings have been sold and only to tenants. Brick and brick veneer dwellings may be sold to tenants after twelve months occupancy. Timber frame dwellings are sold only to tenants occupying prior to 1 April 1972.

Brick and brick veneer dwellings are sold for market value less $300 rent credit and less the value of improvements made by the tenant. Timber frame dwellings are sold for market value less rent credit representing 4-1/8 per cent of capital cost of dwellings per year of occupancy and less the value of improvements made by the tenant. Purchasers secure finance through banks, building societies or other financial institutions.

Western Australia: All State Housing Commission dwellings are sold at market value. Purchasers secure finance from banks, building societies or other financial institutions.

Tasmania: Rental dwellings are sold at market value, as assessed by the Valuer-General. Purchasers secure finance from banks, building societies or other financial institutions.

Overseas Insurance Payments (Question No. 4745)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is one of the major problems with Australia ‘s balance of payments large outgoings on invisibles, a major proportion of which is insurance payments made overseas.
  2. Is there a need for re-insurance cover to be obtained overseas because of the foreign nature of the broker and finance companies concerned.
  3. 3 ) Will the Government consider prohibiting initial cover being placed outside Australia unless the Australian market will not accommodate this business at competitive prices.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although there has been significant growth in the absolute size of the net invisibles deficit (reflecting both economic growth and inflation), this growth has been broadly in line with that in the rest of the economy. The ratio of the invisibles deficit to GDP (about 3.7 per cent in 1978-79) has been relatively stable over the last ten years.

Continuing deficits of this nature in one area of external transactions are thus no more than a reflection of the fact that it is efficient for Australia to be a net importer of certain services, including insurance. Insurance transactions are spread throughout the invisibles account and official statistics are not available to show their effect on the net invisibles deficit.

  1. The purchase of reinsurance cover is of course a matter for individual insurance companies to consider in the light of matters such as their financial strength and the nature of the insurance business they underwrite. In practice the industry in Australia has found it necessary to have substantial access to overseas markets. Some considerations of relevance to this practice are the relatively small reinsurance capacity of the Australian market, the concentration of reinsurance facilities overseas (particularly in the United Kingdom but also in Europe and the United States) and the need to achieve an appropriate spread of risk.
  2. No. Implementation of such a prohibition would result in an undue degree of Government intervention of the affairs of insurance companies and would be costly to administer.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Funding (Question No. 4752)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

In view of the Government’s decision to increase funding for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, what are the details of the (a) proposed increased funding, including the departments which will benefit, (b) increases for each department and the programs which will benefit and (c) resulting changes in the administration of the Commission.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. In 1979-80, the benefit of any increase in actual revenues and over estimated revenues (excluding Government funding, orchestral subsidies and proceeds from the sale of properties) may be retained by the ABC and will be available for expenditure on other Commission activities.

In subsequent years, the entrepreneurial revenues in excess of $ 10.757m (the estimated 1979-80 revenue) up to a maximum of $7m in any one year will be excluded from the draft estimates of the Commission and be available for expenditure by the ABC. An assurance has been given to the ABC that its appropriation for ordinary operational and capital expenditure in later years will not be less than the 1979-80 appropriations plus adjustment for subsequent increased costs; any proposal for increased funding from the Budget ( for both ordinary and extraordinary expenditures of the Commission) will be considered on its merits in the context of the total budget strategy for the financial year concerned.

  1. As it is not possible to determine the extent of excess revenues until late in the 1979-80 financial year, no decisions can be made for some time as to which departments or programs will benefit.
  2. The new proposals do not involve any change in the administration of the Commission.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Program Changes (Question No. 4788)

Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission make radio and television program changes during 1979 which included reductions in (a) race broadcasts in Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle and certain other centres and (b) speciality broadcasting especially on relay, such as The World of Jazz and The Showman formerly relayed from Sydney to Canberra.
  2. If so, have these changes resulted in a greater audience share for ABC stations.
  3. Which ABC stations received a (a) greater and (b) reduced audience as a result of the program changes.
  4. Do he and his Department support the programming changes in the ABC which have seen a move away from specialist and/or quality broadcasting towards a broadcasting formula of the so-called middle of the road type.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) Racing descriptions were discontinued from 2CN Canberra from 17 February 1979.

Racing descriptions were discontinued from 3LO Melbourne in 1976.

Racing descriptions were discontinued from 2NC Newcastle from 3 1 March 1979.

Racing descriptions were discontinued from 2NU Tamworth and the relay stations 2AN Armidale and 2GL Glen Innes from 3 1 March 1979.

Racing descriptions from ABC stations in Tasmania were discontinued from January 1979, although the phasing out started in 1978.

Turf news and racing results are given from all these stations.

  1. The World of Jazz was replaced on 2CN from 17 February 1979 and The Showman from 18 February 1979 except that, from 29 October for the duration of the cricket season, The Showman will be broadcast each Monday on Radio 1 and will be relayed to Canberra.

