Alternative Members-Leader of Delegation)-Questions Without Notic-Governor's Speech: Address in Reply (Seventh Day's Debate)

516 COUNCIL-Constitution Convention

Tuesday, 7 September, 1976

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Convention (Alternative Members-Leader of Delegation)-Questions without Notic-Governor's Speech: Address in Reply (Seventh Day's Debate).

The President took the chair at 4.29 p.m. The Prayer was read.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION CONVENTION Alternative Members Motion (by the Hon. D. P. Landa) agreed to: That where, because of sickness or other cause, a Legislative Council member of the delegation from the Parliament of New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Constitution is unable to attend a Sitting of the Convention to take place at Hobart, or any session thereof, Mrs Roper is hereby appointed an alternative member to act for a member supporting the Government, Mr Lange is hereby appointed an alternative member to act for a member supporting the Opposition, and the person so acting shall be a member of the delegation for that Sitting or that session, as the case may be. Message The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly: Mr President, The Legislative Assembly has this day agreed to the following resolutions- "That Mr Wran, Mr F. J. Walker, Mr Hills and Mr Einfeld, being members supporting the Government, and Sir Eric Willis, Mr Maddison, Mr Punch and Mr Coleman, being members supporting the Opposition, shall be and are hereby appointed the Legislative Assembly members of the delegation from the Parliament of New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Con- stitution and that Mr Wran be declared the leader of the delegation. (2) That Mr Einfeld and Mr Maddison shall be and are hereby appointed Joint Managers of the appointed members of the Legisla- tive Assembly. Constitution Convention-7 September, 1976 517

(3) That where, because of sickness or other cause, a Legislative Assembly member of the delegation is unable to attend a sitting of the Convention to take place at Hobart, or any session thereof- (a) if he is a member supporting the Government, the Premier may appoint as an alternative member: Mr Jensen, Mr Mulock or Mr Sheahan; (b) if he is a member supporting the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition may appoint as an alternaaive member: Mr Cameron, Mr Cowan or Mr Dowd and the person so appointed shall be a member of the delegation for that sitting or that session as the case may be." The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council will also declare Mr Neville Kenneth Wran to be leader of the delegation for the purpose of paragraph (7) of its resolution of 22nd March, 1972, in relation to the Constitution Convention. Legislative Assembly Chamber, L. B. KELLY, Sydney, 7 September, 1976. Speaker.

Leader of Delegation Motion (by consent, by the Hon. D. P. Landa) agreed to: That Mr Neville Kenneth Wran, Premier, and an appointed member of the delegation from the Parliament of New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Constitution, is hereby declared to be the leader of the delegation for the purposes of paragraph (7) of the Council's Resolu- tion of 22 March, 1972, in relation to the Constitution Convention.

Message Motion (by the Hon. D. P. Landa) agreed to: That the following message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly: Mr Speaker- The Legislative Council, having taken into consideration the Legisla- tive Assembly's message of 7 September, 1976, has this day agreed to the following resolution- "That Mr Neville Kenneth Wran, Premier, and an appointed member of the delegation from the Parliament of New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Constitution, is hereby declared to be the leader of the delegation for the purposes of paragraph (7) of the Council's Resolution of 22 March, 1972, in relation to the Con- stitution Convention." The Legislative Council also desires to acquaint the Legislative Assembly that it has agreed to the following resolutions- "That Mr Landa and Mr Serisier, being members supporting the Government, and Mr Solomons and Lieutenant-Colonel Willis, being members supporting the Opposition, shall be and are hereby appointed the Legislative Council members of the delegation from the Parliament of New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Constitution; and that where, because of sickness or other cause, a Legislative Council member of the delegation from the Parliament of 518 COUNCIL-Constitution Convention--Questions without Notice

New South Wales to the Convention to review the Commonwealth Constitution is unable to attend a Sitting of the Convention to take place at Hobart, or any session thereof, Mrs Roper is hereby appointed an alternative member to act for a member supporting the Government, Mr Lange is hereby appointed an alternative member to act for a member supporting the Opposition, and the person so acting shall be a member of the delegation for that sitting or that session, as the case may be."

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ELECTIONS

The Hon. Sir JOHN FULLER: Last week I directed a question to the Vice- President of the Executive Council and Minister for Planning and Environment regard- ing the filling of the vacancies caused by the death of the Hon. J. Calcraft and the resignation of the Hon. F. M. Hewitt. In his reply the Minister said that he hoped some action would be taken within the foreseeable future. Has anything happened within the past week that may enable the Minister to be more explicit as to what the foreseeable fut~~reis? The Hon. D. P. LANDA: I am sorry to inform the Leader of the Opposition that nothing has happened in the past week, as he asked me specifically. However, I assure him that the matter is receiving consideration by the Government. The Government has not yet had the benefit of preselecting its own party's candidates for the forthcoming elections, though I noticed in the press that the coalition parties have selected their candidates. The Government is looking at the problem.

WATERFRONT DEMARCATION DISPUTE The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Planning and Environment whether the demarcation dispute between the Transport Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Federation over container handling has tied up about 50 per cent of cargoes on conventional wharves over a period of several weeks. Is it a fact that because of this dispute more than 1 000 containers have remained stacked at No. 5 wharf, Darling Harbour? Is it further a fact that as a direct result of this dispute, about 800 workers from Australia's largest caravan manufacturer have recently been stood down? If these are facts, will the Minister say what action his Government intends to take to bring this crippling dispute to an end to ensure that trade essential to the well-being of industfy and the people of New South Wales should continue unhindered? The Hon. D. P. LANDA: I am familiar with the facts outlined by the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith. In the dispute the Transport Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Federation are holding firmly to their respective positions. I am sure that all honourable members in this House and everyone in the trade-union movement regret demarcation disputes, especially those that hold up the passage of goods and services. I am informed that tomorrow the Australian Council of Trade Unions will meet to attempt to resolve the matter. I am aware also that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Mines and Minister for Energy is attempting to bring some resolution to this bitter problem on the waterfront. I hope that the matter will be clarified tomorrow at the ACTU level. Questions without Notice-7 September, 1976 519

MURRAY RIVER BANK EROSION The Hon. W. L. LANGE: Is the Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Planning and Environment aware of the increasing bank erosion problems being experienced along the Murray River between the Hume Dam and the Yarra- wonga Weir? Is the erosion largely due to the unnatural river flows caused by irrigation requirements? Can the Minister confirm the statement of the federal Minister for National Resources, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, that following completion of the Dartmouth Dam the Murray River will flow at higher levels for longer periods? If this is so, has any study been done of the effects on the river of such policy? If not, will he, in conjunction with his colleague the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources initiate an urgent study of the probable effects of such higher river flows, particularly relating to erosion and the quantity and quality of water available to irrigators and urban communities dependent on the Murray for water supplies? The Hon. D. P. LANDA: As the Hon. W. L. Lange was kind enough to give me notice of the detailed nature of his question, I have been able to obtain some information from the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources. He has advised me that in relation to the first part of the honourable member's question he is aware of the bank erosion problems that are being experienced along the Murray River between the Hume Dam and the Yarrawonga Weir. Numerous inspections have been made by engineers of the Water Resources Commission of the bank erosion problems on the Murray River. The honourable member inquired also whether the erosion was due largely to the unnatural river flows caused by irrigation requirements. The Minister has advised me that the length of the Murray River referred to is in a relatively active state and is continually tending to change its main channel in the flood plain. This is accom- panied by erosion of the banks of the river. A number of developing effluents represent possible new courses for the river. Bank erosion and the development of such effluents are natural processes of the river and could be expected to occur under natural conditions. Recently the position has been aggravated by the series of wet years with the resultant floods causing considerable bank erosion. The major change caused by regulated releases from Hume Dam has been in the redistribution of flow throughout the year. The normal pattern has been considerably modified particularly by reduction in winter flows and an increase in the spring, summer and autumn flows. There have been some adverse effects from these changes although it is not possible to determine the extent in so far as bank erosion is concerned. Loss of river banks, changes of course and the formulation of effluents are a natural process which will continue unless remedial measures are taken. The change in flow patterns caused by the regulation of the river has increased the rate of development of these processes. In reply to the part of the question referring to a statement by the federal Minister for National Resources, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, the Minister has advised me that the statement made recently by the federal Minister was to the effect that after completion of Dartmouth Dam the Murray River will flow at high levels for longer periods. After Dartmouth Dam comes into operation, peak irrigation flows at Albury in the summer-autumn period are not expected to be higher than those experienced in recent years of about 25 000 megalitres a day, but flows of this magnitude will be maintained for slightly longer periods when irrigation demands are high. In reply to the inquiry whether any study had been done of the effects on the river of such a policy, the Minister has informed me that, with Dartmouth Dam causing 520 COUNCIL-Questions without Notice

further changes in the flow pattern by prolonging the high regulated flows, it could be expected that there will be further adverse effects. The extent of these cannot be determined, although the Water Resources Commission expects them to be of only a minor nature. Irrespective of this, considerable benefit is to be obtained in providing the water required for irrigators and communities dependent upon these releases. The main aspect involved is the prevention of further deterioration of the main channel of the River Murray. To achieve this it is necessary to undertake works to maintain the channel in a satisfactory condition for the carriage of regulated flows and to discourage the development of efluent streams. These objectives and the provision of banks of reasonable stability can be achieved with a minimum of adverse effects on the environment. The question of the effect of Dartmouth Dam on water quality has also been investigated by the River Murray Commission. The general conclusions of its studies are that the quality of water supplied to irrigators and urban communities dependent on the Murray for water supplies will be enhanced. The Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Services has advised me in regard to the final part of the honourable member's question that officers of the Water Resources Commission are participating in a study of management problems of the flood plain between Hume Dam and Yarrawonga. This study is being directed by the River Murray Commission, which will give the matter full consideration when the study has been completed. I shall ask the Minister to keep the honourable member informed of developments in this matter.

LYNE PARK, ROSE BAY The Hon. D. D. FREEMAN: My question is addressed to the Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Minister for Planning and Environment. When will the Government announce its decision concerning the future of the Rose Bay flying boat base at Lyne Park? Is it not a fact that a committee comprising a cross-section of relevant people has for some time examined plans taking into account environmental, ecological, sporting and recreational needs and has made a firm recommendation? If a decision is not imminent, will the Minister state the reason for delaying further the use of this unique area by the citizens of New South Wales? The Hon. D. P. LANDA: To a limited degree I am familiar with the matters raised in the question. I recall that in the not distant past a rally was attended by the Premier in his capacity then as Leader of the Opposition who gave some support to the general position adopted by the Hon. D. D. Freeman. The Hon. W. J. Holt: He lives in that area, does he not? The Hon. D. P. LANDA: I am not one of those people who check up on where people live. I shall obtain advice on the progress of the report and advise the Hon. D. D. Freeman and the House in the immediate future.

IRRIGATION WATER CHARGES The Hon. D. P. LANDA: On 25th August the Hon. T. R. Erskine asked me a question without notice concerning irrigation water charges. I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources. The Minister has given me certain advice, particularly in relation to that part of the question about what the Hon. T. R. Erskine saw as an apparent conflict between a statement in the Speech of His Excellency the Governor and the actions of the chief commissioner of the Water Resources Commission. The Minister has advised me that there is no conflict. Questions without Notice-Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 521

Water charges are determined each year by the Water Resources Commission. During the election campaign, the present Government promised users in irrigation areas and districts a rebate of up to 40 per cent of the charges raised for the 1975-76 irrigation season. That election undertaking was kept. This was the matter referred to by His Excellency the Governor in his Speech to Parliament. The announcement by the chief commissioner of the Water Resources Commission was in respect of charges for the 1976-77 irrigation season. The rates anounced are the same as those determined by the commission for the 1975-76 season. In other words, there has been no increase in the charges determined by the commission. The Government acted swiftly to carry out an election promise to provide users with a 40 per cent rebate for the 1975-76 irrigation season.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY Seventh Day's Debate Debate resumed (from 2nd September, vide page 460) on motion by the Hon. J. P. Ducker: That the following Address be adopted and presented by the Whole House to the Governor, in reply to the Speech which His Excellency had been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament, viz.: To His Excellency Sir Arthur Roden Cutler, upon whom has been conferred the decoration of the Victoria Cross, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Com- mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem, Governor of the State of New South Wales and its Dependencies, in the Commonwealth of Australia. May It Please Your Excellency- We, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's Speech, and to assure you of our unfeigned attachment to Her Most Gracious Majesty's Throne and Person. 2. We beg to assure Your Excellency that our earnest consideration will be given to the measures to be submitted to us. 3. We join Your Excellency in the hope that, under the guidance of Divine Providence, our labours may be so directed as to advance the best interests of all sections of the community. The Hon. M. F. WILLIS: f4.501: I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. D. P. Landa on his appointment to the Ministry. He is a man of competence, application and talent. We wish him well in his appointment, notwithstanding the fact that we shall work most diligently towards replacing him by a member of equal talents from this side of the House. It is regrettable that his party has not had the wisdom to give him some ministerial support in this place. I hope that it will soon come to appreciate the error and rectify it. However, perhaps I do an injustice to the Labor Party. Last Thursday we learned from the Hon. R. F. Turner that the Minister has the virtues of Saint Paul and the talents of King David. All that wrapped up in one Minister should be sufficient. Unfortunately, the Minister's faith does not permit of the title Saint, and we already have one sovereign, so perhaps a knighthood is all that he can expect. 522 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

I join in the welcome to the new honourable members on both sides of the House. I congratulate those who have already made their maiden speeches. We all know that this is no easy task, and it is not one to be taken lightly, even though during his maiden speech, for once in this Chamber, a member receives from his opponents the indulgence of a sympathetic hearing. In particular I congratulate the Hon. J. J. Morris on his brave words. I anxiously await the day when he will put into effect his words, "I will condemn the Government if it does not do a good job." With great respect to the honourable member, I suggest when that day arrives he will appreciate the purpose of the crossbenches and the value of a twelve-year term.

I am constrained to make some comments on the speech of the Hon. J. P. Ducker when he moved the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech. It was indeed an authoritative manifesto, delivered by a man of considerable authority in the Labor Party and-considering the system of government espoused by honourable members opposite-a very influential man in the Government. His speech might almost have been taken as an elaboration of the Governor's Speech or an amplification of the Premier's policy speech. The Hon. J. P. Ducker spoke of the distress caused by unemployment and economic recession, which exist in this State and in the nation generally. He seemed to be saying that honourable members on this side of the House have no sympathy for or understanding of the human problems caused by this distress and hardship. I hasten to assure him that he and his fellow party members do not have a monopoly on these distressing experiences. I doubt whether there is one member on this or the other side of the House who either himself, or one generation removed, does not in some way bear the scars of the great depression. Unlike the majority of honourable members on the Government side of the House, over the past few years many honourable members on this side have been intimately involved in trying desperately to hold businesses and commercial enterprises together, to keep them economically viable, and to keep people in jobs in the face of the onslaught that occurred on business by the Whitlam Government and its fateful policies. How many Government members have had to tell employees of long and loyal standing that there are no longer any profits and that their services must be dispensed with? The Hon. J. P. Ducker had the audacity to say that this situation was created by the former State Government, and has been purposely perpetrated by the Fraser Government. He forgets that last December the people of this nation passed very clear judgment on who is responsible for the economic plight of this country and this State-none other than the disastrous Whitlam Government, of happy demise.

Certainly the world recession made things difficult, as it did in most Western countries. The members now on the government side, when they were in opposition during the three years of the Whitlam Government, used to tell us repeatedly that all the ills of this country were due to the world recession. They seemed to be unaware that ours was the only Western government that went on a spending spree in the face of that world recession. It was a spending spree that we did not see even in times of boom and prosperity; it was primarily orientated to non-productive ends, noble though they might have been; it was financed by rampant inflation and astronomical deficits, which ate into the very fibre of the nation's economic strength. That is where the current ills came from, and it is now the Herculean task of the federal Liberal Govern- ment to put these things right. It took Labor three years in the national government to undo this country, and it will take us in Canberra three years to remake it.