    1. Where surveys have been possible an increase in audience has been indicated.
    2. Surveys in Newcastle indicate a higher audience than at the same time last year. In Canberra there is an increased audience both as a result of racing broadcasts being replaced and their place being taken by locally originated programs. It has not been possible as yet to undertake surveys in Tasmania or the New England area of New South Wales. ABC Advisory Committees have applauded the changes where their views have been recorded.
    3. As I have previously indicated in Parliament, programs of the National Broadcasting and Television Service are the responsibility of the management of the ABC, not the Government.

Review of Tuberculosis Pensioners (Question No. 4827)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the full cost of the non-recurring review of TB pensioners during 1978.
  2. Did the figure of $6,000 (Departmental estimates explanations 690 1 02 ) cover the entire cost.
  3. Were any additional staff employed to review these pensioners.
  4. Did the $6,000 include the cost of medical examinations.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. During the financial year 1978-79, identifiable direct costs associated with the review of TB pensioners were approximately $131,000. General administrative expenses such as salaries for staff indirectly involved in the review, light and power, telephones and other general administrative expenses which cannot readily be apportioned would be additional to this amount.
  2. No. The figure of $6,000 relates only to overtime associated with the review.
  3. Yes. A total of 1 1 additional staff at various classification levels were employed for different periods for the purpose of conducting the review.
  4. No.

Domestic Communications Satellite (Question No. 4845)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he state as reported in the Financial Review of 25 September 1979 that the first generation of the Australian Domestic Satellite would not have a direct broadcasting facility for television transmission to remote homesteads and communities until late in its life-span.
  2. If so, on his time-scale for introduction of a domestic broadcasting satellite, is it a fact that satellite television transmission will not reach remote areas until the late 1980s.
  3. 3 ) What is the reason for this change of policy.
  4. Does this new policy contradict his earlier enthusiasm, support and acceptance of early provision of satellite television for the outback.
  5. Is it also a fact that the Canadian system of low power and lower cost direct broadcasting provides low quality television images and is, therefore, technically unsuited to Australian conditions.
  6. Did he promise television reception in remote areas from the satellite for less than $ 1 ,000 per service; if so, do the changed arrangements mean that this promise cannot be honoured.
  7. If the position is as stated, how will television be brought to the 3,000 remote homesteads and at what cost.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. to (7) ] refer the honourable member to my letter published in the Financial Review of 26 September 1979 which stated:

SIR, I read with interest the Financial Review article reporting comments made by me on domestic satellite usage (Backtrack on Usage for Domestic Satellite 25.9.79).

For the record, I would emphasise that I have not, as the article suggests, ‘rolled out virtually any direct broadcasting faculty for a national communications satellite in the medium term future’.

The misleading impression given in the article is no doubt due to a genuine misunderstanding of my remarks.

I certainly did comment on the issue of direct broadcasting capacity in a domestic communications satellite.

In this context, I stressed that proposals to be put to Government did not include plans at this stage for direct broadcasting of commercial television services.

In so doing, I made a clear distinction between our approach to national (ABC) and commercial broadcasting services.

It has always been my intention that consideration of a domestic communications satellite for Australia would include proposals for direct broadcasting of national radio and television services. And I have reiterated this approach in all public utterances on the matter’.

Telephone Services: Montville, Queensland (Question No. 4848)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the age of the existing telephone exchange at Montville, Queensland.
  2. When is a new exchange being provided for the area.
  3. When is the telephone cable between Montville and Nambour being replaced.
  4. Is the telephone service offered to the people of Montville and surrounds considered acceptable by (a) Telecom and (b) him.
  5. Has this service recently suffered (a) exchange breakdowns, (b) Nambour-Montville cable faults, (c) copious crossed lines, and (d) exchange congestion, leading to the necessity of dialling several times before connection is successful.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia advises the initial exchange was installed in 195 1. It has since been extended by the addition of three units, the last of which was installed in 1 977.
  2. The exchange is not currently programmed for replacement.
  3. There are no current plans to replace the cable as its condition is satisfactory.

  4. (a) Yes. Telecom advises the exchange is performing efficiently.

    1. Yes, in view of the assurance given by Telecom Australia.

  5. (a) No. In the last three months there have been, however, four exchange faults, generally of short duration, that could have affected service received by some subscribers.