At least we note with some satisfaction that Premier Wran has leaked that his Budget will be in harmony with the Lynch Budget. That indicates that there might well be some remnants of economic sense in the Labor Party ranks. The Hon. J. P. The Hon. M. F. Willis] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 523

Ducker declared. "The Government will fight ceaselessly for the federal assistance that New South Wales deserves." They are brave words. He then proceeded to castigate the former State Government for declining millions of dollars of federal money for specific purposes. I remind the honourable member that, because our Liberal State Government resisted the efforts of the Whitlam Government to subborn the sovereignty of this State with increasing handouts of tied grants and federal loans at exorbitant interest rates; because our Liberal Government refused, in the long-term interests of this State, to prostitute its assets and its integrity in order to gain Mr Whitlam's patronage, as happened in South Australia; because we refused to become a toady, a petty provincial administrator of Mr Whitlam's grand vision, and because we would not wrnpromise our principles and the long-term welfare of this State, we in Australia now have a federal Government which, under its new federalism and finance policy, will provide for this State, in this financial year, more funds, with far fewer strings attached, than New South Wales would have received from the Whitlam Government if it had still been in office. For the future, the States have a financial deal undreamed of in federal-State relations. Under our party's federalism policy, and under the deal already done, before the Wran Government came to office, New South Wales from last July will get more funds and more responsibility than it would ever have got from a Whitlam government or any other Labor government in Canberra.

This State is set for an era under Liberal federalism which makes nonsense of the statement of the Hon. J. P. Ducker that the New South Wales Government will fight ceaselessly for federal assistance. I submit that it will not have to; it will have all the funds it needs under the new deal, founded and worked out by Prime Minister Fraser and the immediate past Premier, provided the State Government will accept responsibility for having those funds raised in the name of the Government of New South Wales. After all, is that not the basis of responsible Government? Or, do Labor governments not want that kind of responsibility?

The Hon. P. McMahon: They want a share of the cake from the federal Government. The Hon. M. F. WILLIS: And that is what they will get.

The Hon. P. McMahon: They have not got it so far. The Hon. M. F. WILLIS: I disagree. In a democracy just as there should be no taxation imposed upon a citizen without representation, there can be no true sovereignty of a government without responsibility for raising its own revenue. This brings me to a matter about which I shall direct some particular remarks. I refer to federalism, and the place this State will occupy, particularly in relation to financial matters. There is nothing in His Excellency's Speech outlining the Government's programme which will not in some way be affected by the new federalistm initiated by the Fraser Government and agreed to in principle by the Willis-Punch Govern- ment. Regrettably, this policy was reviled and distorted by the new Premier particularly during the last election campaign. The Premier, successfully I regret to say, raised the bogey of double taxation and that won for him the Treasury benches. All along he must have known that the new era promised for this State a future of responsible true sovereignty and opportunity for good Government not seen since the end of World War 11. Unfortunately, the electorate succun~bedto the Premier's campaign of fear and distortion. Arising from that campaign there is still great misunder- standing, indeed ignorance, of the big change that is about to be wrought in this country. The Premier made this statement: I give you this unequivocal assurance; there will be no State income tax in any government I have the honour to lead. 524 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

What he cleverly did not go on to say was that under the new arrangement there wo~~ldbe a generous fixed proportion of income tax raised for New South Wales in the name of New South Wales and that any extra tax raising beyond that limit would be solely on the initiative of the New South Wales Government and it would be the responsibility of that Government whether such extra charges and taxes took the form of an income tax surcharge or an indirect or sectional type tax. Whichever way the Government of the day does it, it will be on the say of the New South Wales Government, and on that say alone. What is involved is not just the question of how much tax will be raised. This is not merely a matter of who will collect the taxes. The issue here involves fundamental differences between the major political parties in Australia over the diametrically opposite policies of federalism and centralism. One wonders which of the two the Wran Government really wants if it is to do its best for New South Wales. The Premier, a Labor Leader, is bound by the policies of his party. The Australian Labor Party is unashamedly centralist. It seeks to concentrate all real power in a central government and to reduce State governments to the status of mere federal agencies. The Hon. P. McMahon: The New South Wales Government is seeking more money from the federal Government. The Hon. M. F. WILLIS: Indeed. Let me remind the House that the Hon. E. G. Whitlam made this oft-quoted statement: Much can be achieved by Labor members of the State Parliaments in effectuating Labor's aims of more effective powers for the national Parlia- ment. Their role is to bring about their own dissolution. The years of the Whitlam Government very nearly saw this achieved, not by the legitimate and honest means of constitutional change by the will of the people at referenda-at which Whitlam was a singular failure-or by prior approval of the governments of the States of the Federation. The Whitlam method was to prostitute the financial provisions of the Constitution to an unprecedented degree by tied grants under section 96 of the Australian Constitution. In those three years of Whitlam Government tied grants to the States rose from 30 per cent of total federal payments to the States to more than 50 per cent. At that rate of progression another three years would have seen 100 per cent of payments being tied grants and the effective demise of the States. That was the painless Labor path to centralism, without the inconvenience of embarrassing referenda to find out what the people really wanted. Unfortunately, of all our founding fathers, only Alfred Deakin foresaw the danger of section 96 leading ultimately to the destruction of the States and an effective unitary system. If that aspect were put to the people what sort of answer would they give? Undoubtedly, a resounding, no! In this context, the Liberal Party has vividly perceived the dangers to this country, in the wrong hands, of the power of section 96, combined with uniform taxation as we have known it for thirty years. Faced with this vision terrible, our party determined to put the matter right so that the danger would be minimal. That is what new federalism is all about. For many years a lot of Liberals, particularly in the State parliaments, have been seeking a more practical application of this policy and I am proud to say that I have espoused it in this House and elsewhere. We foresaw what a federal Labor government could do. We sincerely believed, and still do, that federalism is the best system for governing Australia. The Rt Hon. J. M. Fraser has said: If we are to avoid total political power in Australia going to Canberra, we must do the same as Canada. The time for words in support of a division of power is over-we need action. Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 525

Canada, I might add, has been through a similar difficult period of federal-Stat~r provincial-relations to the one we have been going through, except that theirs preceded ours by fifteen years. They emerged with a successful and viable system based on a clear division of responsibility and the right of the provinces to finance their own undertakings. Of course, Australian Labor Party centralists and some other people not involved in politics will argue that to restore a truly federal system would be retrograde. They would say that the growing complexity of modem life demands a wide national concern in all significant issues and that centralism is modern, efficient and eminently sensible. All such criticism flies in the face of world trends. Many prominent nations have experienced centralism and, finding it difficult, have reversed the trend. This is what has happened, not only in Canada, but also in the United States of America, West Germany and even the United Kingdom. These countries have re-established, or are in the process of re-establishing, various federal systems in which sovereignty and responsibility are equated in taxing powers. The federal elections on 2nd December last was a decisive demonstration of the will of the Australian people and of thier rejection of centralism, of paternalism and of monolithic government. They rejected the way that central government in this country wanted to go, and they showed that they want the type of federalism we are espousing and that they want responsible governments in the States. The financial implications of this new policy of federalism to which the Fraser Government and the Liberal Pa.rty are committed, and the Premier well knows will greatly benefit this State, are somewhat complex. Under the new system if the New South Wales Government "fouls up", to put it bluntly, the blame will rest nowhere but with the New South Wales Government. There will be no off-laying of the blame on to Canberra, because the rationale of the new system is to be that there will be a return to the States of proper financial independence and the political responsibility that goes with it. It is said that the new arrangements are to be implemented in two stages. From 1st July and for the current fiscal year the ikst stage comes into operation. Under that stage each State is to receive a basic revenue allocation of 33.6 per cent of all income tax collected in that State. It should be noted that in the last fiscal year New South Wales received back only 28.7 per cent.

The 33.6 per cent allocation will be a guaranteed share of income tax collected by the Commonwealth in the name of the State, on behalf of the State, and it will be shown on the taxation return as the State's share of the tax raised in that State. The 33.6 per cent will be a fixed, on-going entitlement unless it is altered by agreement of the Commonwealth and States due to changed circumstances, but in the normal course it will not be subject to review until 1980-1981. The generosity of this basic formula is illustrated by the fact that in the current fiscal year it is estimated that New South Wales will receive $194.9 million more than it did under the old formula last year, an increase of 20.6 per cent in money terms. Viewed in another way the new formula will provide New South Wales this year with $17 million more than would have come to it under the old formula. In addition, the Commonwealth Government has given some guarantees. First, for the next four years the States, irrespective of what is yielded by the 33.6 per cent formula, will receive no less than they would have obtained if the old formula were still in use. Every indication is that they will receive substantially more. Second, it has guaranteed that if the 33.6 per cent yield is less in monetary terms than that formula yielded in a previous year, the Commonwealth will make up the deficiency. This is an additional assurance to the minimum guaranteed return. Third, the Common- wealth has guaranteed that there wiil be no absorption of specific purpose section 96 grants in the formula before the fiscal year 1977-1978. In the short-term the 526 COUNCIL-Address in Reply total effect, therefore, of the first stage is that the States-New South Wales in particular-will be getting a better financial deal than it has ever had before. The States will have far more funds in absolute terms than ever would have come from a Labor government, which explains why the Premier came away from Canberra so obviously pleased with the deal that had been made.

The financial year 1977-1978 should see the introduction of the second stage of the scheme and it will be at that stage that we will see a true financial and political independence revested in the States. From that time the State will have the additional right to impose an income tax surcharge or grant a rebate if it wishes. The vital factor is that this will be a decision of the State, and the State alone. That, to my mind, is what responsible government is all about. Questions arise as to what will be the practical effects of this new federalism financial arrangement. Only time will really give the answers, but these are some of the effects I envisage. The yearly cap in-hand pilgrimage of Premiers to Canberra with the attendant posturing, grandstanding, and unseemly haggling that we have known for so long will be no more. And it should not be thought by those who denigrate this policy that there will be a re- negotiating of the 33.6 per cent formula share each year. That percentage formula is fixed and will change only by agreement based on special considerations that I shall mention.

As the size of Commonwealth revenue from personal income tax rises or falls so in absolute terms will the revenue of the State rise or fall in direct proportion but within the limits of the minimum guarantees that I have o~~tlined.The effect of this policy will be that the size of the federal Government will not be able to expand at the expense of and to the detriment of the States, which is what we saw in the three years of the Whitlam Government. They can expand and contract in only much the same proportion. The general control of the economy through income tax will still vest in the Commonwealth, which is as it should be, but the Com- monwealth and the States will be linked to operate in tandem. In the future section 96 fixed grants will diminish in size and frequency because they will be coming from strictly federal revenue sources and not from revenue to which the State would otherwise be entitled. Hopef~llly, they will revert to their true role as envisaged by the founding fathers, rather than be used as a device to enslave the States to the Common- wealth.

As the section 96 grants diminish these funds will be incorporated into the general purpose grants by an agreed increase in the 33.6 per cent formula-at least that will happen under a Liberal government. This is as it should be, for it will lead to greater responsibility in State governments, greater choice of action and policy, less dictation from Canberra, and less duplication of activities between State and federal departments. It will also have the happy political result that if at some time in the dim, distant future Labor is returned to power in Canberra, it will not be able to subvert the sovereignty of the States by the prostitution of section 96 grants unless it makes these grants out of what is strictly Commonwealth revenue.

I foresee that from time to time the States will impose income tax surcharges or grant income tax rebates within the limits agreed. They should have this right and they should accept the responsibility for it. They should exercise this power as they deem appropriate and accept either the odium or the credit for their actions. That is responsible government. The degree of that flexibility will enable *he State to do many things. For example, it will be able to impose a small surcharge on income tax and thereby remove unpopular or onerous indirect or sectional taxes. They may perhaps impose a surcharge to finance some of their grand election promises, on the principle that if you The Hon. M. F. Willis] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 527 occupy the Treasury benches you are responsible to implement your election promises, to fund them and to accept the consequences of funding them. Conceivably they could grant rebates to stimulate the State's economy. They could grant rebates or, indeed, impose surcharges or do neither, according to the political philosophy or programme proposed by the Government. These are but a few examples of the options available to a State government. In short, what I am saying is, kst, that when the new policy is fully implemented it will mean that there will be easier access to the decision makers on local State issues because they will be directly linked to the responsibility for spending the revenue raised. Second, responsibility will be effectively placed on the New South Wales Government for the decisions it makes and that Government will not be hamstrung by tied finance from the Commonwealth Government. Third, the new policy will result in the acceptance of responsibility by the New South Wales Government for failing to implement policies. No longer will it be able to blame the Commonwealth Government for a shortage of funds. Fourth, the implementation of the new policy will mean account- ability to the taxpayers of New South Wales for revenue raised to discharge the responsibilities of the State. Fifth, it will mean the removal of subservience of the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth Government. Sixth, it will mean savings of taxpayers' money by the removal of overlapping of Commonwealth and State bureaucracy. Seventh, the new policy will mean the end of the annual wrangling at the Premiers' conferences. The eighth thing it will mean is a return to true federalism with a proper, practical division of powers and responsibilities. Ninth, it will also mean a bulwark against all the evils of centralism of which we have had more than a sufficient taste. Last, I envisage that there will be a return to truly responsible government. Are all those things what the Premier wants for New South Wales? I do not think he could deny that they are, but if he really wants them, he should welcome the Liberal philosophy of new federalism with open arms and he should acknowledge it accordingly. Or, does he want government for which he does not have to accept responsibility, a situation in which he can whinge away all his responsibilities on to some ogre of a government in Canberra? I am confident that the new system will prevail to the benefit of the State and Australia irrespective of the political complexion of a government, but it will also, happily, mean in political terms in this State that the Wran Government must accept sole responsibility for its actions-financial, political and electoral. The days of blaming Canberra, no matter who is in power there, are numbered. The Hon. C. HEALEY [5.26]: It is my privilege to support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to His Excellency's Speech that was so capably moved by the Hon. J. P. Ducker and seconded by the Hon. Kathleen Anderson. I do not know whether it is because of the new lighting that has been installed in the Chamber but it seems to me that the faces of members of the Opposition look even more charming now than they did before those members were moved from this side of the House. I speak on behalf of all honourable members when I say that following the last triennial elections a deep sense of loss and regret was felt when many long-standing members retired from the Chamber. They were not mere persons; they were personalities who made valuable contributions to the debates in this Chamber. We felt that they would be missed, and this is what has happened, and we believed that perhaps a void would follow their retirements. I speak for all honourable members when I say that the contributions by new members in their maiden speeches have reassured us that the quality of debate which we have come to expect in this Chamber will be maintained. The new members will project their own personalities in the way to which we have become accustomed from members of this place. 528 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

A classic example was the contribution of the Hon. R. F. Turner, who delivered his maiden speech completely off the cuff. I understand that this is something rather unique in the annals of this House and of the Parliament. I join with earlier speakers in congratulating those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches. I look forward with keen anticipation to their future contributions to the debates. I do not intend to comment at large on the Speech of His Excellency. The Hon. J. P. Ducker and other honourable members have done that and no doubt other honourable members will have something to say about it. I should like to direct my comments more to matters raised by members of the Opposition. As the Hon. M. F. Willis was the last member to speak in this debate, his remarks are freshest in my mind. He must have a tape-recorder type memory in that he seems to be able to wipe from it anything he wishes. His whole speech was devoted to the events of December last year. He conveniently forgot the intervening five months until 1st May of this year when the people of New South Wales sat in judgment and voted the Government of the day out of office just as they did to the federal Labor Government last December. The Hon. M. F. Willis: It was a real landslide. The Hon. C. HEALEY: If the Hon. M. F. Willis looks at the figures he will see that 44 per cent of the population of Australia voted in support of the Australian Labor Government. When the Hon. M. F. Willis talks about landslides he should look not at the number of seats now held by the federal Government but at the number of people who voted for the respective parties. The Hon. M. F. Willis conveniently forgot that on 1st May the people of New South Wales voted out the Liberal-Country party coalition in New South Wales and put Labor in because they were convinced within a period of five months that the election promises of the Fraser Government would not be fulfilled. The people of New South Wales were determined that the Fraser Government would not be aided and abetted by a Liberal-Country party government in New South Wales. They wanted an Australian Labor Party government in New South Wales to keep the federal Government honest. That is something that members of the Opposition should not fail to remember. When honourable members opposite spoke of industrial stoppages--or strikes as Government supporters prefer to call them-invariably they commenced their remarks by saying that they supported the concept of unionism. Then they proceeded to deliver a completely union bashing speech. This attitude was exemplified in the speech of the Hon. D. D. Freeman. Although honourable members opposite may read of the history of the trade union movement in Australia, America and Great Britain, they know absolutely nothing about the workings of the present-day trade union movement in New South Wales, particularly as it relates to stoppages. I have been a member of the Boilermakers Union for thirty-five years and boilermakers would not regard it as anything but a militant union. During the period of thirty years that I have worked on the tools I have been out on the grass as many times as most other workers in the community. Only on two occasions during that time has the union executive called me out on strike. Honourable members opposite portray union officials sitting in their offices pulling the strings and union members responding. This is a lot of poppycock. Most of my colleagues in this Chamber, particularly those who are leaders in New South Wales unions, would confirm that the first a union executive may know of a stoppage on a job would be when the telephone rang and a delegate or a union member on the job said, "We are on the grass, you had better send someone out to see what you can do about it." That is the way strikes occur. There are no machinations or evil union officials sitting in offices deciding that they will pull this one out on strike or that one. In New South Wales and the rest of Australia 99 per cent of strikes emanate from the men on the job. Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 529

The Hon. Sir John Fuller referred the House to the total number of man hours lost in New South Wales due to industrial action. The total may have sounded most impressive but he would have done a much better job if he had told us how many of the total hours lost were due to disputes over safety issues, working conditions in the workshop or on site, and due to managerial inefficiency or managerial provocation. I have not had the time to analyse the figures for that purpose but if Opposition members provided that breakdown of figures we could enter into a useful disc~~ssionon industrial relations as they should be in New South Wales. It is an honour for an honourable member to lead for his party on any debate. Though the Hon. D. D. Freeman had the honour to lead for the Opposition in the Address-in-Reply debate, I was rather disappointed with his speech. Though it was long and well-researched-I admit that I had to consult a dictionary in the Parliamentary Library to find out the meaning of a few of the words he used-I was disappointed particularly by the unwarranted and unfounded attack upon the new Minister for Health whom he said he had in his sights. The honourable member expressed his views on what may be health legislation to come before the House, something of which I have no knowledge and I am sure the honourable member has no knowledge. Further, the honourable member attacked the dental technicians of New South Wales. Honour- able members who care to read the Hansard report of the Hon. D. D. Freeman's speech will observe the sarcastic remarks. He accused the Minister for Health and the Government of being subjected to intense lobbying by dental technicians. When the last amendments to the Dental Technicians Act were before this House many members opposite, who were then in Government, were lobbied as intensively as were Labor supporters when in Opposition. Opposition members were probably lobbied also by dentists at that time. The Hon. D. D. Freeman: We rejected it. The Hon. C. HEALEY: The Hon. D. D. Freeman fired the first shots on behalf of the dental lobby. The House can expect some intensive lobbying from the dental profession against the amendments that will be forthcoming to the Dental Act. I do not intend to debate tonight the rights or wrongs of dental technicians other than to suggest to the Hon. D. D. Freeman that if he were to consult with all Opposition members he may be surprised how many consider, as I do, that dental technicians should have the right to deal direct with the public. During his speech the honourable member expressed, not so much by words but by holding up his hands, his horror at the proposition put to the Government by dental technicians. I understand that the proposition that was put to the previous Government- not to the present Government-was that if a registration board or a licensing board were to be established dental technicians should have a majority representation. This was frightening in the view of the honourable member. However, he omitted to inform the House that of the nine members on the dental board constituted under the Dental Act six are dentists. Apparently he considers that it is all right for dentists to have a majority representation on their board but it is wrong for dental technicians to be similarly represented on their own board. Also the previous Government thought it was wrong that the Nurses Registration Board should have a majority of nurses. The Hon. D. D. Freeman: The honourable member should read my speech again. Right through I accepted the concept that every board should have on it a majority of the people it is looking after. The Hon. C. HEALEY: If the Hon. D. D. Freeman re-reads it he will observe that he qualified it considerably. The honourable member also lumped together dental technicians and chiropractors. He did himself an injustice by stating that they were 34 530 COUNCIL-Address in Reply people who had been taught by someone who had been taught by someone who had not been taught in the first place. Although this might have sounded a witty and smart statement, I thought that as it came from a respected member of a respected profession, perhaps the dental profession was always perfect and always had its present standards; that its members did not require to be taught by anyone but if they were taught it was always by adequately qualified teachers. Then I started to think, and remembered reading at school about the barber, who at one time was also the dentist who extracted teeth. The sign of his profession was the red and white pole-red for the blood associated with his dentistry and white for the barber's side of his profession. I thought, "This cannot be right." I went further and became even more confused when I referred to volume 8 of Collier's Encyclopaedia, 1972, which states: It is interesting to note that twenty-five hundred years ago the space retainer in principle was similar to that used in modern times. I thought I might have been doing the dental profession an injustice, but when I went further I found the statement that dentistry has been practised in some form or other since the year 3 000 BC. This profession has progressed and evolved over the centuries, and only over the past century has it reached recognition as a separate profession. Who since 3 OOOBC taught in the dental profession? I wonder why the Hon. D. D. Freeinan or anyone else should denigrate an evolving profession such as dental technicians, chiropractors and others. He says that they are no good because they were not taught by anyone who knew anything about teaching the subject, but surely the same applied to dentistry and every other profession that had to start from something and evolve. I ask honourable members to recall the problems experienced by Sister Kenny when she was getting her treatment for poliomyelitis accepted throughout the world. I have an open mind on chiropractors; I certainly do not have, like the Hon. D. D. Freeman, a closed mind. He has made up his mind, and says that they should not be legalized or recognized. However, I remind him that it was the previous Government that illstituted an inquiry into chiropractic in New South Wales; it prepared draft legi- lation which was the subject of consultation between the Opposition's health committee -of which I was a member-and chiropractors. I suggest to honourable members opposite that in the telephone book they will £ind many pages of chiropractors listed. Any honourable member can tomorrow hang up a shingle and say that he is a chiro~~ractor.There is nothing in the laws of New South Wales to prevent that, and the law can do nothing about it. Surely the way to protect people in New South Wales is to institute a method of registration and licensing of chiropractors, making them subject to qualifications and regulations. That is how the New South Wales people could be protected from quacks. The Hon. D. D. Freeman: Who will make the decisions--other chiropracto.rs? The Hon. C. HEALEY: That is something that could be discussed when, the bill comes before the House. I suggest that the honourable member exaunine the draft legislation that was prepared by his party when it was in office. The honourable member's party instituted an inquiry and prepared the draft legislation, but in those times I did not hear him stand in this House and condemn chiropractors. It is only since the honourable member has been in Opposition that he says he has his sights on the Minister for Health. I assure the House and the people of New South Wales that the: Labor Government in this State is not interested in providing cheap health care for the people; it is interested in providing cheaper health care, of the Eghest standard available. That is what we have in our minds and that is what we will do. When the bills come before the House, I shall be happy to debate the subject with the Hon. D. D. Freeman or any other member of the Opposition. Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 531

Demonstrations have been repeatedly mentioned by honourable members opposite during this debate. They seem to equate demonstrations with violence. How- ever, I remind them that there are other types of violence besides physical violence. For instance, there is the violence indulgd in by members of this Chamber when they voted for a non-Labor Senator when the casual vacancy of a Labor member of the Senate was being filled. I remind honourable members of similar violence when their colleague in Queensland did the same thing. I do not have to remind honourable members opposite about that; they would like to forget it. I remind them also of the statement made by Premier Askin when he said, "Run over the b-S." Was that a statement by a party or a government that is allegedly the bastion of law and order? Also, I remind honourable members opposite of the Gospel of St John, chapter 8, verse 7, which says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone . . ." The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS [5.47]: I join with other honourable members in congratulating both the Government and Opposition members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate. I regret that I was not here on the day Parliament was convened; I was prevented from being here because I had the bad luck to come down with an attack of measles. Therefore, I was unable to congratulate the Hon. D. P. Landa on his election as the Leader of the Government in this House. I should like to do so now. I congratulate also the Hon. Edna S. Roper on her election as Deputy Leader of the Government. Today the women members of this House were taken by the Hon. Sir Asher Joel to a lunch given in honour of the Hon. Edna S. Roper. Some members of this House might not know that she holds the record of serving the longest term of any woman member in any Parliament in Australia. It is only fitting that someone of her calibre should be Deputy L~aderof the Government. However, I regret-and I am sure many other honourable members of this House share this view-that she is not a Minister; the Chamber is all the poorer for this. I was rather amazed to read a statement by the Premier only a few weeks ago when he spoke on the same subject. I believe the words he used were, "If the ladies and gentlemen of the upper House wish to oppose me on this matter . . ." We do not oppose the Hon. Edna S. Roper being made a Minister. In fact, we would welcome it. I hope it will not be long before this is rectified. The Hon. Delcia Kite, in her maiden speech, spoke of superannuation for women members of this House. I follow on from what she said and remind all honourable members that it is not just a matter of women's superannuation in this House alone. I know that the Hon. Kathleen Anderson has pursued this matter at local government level. I have spoken at length to former Premiers, former Leaders of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister about the same subject. It does not seem to dawn upon what some people regard as the chauvinistic sex that in this modern day and age, when women comprise 35 per cent of the work force, in order to collect superannuation a woman has to live long. I am not so much worried about the inequality of the superannuation scheme for members of this House of Parliament, though I should like to see it rectified. I am concerned about the inequality suffered by women who work under the various State and federal awards. A young widow who, in order to support her young children, goes back into the work force, perhaps as a teacher or a clerk, must live to 55 or 60 years of age in order to benefit fully from superannuation. If she does not live to that age her children get back merely the money she has contributed to the scheme, though in some cases with interest. This should be rectified because, regardless of politics, the welfare of the people of New South Wales is our primary concern. I remind the Hon. C. Healey, who spoke of the origins of some of the pro- fessions, that I am a chemist. The word chemist is derived from alchemist. I hope that 532 COUNCIL-Address in Reply he does not associate the origin of my profession with the Borgias and the Medicis. I assure him that chemists have progressed beyond that. Pharmacy is a modern science. In case any honourable member who contributes to this debate after me might seek to argue along the same lines as those adopted by the Hon. C. Healey, I hasten to say that science has improved over the past 100 years and in that time our profession has made great advances. A few days ago I received a copy of the report of the Joint Committee of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly upon Drugs. I do not know whether other honourable members have received a copy of that report but I hope that they do and that they will look at it. The Hon. C. Healey, the Hon. H. J. Sullivan and I had the honour of representing this Chamber on that committee. I believe the committee was just starting to get somewhere when it was disbanded with the dissolution of the previous Parliament. The committee learned of many areas of concern about which something should be done. Recently I read in the Hansard report of proceedings in the Legislative Assen~bly that the Government proposed to reconvene the drug committee. I hope that will happen. I read in today's issue of the Daily Telegraph that drug pushers may soon face a $100,000 penalty. The article reads: Drug pushers face fines of up to $100,000 under tough laws planned by federal and State Governments. Pushers could also be sent to jail for up to 25 years. That is really tackling the drug problem. The article goes on to say that the legislation was first put forward last year by Labor's Attorney-General, the Hon. K. Enderby. It states: The Fraser Government has asked the States to pass uniform laws so the legislation can be effective throughout Australia. That is important. It is of no use having different laws in the various States. I shou!d like to invite the attention of the House to the Premier's announcement that the Government will set up a commission for ethnic affairs. I am pleased to hear that. An ethnic cortncil will do a lot to help integrate ethnic communities into our society. When people come to our shores from distant lands our object should be integration not assimilation. We do not want them to forgo their customs. We want them to bring their customs with them to our country. We would be the better for it. It was the late Steve Mauger who instituted the ethnic affairs council and I am pleased to learn that the Government will develop it to fruition. Recently I attended a meeting of the ethnic affairs council where the Premim made some statements about education. He said New South Wdes would send teachers overseas. As I left the meeting I thought that I had heard that sort of suggestion somewhere before. I telephoned the Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Victoria, the Hon. Walter Jona, and learned that these thoughts were not original ones from our Premier. Victoria started a teacher exchange system eighteen months ago. That State has appointed a Minister of Special Education, the Hon. A. H. Scanlan, who is responsible for child migrant education. Victoria has completely upgraded ethnic affairs and ethnic education. The Minister has issued a press release in which he indicates that Victoria spends millions of dollars on migrant education. New South Wales should look at the programme instituted in Victoria and perhaps follow along the same line. Migrant children living in inner city and outer western suburbs have problcms with our language. Though they are bright children there is a language difficulty which inhibits their learning. I cannot let the remarks of the Hon. J. P. Ducker go unchallenged. He said that New South Wales was stagnant and that nothing had happened here for ten years. I disagree most definitely with him. The Askin, Lewis and Willis governments were most effective, with a record of outstanding achievements. No one could say that in May The Hon. Margaret Davis] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 533 of this year the Willis Government was defeated by a landslide. It was a narrow defeat. I suggest that members of the Labor Government should bear that in mind. Had the federal Government, just two days before the election, not announced the end of the funeral subsidy, Labor would not have won the two seats that enable it to govern. Members opposite should not forget that they hold Government by a slender majority. I bring to the notice of honourable members some of the achievements of the Askin-Cutler Government. When that Government came to power New South Wales hospitals had what might be described only as archaic facilities. The Askin-Cutler Government developed base and district hospitals into teaching hospitals. It was the former Minister for Health, the Hon. Harry Jago, who instituted a scheme to enable country doctors to have time off for holidays. He introduced a system whereby interns in their second year of training went to selected country areas and relieved country doctors so that they might enjoy two weeks study leave and two weeks holiday annually. My cousin spent six months of his second year training in this way. By the end of 1973 the former Government had spent $50 million providing buildings and a wide range of facilities for the Prince of Wales Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, Sutherland Hospital and St George Hospital and another $40 million had been spent on the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Royal North Shore Hospital. Also, a large and costly programme of works was undertaken on district and base hospitals to give people a first-class health service close to their homes. I remind the House of some of the hospitals on which the former Government spent significant sums. At Albury $2.2 million was spent and at Armidale $1.5 million, with $1.2 million at Katoomba. The last Government spent on hospitals $1.8 million at Muswellbrook, at Coffs Harbour $1.7 million, at Lismore $2.3 million, at Gosford $3 million, at Deniliquin $1 million, at Griffith $2 million, at Grafton $1.2 million, at Camden $1.4 million, at Dubbo $2 million, at Tamworth $4.5 million, at Newcastle $5 million, at Woy Woy $1 million, at Orange $3.5 million, at Penrith $2 million and at Parkes $1.5 million. That is certainly not evidence of the attitude of a stagnant government. This same Government during its term of office enlarged the drug squad and introduced more severe penalties in respect of drug peddling. A drug dependence service was established by the Health Commission in Brisbane Street, Sydney. Moreover, Wistaria House was established under the administration of Dr Stella Dalton and several wards at the Callan Park hospital were developed for opiate addicts and alcoholics. Under the former Government the Health Commission helped voluntary organizations, financially and with expert advice, and treatment for alcoholism and drug dependency was introduced at psychiatric hospitals and at clinics attached to larger hospitals. Wherever possible community clinics and associated programmes were inaugurated. This is the work of a government that cares for people, not evidence of a stagnant government. Under the former Government the Health Commission and the Department of Education combined to provide literature on drugs, for schools. They arranged for lectures on the use and misuse of drugs to be given to groups of people and they conducted seminars for adults and adolescents. As well, they established workshops on this problem for school teachers. The last Government increased grants for ambulance services and, due to its policy, the air ambulance service is of great assistance to the community, especially in country areas. The last State Government with federal assistance has provided a wide-ranging dental health programme. Training schools were established throughout the State to train dental therapists. As a result, large numbers of primary school children are now receiving proper dental care at no cost to their families. 534 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

The Hon. C. Healey: Started by the Whitlam Government. The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: This was started before the Whitlam Govern- ment came into office. Dental clinics were established at public hospitals and at outpatient departments. The Mount Druitt Polyclinic was inaugurated during the term of the Government of Sir Robert Askin. I agree that it was done with federal assistance, matched dollar for dollar by the State, and it provided a much-needed service in that area to take the excess workload off public hospitals. This clinic helps with crisis intervention services, drop-in services, interviews, regular outpatient services and domiciliary and supportive services. Despite what the Teachers Federation and the Labor spokesmen say, in education the former Government had an excellent record. In 1975 16 new schools were built, in 1974 23 new schools, in 1973 21 new schools and in 1972 21 new schools. Again I say that this is not the record of a government which did not care for the people, or of a stagnant government. The establishment of the Ku-ring-gai College of Advanced Education, the Bathurst College of Advanced Education and the continuing development of the Institute of Technology came in those ten years of office to which I have referred. I might mention also the building of the Stockton Bridge, which is the pride of Newcastle, the Georges River Bridge and three large dams. Burrendong Dam was commenced during the term of the Labor Government but its completfon and the building of the Pindari, Glenbawn and Copeton dams were all part of vigorous government policy to maintain a prolific public works programme. The relocation of the Central Mapping Authority at Bathurst was a vision which became reality in planning, decentralization and house construction. School allowances instituted by the former Government were gradually increased to the point where primary schoolchildren, without a means test, receive $82 per capita, and secondary students, means tested, receive $88. I believe that action taken by the former Government helped the independent schools in this State to flourish. Without the independent schools our State education system could not handle the workload. People should have freedom of choice, and as long as there is a per capita basis for keeping children at private schools the people of this State, and this country, will have freedom of choice for their children. Under the former Premier, the Hon. T. L. Lewis, the National Parks and Wildlife Service estate doubled so that it now comprises thirty-eight national parks, ninety-eight nature resrves, eight historic sites and two aboriginal areas. By 1976 92 550 acres of new pine plantation will have been planted, assuring jobs for at least 3 000 rural workers over the next thirty years. Let me mention briefly some of the achievements of the former Government. They include the extra week annual leave granted to workers in New South Wales and the new market place at Flemington, which was opened last year and has left its mark on the city. These are not the works of a stagnant government. I think the Hon. J. P. Ducker has forgotten that it was the former Government which passed legislation to make it mandatory for local councils to reduce rates for pensioners by at least half and to reduce water rates by up to one half. Legislation was being prepared to give more substantial rebates and the Government was to recompense councils. A bill was passed to provide pensions for widows of retired police officers. Free school travel for children traversing distances of more than one mile was introduced, and driver education courses were introduced in schools. As well, legislation was enacted to extend liquor trading hours, to create new types of liquor licences, to limit Sunday trading and to establish tourist hotel licences. Another important measure was the one to provide pensions for widows of former railway employees. Legislation was also passed to Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 535

establish a New South Wales Retirement Fund to benefit more than 50 000 government and semi-government employees who were without superannuation cover. A car-parking concession for disabled people was another innovation of the former Government. They were only some of the things that the Liberal-Country party Government did and they certainly were not the actions of a stagnant government. Some honourable members may have seen a recent reference in a newspaper to the McDonald chain of restaurants. It seems that the trade unions have discovered that some of the employees might be induced to become union members. After seeing that newspaper article I visited McDonald's and spoke to some of the shop assistants. Among other things there was talk of cutting off supplies to McDonald's by the bread carters union. The Hon. D. P. Landa: Objection was taken to the number of juniors employed by McDonald's. The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: I did quite a bit of checking on that aspect and found that the staff comprises the correct ratio of seniors to juniors. There is nothing the unions can do to these employees. They are all above the age of 15 and are paid award rates and penalty rates. Everything is done according to Hoyle. The employees receive shift loadings, drink breaks and meal breaks. Irrespective of the shifts that the employees work they are allowed to eat whatever they want while they are on the premises. These young people have more worker-participation than a Labor government could give them. They elect delegates to attend management meetings. The staff are happy about the conditions of employment. They have a social club. The other day one young worker said to me, "What do they really want, Margaret? All they want is our money. There is nothing that the unions can give us that we do not already have". The Hon. C. Healey: Their award did not just grow out of the ground. Someone got it for them. The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: I see the point of view of the employees: they are against compulsion. I am against compulsion. That is why I am a member of the Liberal Party. The Hon. C. Healey: Is the Hon. Margaret Davis compelled to vote for Liberal Party caucus decisions? The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: I am not. The Hon. C. Healey: I have never seen you go against them. The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: I have not had reason to do that, so far. As I said at a luncheon today, I once voted for a member of the Labor Party, the late Mr Roper, when he ran for the Randwick council. I am not ashamed of that. Mr Roper would have made a wonderful alderman. I should like to bring to the attention of the House something that happened a few weeks ago. The Hon. D. D. Freeman asked some honourable members to have a Sunday out with him on Sydney Harbour on his yacht. The guests of honour were General Moshe Dayan and his wife. I regret that we had to have with us on the yacht three Commonwealth policemen, an Israeli secret service agent and another State policeman. While we were having lunch a police launch maintained a position about 50 feet away from us. The Hon. C. Healey talks about demonstrations. In the past few years things seem to have changed in Australia. It is regrettable that people visiting Australia privately need to be guarded. It is even more regrettable that people like Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister and others require that type of protection. Also I resent that the Governor-General is unable to go to the opera without people like Senator J. R. McClelland saying that the Governor- General is provoking an attack. On the same night as the Governor-General went to 536 COUNCIL-Address in Reply the opera the Hon. E. G. Whitlam and his wife occupied seats about ten rows in front of the Governor-General and his wife in the dress circle. I do not believe that the Governor-General provokes these attacks. He was the umpire in a match that took place last November. The Hon. C. Healey: Does the Hon. Margaret Davis mean that he blows the whistle? The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: Though I have no particular brief for the Governor-General I believe he did the right thing last November. So do the majority of Australians. That is why they voted as they did. It is a matter about which the average Australian feels strongly and something to which we should give a lot of thought. Some weeks ago the Manly Daily contained an interesting editorial. The date of the publication was Saturday, 7th August. The editorial caption was, "Sick of it all . . ." and the article was about demonstrations. The Hon. L. D. Serisier: Was the article written by Tom Mead? The Hon. MARGARET DAVIS: No. It was written by an American but it concerns things that have happened in Australia. Among other things, the article says: I am sick of pot-smoking entertainers deluging me with their con- demnation of my moral standards on late night television. I am sick of being told that policemen are mad dogs who should not have guns-but that criminals who use guns to rob, maim and murder should be understood and helped back to society. I am sick of not being able to take my family to a movie unless I want to have them exposed to nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of narcotics. I am sick of riots, marches, protests, demonstrations, confrontations, and other mob temper tantrums of people intellectually incapable of working within the system. Later, the author said: You will also find me expressing my anger and indignation to elected officials. You will find me speaking out in support of those officials, institu- tions and personalities who contribute to the elevation of society and not its destruction. You will find me contrib~~tingmy time, money and personal influence to helping churches, hospitals, charities and other establishments which have shown the true spirit of this country's determination to ease pain, suffering, eliminate hunger and generate brotherhood. But, most of all, you'll find me at the polling place. There-if you listen-you can hear the thunder of the cmmon man. There, all of us can cast our vote-for a country where people can walk the streets without fear. [The President left the chair at 6.20 pm. The House resumed at 8 p.tn.1 The Hon. J. R. HALLAM [8.0]: I join with other honourable members in congratulating the members who made their maiden speeches in this debate and I welcolme those who have yet to make their first speech in this House. Those who have already spoken have demonstrated that we may expect to hear good things from all the new members. The speech by the Hon. Margaret Davis appeared to be a defence of the previous Government's action. It was something of an eulogy on behalf of a lost cause. Once again the people of New South Wales have demonstrated clearly Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 537 their preference for a Labor government after a period of almost eleven years. The result of 1st May was a total discrediting and rejection of the conservative forces that had been in power in New South Wales for more than ten years. During that period they were protected largely by the structure of the State's electoral boundaries, with which I shall deal in some detail. Had the previous Premier not decided to call an early election, no doubt New South Wales would have seen a third redistribution which would have disfavoured the Labor Party to a great extent.

The integrity of members of the Legislative Council will be challenged and tested. If Opposition members, who are in a majority in this Chamber, fail to allow the Labor Party to discharge its mandate, they will be judged by the people of New South Wales, not intimidated by the Government, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government has moved fast in implementing a great range of its election promises. I congratulate the Leader of the Government in this House for taking action when he held the Industrial Relations portfolio to reduce workers' compensation premiums by some 20 per cent. This saved employers approximately $80 million. We heard humbug, but little commendation, from Ministers of the previous Govern- meat who were responsible for this legislation.

The Hon. L. A. Solomons referred to some of the actions taken not by the Labor Party but by those who feel that the Governor-General did something improper and wrong. He made the comment that if one judges from what is being done to the Governor-General, nothing is sacred. He said also: My advice to Government supporters is that it might be parliament next. Already Mr Hawke in a public broadcast said he did not see much relevance to parliament, anyway; certainly not a parliament that was not designed in the way he wanted it. He said also that the American experiment failed probably by being too democratic and failing to realize that even a democratic system needs some safeguards. If one refers to the decision made after 11th November, one will realize that it was Mr Hawke and, in particular, the former Prime Minister, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, who appealed to the nation to stay calm and to make a judgment. Had they bowed to the powerful forces as was req~~estedof him at the time and called a general strike, one would have seen chaos bordering on a potential breakdown of the democratic system which may have amounted to revolution. The president of the Country Party made reference to the fact that the Australian Labor Party had not done well in country areas and that, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, few of its members would be known in those areas. I remind the House of the support the Labor Party received in the thirty-three country electorates of New So~~thWales. I wish to outline some of the aspects mentioned in the Speech of His Excel- lency the Governor. The Government's programme is welcome, responsible and achievable. I look forward particularly to the implementation of the regional development programmes, and after eleven years of promises by a former Premier and Treasurer, Sir Robert Askin, to a schools commission. The five-year public transport programme- will provide for the expenditure of $365 million in rural areas and $459 million in metropolitan areas. I look forward to a responsible fiscal programme which is balanced for the country and the city, to the proposed apprenticeship scheme and the new reforms of consumer protection. Already the Government has abolished Crown land auctions and young people will now be able to acquire land at reasonable prices. There will be improved financing for home ownership through terminating building societies, the appointment of an ethnic affairs commission, the extension of the powers of the 538 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

Ombudsman to cover local government, democratic elections for local government and a film commission. The Premier has recognized the cultural needs of the State. The previous Government and the present Commonwealth Government gave one the impression that any type of cultural expenditure was not for the population at large but should be preserved for those who can afford it. I commend also the proposed energy authority and the abolition of estate duty on property passing to the surviving spouse. His Excellency said: I commend for your consideration the wide-ranging and progressive programme of legislation. One cannot argue that the matters I have mentioned represent a magnificent programme of legislation for which the Labor Party has a mandate to implement. What has been the Opposition's reply? Its arguments over the past two weeks have been irrelevant. Some have associated themselves with the defunct Malcolm Fraser school. The Hon. L. A. Solomons has joined the vice-regal sycophantic school under the guise of constitutional democracy. Members of the Legislative Council should not try to throw up a smokescreen under the guise of protecting democracy in such an undemocratic House as the Legislative Council. There is no need for me to go into the details of that assertion or into the suggestion by the Opposition that the previous federal Government undermined the economy of the country through public expenditure. The increased unemployment and the adverse reaction coming from the private sector demonstrate clearly that in the mixed economy of Australia, public expenditure means private prosperity. That is clearly demonstrated in the need to build homes and schools, and all the other matters that require the private building sector to take advantage of public expenditure. The Hon. L. A. Solomons said that during the election campaign he sought to determine how well the residue of the Labor Party were known, particularly in country areas. He said that he asked the people, but they were known nowhere in the north of New South Wales. I shall give some statistics to support what I say. Unfortunately, in a democracy such as Australia seats and not votes make governments. With the present boundaries distribution, a party that gets a large number of votes in certain areas does not necessarily win seats. Though the Country Party in New South Wales holds eighteen of the thirty-three country seats, it polled about 38.4 per cent of the votes. On the other hand, the Labor Party polled 39.9 per cent of the vote in country areas but won eight seats. Though 39.9 per cent of people in country areas voted for Labor and 53 per cent for the coalition, in terms of seats the coalition has twenty-five and the Labor Party eight. I shall give the example of two country seats. The honourable member for Temora in another place was elected in an area that has 19 000 constituents, but the honourable member for Wallsend, who is a Labor member, has 35 000 constituents. Do not let us hear any talk of democracy when that type of gerrymander exists and has been perpetuated in New South Wales for the past eleven years. Another fabrication of the facts can be seen at the federal level, where there are extraordinary examples of unequal distributions and seat allocations in terms of the number of people who voted. The Labor Party is tremendously disadvantaged. At the 1975 election it polled 42.8 per cent, with something like 3 313 000, to obtain only thirty-six seats. Had the boundary structure been based upon the structure enjoyed by the Country Party, Labor would have received eighty-nine seats. Therefore, when people talk about how the federal Government was routed, they should examine the figures on the basis of one vote, one value, and see how the allocation of seats would be completely different. The Hon. J. R. Hallam] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 539

In 1975 in the Commonwealth sphere the Liberal Party polled 42 per cent of the vote. Although Labor polled 42.8 per cent, the Liberal Party won sixty-eight seats compared with the Labor Party's thirty-six. With something like 11 per cent of the vote the Country Party received about twenty-three seats. These are significant figures, and the people of Australia are fast becoming aware of them. The drafting of the New South Wales Constitution has advantaged the conservative forces greatly. Of course, the Constitution was drawn up by our opponents in order to protect and maintain in power the conservative forces. After all, the inspiration for the New South Wales Constitution came from another country, where the drafters of it worked in terms of drafting something for the Antipodes. During this debate I have heard much criticism of the Whitlam Government. I am not here merely to defend that Government, but some honourable members opposite made some points about action being taken to increase employment. They should know that there is hardly a town, village or locality throughout Australia that has not received advantages under the regional employment development scheme that was introduced by Mr Clyde Cameron. The money was not used for chipping weeds or doing some useless jobs, but was spent on parks, welfare centres, sports fields, racecourses, and all sorts of magnificent local projects. Another thing that fascinates me is that since the change of government in Canberra unemployment has increased. Before the federal election we heard all about the elusive dole bludgers on the north and south coasts, and how they would disappear if the conservative forces were elected to office. I ask the conservative forces, the newspapers and other news media, and all members of the Liberal and Country parties what has happened to the dole bludgers. They seemed to disappear overnight after the election. That was another example of an incredible display of dishonest campaigning. Returning to the State scene, I shall comment first on a statement that was made by the current Leader of the Parliamentary Country Party in New South Wales; I say the current leader because I think he might be in a transient position. When he was speaking at Broken Hill and making some comments about the state of the rural industries, he said that on the whole they were experiencing their worst period. A report of what he said states: He says the cattle industry has hardly a flutter ieft, the wool industry cannot cope with increased costs and thme is a frightening rundown in maintenance and improvement, while the dairy industry is in "a state of chaos". In 10 years average earnings for adult male employees in NSW have nearly trebled. The Leader of the Country Party, the honourable member for Gloucester in another place, pointed out that in real terms the return for wool is not as good as it was. He said that the price to the producer had dropped by 55 per cent to 60 per cent of what it was ten years ago. He then went on to attack the present Government, saying that the Treasurer represents a sprawling country electorate but has no country interests; that the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries is a garage proprietor; that the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources is a pharmacist; and that the Minister for Lands is a former railway porter. That is the standard of attack that was used by the Leader of the Country Party. That is the type of argument that is used by the Liberal-Country party supporters in this State and on the federal scene. The Hon. Sir Asher Joel: What is wrong with being a railway porter? There is nothing wrong with being a porter. 540 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I suggest that the manner in which the Leader of the Country Party referred to these people was derogatory and was meant to be a slight upon their character, especially that of a former Premier of this State. The Treasurer is one of the most experienced administrators that this State has known. He has held practically every portfolio within the Government. If that is an example of the standard of Opposition in this State, there is not much opposition. I am sure that over the past few weeks most members opposite have been dismayed at the incredibly bad performance of the Opposition in the Parliament. I have never known an Opposition to turn into rabble in such a short time. Another example of the way the Country Party has been dishonest relates to rural roads. This year payments from the federal Government under the Roads Grants Act, 1974, will total $231 million, representing a decrease of 19 per cent compared with 1975-76, and a decrease of considerably more than that when considered in real terms. When the State Ministers approached the federal Minister for Transport with a request for additional money they were refused outright. The federal Government has ended financial aid for anti-tuberculosis programmes. Obviously it puts profits before health. The Fraser Government is phasing out the nitrogenous fertilizer bounty which to cane farmers, vegetable and fruit farmers and ricegrowers is more important than the superphosphate bounty. During the election campaign last year the federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, promised that the nitrogenous fertilizer bounty would not be tampered with. However, the federal Government has decided to end that bounty and an announcement has already been made. Not a sound has been heard about it from the New South Wales Country Party-not even a whimper.

If we consider the implementation of income equalization deposits, a recommendation in the green paper commissioned by the Whitlam Government, we learn that it was designed to assist farmers in good seasons to put money into an account, where they would not have to pay taxes, and draw it out in lean times, thus reorganizing their taxation payments to advantage. However, the Fraser Government has added to that income equalization scheme a proviso that income derived from sources other than primary industry may be used for this purpose. Therefore, the real beneficiaries under this scheme will not be the farmers-who in these times would not have money to deposit-but the Macquarie Street and Pitt Street professionals. Programmes such as the wool scheme, the rural reconstruction scheme and the beef industry assistance scheme were initiated by the federal Labor Government. Also, it was the Whitlam Government that set up the locust council. I shall not go into detail about Medibank though I shall remind honourable members of the broken promises of the Prime Minister. The PriameMinister sacked Mr Chipp and rebuked the present Speaker of the House of Representatives for daring to suggest precisely what the Prime Minister has now done. I should like now to refer to comments made by members in this House. The Hon. L. P. Connellan told us that rural industries are in some difficulty. That is quite true. The honourable gentleman spoke about over production and said that it means a heavy reduction in returns. He told 1:s of the need for increased trade. It is a fact that most of our major rural industries depend on oversea trade. The Hon. D. F. Moppett referred to the plight of the rural industry. He made a commendable and lucid speech and I do not disagree much with anything that he said. However, I find it difficult to understand how he could make that speech yet still support the party to which he belongs. Among the things the honourable gentleman mentioned was that there should be a relocation of industry, rural employment schemes, retraining Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 541 and possible relocation of rural workers and increasing educational opportunities for rural yo~~th,in some cases close to their homes. I remind the honourable gentleman that all of these things were initiatives brought about by the Whitlam Government. Of course, those schemes would apply throughout Australia and are not sectional. It is a fact that Australian prilmary, pastoral and agricultural industries depend largely on oversea trade. It is a fact also that this trade was enhanced by the Whitlam Government's recognition of the eastern European communist bloc and red China. It was assisted also by that Government's foreign policy and evenhanded approach. That initiative was of great benefit to Australia and attracted sales for our wool and meat. I have taken the trouble to determine the importance of Indonesia as an export potential nation. In 1974-75 Australia exported more than $175 million worth of goods to Indonesia. That is a substantial export trade related principally to the rural scene and included live animals, meat and meat preparations, dairy products and eggs, fish and fish preparations, fruit and vegetables, sugar, sugar preparations and honey, coffee, tea, cocoa and spices, and so on. In the same year exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics totalled more than $243 million and included meat and meat preparations, fish and fish preparations, cereal grains and cereal preparations, sugar, sugar preparations and honey, beverages, textile fibres and their waste, machinery, electric machinery, professional and scientific instruments, miscellaneous manufaotured articles and non-merchandise articles. Recently the Prime Minister went to' China and the Deputy Prime Minister went to Russia. I have here an article written by a correspondent of international standing, Yvonne Preston, who was in China at the time of the Prime Minister's visit. She wrote: Mr Fraser is now in the big league of international diplomacy, enjoying the Whitlamesque grandstanding. But his China visit will be seen by the world and has already been seen by the Soviet Union as a trip in which somehow Mr Fraser looked like a pawn of the Chinese. The trip has been a diplomatic coup for them. Earlier, in the same article, she had written: It is one thing to abandon the even-handed policy of Mr Whitlam towards the two communist giants-the Soviet Union and China-another to go all the way with Mr Hua, especially in the context of the bitterness of the Sino-Soviet feud. She wrote also about a banquet attended by the Prime Minister, and said: He said before attending a farewell banquet at which he delivered another bland pedestrian speech without even the remotest reference to the Soviet Union--- It is now history that during the Prime Minister's visit to China he insulted the Indonesians and the Malaysians-in fact, he insulted the ASEAN Pact. Of course, these are the countries upon which we rely for our exports, particularly rural exports. The federal Government is responsible to maintain these markets. While the Prime Minister was insulting our Chinese and near-Asian neighbours the Deputy Prime Minister was in Russia. The Deputy Pritme Minister is well known for some of his statements in regard to China, and one that we would all be aware of was published under a headline which suggested that Mr Anthony would not sell his soul to sell wheat. The article deported him as saying: I wouldn't sell my foreign polioies or my philosophies just to try to do a trade deal. 542 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

On 2nd November, 1973, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article about the Deputy Prime Minister. It commenced: The leader of the Country Party, Mr Anthony, has attacked the Prime Minister for permitting the playing of "Advance Australia Fair" on his China visit. Speaking in Canberra yesterday, Mr Anthony said Mr Whitlam should have arranged for "God Save The Queen". The article goes on to say: Anthony would like to visit China. He stood by his statement that he would not 'sell my soul for trade'. On his visit to Russia he was greeted by an article in Pravda which I have in its original Russian cyrilic text and also I have a translation for those who wish to check on the validity of the quotation that I shall give. This is what appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald: Pravda criticizes Anthony's government. The Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, began talks in Moscow yesterday with Soviet government Ministers as Pravda fired a new propaganda broadside at his government. Launching the latest in a series of press attacks on the policies of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, the Communist Party newspaper said the Australian Government was overturning or cutting almost all the progressive reforms of its Labor predecessor. It went on to say that Mr Fraser's attack on detente, which President Nixon initiated and former Prime Minister Whitlam applauded-it also created splendid diplomatic relations-was creating enornlous pressures. Part of the Pravda article to which I referred was as follows: . . . the Head of the Australian Capital was greeted with open arms. The article on the front page of Ren Min Rih Bao, devoted to the visit, was just another fabrication about the Soviet Threat. 'The President of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Hua go-Fan, in his speech, pronounced his absolute support' to Fraser's recent anti-soviet statements. The Pravda article went on to say: According to the Australian newspaper, 'the Sydney Morning Herald', Fraser's stand in relation to the U.S.S.R. and his support of the Pentagon's expansion of the U.S. Military Base on Diego-Garcia Island 'makes him very close to Peking's heart'. This is understandable. To achieve their aim--of preventing a relaxation of international tensions-Maoists are trying to use the stay in China of any visitor from a capitalist country. There are similar types of general-attack articles in regard to the Hindustan Tirnes in India. The diplomatic subtlety of the federal Government has been incredible. It thinks that by insulting the Russians in China and insulting the Chinese in Russia, it can win friends and influence people. It is a sad fact that the insults of the Prime Minister and of his deputy have evoked deplorable reaction throughout the nation. I also have with me the text of an interview on A.M. with the Deputy Prime Minister when he was in Moscow on 28th July, 1976. He then said that he was not in Russia to make deals but to create a political atmosphere for better relations and trade. At the same time we had the Hon. Jim Killen, Minister for Defence, who would take the prize for Australia's greatest word spinner, taking a stronger stand than the Prime Minister in regard to the present situation in the Indian Ocean. The Hon. J. R. Hallam] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 543

If members of the Opposition wish to criticize the present state or potential state of our trade relations or diplomatic relations they should direct their criticism at the incredible diplomatic mess in which the Prime Minister and his deputy have become involved. As a responsible member of Parliament I appeal to members on the other side of the House to give serious consideration to making their views known publicly on this matter before the damage is irreversible. Even the chairman of the federal standing committee on foreign relations and defence disagrees with the Government in relation to the Indian Ocean. Nobody seems to know what is going on. The Prime Minister has a different view from that of the Deputy Prime Minister, and their chairman of the standing committee on foreign relations and defence has a different view from both of them. The Minister for Defence has yet another view. This is indeed a serious situation. May I conclude by quoting the Deputy Prime Minister. While addressing a meeting of members of the Country Party in Queensland he said, "It is a fact we are not doing very well."

The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID [8.38]: In supporting the motion before the House may I first reaffirm my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. I reiterate what some of my colleagues have said, that it is a great pity that honourable members on the opposite side of the House have not accepted the decision of the referee on what took place in Canberra last December. The Governor-General was appointed by the Whitlam Government. He made a decision and it is time that honourable members accepted that decision for the good of the State and the nation. We on this side of the House have accepted the fact that democracy was at work in May when the Liberal- Country parties lost office. I do not think we were heard to complain about that decision; we have accepted it in good grace, and I suggest it is time that honourable members on the opposite side of the House did likewise in regard to the change of government at Canberra. If it is desired to destroy our parliamentary system and to set up instead of it a republican system in Australia they are going about it the right way. The Premier has refused to attend any functions attended by the Governor- General. It is a tragedy that this sort of thing is happening in this country.

It has been a fascinating experience to follow the Hon. J. R. Hallam in this debate. I was not too clear whether he was summing up for the Government or trying to supersede the member who led in the debate; we are told that his leader has his sights on Canberra. I think the honourable member was of the opinion that he was already there for his was a statement on foreign affairs, not a contribution on the Address in Reply. Honourable memebrs will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to spend my time tonight discussing the Whitlam Government. That, thank goodness, is history. Instead I intend to spend some of my time on what I consider to be important matters. I should like first to congratulate members on both sides of the House who made their maiden speeches during this debate. I was sorry to see such people as the Hon. F. W. Bowen leave the Chamber. He always contributed something positive and he was a friend of all members. Obviously the Labor Party has selected people of high calibre to fill the vacancies on the Government side of the House. I have enjoyed their contributions to the debate so far. On two recent occasions the Hon. Delcia Kite has achieved the distinction of having the quote of the week in one of the daily newspapers and an honourable mention in a Sunday newspaper. That is a notable achievement for a member of this Chamber. I listened to the contribution made by the Hon. J. R. Hallam, who would be lost for something to say were it not for the Country Party. He spent thirty of his thirty-five minutes answering principally what the Hon. L. A. Solomons said. It is 544 COUNCIL-Address in Reply incredible that the Labor Party invariably points its attack at the Country Party. I suppose it is because the Labor Party is unable to beat the Country Party on any occasion, either in the electorate or on the floor of this House. Show me any political party in Australia with the solidarity of the Country Party. The Hon. W. C. Peters: The Country Party does not have solidarity. There are too many Pitt Street farmers in the party. The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: I challenge any member on the Government benches to name a political party with the solidarity of the Country Party. The Govern- ment does not like the Country Party because it cannot defeat it. That is why the Hon. J. R. Hallam spent his time trying to drive a wedge into the Country Party. The Hon. D. P. Landa: Give us one vote, one value. The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: God help this nation if you get that. If the Hon. J. R. Hallam were to speak to the federal member for Darling he would learn what that member thought about the time needed to service an outback electorate: imagine if elections were conducted on a one vote, one value basis. If there were one vote, one value system it would be disastrous. I congratulate the Hon. D. F. Moppett upon his contribution to the debate. Though the former Leader of the Opposition tried to denigrate the Country Party he agreed, as did the Hon. J. R. Hallam, that the Hon. D. F. Moppett made a worthwhile contribution to the debate. The Hon. J. N. Thom: The Opposition could do with a lot more like him. The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: We will keep throwing them up to you in the great tradition of the Country Party. I do not propose to spend time denigrating the Labor Government or former Labor governments or the Australian Government of which the Hon. E. G. Whitlam was Prime Minister. The question I want to pose to the House is this: where are New South Wales and Australia headed? Where are we going? I do not suggest that it is the fault of any particular government that Australia finds itself in a difficult situation. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Australia is a trading nation. Unfortunately for Australia it is cutting itself out of world markets. That is not being done only as a result of union activity. Everyone has a responsibility to face up to what is happening. The time has come when everyone, not only politicians, should try to get across to the people in the street just what is happening. I have six fundamental points to make. First, we must look into history a little to see where Australia is going. From 1945 to 1965 the whole nation shared common ideals and aims. The success of this period created a period of high expectations and demands. Unfortunately from about 1967 on Australia destroyed its competitive position in the economic world. Most Australians are not yet aware of that fact. All of us, including the trade unions, directors of big companies and politicians must make the community aware of the position. Let us consider what took place from about 1945 to 1965. Australia was transformed in that 20-year period. The basic reason for it was the willingness of the whole community to work together in order to achieve aims at a realistic pace. Between 1930 and 1945 all Australians shared a common experience. There was the great depression with its insults to h~lmandignity. Then came the second world war and, with it, recognition of the need for national strength and self-sufficiency. Those who lived through that period will remember it well. By 1945 there was the common aim, the wish of all political parties for economic growth and full employment. There was a desire for a larger number of people to be able to undertake useful work, and there was recognition of the need for more output from Australian industries so as to reduce imports. A search was made for a broeder base of exports than just farm produce. Between 1945 and 1965 all political parties Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 545 shared those aims and all electors wanted those ,things to come to pass. People all over the world became confident in Australia, made investments here and came here. There was a large intake of migrants. Unfortunately the migrants came mainly to the cities. Australia prospered. Despite setbacks in 1961-and it may be that some government activities brought about a serious situation then-private enterprise was well regarded as helping the community achieve its desired aims. By 1975 most Australian born since 1940 had experienced comparatively effortless prosperity. In contrast, people who were born in about 1920 were still influenced by patterns of thought and action developed during the depression years and during the war. The younger generation knew nothing about the difficulties of economic depression and war. All they knew was the new prosperity. The old goals of economic growth, full employment, increased exports, and import replacement seemed unworthy to the young. They were unfavourably compared with new ideals such as a better quality of life, more equality, better education and greater participation. In recent times the word participation has become part of our everyday vocabulary. Economic progress seemed automatic. Indeed, economists, politicians and the public took economic progress for granted. If it is automatic, why bother to feed the cow? Just take the milk and enjoy life. Surveys of public attitudes in the United States of America and Australia reveal widespread and hostile attitudes to business. Many people believe that business profits are ten times bigger than they really are. Others think that the sole aim of big business is to increase profits by reducing the quality of the goods it sells and the services it provides. The community, not only the Labor Government, has become anti-private enterprise. I am distressed about these things, though they are not only Australian experience; they are general all over the world. During the 10-year period from 1966 to 1976 Australia began to move into a non-competitive position. Unfortunately, the world is a competitive place and it does not owe Australia a living. Everyone in the nation must get back to work. Let us examine the things that have happened. Wage rates in Australia are as high as wage rates in the United States of America. That Australian productivity remains low is accepted by the Hon. J. S. Thompson. Our wage costs are among the highest in the world. No one begrudges a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and that if the nation is prospering and the cake is getting larger everyone in the community should have a fair slice of it. Capital costs in Australia are about 30 per cent above those for comparable plants in North America. Tax rates and other costs are also high. New projects that were financed during the 1960's could not be financed in Australia now. No one overseas is interested any more in investing money in Australia, even with the change of government, because of inflation and problems related to productivity. I shall spend more time on that aspect later and I hope that honourable members will listen to what I have to say about it. First I want to answer some of the statements made by the Hon. J. S. Thompson. Depreciation rates allowed for taxation purposes have dropped behind similar allowances in other countries for competing industries. It is true that the symptoms of which I have spoken are world wide and stagflation is a world-wide phenomenon. The uncertainty of fluctuating trade vitally affects Australia. The costs of inflation in Australia are far greater than in most of the countries associated with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Our profit levels are low and rising slowly by comparison with other countries. Our investment in new exports is low. Farmers are losing money in nearly every area of rural production with the exception of grains. The prospects for 1980 are poor. The loss 3 5 546 COUNCIL-Address in Reply of Australia's competitive position on world markets was not caused simply by an inexperienced Labor government in Canberra. The truth lies in a set of community expectations which are unrealistic in the sense that they cannot be achieved without sustained work. Life is not like a TV set; one cannot turn it on and obtain instant satisfaction. Australia, like the United States of America, has always believed that society should provide a basic equality-an equality of opportunity for anyone who wishes to work to improve his or her circumstances. An expanding economy could provide a rising standard of living for all and the promise of plenty. All Australians must get back to work and do better. It is not correct to say that business is interested only in profits; it is interested in turning out the better article that the community demands. I abhor the suggestion that comes sometimes from Government supporters that big corporations and multi-nationals are interested only in profit. They are interested in serving the community with a better product. I instance companies like the Ford motor company and Heinz with its 57 varieties. Unless these companies make profits thousands of businesses will close down and jobs will be lost. Recently I spoke to a Japanese about what was happening in his country. He held the theory that Japan has a long-term outlook as against Australia's shortdterm. In other words, Japan plans for the future much better than Australia does. Perhaps we should take a leaf from their book. Australians are inclined to live hand to mouth. I should like to see governments of all political persuasions plan for the long term so that when Australia reaches the 1980's it will be back on the road to prosperity in all areas. I am reminded of the story about two teams-animals and humans-that played a game of rugby football. At half-time the humans led by eighteen to nil. Just before half-time the centipede ran on to the field, and after being chastised by the coach for being late said, "I had great trouble doing up my boots." I tell that story in the hope that the Wran Government does not adopt the same attitude as the federal Labor Government espoused and try to achieve too much too fast. I would not wish to see happen in New South Wales what happened in Canberra where rash, ill-conceived decisions affected gravely the whole country and led to its present problems. I wish to refer to the serious position that has developed in our meat industry. The Australian producer is receiving for meat, apart from what he gets for lambs which are affected by seasonal prices, what can be described only as a joke by comparison with world prices. We believe in free trade and in the right of the individual to supply and sell as he wishes. The Australian producer of meat is receiving a paltry return for his investment by comparison with his counterpart in most of the developed nations. The Hon. W. C. Peters: Why do Australians have to pay such a tremendous price for meat? The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: If the Hon. W. C. Peters would allow me to develop this theme I might be able to give him some of the answers he wants. The Hon. W. C. Peters: I am interested because I eat a lot of meat. The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: The average Australian does. I am glad to learn that the honourable member partakes of steaks and other meat. The Hon. W. C. Peters: Only the good cuts. The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: I am interested to learn also that he has a good butcher in the western suburbs. I imagine he gets good steaks at the Western Suburbs Leagues Club. The meat industry in North America is not profitable at the Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 547 moment, not as a result of the price received by the producer but because most beef in the United States of America and in Canada is fed by lot feeding. The high price of grain is making the industry unprofitable. Canadian and American beef producers receive about $380 or $400 for a 500 1b steer. In Australia the producer would receive for a similar beast about $100 or $120. Australia has the great advantage of producing its meat off grass and therefore is able to produce it cheaper. The middle cost that is passed back to the producer is making meat production unprofitable in Australia. I wish to spend a little time answering the Hon. J. S. Thompson. He suggested that it was not the fault of the worker that productivity was not increasing in Australia but that it was the fault of those who own plant. The honourable member said : When we talk about productivity we must bear in lmind what makes productivity. It is not making people run on the job; it is the type of equipment that is provided. During his dissertation I asked by way of interjection why did the trade unions stop modern innovation being brought into industry. The honourable member was not quite able to answer me. One observes alarming things happening in the meat industry. Some abattoirs in New South Wales, if not right across Australia, are endeavouring to introduce modern methods to speed up the killing of livestock and so save some middle costs. Recently nearly every abattoir in New South Wales introduced a mechanism that pulls the hide off the animal quicker than the old method. I saw this procedure in America and in Canada. It became the subject of a decision by an industrial commissioner who stated that it was quite acceptable for the industry and it should increase productivity in all abattoirs. An assessment was made that each man on the killing chain could kill an extra four and a half beasts in a kill. The unions took the proposal back to the industrial commissioner and said they did not like it. It became the subject of an appeal. Although the abattoirs undertook not to introduce the system until the appeal was heard, the unions called out their men. I instance the abattoirs at Cootamundra, which are privately owned and controlled by Conkey Bros. Because of strikes over this particular issue they have lost five weeks' production since June. The Hon. W. C. Peters: Has not Dorahy Bros on the South Coast adopted that improved killing system in the last twelve months? The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: I am not aware of that one. Although the Cootamundra and Dubbo abattoirs and every other abattoir in this State are trying to introduce this to streamline the system, the unions are resisting them. I know that the Hon. J. S. Thompson does not speak for the Meat Industry Employees Union, but this is an indication of what is happening and what is holding back private companies in the meat industry. The producers are the people who absorb all the costs. People who are responsible in the trade union movement should be doing something about these things. I classify all honourable members opposite as responsible people, and I suggest that they should be having a hard look at this. If the beef industry in this country continues as it is at present, there will not be a beef industry. I suppose a few producers will get back up, but this is a serious position and it is creating unnecessary hardship. The Hon. D. P. Landa: Did you say they have all been out for five weeks? The Hon. F. M. 1MAcDIARMID: Since June they have been out for five weeks over this issue, and I appeal to the Minister to try to do something about it, because it is having a detrimental effect on the meat industry. Although I have given only one example, I could give many more. The average abattoir worker is very well paid on 548 COUNCIL-Address in Reply modern standards. No one argues about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, but these people earn up to $300 a week. In this particular abattoir at Cootamundra the killing chain stops at 1 p.m. In other words, that abattoir is working only 25 per cent of the twenty-fou'r hours. The Hon. D. P. Landa: They are on piecework rates.

The Hon. F. M. MAcDIARMID: I am not talking about piecework. Surely the meat industry could be like the wool industry, in which the shearer is paid on productivity, and the more sheep he shears the more money he gets. In the meat industry, with the sheep chains particularly, as soon as they go over their kill they are allowed to kill only ten more. That is laughable and ridiculous. When they stop they simply go to the hotel for the rest of the day. These things are bringing the meat industry in this country to its knees, and the Minister, as a responsible Cabinet Minister, should have a hard look at it and get the unions to start seeing some sense. I believe that the Government must continue with the development of Botany Bay. I know that this became a political issue during the election campaign, and the environmentalists were very concerned. The environmentalists from the Labor Party in this House were very concerned, and so was I until the Labor Government terminated my appointment. Like the former Leader of the Opposition here, as soon as the Government changed I fell by the wayside. It will be proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Botany Bay must continue. When I was with the Australian Wool Corporation I advocated that Yennora village should be placed on the seaboard at Botany Bay. I fought hard for that but I was not successful, because there was not enough development at Botany Bay. I once again appeal to the new Government not to play politics on this issue. In ten years time New South Wales will run into unbearable trouble at Port Jackson, and industry will be seriously affected. I cannot believe that the Hon. J. P. Ducker considers that in the past ten years there was no achievement in New South Wales. I shall not dwell on that topic; some of my colleagues have already spoken on it. However, opportunities exist right now for things to happen in New South Wales. Honourable members on this side of the Chamber will be the first to criticize and to act as a watchdog, which is our role. The Hon. J. R. Hallam raised the issue about our not being democratically elected. I say to him-and I mean this sincerely and stated it in my opening remarks- that the quality of the people who have come into this House in recent times, on both sides of the House, are people from all walks of life who can contribute. Surely this House can be a House of review when it has people like this becoming members. I support the motion. The Hon. H. B. FRENCH [9.5]: I also congratulate the new members who have made their maiden speeches during this debate. The House will be the better for their membership. Unfortunately, on both sides we have lost members who have left their mark on this Parliament and on the legislation of this State. I am sure that all honourable members agree that the Governor is doing a fine job, and L ably assisted by Lady Cutler. The Hon. F. M. MacDiarmid stated that he hoped the Government would do the job that should be done. I assure him that it will be done. I completely support the remarks made by the Hon. J. P. Ducker. His speech was referred to by a member of the Opposition as being a manifesto; I suggest that the Opposition is envious because it is a good manifesto for the improvement of the State of New South Wales. The matters contained in His Excellency's Speech, together with the matters outlined by the Hon. J. P. Ducker, will do much for the improvement of this State. Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 549

I wish to discuss a matter that concerns me, and should concern not only every other member of this House but also all the people throughout New South Wales and Australia. I refer to unemployment in New South Wales. People speak about there being 115 997 people unemployed. Having a knowledge of what has happened in the rubber industry, in which I am interested, I can say that that figure has been enlarged by retrenchments since the statistics were prepared. I wonder how many members of the Opposition have been out of work, not knowing where to get a job. I wonder whether they realize how demoralising it is, especially if a man is a member of one of the many ethnic groups that live in Australia now. Only last week in a plant covered by our award twenty people in the battery-making industry were retrenched as a result of importations and tariff control. I have been to Senator Cotton, a Minister in the federal Government. Also, the Labor Council of New South Wales is dealing with the matter. Senator Cotton said that I am over-reacting. When people say that I am over-reacting when twenty people-and more to come-have lost their jobs, that just does not gel. I thing that Senator Cotton has adopted a heartless attitude towards men who are out of work and cannot get another job. Many of the people who are out of work do not speak English very well. Unfortunately, these are the facts of life, and this is what is really happening on the unemployment scene at the present time. As a lad I had an experience which has left me with a lasting impression. I was the eldest son in a large family. We had a dairyfarm. I learned how to milk cows when I was quite young. Much has been said about dairyfarms and cows oveI the past few weeks. We used to deliver milk to several families. At that time many people were out of work and they were issued with dole tickets. A family could receive a pint of milk a day, seven days a week, in exchange for a dole ticket to the value of 2/4d. I remember the attitude of adults, particularly wives and mothers. Many of them were ashamed to bring the dole ticket to the door. Though I was only a lad I remember this well. These people would send their children out to exchange the dole ticket for milk. I resolved that I never wanted to see such a situation again. That sentiment should be shared by most people. Unfortunately, the unemployment situation in New South Wales is deteriorating. The shipbuilding industry has been in the news; it is something which vitally concerns us as citizens of Australia. Australia has shipyards in New South Wales and South Australia. Coincidentally, both of those States are administered by Labor governments. I am familiar with Newcastle harbour. At the tender age of 16 years I decided to seek my fortune and I went to sea. In 1943 the ship on which I was serving went into the dry dock at Newcastle for a refit. That dry dock had been brought to Newcastle from Singapore in 1938. It is still there today. The Premier of this State has taken the initiative and has done something about ensuring the continuance of shipbuilding in this State. Over a decade of Liberal-Country party coalition administration the shipbuilding and ship repair facilities at Newcastle have deteriorated. The new Premier has intimated that Newcastle will have a new dry dock. It is a wonder to me that the existing dock has not sunk. Nowadays ships are quite different from what they were when this dry dock was constructed. Australia is a trading island and will therefore always need shipbuilding and ship repair facilities. We should not even consider sending our ships to Singapore or elsewhere to be refitted or repaired. They should be attended to at Newcastle or Whyalla. The Premier of this State has taken steps in the best interests of Australia. It is perhaps coincidental that I, as a member of the Returned Services League who does not always agree with the editorials in the journal published by that 550 COUNCIL-Address in Reply body, do agree with a recent statement it made relating to shipping. The league commented that from a defence point of view alone it is vital that Australia should retain a viable shipbuilding industry for the construction of both merchant and naval vessels including repair capabilities and a substantial and modern merchant fleet that can give coastwise logistic support to the armed forces in time of war as well as sustain our industrial requirements. The editorial said that Australia required also a national and independent merchant fleet to offset future intimidation tactics of the Soviet Union. We hear so much about this that it is a wonder the Soviet Navy has not sailed up Sydney Harbour. We have heard some talk about refortifying Pinchgut which was originally built in the 1850's to combat a potential Russian invasion at that time. We hear continuously about the dangers of the Soviet fleet but many Australians use Russian cruise vessels for their holidays and are apparently quite happy with them. Also, many exporters use Russian vessels to send their goods to the other side of the world. Perhaps double standards are involved, but one wonders whether it is merely only a matter of dollars and cents. Russian ships are used in preference to the Conference lines.

The unemployment situation in this State is serious. Day by day more people are retrenched yet the federal Government does nothing about it. We hear that unemployment is rising because Australia cannot compete on the world market. High wages are blamed. I propose to refer to an American publication of 18th June and inform honourable members of wages paid in countries adjacent to Australia. Often we are told that Australia cannot compete with other countries because our industry is inefficient. One might ask, what are the criteria? Again, I suspect that it has a lot to do with dollars and cents. According to the article of 18th June, relating to Ameri- can dollars and using the skilled worker as an example, the Australian skilled worker receives $780 a month. This compares with his counterpart in Hong Kong who receives $170 a month, in Indonesia $116, in Korea $165 for a 48-hour week with few holidays, in Malaysia $147, in the Philippines $93, again with a 48-hour week, in Singapore $204, in Taiwan $114, for a 44-hour week and in Thailand $116. About twenty years ago Japan was accused of undercutting the Australian market. Since then the standard of living in Japan has increased significantly and now Korea is able to undercut Japan quite extensively. In Japan the skilled worker earns $812 a month, slightly more than the $780 earned by the skilled worker in Australia.

I deal now with female machinists making up shirts and sandshoes. Female machinists in Korea working a 48-hour week receive $13; in Taiwan for 44 hours a week, $12; in the Philippines for a 48-hour week, $10. What chance has Australia of competing with these countries? With modern equipment, Australian industry would have a chance of competing. The Premier of South Australia stated that in Korea they have one crane to do the work done by four cranes in Australia. The reason for not being able to compete is often said to be that Australians will not apply themselves. That is nonsense. The fact is that if we do not have modern tools, plant and equipment, we cannot compete.

The Hon. J. S. Thompson mentioned that companies were leaving New South Wales to go elsewhere. The Dunlop Rubber Company at Drummoyne is an instance. It has been a landmark in the area for seventy years. At the end of this year, in the name d rationalization-whatever that means-it will move its plant, lock, stock and barrel, to Melbourne. More than 1 000 people will he retrenched. In the main they are semi-skilled workers of ethnic origin who will be thrown on to the labour market. The previous Government did nothing to maintain this industry in New South Wales. The same situation applies at the Dunlop Rubber Company at Bankstown, which has been making footwear there for thirty years. Three years ago 1200 people were The Hon. H. B. French] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 551 employed there and now there are 300. It is the only company in Australia manufacturing sandshoes. It is recognized that this is a sporting nation. In the future the machin- ing of canvas will be done overseas and the soles will be moulded in Australia with the Dunlop brand on them. It is better to have part of an apple than none; the alterative was that the company would import everything. I have mentioned the battery industry, which is important to Australia. Because of the tariff situation it will cease to exist. As far as my own part of the industry is concerned, it seems that if the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commis- sion are implemented, the automobile companies will be able to import batteries. The Australian worker can work as hard, and is as skilled, as any in the world. I have seen workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany and the United States of America. The Australian worker is as good as any, provided he has the tools. He most certainly cannot work to his full capacity if he is at the disadvantage of having to operate with antiquated machinery not capable of doing the job. The establishment of the Manufacturing Advisory Council will be in the best interests of the State. It will stimulate industry and develop ways and means of maintaining the manufacturing industries. No one can be happy with rising unemployment figures. It is no use king critical of workers who go on strike. The strife and trouble in industry today is put at the feet of the trade-union movement. I believe that employers and management are just as much to blame. They should have adequate equipment for their employees to be able to work in harmony. The Hon. C. Healey spoke of the cause of strikes. The average worker wants to do a fair day's work but I suspect that the federal Government is attempting to take a leaf from the book of Sir Robert Menzies, who contended that to keep the worker in his place there must be a 10 per cent unemployment pool. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: How do you justify the present demarcation dispute on the waterfront? The Hon. H. B. FRENCH: I am not attempting to justify it. It is regrettable and should not have happened. Unfortunately, Australia has too many unions. Attempts to settle that dispute are being made at top level. I hope the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will be able to do something about it tomorrow. I do not attempt to condone senseless strikes. I have not gone into the ramifications of the current strike: most union officials have enough troubles of their own without involving themselves in somebody else's disputes. That was why the Australian Council of Trade Unions stepped in to try to solve the problem. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: A decentralized industry in Orange has $1 million worth of wool tied up in the port of Sydney because of a demarcation dispute. The Hon. W. 3. Geraghty: The federal Government was stupid about it. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: It was nothing to do with the federal Government. The Hon. H. B. FRENCH: The trade-union movement and the Australian Council of Trade Unions recognizes that the matter must be settled. Certain procedures must be followed. One cannot just rush in to settle a dispute. It is usually left to the parties concerned, whether it is a dispute of this nature or not. That dispute has reached the stage where I hope it will be settled for the benefit of all. Earlier a question was asked about rubber that is sitting on a wharf and cannot be obtained even though it is urgently needed. Tomorrow some workers in the rubber industry will be stood 552 COUNCIL-Address in Reply down. When there is a dispute like this one it is not just a single industry that suffers. The workers in other industries also are adversely affected. I abhor the fact that industries other than my own are affected and I should like to see better liaison between trade unions. We are attempting to achieve that goal right now. We hope that the discussions to be held tomorrow will bear fruit. I hope that the unemployment problem will not just be glossed over by people. I have heard it said that when the man next door is out of work it is a recession but when you are out of work it is a depression. The Hon. VIOLET LLOYD [9.32]: I join with other honourable members who have welcomed new members to the House and have congratulated them on their maiden speeches. I can tell the new members that I understand exactly how they felt because I had precisely the same feelings three years ago-mind you, I do not feel that much better right now for I still begin a speech here in a real flutter. I hope that all the new members will derive in this House the satisfaction that I have been able to obtain no matter on what side of the House I am seated. Over the past eighteen months I have had the good fortune and honour to act as chairman of the New South Wales Women's Advisory Board. I say good fortune because during that period many of the changes taking place in the community started to level out and consolidate. Many opportunities arose to meet and converse with the women of the State about their needs, problems and changes in the family structure. This made it possible for recommendations to be determined and submitted to the Government. It is right that I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the board who, aided by an excellent staff, worked so enthusiastically and diligently to fulfil the terms of reference under which the board was appointed by the previous Liberal-Country party Government. The co-operation received from the public service, from the media and the organizations with which we collaborated and the many men and women who assisted in our work showed the value and need of an entity such as the Women's Advisory Board. It was encouraging to see the acceptance in other States of the need to establish some form of women's advisory unit attached to the Premier's Department. South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania have now established similar units. New South Wales should feel some pride in being the innovating State, as both my colleague the Hon. Edna Roper and I said in the House last year when we complimented the Government at that time on its initiative. Whatever form the board will now take within the present Government's programme-I have been assured by the Premier that such a body will be maintained-I assure the House that for my part it has been an invaluable experience and one which I hope will enable me to place before honourable members a wider knowledge and understanding of matters of concern to women and the family when those matters are under debate in this House. I was delighted to read in His Excellency's Speech of the Government's intention to take action on other matters in which the board was active. I refer particularly to the proposed antidiscrimination legislation and to a proposed amendment to the Jury (Amendment) Act and the proposal to increase the strength of the police force. The board pressed for an increase in the establishment strength of women police. I refer also to the Status of Children Act and the proposals to amend the Stamp Duties Act to provide for the exemption from duty of property passing to the surviving spouse is legislation with which all honourable members will agree. I draw the Government's attention to other areas within this context which require attention. For example, I call attention to the position of the common law partner in any well-established relationship and the real hardship that can be experienced by a dependent adult son or daughter upon the death of a surviving parent. Serious consideration should be given to these aspects of the law. Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 553

I am disturbed that no mention was made in the Governor's Speech of a proposal to amend the law of intestacy. Nor were any proposals announced to change the law in respect of rape. In his policy speech the former Premier announced that proposed amendments would make special provision for a surviving spouse in the event of the deceased dying intestate. He said: Where there are surviving children of the deceased the spouse will receive the first $50,000 of the estate. In all other cases the entire estate will pass to the surviving spouse. The acceptance of closed courts in rape trials and that the previous sexual history of the woman should not be admissible as evidence were also included in the policy announcement of the former Premier. They are matters of extreme concern to the community. I urge the Government not to delay in implementing these reforms. I commend them to the Minister for serious consideration. I wish to direct my remarks now to three issues-child care, part-time employment and alcoholism. There is no way in which to reverse the trend towards women re-entering the work force after marriage. It is accepted as a fact of life. For some years, during and following the second world war and up until the employment recession, the needs of the work force, both in the private and public sector, demanded that women take an increasing role in industry and commerce. This resulted in the family economy being geared to a double income. Most married couples need all the money they can get. Many young wives continue in employment for, say, three to five years until they start a family, others continue to work while their husbands pursue their studies, and some return to work after their children reach school age. The question is often raised whether women with young children should work. There is no ready or easy answer to that query. Some people have no choice, for example the single-parent families. I wish to refer to some statistics that should be of interest to honourable members. Currently women make up one-third of the work force. Of that number 62 per cent are married. Even more interesting are the percentages within that married group. Between the ages of 25 and 34 years the ratio of married women to unmarried women represents 73.3 per cent. Between the ages of 35 and 44 years the ratio of married women to unmarried women is 81.8 per cent and between the ages of 45 and 54 years it is 78.8 per cent. It is obvious from those percentage figures that women of an age when they are most likely to have young children form a significantly high proportion of the work force. If one adds the fact that it is assessed that 10 per cent of all families are single-parent families, be they unmarried, widowed, divorced or deserted mothers, or fathers, the pressure from the community for increased child-care facilities is quite understandable. The rapid escalation of costs of this service must be of concern to the Govern- ment or to any government. By way of direct federal funding the allocation to pre- school and child-care centres, to grants under childhood services to local government and community organizations and from the States to local government has risen from $7$ million in 1973-1974 to $63 million in 1975-1976. The biggest percentage of the allocation has been to fund pre-school centres-centres which provide only sessional care and do not provide the full-time care required by family women in the work force. I have not overlooked the demands that will continue to be made to increase facilities for sessional, occasional, crisis and cottage care but have confined myself to emphasiz- ing, briefly, the need to extend the availability of child-care centres to service the increasing number of women entering the work force. If we are concerned about supporting the family unit in these times of social change, we should acknowledge that this is a genuine area of need. 554 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

Availability of part-time employment is the second point I wish to raise. Let me say at the outset that a time of high unemployment is not necessarily the most propitious one during which to raise such an issue. However, forward planning is necessary if a new concept is to be established or a current one expanded. If we are now thinking of education in terms of a life-long process, then employment, training and opportunity must surely be viewed in a similar light. Part-time employment which enables the skills acquired to 'be developed and used until the time when full-time employment is feasible, is an essential step. It should be made clear, as I mentioned before, that most women seek employment for economic reasons. Full-time employment plus care of home and family places tremendous strain on the wife and indirectly on the husband and their children. Therefore, a large number of women who now work full-time, I believe, would switch to part-time employment if it were available to them. It must then follow that I am suggesting also that a planned increase in part- time opportunities would, in many cases, reduce the demand for full-day child-care facilities.

I do not wish to give the impression that there is no opportunity at all for part-time employment. I acknowledge that the Commonwealth Employment Service plays an active part in finding part-time jobs for women. I recognize the introduction of flexible working hours in a number of government departments and private organizations and the role played by the well-established private employment agencies in the major cities and metropolitan areas. However, the fact remains that the availability of part-time employment continues to be restricted. The federal Department of Labour and Immigration sees this as being due partly to inconsistencies in federal and State awards and statutes. Also, they see the attitudes of both trade unions and employers as not necessarily representing objection to part-time work but to the inadequacies of the system as it currently operates.

The New South Wales regional office of the Department of Labour has reported on the basis of its experience in employment offices that there has been limited success in promoting part-time employment for women beyond traditionally accepted areas of such employment. It claims that the major inhibiting factors are: possible penalty rates for part time-work; opposition to late afternoon shifts; and the experience of a number of firms, which, having experimented with part-time employment to meet staff needs, found that too many of their employees wanted to transfer to the shortened shifts. This last factor proves my point that to many women part- time work, when available, is preferrable to a full-time job.

I am aware of the administrative problems facing the employer in costing pay- roll tax, holiday loading, workers' compensation and similar overheads. I am conscious of the unions' concern that part-time employment may undermine the availability of full-time employment opportunities. I realize also that the question of skills and accommodation has to be considered. If the Government will accept the principle that the community would benefit by the expansion of shared and part-time work, I am confident any problem inherent in such expansion could be overcome. As a first step may I suggest that the Government sponsor research and experiment in this area. It could investigate the practicability of certain types of industries in specified areas being organized to permit working mothers in particular to work on a shared basis and therefore create more scope for shared child minding. There is a great deal of scope for the rational organization of part-time employment, which would greatly improve the lot of working mothers. Surveys would establish those population areas where a need is extensive and the actual extent of the need. Government could furnish the appropriate information and incentives to private enterprise and enable needs to be met. The Hon. Violet Lloydl Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 555

I refer now to my third point, the growing incidence of alcoholism in women and to alert mejmbers to what can become a very serious social problem. A great deal is already known about the proportions of alcoholism among men, and I congratulate the Hon. J. P. Ducker and the Hon. F. J. Darling as leaders of their respective organizations, for their efforts in tackling this problem within the work force. The seriousness and growth of the habit among schoolchildren has been the subject of a great deal of publicity over recent months, but the knowledge about women alcoholics can only be described as the tip of the iceberg. A report in one of our city newspapers on Alcoholics Anonymous stated that women outnumber men in many of their meetings, ranging from the 18-year-old to the older woman who has been a daytime drinker in her home and protected by her family. Eminent people such as Dr Milner, Director of the Victorian Health Department, Dr Michael Chegwidden, well known for his work within the field of alcoholism particularly the caravan clinics and Dr Salemann, Medical Director of Langton Clinic, have been quoted as saying: Men take 20 years to become an alcoholic; women 5 years. Danger years for women are late teens and after her family has grown up and left home. Australian figures show that 1 in 20 men are alcoholic, and 1 in 100 women are alcoholic. But no worthwhile research has yet been done to establish the true position with women. I do no more than place these few factors before members as being worthy of future consideration, but I make one comment about the older woman. I believe this to be relevant to my earlier remarks. By the time her family has grown up and left home, a woman would usually be in her mid to late forties, with approximately twenty years potential working life ahead of her. To return to employment at that time of her life, if she has established a drinking habit, would be well-nigh impossible. If the opportunity were there for her, say, ten years earlier-that is, when her children are at school-to develop and use her skills in part-time employment, with the possi- bility of full-time work at a later stage, it is possible that neither the woman, her family nor society would have to face this problem. I thank you, Mr Deputy-President, and honourable members for their attention. I support the motion. The Hon. D. R. BURTON [9.54]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. J. P. Ducker, b~~tbefore addressing myself to the matters before the House, I place on record my appreciation of the courtesies I have received during the short time I have been a member. In particular I wish to mention my appreciation for the help that I have had from my colleagues, who have made my induction into Parliament as smooth as possible. I extend my thanks to the parliamentary staff, to you Mr Deputy- President, and to Mr President for the many courtesies extended to me. My entry into this House coincided with a change of government, when the electors reinstated a Labor government in New South Wales after almost eleven years of Liberal-Country party rule. Therefore, I have not had the experience of sitting on the Opposition benches, although I have no doubt that honourable members opposite will endeavour to provide me with some of that experience at the earliest opportunity. I can only say that we have no intention of surrendering the Government benches. The Governor's Speech, which outlined the Government's programme, contained a list of legislative measures that will be of great benefit to the people of New South Wales. I do not propose to canvass the whole of that wide-ranging programme, but I shall refer to what I consider to be some of the particularly important matters. As a trade-union secretary associated with public transport, naturally I should like to 556 COUNCIL-Address in Reply mention some aspects of public transport. One of the really big tasks facing the Government is the revitalizing of public transport services in New South Wales. After some years of neglect these great enterprises are completely run down. I am heartened, however. by the firm commitment given by the Government that public transport is high on its priorities in the life of this Parliament. This contrasts rather sharply with the attitude of the former Government, which did little of a constructive nature towards improving any services. The formation of the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales in 1972 was supposed to add a new dimension to public transport administration in this State. Though I do not disagree with the concept, I have many misgivings about the way it has been handled and the manner in which the comn~issionhas administered the transport services. In about October, 1972, an Act was passed through this Parlia- ment setting up the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales. To give that statute its widest interpretation, it was an Act to allow the commission to get off the ground. Many of its provisions were in general terms and it was accepted, particularly by the transport unions, that those provisions would operate only in circumstances where the current statutes-the Railways Act and the Government Transport Act- did not adequately cover the situation. I can only say that the unions were in for a fairly rude shock. The ink was scarcely dry on the paper on which the Act was printed before the Public Transport Commission began filling large numbers of vacancies in top executive positions with persons from outside the service. This action was possibly defensible if the importations had been people with proven records as administrators in transport. But they were not. The result was bitterness among the employees, and an alarming decline in morale. To add further to this discontent, the commission proceeded to fill many positions within the service under section 18 of the Public Transport Commission Act, thus denying officers their rightful promotion opportunities and abrogating any appeal rights they had under the railways and transport Acts. This complete misuse of authodty was hotly contested by my union and many others. All those things were done by a headstrong commissioner who was convinced apparently that improvements could be effected only by importing experts from outside industry. In the process he destroyed the usual promotion avenues for the existing staff based solely on seniority. This experiment has been an abject failure. The commission has now agreed that many of the objections raised by my union and other transport unions were correct. The damage that was dene could have been avoided had the Public Transport Commis- sion been prepared to listen particularly to the advice of their experienced staff, and if its members had conferred more fully with the trade-union movement. I am pleased that the Minister for Transport has been quick to appreciate these problems, and has set up a joint council comprising representatives of the Public Transport Commission and the unions, meeting regularly to discuss matters associated with the activities of the commission. Good industrial relations are absolutely essential if public transport is to operate uninterrupted. This fact was apparently overlooked on many occasions by the previous Government. Perhaps one of the classic examples was the Atlantean bus dispute. With- out prior consultation with the unions, the new buses were introduced as a one-man operation. This precipitated one of the longest and most bitter strikes in the history of public transport in New South Wales. During this conflict an attempt was made to break the strike by using volunteers to drive the buses as a one-man operation. This action created extreme tension between the bus employees union and the Department of Government Transport, and one must conclude that all this was done with the active concurrence of the Minister for Transport at that time; it could not have been The Hon. D. R. Burton] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 557 done otherwise. The Government finally succeeded in forcing the government bus employees back to work, but the union was ultimately proved right. The Atlantean buses are still operating in Sydney on a two-man basis except when running on express services. That is substantially what the bus employees union wanted in the first place.

This is but one example of the ineptitude of the Liberal and Country parties when it comes to dealing with industrial matters. The former Government's outmoded authoritarian approach to the unions belongs to another era and has no application in modern industrial philosophy. If the former Government's record in industrial matters was poor, its performance on transport planning was just as bad. The rolling stock replacement programme in the railways could not overtake the backlog that was building up. Despite the fact that new suburban passenger carriages were being brought into service at the rate of one a week, more than that number of carriages were going out of service. The rolling stock maintenance programme fell behind with the result that trains constantly ran late or not at all through breakdowns or lack of vehicles. Bus services were no better. The bus fleet became progressively older, bringing about consequent costly and delaying maintenance programmes. The resultant shortage of reliable vehicles led to delays or cancellation of services-not the sort of thing designed to woo the commuter back on to public transport. This, coupled with sharp fare increases at frequent intervals, further depleted the number of passengers using the services. A survey conducted by my union showed an alarming drop in the number of workers weekly tickets sold at stations such as Liverpool, Parramatta, Auburn, Hurst- ville and Rockdale, just to mention some of the centres from which samples were taken. The decline in sales took place in the months succeeding the increases, gauged against the sales in corresponding periods before the increases. The trend was the same over the whole of the metropolitan area and the Blue Mountains-obviously the decline in ticket sales indicated more people were being forced on to private transport modes. The 20 per cent reduction in fares introduced by the present Labor Government operative from 1st July this year will provide some encouragement to those who have deserted public transport to return to it.

If the upgrading and expansion of the services is to succeed, there must be an ongoing programme of rolling stock building. The Hon. J. S. Thompson pointed out to the House recently that only one rolling stock manufacturer is left in business in New South Wales whereas some years ago there were four. One of the prime reasons for the demise of this industry was the lack of continuity of orders. Rolling stock manufacture takes a considerable period to reach peak production. Before one carriage comes off the production line, drawings must be prepared, tooling designed and materials stockpiled, not to mention mobilization of the work force of skilled tradesmen required in this industry. If orders are intermittent, it is an impossible task to gather together an efficient production team. The stop-start method of purchasing rolling stock leads to uncertain delivery schedules and higher costs.

The Government intends to commence a five-year programme of rolling stock replacement which should eliminate many of the past ills and provide the continuity necessary for the efficient and economic operation of the industry. These options were all open to the former Government, but it failed to grasp the importance of them. Sometimes it seemed that the task was too big for the former administration, so it turned its back on the problem hoping that it would go away. It did not. The only innovation in the Public Transport Commission's rolling stock programme was the decision to paint the suburban carriages blue and white-there must have been a Canterbury-Bankstown supporter in the commission as no other reason could support such a decision-and to design a new insignia with an arrow pointing to both left 558 COUNCIL-Address in Reply and right. Some of the wags said this indicated that the Public Transport Commission did not know which way it was going, or was trying to go in both directions at once. In any case, it did not get very far. One can scarcely erase from one's memory the timetables fiasco. Against the advice of officers who knew the situation, the Public Transport Cotmmission introduced a new set of timetables that could not possibly work. Lack of carriages, shortage of guards, and an inadequate signalling system determined the failure of the scheme before it was even tried out, yet the experiment proceeded, with disastrous results. Who can forget the delays, the trains that did not come, and the others that went to destina- tions other than those shown on the indicators? A harassed and confused staff tried vainly to make the new schedules work. During this period members of my union were abused by irate travellers and in some cases were in danger of physical violence. It took a threatened revolt amongst certain of our membership and a deputation to the Minister before the heirarchy of the commission relented and reverted to the old timetables. One could continue with a long list of the inadequacies of public transport and its neglect by the former Government, yet one must concede that on some occasions it did display some feeling for transport matters, however few they may have been. A former Premier, Sir Robert Askin, displayed a rare warmth towards them on two occasions. The first was when he exhorted his driver to run over them-the them being described by that great Australian expletive-and the second was when he remarked that if they did not like the fare increases, they could always walk. Such is their record. We will do considerably better than that. The Government has intimated that it will proceed with the quadruplication of the Granville-Penrith and Strathfield-Hornsby lines. This project will, when completed, do much to reduce congestion on these lines which service the fast growing areas west of Parramatta and north of Hornsby. The provision of parking facilities at some suburban stations will help to increase public transport patronage and to reduce private motor vehicle usage. With our main arterial roads already choked with vehicles during the morning and evening peaks, it is essential that action be taken to reduce the usage of the private motor car as a means of transport to work, particularly in the central business district of Sydney. The alternative is to encourage another Los Angeles or Tokyo situation, with pollution at dangerous levels and traffic density of unacceptable standards. The construction of expressways has been tried and found wanting. Indeed, the Premier in his policy speech described one of them as the road to nowhere. Officials in most cities throughout the world have realized that expressways are of no assistance in overcoming traffic problems. Something different has to be done. Throughout the world major cities have turned massive sums towards public transport as a means of alleviating traffic congestion. Though we do not expect to perform miracles overnight, at least our Government has shown a determination to grapple with the problem. It has also shown a willingness to enlist the aid of the commuters, the unions and others in an effort to untangle the mess that public transport finds itself in. In other words, we favour co-operation, not confrontation. The Premier has rightly highlighted this problem as one of the major concerns of the Government. He has shown he is prepared to back that concern with action. His intervention, in an effort to save the Newcastle State Dockyard, and indeed the shipbuilding industry as a whole, stamped his Government as one with the real interests of the State and its people at heart. The Fraser Government stands out as one obsessed with reducing inflation at all costs and hellbent on a confrontation with the trade- union movement. Its attitude in regard to the Newcastle dockworkers of "work at The Hon. D. R. Burton] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 559 any price" is typical of its brand of politics. No one would disagree that it is necessary to reduce inflation, but to do so at the expense of massive unemployment is not only heartless and cruel but also dehumanizing. At the risk of being accused of pursuing a dogmatic party line, I repeat that the trade-union movement and the party I represent cannot countenance the use of unemployment as a cure for any economic ills. His Ex- cellency in his Speech made reference to the Government's concern at the high level of unemployment amongst young people. That is a concern we all share. The Sunday Telegraph of 29th August headlined the fact "that six out of ten kids are on the dole" and that renewed pressure was being applied to the Prime Minister to shift his attention from inflation to unemployment. I can only hope that it succeeds. The article continues that the nu'mber of young people unemployed is now 100 000 and will climb to 250 000 by the end of the year-hardly an encouraging prospect for school-leavers in 1976. Even the Young Liberal leader, Mr Chris Puplick, is quoted as saying: This is the outstanding problem for young Australians-it puts everything else in the shade.

In last Sunday's Sun-Herald there was a quotation from Mr Wentworth, hardly a politician noted for his sympathies for Labor. He said that he was appalled by the likelihood of thousands of school-leavers being forced to stay at home. His emergency scheme was aimed at getting people to work. He said that, if thousands of young people are allowed to be idle for a long period, we shall have a social catastrophe on our hands. He said also that, without help to school-leavers, Australia was in danger of producing a generation of Andy Capps. However, Mr Fraser was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph as follows: The budget is directed towards reducing inflation and that is going to be the quickest way to restore employment to a level Australia has a right to expect.

A beautiful general statement, but he did not say what level people have a right to expect, nor does it indicate any softening in his attitude towards the use of unemployment as a weapon against inflation. But the Prime Minister has said that life is not meant to be easy. He did not say for whom it was not meant to be easy; certainly it was not the mining industry or the big multi-national corporations, if one interprets the last budget correctly. I rather feel it was directed to people who find a little more sympathy from honourable members on this side of the House.

The Prime Mtinister has also reminded us that we must make sacrifices in pursuit of reduced inflation. Just ask the dockworkers; they know it only too well. He takes away jobs on one hand and on the other he urges workers to go out and spend in an effort to stimulate the economy. How he reconciles those two negatives is any- body's guess. Instead of turning on the lights, as they promised, the Liberals have cut off the electricity supply. Taking the most charitable view, one must conclude that the federal budget, instead of providing stimulus, will produce further stagnation. With unemployment at a record level and industry working at little more than 70 per cent of capacity, it is difficult to see a consumer-led recovery emerging in the near future. The additional investment allowances will scarcely enthuse the manufacturer if he cannot see a market for his expanded production. This is the Liberal theory.

Mr Fraser's method of fighting inflation with unemployment is consistent with past Liberal policies. Sir Robert Menzies used it in the 1950's and again in the early 1960's. Ask the trade union leaders who were about at that time how effective it was. The technique used to justify it is a fairly simple one: blame the wage demands of the unions, accuse a few union officials of creating disruption in industry with strikes and, if that fails, it is always convenient to kick the communist can again. 560 COUNCIL-Address h Reply

One honourable member in his speech made reference to Messrs Carmichael and Halfpenny, well known in the trade union movement, but he referred to them as though they were accredited leaders of the trade union movement, which they are not. They are simply two officials of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union amongst some eighty or more employed by that union. They do not deserve the pre-eminence thst on them by the honourable member. As a federal officer of my own union I certainly do not look upon Messrs Carmichael and Halfpenny as being the leaders of the trade union movement; I look to the accredited leaders as embodied in the ACTU and the Labor Council of New South Wales, such as the Hon. J. P. Ducker. I cannot understand why the representatives of conservative parties continually give prominence to the deeds, or misdeeds, of a minority of people from the trade union movement whose policies they profess to abhor. Surely the publicity must only enhance their standing. I can appreciate lack of understanding of the unions; some members have indicated they have no real association with the unions and some have admitted in their speeches to this House that what they have been saying is confined to what they have read in a book, or sometimes in a newspaper. I think the Hon. Margaret Davis referred in a very sincere but rather naive way to the situation as far as McDonalds were concerned. McDonalds are a noted anti-union firm throughout the world. I appreciate the fact that she tried to investigate this, but I suggest that the investigaion carried out by persons close to the trade union movement turned up a different answer from the one the honourable member gave to the House tonight. Let me say quite clearly that as far as I have been associated with the trade- union movement the average trade union leader is a fairly moderate and sincere officer who wants to do no more than promote the welfare of his members and the community. The vast majority of trade union members are hard-working, industrious people who want little more than security and a decent life, and that is hardly a revolutionary goal. In making these observations I speak not from the pages of text- books or newspapers but from almost thirty years of active participation in the trade union movement. I now wish to refer to the new federalism and some of its possible effects on New South Wales. In an effort to turn back the clock, the federal Government has tried to strong-arm the States back into the income tax field. Members who have preceded me in the House tonight have indicated that this is a desirable path to follow. The Premier has had the good sense and the courage to say he would not have a bar of it. I applaud him for that. In this he has had the support of Labor Premiers of other States and some encouragement from non-Labor Premiers. Viewed in its most kindly light, the new federalism is no more than a smokescreen to enable the central government to unload its national responsibilities on to the States. It flies in the face of governmental trends in other comparable countries with a federal system. Instead of the supposed threat to State sovereignty posed by the encroachment of the former federal Government, the States now face the far more sinister threat of financial strangulation, particularly of their essential works programmes. This Labor Government will no doubt have to run a very tight ship in order to carry out its programme, but I feel we are equal to the task and we certainly will not let the people of New South Wales down. I thank honourable members for their tolerance in listening to me in silence. It is probably the last time that will happen. I look forward to participating in the debates of the House, helping to advance the policies of the party to which I belong and endeavouring to put the State in better shape. I give the assurance that I shall pursue the objectives of my party with enthusiasm and zeal and, above all, within the limits of my capacity, serve the people of New South Wales. The Hon. D. R. Burton] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 561

The Hon. W. R. SCOTT [10.20]: May I first take the opportunity to congratulate the Hon. D. P. Landa on his elevation to the Ministry and on his becoming Vice- President of the Executive Council. I congratulate also the newly elected members, in particular my own colleagues, the Hon. F. J. Darling, the Hon. N. M. Orr and the Hon. W. J. Sandwith. I should like to congratulate those who have made their maiden speeches, namely the Hon. Delcia Kite, the Hon. R. F. Turner, the Hon. J. J. Morris and the Hon. D. R. Burton from the Government benches. In particular, I congratulate the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I feel that other honourable members will wish to emulate him. I shall speak briefly about the Newcastle and Hunter region. As I am the only member from the region in the House, naturally it is close and dear to my heart. I suppose one could say that the region is unique. The economic power and structure of it as a microcosm of the Australian economy reflects the near perfect market testing ground. This is combined with the present and future growth potential in all spectra of industry and resources to provide the most mature region with exceptional investment opportunities. Significant economic indicators reflect the region's resemblance to a mini Australia. To prove that I shall quote from a paper prepared by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation. As to population, when one looks at the under-20-year-old group in Australia one finds that it comprises 37.5 per cent of the population. In the Newcastle and Hunter region it is 37.4 per cent. To break it down to male and female, in Australia the male proportion is 38.2 per cent. In Newcastle it is 38 per cent. Females in Australia comprise 38.6 per cent of the population and in Newcastle they comprise 36.8 per cent. The gross national product per capita for Australia is $3,405. For Newcastle it is $3,793. Household income is $2,599, as disposable, for Australia and $2,667 for Newcastle. I could go on with a long list of that type of thing. Newcastle produces 10 per cent of the gross national product of the nation. Newcastle is the largest export port in Australia. The point is that though a complete microcosm of Australia is there, today Newcastle stands completely out in the wilderness, separate and apart from the rest of the country. One has only to look at the unemployment position in Newcastle where it is 7.2 per cent as against 4.4 per cent in Australia and 4.9 per cent as the average for Sydney. Who created this unemployment? The Hon. Kathleen Anderson: Mr Fraser. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. W. R. SCOTT: The former Labor federal Government created the highest unemployment rate in the nation. At the federal elections in December New- castle had the biggest swing that the Liberal Party has ever received in this century. Then, on 1st May, the biggest swing in this State was in Newcastle, once again for the Liberal Party. The people of Newcastle know full well who created the problem. At least the people there can see through the false facade that the Labar Party created for so long. Honourable members on the Government benches might laugh but if they go to Newcastle they will hear what the people there are saying about the Labor Government. Let us look at shipbuilding. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. W. R. SGOTT: The former Liberal-Country party policy in this State, and no doubt federally, was to maintain not only the shipbuilding industry in Newcastle and not only the ship repair industry there but also the heavy engineering 3 6 562 COUNCIL-Address in Reply industry of Newcastle at the State Dockyard. Why? Not only was it vital to Newcastle; it was vital to the whole of Australia. One has only to look at the defence situation in Australia today. A visit to Sydney by the American nuclear warship Truxtun was proposed. What is the State Labor Government doing? It is bowing to union demands, as it has done in Newcastle for decades, as it is doing now and will always do. One has only to look at the money that the former Liberal-Country party Government spent in Newcastle on the floating dock. The amount was $1 million a year. That was what we as a government spent to keep the dock afloat. If that is not a true indication of what the former Government thought of Newcastle, honourable members now in government should tell me what it is. Can the Labor Party answer the present plight of the dockyard when for two and a half years it has procrastinated, stalled and did not sign the agreement to re-build the dockyard. For two and a half years the Hon. C. K. Jones procrastinated. He holds the record. The Labor Government said that it intended to go ahead with the building of the new dockyard. The Liberal-Country party Government in New South Wales extended the terms of the directors three times. People in Newcastle awaited the signing of that agreement by the federal Minister for Transport, the Hon. C. K. Jones. I remind members opposite that he is the federal member for Newcastle. Bear that well and truly in mind. The federal Labor Government entered into the agreement but never honoured it. It completely reneged. There is no point in blaming the former New South Wales Government. The federal Labor Government reduced the shipbuilding subsidy from 45 per cent to the present subsidy of 35 per cent. What did honourable members hear then? There was not a whimper from the present Government, the press or the Newcastle Trades Hall Council-not a whimper. Now they scream about wanting it to go back to 55 per cent. I ask my colleagues to look at members opposite. Not a whimper from them now. They are spellbound by the facts. Not only was the subsidy reduced from 45 per cent to 35 per cent but the present State Government and the former federal Government intended to reduce the subsidy to 25 per cent by 1981. My colleagues and I on this side of the House, and the Government in Canberra, maintained the subsidy at 35 per cent. Consider that for a moment. Although members opposite are all raving and ranting about the dockyard, they have done nothing constructive but have subscribed to strikes. They are spellbound when the facts and the truth are spelt out to them. The Labor Party in this State and in Canberra stands condemned in the eyes of the 400 000 citizens of the Newcastle-Hunter region. I was in Canberra on 25th August. If honourable members do not recall it, let me remind them that it was the day of the national strike in the shipbuilding industry. I listened with great interest to the dockyard workers and I felt terribly sorry for them. I heard a succession of Labor politicians address the gathering-the likes of one of the golden boys of an earlier era, Tom Uren, and another one of the golden boys, Lionel Bowen. I heard, also, the likes of C. K. Jones, the man who holds the record in New- castle for the longest industrial stoppage. The dock workers said, "Do you mind if we ask a question? Are we right in striking today?" The answer was, "Of course you are right in striking today." C. K. Jones was a boilermaker in the dockyard, as was his brother. They held the record for a 13-day strike in Newcastle. They are colleagues of members on the Government side, not mine. What a formidable line up-the Jones, the Urens, and the Bowens-telling these workers quite plainly and without any con- tradiction that they were right in striking. I ask honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House to look at the record of the dockyard in relation to strikes. What an abominable record it is. During the past ten years more than 13 million man-hours were lost through strikes. The Hon. L. D. Serisier: All under a Liberal-Country party State government. The Hon. W. R. Scott] Address in Reply-7 September, 1976 563

The Hon. W. R. SCOTT: For the honourable member's information, to be precise, the number of man-hours lost at the Newcastle dockyard through strikes last year was 1 555 000. Never once did those strikers or those who supported them think of their own future. I ask the Government where were they when all these strikes were taking place? Also, where was the Newcastle Trades Hall when all these strikes were taking place? Where were the members of the Labor Party from Newcastle then, the ones who are crying now, when 1 555 000 man-hours were lost during the last ten years? As I said before, Charlie Jones and his brother hold the record for the longest strike. At that time the Hon. C. K. Jones was associated with the metal trades industry. I think he was a boilermaker or something of that nature. The Hon. L. D. Serisier: What is wrong with that? The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. W. R. SCOTT: There is nothing wrong with it, but others referred to him as a professional striker. I should like to quote from an article from the metal trades industry association journal. It was written by a Mr Back and it states: If the State Dockyard were to fully close down this would release approximately 2 000 employees on to the labour market and in the present depressed conditions the bulk of these would not be able to find employment in the metal trades industry in the Newcastle area. To this figure of 2 000 must be added the 300 employees released by Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd plus the further unemployment which will be created in sub contractors establishments and this will be particularly severe in

those dependent upon Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd for their existence. I The impossible task of finding employment for the bulk of these people can be put into focus when it is realized that unemployment in the Newcastle area is currently 7.2% as against the Australian average of 4.44% and in Sydney 4.9%. The Metal Trades Industry is working well below the limits imposed by available capacity and the downturn in demand for its goods and services in the Newcastle district has been particularly severe. The Association, on information available to it, does not expect these depressed conditions in the area to improve to any worthwhile extent in the foreseeable future. In this situation it is particularly concerned that further unused capacity will be created in the establishments of subcontractors and suppliers in the event of a closure of the shipyards. It will be obvious that sub contractors, particularly those who have for some years been keyed into shipyard requirements, will find it extremely dBcult to find orders in the depressed outside market place in Newcastle or beyond it. The shipbuilding industry has an excellent record in the training of apprentices and the complex skills in which they have to be trained has made them extremely useful to other industries. The Metal Trades Industry has benefited considerably from the skills developed in the shipyards. This valuable apprenticeship training will of course be lost to the metal industries in the event of a closure of shipyards. Already MTIA has been approached by the State Dockyard with a request to place at least 200 of their apprentices. This will prove virtually impossible in view of the depressed conditions in the Metal Trades Industry. 564 COUNCIL-Address in Reply

The Hon. L. D. Serisier: What was the date of that report? The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. W. R. SCOTT: That article was written only last month. The former Liberal-Country party Government proved beyond doubts its wholehearted support for the Newcastle-Hunter region and the port of Newcastle. The Hon. L. D. Serisier: It showed its support all right. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. L. D. Serisier will cease interjecting. The Hon. W. R. SCOTT: We supported the deepening of Newcastle Harbour to the tune of $70 million. We built an additional coal-loader at Newcastle. Also, we made additions to the Newcastle grain silos. Further, we constructed the roll-on roll-off wharf at Newcastle. Moreover, we reclaimed the Kooragang Island industrial development site to complement the port of Newcastle. Forgetting the rantings, ravings and accusations of the Labor Party, it cannot say that we as a party did not wholeheartedly support the Newcastle-Hunter region and the Newcastle dockyard in its entirety. It is not the future of the dockyard that is in the balance at Newcastle; it is the whole future of Newcastle and the future of this State. On one of his visits to Newcastle recently the present Premier said: If recovery is not observed in Newcastle then all we have is a false recovery. I say to honourable members opposite that if-and I use a capital I for the word if-they and the Labor Party are sincere, concerned and willing to support their fellow workers in New South Wales, they should forget completely their previous misgivings. Labor supporters and individual Labor members in this place should stand up and be counted if they want Newcastle to return to its rightful place as the industrial capital not only of New South Wales but also of the rest of the nation. Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. G. Melville. House adjourned, on motion by the Hon. D. P. Landa, at 10.41 p.m.