    1. Yes. The cable was damaged by mechanical equipment at 2.30 pm on 12 September 1979 and repaired on the same day.
    2. ‘Crosstalk ‘ at a barely audible level has been detected but the cause has not yet been isolated.
    3. Following complaints of congestion early this year comprehensive tests were arranged in April and these showed no evidence of congestion. Two of the faults referred to in (a) could have, however, caused congestion for their duration

Regional Museums (Question No. 4854)

Mr Chapman:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a recommendation in the Report on Museums in Australia (pages 23 and 24) for the formation of regional networks of museums, each region having a curator provided at the Federal Government’s expense.
  2. What would be the cost of this proposal.
  3. Would this recommendation be consistent with the Government’s policy of restraint in public spending and its federalism policy of decentralising power and responsibility as much as possible.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The cost of the proposal would depend on the number of regional associations and the salary level of the curators appointed. If no more than forty associations were established as suggested in the report ‘Museums in Australia 1975’ the estimated minimum salary cost of providing fulltime professional curators, Grade 1 would be $630,000 in a financial year.
  3. The Government’s policy of expenditure restraint would be a consideration. The responsibility for museums traditionally rests with the States although the manner by which specialised advice and expertise might be provided to smaller museums in the future is a matter I would be willing to discuss with relevant State Ministers.

Insurance Industry (Question No. 4982)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the concern expressed by Mr E. R. Kirkpatrick, the Insurance Commissioner, in the 5th Annual Report of the Commission at page 32 where the Commissioner relates the problem of rate cutting.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to press statements by the leaders in this field which corroborate the Commission’s findings that (a) a highly dangerous situation is developing (b) underwriting losses are manifest and generally increasing, (c) more and more insurance companies and insurance intermediaries are relying on investment income, on technical reserves, and on creditor finance respectively, to cover losses made on their insurance activities and (d) these findings ignore the fundamental principles on which the industry should be based.
  3. Will he take steps to rationalise the industry in an effort to obviate what is obviously a highly dangerous situation facing the industry; if so, what steps does he intend to take.
  4. Has the Government considered providing assistance for companies to merge one with another so as to form larger, more viable and more efficient units.
  5. Is the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System obliged, under its terms of reference, to report upon the insurance industry; if not, will he refer this area to that Inquiry as a matter of urgency.
  6. If he will not refer the insurance industry to that Inquiry, will he establish a committee of inquiry consisting of Government officials from the Treasury and/or the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (preferably experts in mergers and takeovers), the Reserve Bank, representatives of the industry and such other persons with expertise in this area as are considered desirable to be appointed, and for the Chairman to be an independent person such as a senior accountant, to report upon the measures that can be adopted to rationalise the industry.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am aware that concern has been expressed by some people within the insurance industry about the underwriting losses experienced by some insurers and the possibility of further underwriting losses being experienced. I am also aware that the insurance industry is confronted with a situation of widespread rate cutting. I note that the Insurance Commissioner’s latest Annual Report indicates that most insurers are now in a better financial situation than in past years (page 34). That Report also indicates that an overall net profit before taxation of $206 million was earned by direct underwriters for the year ended 3 1 December 1 978.
  3. and (4) The Government does not believe that existing circumstances within the industry call for steps to be taken by Government to ‘rationalise’ the industry. We see that as essentially something for the working out of normal market forces. Subject to the supervisory arrangements established by the Insurance Act 1973, it remains a matter for insurance companies themselves to decide upon questions such as mergers or the optimum size of the insurance business they may wish to operate.
  4. 5 ) and ( 6 ) The terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System provide scope for the Committee to report on the insurance industry. I understand that the Committee is examining certain aspects of the industry.

Pensioner Health Benefits (Question No. 4985)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, 24 October 1979:

What is the estimated number of (a) dependent children and (b) students who will be eligible for pensioner health benefits after the changes coming into force on 1 November 1979.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The numbers of (a) dependent children and (b) students eligible for pensioner health benefits are not available separately. However, the total number of such children and students is estimated to be 338,200 as at December 1979. This figure includes an estimated 106,000 dependent children and students who will become eligible due to the changes to fringe benefit eligibility coming into force on 1 November 1979. These numbers relate only to dependants of social security pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries.

Defence Service Homes Scheme (Question No. 5046)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:

What matters remain outstanding that would prevent an amendment to the operation of the Defence Service Homes Scheme to extend eligibility to members of the Citizen Military Forces and Women’s Forces who served in Australia during the 1939-45 war.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The question of extending eligibility for Defence Service Homes benefits to persons who served in Australia during the 1939-45 War in the Citizen Military Forces or Women’s Services was fully considered by the Government last year. As a result of that consideration, the Defence Service Homes Amendment Act 1 978 incorporated certain Ministerial directions which had been followed since 1948 and which prohibited the granting of assistance to such persons if they did not serve outside Australia.

Defence Service Homes Scheme (Question No. 5047)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:

What percentage of the average cost of all houses built or financed under the Defence Service Homes Scheme was covered by the maximum loan in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each State during (i) 1974-75, (ii) 1975-76, (iii) 1976-77,(iv) 1977-78 and (v 1978-79.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

It should be noted that the percentages for 1974-75 are not strictly comparable with those for subsequent years. As from 1975-76 the statistics have been based on house costs and prices during the last quarter of the financial year instead of the average over the whole year.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791115_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant