House of Representatives
13 June 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The Clerk - I desire to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr Speaker on parliamentary business. In accordance with standing order 14 the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Acting Speaker.

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

page 2191

VIETNAM

Petition

Mr HALLETT presented a petition from certain electors of the Division of Canning praying that the Government convey to the American allies as early as possible its belief that all aspects of the war in Vietnam should be intensified while pursuing a policy of no compromise at the current Paris talks.

Petition received.

page 2191

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health a question. Will he make oxygen available free of charge to age and invalid pensioners suffering from asthma and other bronchial and respiratory complaints to whom the use of oxygen is a matter of life and death? Is the Minister aware that oxygen is costing age and invalid pensioners for whom the treatment has been prescribed between $4 and $6 a month? In view of the matters I have mentioned, will the Minister continue to deny free oxygen to these people?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– This is a matter to which I have given a good deal of attention. There are great difficulties in the way of making oxygen available as a pharmaceutical benefit, principally because the experts have some doubts as to whether oxygen should be used in other than a controlled situation. At one stage I sought the opinion of. I think, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which recommended against the use of oxygen in these cases for the reason I have stated. Nevertheless, I would very much like to be able to make oxygen freely available to persons in the category referred to by the honourable member. I agree with him that this is a real problem. I am continuing investigations into this matter to see whether some way can be found to enable us to make oxygen available as a pharmaceutical benefit and at the same time cope with the kind of difficulty which I have indicated.

page 2191

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. Does Qantas Airways Ltd expect its Boeing 747 jet aircraft to arrive in Australia early in 1971? If so, is it correct that Qantas does not propose to use these 400 passenger aircraft immediately for overseas flights? If this is a fact, will the Minister tell the House how any airline can afford to delay using such costly aircraft for the specific job for which they were purchased, having regard to the fact that airport facilities for their use will be available?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No definite delivery date has been fixed for the Boeing 747, the main reason being that the aircraft have not yet gone into production. It is anticipated that delivery should commence somewhere about 1971. Qantas is well up on the list of orders, so we will get our aircraft fairly early after deliveries commence. The suggestion about Qantas not using the aircraft for international purposes is without foundation. The configuration of the aircraft is for approximately 3S0 passengers, that being somewhat the same basis as that adopted by most of the major international operators. It is the intention of Qantas to bring this aircraft into use immediately for its international services. Although it is yet too early to see the routes on which the first aircraft of this type will be used, I can give a very definite assurance that it is the intention of our international operator to bring the aircraft into international service immediately it is received.

page 2191

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer what reforms he has made to meet the castigation by the High Court which, in Mr Justice Kitto’s words:

  1. . drew public attention to the fact that for two months a man who wants to appeal with legal aid is kept in suspense by somebody as to whether legal aid will be granted to him or not. It is all very well to say that there is no settled scheme for dealing with these matters; there are people before whom this comes, people whose responsibility, if they have a sense of responsibility about such a matter, should drive them to deal with it with the utmost urgency.

The right honourable gentleman would doubtless also have been stirred by the following comments of Mr Justice Windeyer in the same case last August:

What on earth has it got to do with the Treasury to look into a question of law or the administration of justice.

I therefore ask: In what fashion and with what speed is his Department now complying with recommendations by the Attorney-General’s Department concerning the rights and opportunities of citizens to preserve their liberty or their rights in the courts?

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I agree with the statements that are alleged to have been made by those two justices of the High Court and with the suggestion that the Commonwealth, particularly the Department of the Treasury, should do all in its power to facilitate an appeal if a person feels that he has suffered an injustice at the hands of Commonwealth officials. But I should have thought that if the honourable gentleman could point to any other case in which such an injustice might have occurred, he would have had the courtesy and common sense to inform me of it. I would have had it investigated and, if I found that there was any injustice, I would have seen that it was removed. Nonetheless, in courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, I will make inquiries and if I find that there are any delays I will do my best to see that they are overcome.

page 2192

QUESTION

PRICES OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I ask: Are new measures to be taken because of the response of overseas car manufacturers in Australia to his recent pressures on Japanese car importers? Is their latest attempt to raise the prices charged to Australian purchasers a cynical inflationary exploitation of his policies, bearing in mind their very generous profitability? Will he take steps to review urgently the whole question of protection and pricing in the motor vehicle field? Will he undertake to subject the so called Australian manufacturers to the same cost-profit investigation that apparently is being applied to the Japanese?

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The honourable gentleman bases his question in part on what he describes as the generous profitability of the motor car companies. If he studied the balance sheets of these companies over recent years I think he would not find that general statement borne out.

Mr Webb:

– I take a point of order, ls the Acting Prime Minister entitled to turn his back to the Chair?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Sir John Cramer:

– The honourable member who asked the question is over here, and not on the other side of the chamber.

Mr Curtin:

– The Minister is supposed to answer to the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister would be heard if interjections ceased.

Mr McEWEN:

– I will not be heard until they cease, Mr Acting Speaker. The Japanese industries exporting motor cars to Australia were found, principally by the Department of Customs, and Excise and partly by the Department of Trade and Industry, to be evading the Australian tariff. They were interrogated and, as I have already told the House, on every occasion this was in the presence of an official of the Japanese Ministry of International Trade. They accepted that they were improperly pricing their vehicles in this country and making it very difficult for manufacturing companies in Australia, which are without exception overseas owned, to compete with them. What is the consequence of difficulty to compete? The manufacturer ceases to sell his product, reduces his price or refrains from increasing his price. That is how unfair competition is met and that is how the manufacturers in Australia met this unfair competition.

The Japanese manufacturers, with the approval and acceptance of their Government, started to price their motor cars correctly. They increased the price of their vehicles very substantially, and the amount has been published. This gave the manufacturers in Australia the opportunity - they are apparently taking it - to price their own motor cars within the limits of the protection that this Parliament has approved. That is the position now. Unhappily, one manufacturer of cars in Australia found the competition so severe that it has practically gone out of the business of total manufacture here. I refer to Volkswagen (Australia) Lid. This is very substantially the result of a long period of unfair Japanese competition. The Japanese competition today is fair and the tariff is operating as it was intended to operate.

page 2193

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S OVERSEAS BALANCES

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What was the amount of our overseas funds sacrificed in the recent devaluation of its currency by Great Britain? What is the amount of Australia’s current overseas balances? In view of the instability of sterling, United States dollars and French francs, what action is the Government taking to protect the value of our overseas funds?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– In answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, 1 inform him that the amount of loss that the British devaluation caused us was of the order of $A113m. 1 take it that in the second part of his question the honourable gentleman asks what we are doing to protect our overseas balances. We cannot do much more lo safeguard against devaluation by any other country than permit the Reserve Bank to provide forward exchange cover for Australian traders. We have not engaged in a policy of deliberate shifts of our overseas holdings from the United Kingdom to the currencies of other countries.

However, if the honourable gentleman looks at the figures, which I do not have in my mind at the moment but which I will make available for him, he will see that over the last 4 or 5 years we have so arranged our short term assets in the dollar market, in the sterling market and with the International Monetary Fund that we have a more equitable distribution of our resources and we have also ensured that our assets are better related to our long term liabilities in those markets. In other words, while there has been no policy to make any large or sudden switch out of sterling, the change in our pattern of trade and our borrowings overseas and our negotiations with the Fund have led to a reallocation of our resources that I think at the moment is satisfactory to this country and as good as we can do in the circumstances.

page 2193

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In view of the heavy build up of commercial and tourist traffic since the introduction of jet aircraft onto the Darwin-Alice Springs-Adelaide route, and the attendant increase in the number of travellers to eastern States and to the West, will the Minister for Civil Aviation give consideration to the introduction of jet services direct from Sydney to Perth via Alice Springs.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– So far consideration has not been given to this matter; but in view of the fact that it has now been raised we certainly will have it looked at. This is principally a matter for the airlines themselves. 1 will sec that the matter is referred to them. I would be doubtful whether there would be sufficient traffic to warrant the introduction of this service at the moment, but perhaps some investigation would reveal the potential. After the consideration by the airlines, I will let the honourable member know what the position is.

page 2193

QUESTION

SALE OF FIREARMS

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral. In view of the concern expressed in the United States of America over the use of firearms and the fact that already one attempt at the assassination of a prominent member of a parliament has been made in Australia, will he confer with his State colleagues with a view to introducing uniform legislation covering the sale of firearms and the compulsory registration of all firearms in Australia?

Mr BOWEN:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member for Wide Bay will appreciate that this is largely a matter for the States. I think that understanding is implicit in his question. I certainly will take this matter up with my fellow Attorneys-General who will be in Canberra on the 20th and 21st of this month at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. Although the agenda is fixed now and it is too late to have this matter placed on the agenda with a paper prepared on it, I will take the opportunity of raising the matter with them.

page 2194

QUESTION

ARMY DISCIPLINE

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Army. In view of the Press reports that I have read regarding additional charges being preferred against Captain Rule, will the Minister inform me of the present position regarding Captain Rule?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for the Army · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– In view of the unusual circumstances of this case, I took the opportunity last evening to have lengthy discussions with the Adjutant-General, having regard to the findings in the matters so far dealt with and the nature of the outstanding charges. The Adjutant-General also has discussed the matter with the convening authority. Having regard to all the circumstances, the convening authority has decided that any further charges against Captain Rule should be dropped. 1 must say before this House that 1 believe this to be a proper decision.

This matter, as honourable members on both sides of the House realise, has been under investigation for a comparatively lengthy period and has been accompanied by considerable Press publicity. I am satisfied thai the Army authorities have acted in good faith throughout. But I can well understand and appreciate the mental distress which has been caused to Captain Rule in this situation. His performance as a member of the Australian Army training team in Vietnam was outstanding and makes it all the more regrettable that events occurred that caused the Army to take the action which it did. In the result, he has emerged with no stain whatsoever on his character or reputation.

page 2194

QUESTION

NIGERIA

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Is the Federal Government of Nigeria, either through policy or through inability to discipline its troops, engaging in what amounts to genocide of the Ibo peoples? If so, will the Australian Government take steps to bring the matter before the United Nations, or make representations asking suppliers of arms to Nigeria to desist, or take steps to supply arms to Biafra to enable it to exercise the right of self defence?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Obviously, I would not be in possession of factual information on this matter. However, I am aware of the general problems in Nigeria and of the role played by the United Nations. But I really cannot accept the proposition that whenever a problem arises in any part of the world, the initiative in raising it with the United Nations should remain with Australia. I think those who are much closer to the affairs of Nigeria are raising this matter in the United Nations now. I would not expect that Australia would take a prime initiative in this matter.

page 2194

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr ST JOHN:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Army. He may recall that the honourable member for Yarra has recently said: ‘In my opinion, we’ - that is, the Australian and allied forces - ‘are the aggressors in Vietnam’, and has stated also: There are very few North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam’. These are claims which are in line with Communist propaganda, which would have it that the war in Vietnam is essentially-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his question.

Mr ST JOHN:

– Can the Minister inform the House what proportion of Communist troops in South Vietnam is comprised of soldiers of the North Vietnamese Army? Can he also inform the House of the nationality of the troops who have recently been conducting fierce rocket, mortar and ground assaults on Australian forward bases, causing heavy loss of life in Bien Hoa Province, not far from Saigon?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– All the evidence available in this matter clearly gives the lie to any charge or claim that what is happening in the Vietnam theatre at present is a civil war situation. We know, and we have long since said, that what is happening in Vietnam today is the result of a direct attempt by one country - to wit, the North - to overcome South Vietnam by a process of direct infiltration, subversion and terror techniques of the worst possible type. I am informed that it is estimated that there are currently some 70,000 North Vietnamese regular army personnel in South Vietnam, plus 15,000 North Vietnamese soldiers with Vietcong units. I understand this represents about 70% of the total strength of the Communist forces. Many so called Vietcong units are now less than 20% indigenous South Vietnamese, compared with the very small proportion of North Vietnamese who were part of the total Communist combat strength in December 1964.

Since agreeing to talks in Paris the North Vietnamese have refused to acknowledge the presence of their troops in South Vietnam, yet they continue to infiltrate to South Vietnam in their thousands.

Mr Uren:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. This is supposed to have been a question without notice, but it has clearly been a question on notice. The Minister has the right to make a statement after question time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister has been asked a question, lt is the practice for a Minister to answer a question in the manner he chooses.

Mr LYNCH:

– The percentage of North Vietnamese regular army personnel in the enemy combat units has been increased to over 70%. I am informed that captured enemy personnel confirm that elements of North Vietnamese regular army units were involved in recent attacks on Saigon and were responsible for recent large-scale attacks against Australian positions in northern Bien Hoa Province. This very clearly gives the lie to any charge that the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam is a civil war. All the evidence points to the contrary.

page 2195

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BENSON:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether, in preparing the next Budget, he will consider enabling aldermen and councillors throughout Australia to claim, as a taxation deduction, a percentage of their election expenses. The Treasurer will be aware just how much it costs these days to mount an election campaign. The people I have mentioned act closely with the Government in serving the community, frequently without any remuneration.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The question deserves close consideration because it must be obvious to us that mayors, aldermen and councillors are closest to the people and have the job of satisfying the immediate needs of the people. 1 will examine carefully, in the Budget context, whether something can be done to permit a taxation deduction or some kind of allowance. I cannot hold out any prospects at the moment because I have no wish to give people false expectations. Nonetheless, because of the importance of these people to the overall government of the country, I will look carefully at the situation in the Budget context.

page 2195

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to reports that the main runway of Kingsford-Smith Airport is to be extended to 13,500 feet to take jumbo jets, such as the Boeing 747, but that it is not intended to extend similarly the main runway at Tullamarine. Does this mean that after completion of Tullamarine Airport, at great cost, by the end of 1969 it will be opened as a second class airport? Will the Minister give an undertaking that both Kingsford-Smith Airport and Tullamarine Airpot will ultimately be completed to the same standard and so end the present disquiet?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– One thing with which I can agree most wholeheartedly is that great cost has been associated with the development of the airport in Sydney. In fact, the total expenditure approved for works undertaken or to be undertaken is approximately $120m. That should afford an appreciation of what the Government has done in relation to the development of this major airport. Geography, as well as the overseas airlines, including our own overseas airline, decides where the major airport will be. We know from agreements that we have with various countries, and from the rights that we negotiate with them, that most of those countries regard the Sydney airport as being the major or principal international airport in Australia at the moment and for the foreseeable future. Because of the difficulties associated with the extension of the main runway at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport we have given early approval to go ahead with that extension.

Tullamarine (Melbourne) is also being designed as a major international airport of a standard as good as any other in the world, and when if is completed it will be opened for use as an airport of that standard. Our plans for the future envisage aircraft such as the 747s and the supersonics using a number of international facilities in Australia, one of which will be at Melbourne. There will be others at Brisbane and otter places in the future. As I have said, because of the tremendous work involved at the Sydney Airport we have had to proceed at an early date, and approval for enormous expenditure on this work has been given, but’ I can give an assurance that when the new airport in Melbourne is opened it will be up to the highest world standards and will continue to be developed according to such standards as requirements arise in the future.

page 2196

QUESTION

HEALTH

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Do some specialist doctors appear to be fleecing patients on whom they operate, by charging upwards of three times the amount of the Commonwealth benefit payable for such operations, plus attendance fees while those patients are in hospital? Are charges of $140 for prostatectomy operations and $350 for cornea operations considered reasonable, particularly when such operations are performed on patients living on fixed incomes? What are the duties of house doctors in hospitals? Are specialists entitled in effect to have their own doctor friends visit patients and charge them accordingly without ever having made examinations of those patients, although house doctors are available to attend those patients? Is the Minister aware that the imposition of charges for these services drains a contributor’s entitlement to benefits from medical funds, leaving him without further entitlement to fund benefits for a considerable period, during which further illness may occur? Finally, what is the formula used for determining whether a patient should be classified, for hospital admission purposes, as a public intermediate or private ward patient?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– 1 will have to study the implications of the honourable member’s question and give him a detailed reply. Answering the last part of the question on the subject of classification of patients as public, intermediate or private ward patients, I inform the honourable member that this is a matter for the State hospital authorities and has nothing to do with this Government. The honourable member also asked about the rights of doctors who have patients in public hospitals. Again this is a matter for the State hospital authorities and State governments. As to the charges levied by specialists and the benefits payable to patients, the Commonwealth Government has no control, of course, over charges made by doctors, including specialists.

In fixing the amount of benefit the Government takes into account the most common charges in respect of particular medical procedures, and the benefits are decided on the basis of those charges. However, the charges made by specialists vary widely, and 1 think properly, according to the status, the degree of skill, the standing and so on of particular medical practitioners. The only thing I would say to the honourable member, and to anybody else who is faced with this situation, is that they should have a careful talk with their doctors about fees and charges before committing themselves “to an operation or to a procedure of this sort.

page 2196

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister and I preface it by saying that criticism is being levelled at the Government for its delay in deciding upon a system and a date for the introduction of colour television. The latest criticism appears in today’s Press. 1 ask: In view of the fact that the high standard of living enjoyed by Australians today is still very largely dependent upon rural industries, which provided 66.6% of Australia’s export income in 1966-67, much of the produce coming from areas which do not have television, will the Acting Prime Minister give an assurance that priority for Government expenditure in the field of television will continue to be for the extension of television facilities into those areas not already receiving television programmes?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I am not in a position to speak with intimate knowledge on this issue. Obviously it is within the province of the Postmaster-General: But I can say, with a certain amount of confidence, that the Government would not become financially involved in colour television at the expense of extending ordinary television facilities to those areas of Australia where it is practicable to extend this facility and which do not at the present time enjoy it. I am not in a position to speak of priorities but I am quite sure that the Government would not pursue a policy of further improving television facilities to the point of providing colour television in the cities if the direct consequence of that policy was to prevent the extension of television to those country areas where it is intended to establish television services.

page 2197

QUESTION

WORKERS COMPENSATION

Mr WEBB:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and refers to a statement he made last week about Commonwealth employees compensation. He may remember that during the course of the debate on this matter 1 asked whether he would raise at a Premiers Conference the question of a co-ordinated workers compensation Act. He nodded his head at that time, indicating that he would do this. Unfortunately his action at that time could not be recorded in Hansard. 1 now ask whether he would give consideration to this matter being raised at the forthcoming Premiers Conference or at a conference of State Ministers for Labour?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will nod my head again. I hope, Sir, that, on this occasion, Hansard notices my action.

page 2197

QUESTION

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– -I ask the Minister for National Development whether we are moving closer to an effective system of priorities in relation to public works throughout Australia, so furthering the aim of balanced national development.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– So far as different projects are concerned in the water resources field, for example, my Department uses very extensively a system of priorities based on a form of cost benefit analysis. There is a difficulty in comparing the benefits of water resources projects with some forms of mineral production, for example, or with a forestry project, because cost benefit analyses really only compare one project with a similar project. It is finally up to the Government itself to set the priorities after deciding what the country can afford and then to proceed along those lines.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What progress has been made with the thorough test and inspection of the Fill aircraft which the Minister for Defence promised would be made prior to Australia taking delivery of the aircraft from July this year? Who is making the test and inspection and has the inspection team been given the utmost cooperation by the Government of the United States of America and the firm of General Dynamics? What further delay in delivery is expected as a result of the test and inspection? Have any serious faults in construction or operation been found by the inspecting and testing team?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– My colleague the PostmasterGeneral is Acting Minister for Defence, but he is not present this morning; I think he is indisposed. I will treat the honourable member’s question as a question on notice and arrange for the Acting Minister for Defence to furnish him with all the information that is available.

page 2197

QUESTION

ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Will he be kind enough to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister on his return from overseas the desirability of designating now a Minister with imagination - one readily springs to mind - to receive suggestions from the public, and himself to give thought to the question how best to commemorate in a worthwhile, enduring and appropriate way, the 200th anniversary of. the discovery of the east coast of Australia by Captain Cook in 1 770, and to make recommendations, including the financial aspect, to the Government?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I. will be glad to bring the points raised by the honourable member to the attention of the Prime Minister. I am sure that the Prime Minister and all Australians will wish there to be an appropriate commemoration of the event which gave birth to this nation.

page 2198

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Mr WHITLAM:

– In directing a question to the Acting Prime Minister I point out to him that the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, made a statement on Rhodesia 4 days after the Security Council passed its first resolution on that subject and that the House debated the statement the following day. 1 would also point out that the Security Council passed a further resolution over a fortnight ago now and called upon all member states to report to the Secretary-General by 1st August, which date will fall before this House resumes for the Budget period. I ask the right honourable gentleman whether the Government’s failure to make a statement on this occasion indicates any want of support for the last Security Council resolution to which I have referred. I also ask him when honourable members and the public will be informed of the methods by which, and the extent to which the Government will comply with its obligations under the resolution?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– 1 am sure there will be no avoidance by the Government of disclosure to the House and to the public of its own attitude and its own actions in this connection. The absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister for External Affairs is relevant to the course of action, but the matter has been under consideration by the Government and appropriate steps will be taken. No-one would know better than the Leader of the Opposition that in the discussions of the House last week events gave a priority to other matters less important than the matter which he now raises. Had we been able to deal more expeditiously with the legislation before the House last week, and had this question been asked then, we might have had a statement before the week was out.

Mr Bryant:

– On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Is it proper for the right honourable gentleman to reflect upon the proceedings of the House?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in that point of order. The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat.

page 2198

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Mr ARMSTRONG:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did the Commonwealth Government agree to make a loan to the New South Wales Government of a sum equal to that State’s share in the cost of the Chowilla Dam when the cost was estimated at $28m? If so, was the Commonwealth’s action in this regard the deciding factor in New South Wales joining South Australia, Victoria and the Commonwealth in the project? Now that the cost has risen to at least $68m, can the Treasurer indicate whether the Commonwealth Government will increase the amount of the loan to New South Wales in the event of it being decided to proceed with the project?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, the Commonwealth Government did enter into an agreement with the New South Wales Government to provide funds for that Government in order to allow work being carried out on the Chowilla Dam by the River Murray Commission to continue. If I can put the last two questions together, the honourable gentleman will know that the whole question of the Chowilla Dam, or what, is to be done about it in the future, is under consideration now by my colleague the Minister for National Development. I would not like to enter into his field. What I can tell the honourable gentleman is that if it is decided to proceed with the Chowilla project increased costs of the scheme to New South Wales would. of course, be borne by us by way of loan under the existing Chowilla reservoir agreement with New South Wales. If there were any change in plans the Minister for National Development would bring them to Cabinet and we would then have to make a decision as to what was to be done about the new scheme.

page 2198

SUPERANNUATION

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · Lowe · LP

– Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1967 I present the forty-fifth annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30th June 1 967, together with financial accounts and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those accounts.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2199

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill 1968. Commonwealth Railways Bill 1968. Loans Securities Bill 1968. States Grants (Drought Assistance) Bill 1968. States Grants (Drought Reimbursement) Bill 1968.

page 2199

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1968

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 2199

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Snedden) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent (a) Government Business taking precedence over General Business at this sitting, and (b) a definite matter of public importance being submitted to the House for discussion at a later hour this day.

page 2199

LOAN BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 May (vide page 1747), on motion by Mr McMahon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This Bill seeks to amend the Loan Act 1967 in order that the Government may borrow up to $360m from the Reserve Bank in the financial year ending 30th June 1968. Under the Loan Act 1967, passed late last year, the Government was authorised to borrow for defence purposes up to $300m. The Government is not now able accurately to predict the outcome of its overall transactions and it feels that it is prudent to seek authority to borrow an additional $60m. This is the purpose of the measure as stated in the short title of the Bill, but to suggest that is really the substance of the measure is to ignore a lot of very fundamental realities associated with the overall transactions of the Commonwealth of Australia. What might be called the totality of the Budget is not to be gleaned from this measure. Moreover, the fiction has been perpetrated that any sums raised will be applied to defence purposes. The only reason why that fiction is perpetrated is to be found in the terms of the Financial Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which was assented to in 1928. Clause 3 (h) of Part I of that Agreement states: If the Loan Council -

That is the annua] meeting of the Commonwealth and the States - decides that the total amount of the loan programme for the year cannot be borrowed at reasonable rate and conditions it shall decide the amount to be borrowed for the year, and may by unanimous decision allocate such amount between the Commonwealth and the States.

However, Clause 4 (a) of Part I of the agreement states:

Except in cases where the Loan Council has decided under sub-clause (b) of this clause thai moneys shall be borrowed by a State, the Commonwealth, while Part II. or Part I II. of this - Agreement is in force, shall subject to the decisions of the Loan Council and subject also to Clauses 5 and 6 of this Part of this Agreement, arrange for all borrowings for or on behalf of the Commonwealth or any State, and for all conversions, renewals, redemptions, and consolidations of the Public Debts of the Commonwealth and of the States.

Then it goes on to suggest further that loans raised for the purposes of defence will nol come within the Loan Council arrangement. That clause puts before us the fiction that that borrowing is for defence purposes. In essence, borrowing is to meet any shortcomings between the total expenditure of the Government and its total income from all sources. The difference is bridged by the Loan Bill. There is no suggestion in the Loan Bill as to whether the sum finally is raised from the public at large or from financial institutions or whether it is merely borrowed from another Government department called the Reserve Bank. Of course, what is done finally makes quite considerable differences to the totality of the Budget.

I draw the attention of the House to a document circulated with the Budget and entitled, ‘Supplement to the Treasury Information Bulletin’, which deals with national accounting estimates of public authority receipts and expenditure. The document dated August 1967 shows the transactions of the Government over a 5-year period from 1962-63 to 1966-67. The table I wish to refer to is headed Increases in Holdings of Government Securities Redeemable in Australia’. The table shows that in 1962-63 there was a net repayment to the Reserve Bank of $138m, in 1963-64 a net repayment of $M3m, in 1964-65 a net borrowing from the Reserve Bank of $130m, in 1965-66 a net repayment of$1 13m and in 1966-67 a net borrowing of $124m. It also lists other transactions by the banking system, the savings banks and the private banks, and the amount raised in aggregate from the public. It shows that the following amounts were raised from the public:

Whether money is raised through the banking system or from what is called the public does not really matter.’ The public’ is a loose term. It means anybody other than the banking system. The public in this sense is really the captive lenders to insurance companies and other such financial institutions. Very little of the vast sum of $274m raised last year was in essence raised directly from John Citizen or the man in the street. For the most part, the sums are financial management or financial manipulation, if that term is preferred, between the private and the public sectors of the economy.

Budget statements have been presented in latter years in a way that attempts to relate the totality of the Budget to the performance of the economy as a whole. The difficulty always is that this is working on pretty fine margins. At least the margins are pretty fine in terms of the total, although they may be substantial in the eyes of the ordinary person. Even a sum as large as $274m is not much more than 1% of the gross national product. Whether the economy is buoyant or exuberant, to use the words that financial journalists have chosen in recent times, or whether it is in recession or tending towards inflation largely depends upon the expenditure more or less in the public hand of a sum that is about 1% of the gross national product. That is the margin we work on. In total, the sum being sought here is not unduly large. We have already sanctioned $300m. We are now proposing to raise it to $360m.

But I want to draw attention to what I have described as the fiction that this money is being applied for defence purposes only.

In terms of the strict logic of the Bill, that may appear to be so; but in essence, of course, that is not so. Anybody who wants to receive a payment from the Commonwealth is not particularly interested in whether the amount he receives is raised via pay-roll tax or income tax or whether, if it is raised via income tax, it is levied on companiesrather than individuals. All that a person seeking a payment wants is a payment that is negotiable, whether it is a cheque on the Commonwealth, cash over the post office counter or whether it is in some other form. In essence that is what the transactions of government are. They are the total of all that is collected in one way and another and of what is generated in the community by government activity. When I was a student of economics many years ago I was led to believe - I still think rightly, to a degree - that money pumped into the system via the Reserve Bank was a costless process to begin with. It did help to stimulate economic activity in the community. As I say, I still think that the belief applies.

In any year recourse may have to be made to Reserve Bank credit and in some years even withdrawal and circulation of money via the banking system through the medium of the Reserve Bank may be made. This is a weapon that the Government has at its disposal at any time. In my view, it is a very sensible weapon - a weapon that is best exercised in the hands of the Government rather than, as sometimes happens, farming it out by proxy to the other parts of the banking system which, in our Australian system, are not public institutions but private institutions.

The tendency has risen in latter years not only to add the books up, as it were, in the last months of the year but also to adopt the attitude that if private activity is going along as desired, it is to be allowed to have its head, and if private industry is not running as vigorously as the Government would like the system is to be stimulated via injections of credit into it through the Reserve Bank. To my mind, that is not a power that should be exercised haphazardly. It is a power that ought to be exercised with some sense of priority and discrimination as to when and where the medium is applied. One of the difficulties of the Australian economy at the moment is that there is too much of a tendency to let things drift along in the hope that in the finish they will turn up well, and not to ask so much about the quality of what is circulating as to be satisfied merely about the quantity of what is circulating. I suggest that governments these days ought to pay much more attention to the quality of performance rather than they do to the quantity of performance. In other words it is important whether the gross national product is a certain total and to whether in relation to it we are producing an over-abundance of motor cars and not building enough schools and hospitals. 1 think there has to be some kind of qualitative performance as against quantitative performance. At least this measure affords us some opportunity to adjudicate upon the performances of the various parts of the economy.

What is the situation that we are getting into in Australia at the moment? It has been adverted to on more than one occasion by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). The suggestion is that the money that is being expended on defence in this country limits the ability of the country to do other things. I suggest that is a reasonable enough observation. After all we are spending approximately 5% of our gross national product on defence. It is actually not quite that amount this year; it is probably more than 4% but certainly not 5% of our gross national product. But the expenditure of great sums on defence certainly limits our ability in other directions.

Another matter that also ought to be noted is how much of this vast expenditure on defence is taking place not in Australia but outside Australia. Insofar as the money is expended outside Australia two sets of consequences arise. Our balance of payments situation is affected and it may well be that things that could be better done in Australia are being done externally. It is about those two aspects that I wish to have something to say also.

I believe that Australia has a greater potential to defend itself, and to make internally the physical goods required for defence, than is demonstrated by the fact that we go abroad to purchase requirements. I look with great dissatisfaction at the moment at the situation occurring within the Australian aircraft industry. Of the several factories engaged in this industry, two happen to be in my electorate in Victoria but others are in other States.

There are also other defence establishments. At the moment the employment figure of these factories is running down, not because Australian defence activity is running down but because the proportion of defence expenditure in Australia is declining in relation to expenditure outside Australia. At the moment the Australian aircraft industry is almost facing extinction. Unless the Government makes some fairly early pronouncement, as I hope it will, this decline will continue. This is a very sad thing for Australia. Aeroplanes could be made here for defence purposes and also for civil purposes. At least some types could be manufactured here. I am not suggesting that we should make in Australia everything that we require in this field. Such a suggestion may be a little foolish. On the other hand I think that we should try to make within Australia anything that it is physically and financially possible for us to build.

Both propositions, in my view, apply concerning a great deal of our defence expenditure. We could build aeroplanes. We could build ships. We could make munitions that at the moment are being imported. I direct attention to the situation in the aircraft industry alone. Several thousand people, very skilled workers, are facing dismissal without any immediate prospect of sensible integration into some other form of industry in Australia. This position merits the serious attention of the Government. At least this Bill raises this question because, ostensibly, the loan that is being sanctioned by this legislation is for defence purposes both within and without Australia.

I make the suggestion that we should seriously consider what is happening. In my view Australia is spending far too much on defence. I think that the vast sums of money that are being expended are being expended wastefully. As I have said before, the country is no better defended because the F111 aircraft now cost $300m. instead of $112m. which was the first figure suggested. Australia is not three times better off in the field of defence because the bill for these aircraft is three times as high as it was expected to be. This is one of the illusions that the Government has. The Government thinks that because it is spending a large sum of money on defence and because it can relate that large sum to an even larger sum - the gross national product - Australians should sleep safely in their beds because now the country is spending between 4i% and 5% of the gross national product on defence instead of an amount slightly less than 4%, which was the measure previously.

I say fairly categorically that considerable wastages occur in defence expenditure. In my belief, the Parliament as it operates at present has not the control over defence expenditure that a parliament sensibly ought to have. We perpetuate the fiction, if I might use that expression, that every $1 that is spent in Australia is spent ultimately only when Parliament has sanctioned the expenditure. I ask honourable members to consider the way in which we transact business in this House. This Bill alone provides for expenditure in aggregate of $360m. I suppose we will be lucky if it is debated for more than an hour. If this is regarded as a sensible allocation of expenditure and if it is believed that the Parliament feels and knows that every $1 that is to be expended is to be sensibly expended, I point out at once that this certainly is not my idea of proper parliamentary responsibility. The suggestion has been made before - and I repeat it - that just as we have a Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts so we should follow the practice of the Parliament of Great Britain and have a defence estimates committee as well. After all, this is the greatest single sum expended at any government level in the whole of Australia. An amount of over $ 1,000m is more in total than were budgets 10 or 20 years ago. But this amount gets only perfunctory attention in debates on the Estimates and on various defence statements and financial measures that are put to the House for consideration. I believe this is not good enough.

I would like to say something more about the vast sums that this Government is spending outside Australia on defence. I have drawn to the attention of the House on a previous occasion a table headed Commonwealth Expenditure on War and Defence- 1958-59 to 1966-67 and 1967-68 (Estimated)’, which appears at page 8 of a document which was entitled ‘National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure’, issued by the Treasury in August 1967. The table indicates that whereas in 1958-59 defence expen diture was $363m, in 1967-68 the estimated expenditure is $ 1,054m. In other words the amount in 1967-68 is treble that of 1958- 59, although I realise that the value of money has fallen and the purchase prices of defence equipment have probably risen more rapidly over this period than the prices of other equipment. The other interesting figures are the figures for the overseas component of defence spending. In 1965-66 the overseas component of the total defence expenditure of $68 lm was $151m. This was really less than a quarter of total defence expenditure. But this financial year, with expenditure on defence estimated at $ 1,054m, expenditure overseas is estimated at $321m. This amount is pretty close to one-third of the total expenditure on defence. I believe the same document indicates that it is estimated that expenditure overseas on defence may rise by another $100m in the next financial year.

We are reaching a stage at which $1 out of every $3 spent on defence is being expended overseas. In many cases, overseas expenditure on defence is for the purchase of rather complicated mechanisms that, with a little bit of foresight, could be made in Australia, thereby providing employment in Australian industries and improving their techniques and advancing their sophistication. If this money was not spent overseas we could also save on foreign exchange. Australia is reaching a stage at which it is experiencing balance of payments problems. On the debit side, we have defence expenditure transacted overseas. On the credit side, we have the inflow into this country of foreign capital. Both of these items should be corrected. We could spend less abroad and more internally on defence. We could certainly reduce the flow of foreign capital into this country from overseas. In many respects foreign investors pick the eyes out of investment opportunities in Australia and, as a result, obtain overseas capital and very handsome dividends and capital gains. In many instances, the sort of economic endeavour that is ultimately undertaken could well be undertaken by the enterprise of our own industries.

In many respects Australian industry has been most unenterprising. It talks about itself as private enterprise. In many instances the word ‘private’ is rightly applied but the word ‘enterprise’ is misapplied. To a great degree Australian industry has lacked enterprise. Private enterprise, when, by propaganda, it seeks protection, claims that the virtue of its system is the taking of risks. In many respects, it has succeeded in having these risks underwritten in Australia by Government action. The Government has assisted private enterprise by tax concessions and so on. As a result, private enterprise, or free enterprise, virtually gets a ride free of risk. To some extent we are suffering as a consequence of high costs. I do not believe that high costs in Australian industry are due to tariff measures. I believe that in many respects the tariff has been necessary to promote economic development, in Australia. But this does not hide the reality that in some instances it perhaps ought to be re-examined. For these reasons, I have developed my speech in the way 1 have. I think this Bill is more than merely a defence measure. 1 think it is a measure that’ involves us in trying to estimate. It is difficult, until the final outcome of the financial year, to know whether the additional $60m will be required. As I have suggested, $60m is not a lot of money. This amount is only about one four-hundredth part of the total financial activity in Australia in the course of a year.

What has happened in this financial year as against the previous one is that private enterprise and private business - or the nonpublic sector of the economy - has been a bit more adventurous. Last year the Government’s financial propositions were simpler because the private side of industry was flagging. Last year, people took government loans because private enterprise did not attract their money. The people put their money into the safe deposit of a government security. This year there has been less support by the public of loans made available by the government, for the reason that the money that would not have been spent privately, but would have been made available for public spending, has gone into private spending. For that reason, the private side of the economy is more active this financial year, in aggregate, than it was in the previous year. It is so active in some respects this year that people are already talking about inflation and the need to curb what they call consumer spending.

As I indicated previously, there are still very large sections of the Australian community whose consumer spending is limited and smaller than it should be. The people who are spending less than they justly should be able to spend are pensioners and those living on fixed incomes. I hope that there will be a substantial adjustment in the amount paid in social service benefits in the coming financial year. 1 am glad to see that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), who was previously the Minister for Social Services, is at the table. He would concur with my views. I am sure, as, I believe, will the new Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth. But the Minister for Social Services will have to face they type of log chopping that will go on in the next few months in relation to the total of the Government’s expenditure and the way in which it is to be applied as between one purpose and another. If we increase the basic rate of a pension by $1 a week, or, say, $50 a year, and allow for 700.000 pensioners, the total cost of the increased benefit will be about $35m. to$40m. The Government has no compunction whatever to securing a sanction for $60m.to be spent on defence. I hope that the same sort of planning will be given to the allocation of money for social services. If we had to make a choice - I do not know that we necessarily would have to make a precise choice - as to whether $60m. more should be spent on defence or on social services, my choice would be for the money to be spent on social services. Possibly we could gel more value for our defence expenditure if we were more careful as to how it was allocated. In the sum of well over $ 1,000m. that we provide for defence each year there must be a margin of waste. It is the responsibility of the Government and of the Parliament to cut down the waste; this would mean pruning expenditure in one direction and providing more mobility in another direction. We do not object to the Bill but we use it as an opportunity to question the financial arrangements currently being employed by the Government.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– This Bill, because it authorises an increase in the amount of money that the Government may raise by way of loan for defence purposes, gives us a chance to discuss generally the issues of defence. Defence expenditure has become a tremendously important item in the accounting of this country, because it has risen to a level of about$1, 11 8m in the Budget estimates and probably will be nearer $ 1,200m when the end of the year settling up occurs. This is a lot of money - it is public money - and we in this Parliament have an obligation to ensure that the cost effectiveness of this expenditure is maximised.

I start by saying- indeed, this agrees with what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has said and with what I said a few weeks ago in the House in reply to a statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) - that the time is well and truly overdue when the Parliament ought to maintain a joint committee of inquiry into defence arrangements and not only into defence expenditure. It is about time that members of the Parliament had some avenue by which they could reach the defence planning decision makers and could investigate the decisions that are being made for Australia’s defence. My own experience in recent weeks has been that it is altogether too difficult to obtain information about Australia’s defence decisions and what is being done. For instance, I wanted to discover quickly some information about payments that are being made overseas at present and which will have to bc made in the future for defence equipment, but apparently this information is not available. Someone asked a question on notice about this subject but the Minister as yet has not signed the reply. According to word which came from one of the Departments this morning through an officer of the Library, the information cannot be supplied until the reply is signed. The Parliament has to sit back and wait. It is a fundamental piece of information; it is not confidential or classified. Surely to goodness the Parliament is entitled to a full breakdown, progressively, of expenditure on defence. We are certainly entitled to far more information than we receive as to why decisions are made to purchase certain items of defence equipment.

Wc have a moral obligation, as members of the Federal Parliament, to obtain this information. The Government has a moral obligation to make available far more information than it is presently prepared to make available so (hat members may scrutinise what is being done by the Government in its handling o) public money - and it is public money which the Government is using. 1 repeat that by the end of the year the Government will have expended probably $ 1,200m on defence commitments. This is one of the biggest items of expenditure that the Government has to handle. There has been a dramatic increase in defence expenditure in recent years compared to previous years. During the last 4 years expenditure on defence has increased from a little over 3% of the gross national product to over 4.8%. Each year in that period defence expenditure increased by about .6% of the gross national product or, in other words, the total spending in the community. During the 4 years prior to that period expenditure on defence was rather stagnant. During that 4-year period the total expenditure on defence increased by only .1%. In fact, in 1962-63, defence expenditure actually decreased.

We have been projected suddenly into a situation where wc have had a massive buildup of defence expenditure: I want to discuss this in more detail later. However, we have never had a clear and precise statement justifying this massive buildup and the form of investment in terms of the type of equipment that we have bought. We should be entitled to this information, especially as next year the expenditure will be even higher and will exceed 5% - and will be possibly 5.3% or 5.4% - of the total expenditure, in the community. It will be about the highest post-war level, including the period of the Korean war. Quite seriously, the Government is remiss in not providing us with more information about the factors which influence its decisions and about details of the equipment it is buying. The Government is treating this House and the Australian public with contempt by persevering in this attitude. What Australians have to realise is that we may expend more on defence and may have more shiny, sophisticated military equipment; but we must pay for it. The total amount of finance available in the community has to be divided among the various competing interests. If we increase expenditure in one sector we must decrease it in another sector. What the Government is doing - it has not said much about it - is to impose a greater sacrifice on the Australian public by depriving the public of increases in living standards and apply the amount thus saved to government expenditure, a significant part of which is defence expenditure. In 1962-63 private consumption represented 66% of total spending, but this was down to 59.3% last year. This is a rather dramatic deterioration. If we add to this the extra taxation that the Government raises from the chronic inflation it encourages - that is, by shifting people into higher income tax brackets and thereby extracting a greater proportion of the wage as taxation - we realise that the Government, has been imposing discreetly an ever increasing burden on the Australian public to support the Government’s expenditure programme.

We are entitled to know more of the reasons why these decisions have been made and, more importantly, how the money is being spent and whether it is being spent efficiently and effectively. When the Government is applying the money to defence it is asking the private consumer to surrender his right to purchase, at a particular time, something he may want - a television set, refrigerator, washing machine or, perhaps, a new house. The supply is not as great as it could have been, for the simple reason that the Government is siphoning off from the private sector and is pulling into the public sector a certain amount of the total investment available. When the Government increases its defence expenditure it is cutting back expenditure on another important sector - national development. There will not be as many schools available, nor will there be as many hospitals, roads and other facilities which are a government responsibility. So, a basic question related to priorities has to be answered. Is the need for twenty-four F111 aircraft so much more pressing and urgent than the provision of hospitals, school buildings, roads and so forth? Is, in fact, the Fill the most suitable aircraft for Australia’s needs? Could we, indeed, have obtained a cheaper aircraft every bit as effective in terms of our needs, although possibly not fully comparable with the F1 11 when it is operational? We do not need a Navy full of battleships for obvious reasons, and we do not need an Air Force of flying battleships for equally obvious reasons. Again, this is another subject.

If the present situation is to continue, it is quite obvious that we will have pressure applied in the next Budget - a deflationary pressure - to reduce even further our private expenditure. Our trading deficit on current account will probably be about Si, 000m by the end of this financial year.

We have been shoring up these deficits with an inflow of overseas capital, but in April we saw a rather startling fall in the amount of capital coming into this country. If we take the rate of inflow for April as applying throughout the quarter to the end of June we find that the amount of capital we will receive in this quarter will be less than half, and closer to a third, of the inflow in the quarter ended last March. The Government is going to face problems in shoring up this imbalance in our overseas balances, and it will have to apply some restrictive measures internally.

A contributory cause of this retrograde movement in our balance of payments account is the fact that such a tremendous amount of our defence expenditure flows out of the country. The amount that has gone out in this way in this financial year has exceeded $300m and will probably be closer to $350m. Nearly a quarter of our total defence expenditure is going out of the country. As I have said in this House before, this has what is called a reverse multiplier effect on the economy, with something more than $300m being taken out of the economy, and with a multiplier effect of 1.8 to 2, the amount that will be lost from the economy through this cause will be closer to $600m or $650m unless there are compensating movements to make up for this loss, and we have not had any evidence that in fact there will be. The amount that will go out next year will be even greater. Defence payments which have to be made overseas have risen rather surprisingly from the equivalent of 4% of our export earnings in 1962-63 to 8% this year. Surely there is some need for an inquiry, not a rule of thumb calculation or some ad hoc action but some sort of inquiry by the Government to establish just what equipment we can manufacture in this country that we are at present obtaining from overseas. By taking the lazy way out, of buying our equipment overseas and not fostering Australian industry, we are simply adding to our long term economic problems.

We are, as I have mentioned, spending a tremendous amount on defence. Some Government members and supporters, of course, would spend much more - twenty times more if it were put to them. In fact they would have no-one in the work force and everyone in the armed Services. I do not know how they could expect the economy to operate. This is a central economic problem that is never faced up to by those who agitate for universal conscription over long periods. If you take people out of the work force you not only remove their productive capacity which contributes to the overall increase of wealth in the community, but you also throw a far greater burden on the few people who are left behind and who must work hard even to mark time with the economy at a given level far less achieving any increase. You impair the ability of the economy to develop industrially and establish the viable base upon which any defence programme must be founded. The problem that the Japanese ran into, and which eventually destroyed Japan’s programme of aggression through Asia and the Pacific arose from the fact that Japan lacked raw materials and did not have a sufficiently developed industrial base upon which to establish its military offensive over long periods. Its capacity could not possibly compare with the capacity of the United States to maintain forces in the field.

We are already contributing sufficient towards defence expenditure in this country and there is no need for any increase. We have far too many urgent needs in other sectors of the economy. We have strong demands in the fields of social welfare, education, hospitals, pensions and so on. If we look at our expenditure per head of population we find justification for my claim that we are spending enough on defence. Only four countries in the world spend more on defence per head of population than Australia does. According to the Military Balance published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, in 1966-67 we spent SUS96 per head of population on defence. The only countries in which the expenditure was higher per head were Britain, Soviet Russia, Israel and the U.S.A. Countries at levels of development and with standards of living comparable to those of Australia, such as Canada and Norway, spent considerably less than we did. Canada spent SUS73 per head and Norway SUS74. Even France and Germany spent less than we did, their expenditures per head being respectively SUS91 and SUS76. Countries of comparable standards which, in terms of the propaganda war that is going on, would seem to have a far greater need than Australia to spend heavily on defence, are in fact spending considerably less. This shows that we arc spending more than enough on defence at present.

It is about time we set about ensuring higher cost effectiveness in the use of our money. In the last 4 years there has been a sudden expansion of defence expenditure, and we are entitled to know the reasons for it. Why did this increase come about, and are we now getting the best value for our money in terms of our needs? The expansion did not occur suddenly, as a result of an international incident that arose or of an expectation of one suddenly arising. It occurred suddenly because our military hardware had been allowed to run down to the point at which replacement could no longer be deferred. This is a simple fact. In 1960, the then Minister for Air, Mr Osborne, warned in the House of Representatives that a replacement for the Canberra jet bomber was a most important and urgent need. Some years passed before action was taken by the Government to obtain a replacement. In fact, 8 years have now gone by and we still have no replacement in this country for the Canberra jet bomber. This again demonstrates the fact that the Government has allowed its defence forces to run down, and that this is why we face tremendous expenditure at the present time.

Our Navy was allowed to run down under the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when he was Minister for the Navy. In 1962 we had six destroyers of which one was 20 years old, another 12 years old and another 1 1 years old. According to internationally accepted standards, any destroyer more than 1 0 years old is becoming obsolete: Therefore 50% of our destroyer fleet at that time was obsolete or over age. We had seven frigates, out of a total of nine, which among them had seen 1 1 1 years service. In other words, 78% of our frigate fleet was over age. This was the situation in the Navy at that time. The need for new vessels arose because there was a situation of stagnation - even of decay, one would be justified in saying - in the equipment of our defence forces. That is why we have such a massive demand at present for expenditure on defence needs.

The Prime Minister in the 1950s and early 1 960s. now Sir Robert Menzies, spoke with great eloquence and dash at election times of our urgent defence needs, but in fact h; presided over defence policies of inertia which led to stagnation and which even caused decay in some cases in the material standards of our defence forces. At election time he was always strong on talking about the need to fight in the near future the unnamed but threatening hordes which were always about to lunge at us at vote time. With the vote safely behind him and democracy securely locked away from the masses for another 3 years he became far too preoccupied with the serious challenge of cricket test matches, the musty anachronism of the English aristocracy and the failed shadow of a Victorian era imperial Commonwealth to be actively and effectively involved in concerns of defence. This is the heritage we have at this time - a heritage from laziness and incompetence at the top level of administration of Australia’s affairs.

Are we buying the best defence equipment now? I will refer to two illustrations, one concerning the Royal Australian Navy and one the Royal Australian Air Force. We are buying Oberon class submarines for our Navy. If the purpose of this policy decision is to train our Navy personnel so that they, in the not too far distant future, may move into nuclear powered submarines and operate them successfully then it seems a reasonable sort of decision. But if the Government has decided to come to a full stop after obtaining the Oberons and not lo improve on them - not to envisage them as training ships - then I am afraid our Navy again is being sold short. The Navy probably has received the worst deal of three defence Services in terms of general interest shown in it at the Government level. If the Government has decided that the Oberon is the be all and end all of our naval underwater fleet then in fact it has sold the Navy short because this class of submarine does not perform as well as the American Barbel submarine which is comparable to it.

The Oberon class bas a speed of 12 knots and a submerged speed of 17 knots. But the Barbel is bigger, and has more powerful engines and a speed of 15 knots on the surface and 25 knots submerged. These extra knots are terrifically important to submarines, as indeed they are to any naval ship. The Navy ought to be aiming at using the Oberon class as training vessels with the ultimate objective of transferring the crews to nuclear powered submarines capable of 30 knots submerged and of sustained operations underwater. But we have no information about the Government’s intentions in this regard. The Government has never taken this House or the Australian public into its confidence as to its long range purpose in obtaining these submarines. If .n fact the Government has no long range purpose in buying these submarines except to buy off pressure, and if this is its final decision on this matter, then the ustralian public as well as the Navy are being sold short because public money is being wasted and is not being used in the most effective way.

The next matter I want to deal with concerns the FI 11 aircraft, a very controversial aircraft. In 1963 it was said that they would cost $125m. The latest report is that they will cost $267m. In 1963, the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, assured us that they would be delivered in 1967. The latest report is that we will be lucky to get them before some time in 1969. There is complete doubt and indecision about these aircraft even at this late stage. They are being bought on the jackpot system and every time one of them is flown the price goes up. We cannot be happy about this. We cannot be happy because we had an assurance from Sir Robert Menzies in 1963 when he said:

All I can say is that if any honourable member on either side of this House had before him a proposition, arising from the mass production techniques in the United States, so immeasurably favourable to the taxpayers in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, he could not have rejected it. That is where we stand.

I repeat: ‘so immeasurably favourable to the taxpayer in terms of pounds, shillings and pence’. Last year, or perhaps the year before, a book was published entitled The Wit of Sir Robert Menzies’ and I am sure that that extract must go down as one of the gems on the fly leaf of that publication. In terms of Australian’s needs the FI 1 1 is not a paramount objective. We could well do without it and accept an alternative aircraft, the Phantom F4C. The Phantom would adequately fulfil Australia’s requirements. Even at this late stage we ought to be prepared to scrap our order for the Fill. I understand that Great Britain scrapped its order for these aircraft and the cancellation of the contract cost that country about $50m. I am not sure of the exact figure but that is the information I received. Assuming we would pay about half that amount we still would be well out of this contract at that price as the following facts show: The Phantom F4C with spares can be bought for about $3m each. That was the cost to Germany not so long ago. For every Fill we would be able to buy 4 Phantom F4C aircraft. The Phantom has performed outstandingly in every field that Australia desires.

Mr Fairbairn:

– It does not have the range.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes it has, it performs outstandingly in every field that we desire. It established in Vietnam a 90% combat readiness rate and an abort rate of less than 2 per 100 takeoffs in round the clock strikes and close air support sorties. I will quote the comparable performances of the Fill and the Phantom F4C, as far as practicable. The Fill certainly has some advantages in terms of speed and possibly bomb carrying capacity over the Phantom. But 1 am not talking about the ability of this supersonic super de luxe war battleship of the air, the Fill; 1 am talking about Australia’s needs in her role as a sort of backing-up force in brush fire commitments. It would be silly to see her needs in any other way. It would be ridiculous to regard ourselves as a major force in any world war of aggression, certainly with only 24 Fill aircraft.

We could have purchased nearly 100 Phantoms for the same amount of money. The Fill will carry a maximum bomb load of 37,500 lb compared with the Phantom capability of 16,000 lb. In terms of our needs for defence purposes and not as an aggressor, the Phantom bomb load is satisfactory for our purposes. The maximum speed of the Fill is about mach 2.5 and that of the Phantom is mach 2 plus. The Phantom has been recorded as doing mach 2.5. The radius of action of the Fill is 1,900 miles and that of the Phantom is 1,000 miles.

Certainly the Fill has a greater range but for Australia’s defensive needs a range of 1.000 miles surely is sufficient, particularly when we consider the extra mileage that can be obtained by refuelling in the air. The Phantoms are equipped for refuelling while in flight. The Fill will be equipped with a variety of missiles such as Walleye, Falcon, Sparrow and Sidewinder but the Phantom can carry 6 Sparrow 111 missiles, or 4 Sparrow ill missiles and 4 Sidewinder air to air missiles, together with a load of bombs and air to ground missiles. ~ Why do we need such an expensive aircraft as the Fill at such a tremendously increased cost for our defence needs when the Phantom obviously is able to meet our requirements? The Phantom has the added advantages of being available and of having been proved in combat. lt was Mown for the first time in 1958 and over 2,000 have been built. Rather than the price of the Phantom being increased, it would appear that the long production runs and the efficient methods of construction have enabled the price to be reduced. The two aircraft are not comparable really. The Phantom is more than adequate for Australian needs. The Fill has yet to be proved in combat and 7 of them have crashed so far.

I will now deal quickly with some of the deficiencies of the Fill. Firstly, there is the unfortunately high investment cost and even higher operating cost. It is enormously complex to operate and its operating capability is questionable in the event of its sophisticated systems ceasing to work. This is what happened in Vietnam, apparently when its terrain following radar system packed up. The multi mission capability has diminished the plane’s ability to perform any single one of its missions. The plane cannot be used successfully in dog fights with some existing aircraft because of its weight and other shortcomings. The pay load and range are far below those which have been advertised.

The situation in Australia is that we are extravagantly buying a tremendously expensive aircraft. We will have only 24 of them and they have not really been designed to meet our requirements. In fact they have been built essentially for the needs of the United States Air Force which requires a heavy fighter bomber capable of plunging to within several hundred feet of the ground in 1,400 miles an hour supersonic dash beneath enemy radar screens to deliver - and this is the important point - nuclear weapons. This is the essential purpose for which these aircraft have been built. It is not the essential role which we see the aircraft performing in the defence of this country. It is true that the Phantom has been designed essentially as a fighter plane, but it is capable of being used, and is being used, as an attack bomber. The Fill is a bomber which is capable of being used - and it is hoped it can be used - in a fighter role also. But surely for our needs, and considering the cost advantage, the Phantom is what we require. This is what the United States Air Force Tactical Air Commander, General G. 0. Disosway, said concerning the Phantom:

We expect the aeroplane - to be an air superiority fighter (day or night), a dive bomber, and a low altitude attack aircraft. We let it range over the entire tactical field - that of close air support, interdiction and air superiority.

It is obvious that the Fill deal is another example of the Government adopting an ad hoc approach towards purchasing expensive equipment for our defence forces. No evidence has been given of the comparability of performance for Australia’s needs between the Fill and the Phantom F4C. 1 suggest that there is something rather important-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon W C Haworth:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

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

Mr BRYANT (Wills) [I2.22J- I should like to support the remarks that have been made today by my colleagues the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). It is disturbing that at this stage there is so little comment from the other side of the House on what is a fundamental question concerning Australia’s defence, defence expenditure and the method of financing that expenditure. It is interesting that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) took 4- or 5 minutes in which to introduce the Bill to the House. In his speech he stated:

I consider it prudent, therefore, to seek an increase of 560m in the upper limit of the amount which may be borrowed.

The lack of interest in this subject by honourable members opposite is to be deplored. Not only are they not interested in taking part in the debate; they are not interested in being in the chamber.

The subject we have before us now concerns two fundamental questions. The first is the way in which we finance the country and the second is the way in which we defend it. An examination of the procedures leads us to challenge the Government on both questions. I hope that honourable members opposite will read the speeches of my two colleagues who have spoken before me in this debate. They have exhaustively analysed both aspects, particularly the financial. The question that I am prone to ask at this stage - and it follows on the remarks which have just been made by the honourable member for Oxley - is whether we are in a state of panic at a time when immediate threats to Australia are not apparent? In fact, even long-term threats to Australia are increasingly shadowy. As the honourable member for Oxley has pointed out, we have reached the stage where we are per head of population the fourth or fifth largest expenders on defence in the world. We are spending enormous amounts of capital credit on projects which I think are open to challenge.

It is not a question of whether we are concerned with defence or not. We are all concerned with defence. In recent years there has been an increasing awareness about defence in the Australian community. I think it is fair enough to challenge the general direction of defence, the way in which it is being conducted and the influence on the whole community of the attitudes that wc are adopting at the present time. lt is my thesis that we do not live in an area of great trouble or great threat. We live in an area which has a potential for non-aggression in the short term and a very doubtful potential for aggression in the long term. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) wishes to ask a question.

Mr Graham:

– That is what Jim Scullin thought in 1929, but within 10 years he found out he was wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will address himself to the Chair.

Mr BRYANT:

– I shall answer the interjection because the honourable member for North Sydney is paying some attention to what I am saying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections are disorderly.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, but he is being orderly disorderly. In 1929 this part of the world was run from Europe - by the aggressors in the world. If you wanted a decision from Hanoi you asked the militarists of Paris. If you wanted a decision from Singapore you asked the Whitehall chiefs. If you wanted a decision from Djakarta you asked the people in the Hague. Nowadays decisions are made in Djakarta, Saigon, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Singapore, Rangoon and Delhi. People in these places have completely different philosophies from those of their neighbours and they have infinitely different defence and aggression potentials. This the difference between the thesis from this side of the House, as I am expressing it, and that from the other side of the House. It is simply that the honourable member for North Sydney has not caught up with history; still, if he is only 40 years behind he is a long way ahead of his colleagues.

The honourable member for Oxley pointed out that we are spending more than $ 1,200m per year on defence. 1 think it is worthwhile to consider the significance of this expenditure in terms of money and personnel. Our defence is a tremendous undertaking. Because of the demands it places upon human and material resources it is important that we see what we are getting for the expenditure, that we know what we want for it and that we relate it to the general areas in the community. One year’s expenditure of $1,1 80m is equal to about three-quarters of the total cost of the Australian railway systems since we put down the first sleepers a century or so ago, or about one-fifth of the total cost of the Snowy Mountains scheme. 1 think that there are approximately 80,000 to 90,000 people in full time service in the forces. That number is equal to approximately the total number of employees in the Australian railway systems and it would be slightly greater, I should think, than the total number of people employed in the teaching services of Australia.

So, as the honourable member for Oxley pointed out. this defence expenditure is placing a tremendous strain upon Australia’s material, financial and personnel resources. We want to examine it very carefully. I regret that the House has little opportunity to do this. Very few debates are conducted in such a way that we can properly exchange points of view. There is no committee system in the Parliament which allows us to use the intellectual resources of this House on this question of defence expenditure. It is a closed circuit system in which a lot of strategic and political decisions are made without proper scrutiny being given to them.

I remind the House that the twentyfour Fill aircraft we have ordered will cost more than $300m. This a fantastic amount of money. The cost of twentyfour Fill aeroplanes is equal to about onethird of the cost of the Snowy Mountains scheme, and, on current capital costs, is equal to the cost of two full scale universities with the capacity to accommodate 20,000 students. The decision to purchase the Fill aircraft is open to challenge both as to the basis upon which the decision was originally made and as to the kind of equipment we are supposed to get, in the end. I should like to challenge the general financial procedures surrounding this decision.

Defence is generally a high consumption area. In genera], we are investing in defence in the long term. We would hope to be investing instead in the long term in some other directions. But investment in the long term has not been a feature of Australia’s defence policy or developmental policy. The development of the railway systems, the road systems, the ports and harbours and the factories of Australia has not been considered as being part of our defence system. So most of the equipment upon which we are expending our money has a very short life. I think that the Canberra bombers are now 10 or 12 years old. The Sabre aircraft are slightly older. Our naval ships are IS to 20 years old. So this equipment has a short term life for a very high capital investment.

We are speaking here about consumption goods. I do not think it is a valid piece of procedure, either domestically or internationally, to acquire these goods by way of loan or hire purchase. This is the way in which I. would like to look at this area of public expenditure. My two colleagues from Oxley and Melbourne Ports are much better briefed on the financial field than I am. As I say, I challenge the general attitude that we should borrow in order to obtain defence moneys. When we borrow overseas, that is bad in two ways. When we borrow at home, that is bad in one way. How, in fact, can we borrow from the future? We can only borrow from today and pay back some time in the future by using money which some people have happened to accumulate. Ordinarily, over recent years we have had to repay loans at exorbitant rates of interest. The Government’s high interest rate policy affects not only individuals but also the Government’s own capacity to obtain finance in the long term. I wish that we had more opportunity - either in a debate in this House or by the use of some sort of internal machinery - to consider these matters collectively. We on this side of the House are continually challenged as not being concerned about defence. This claim is rubbish; it is a political gimmick. I hope only that the people of Australia are awake to this fact.

At times like this I think it is fair to examine the general administration of our defence expenditure. What is defence all about? What are we defending ourselves against? How are we defending ourselves? From where do the potential threats come? This country suffers from a China neurosis. The 700 million Chinese have not had a very bad record of aggression over the last three or four centuries, but for some reason there is a phobia about them throughout the world. We in Australia now extend this phobia to embrace the rest of Asia. We constantly discuss ‘them’ - the threats to our north, the downward thrust of Communism, and so on. But we never get around to specifics. It is our duty to be specific. It is as much our duty to examine thoroughly and in detail Australia’s defence position as it is the duty of the corporal in the field with his machine gun section, to decide how to capture this or that hill, or the duty of the pilot of a supersonic aircraft to decide how to approach his target. This Government has an infinite capacity for bringing before the Parliament and the people of Australia a whole area of generalities and for engaging in fear mongering so as to prevent us from making a rational decision on the matter. We have developed a national inferiority complex, of which this Bill is an exemplar. As the honourable member for Oxley pointed out, we deny our own capacity to produce much of the material that we need.

What is the position? The honourable member for Oxley referred to our purchases of Fill aircraft. We bought these super-sophisticated pieces of machinery. Obviously they are so sophisticated that it is very hard to keep them in the air. We have reached a stage at which electronics, mechanisation, technology, and research and development have taken over from commonsense. Unfortunately the object of a piece of military equipment is, in general terms, to disable the enemy. Expressed in cruder terms, the object is to kill him. If one reaches a stage at which one piece of apparatus designed for killing people will cost SI Om., one might find that there are cheaper and easier ways of doing the job. This is what has happened in Vietnam. All the sophistication and technology in the world do not have quite the same capacity for decision, judgment, action and counter-action as the ‘Mark 1 eyeball’, as it was put lo me by an officer of the Melbourne’ when I visited that vessel a year or two ago. In other words, within the human head and frame there is more capacity to react than man can ever build into electronic devices. I suggest that the research people have taken over from the military people who are directing the warfare apparatus against their objective.

I must admit that 4 or 5 years ago I was uneasy about the position of Indonesia. I had not visited the place since I arrived there at one stage during the last war, to be greeted by some very angry Japanese. In recent years I have managed to visit the country twice, and as my interest has been stimulated, I have done more reading about the country and have discussed it with other people. I can see now that Indonesia has no aggressive potential whatever. I am not arguing about whether it has an aggressive posture, although I do not think it has. Indonesia is our closest foreign neighbour. 1 think the southern end of Borneo is about 1,000 miles from Darwin. Djakarta is about the same distance from Darwin. If one goes further afield from Darwin, one finds that Singapore is distant about 2,000 miles. Even the areas of Indonesia which might be claimed to be potential hop-off points if Indonesia were aggressive are as far from Darwin as London is from Moscow. I make it clear to Indonesians who may be listening to my speech, or who may read it in Hansard, that I do not think Indonesia is aggressive, but we have to speak in these terms.

We do not live in an area of great turmoil. True, there is an area of administrative incapacity to our north, where the people have difficulty administering their affairs satisfactorily. True, there have been great and tragic events in the massacre of thousands of people in Indonesia in recent years. But it is true also that Indonesia’s capacity to put four or five armed divisions against Australia or to launch 70 or 100 bombers against us is nil. There is no evidence that Indonesia wants to do these things. In fact, Indonesia is at present teaching in its staff colleges a completely opposite strategic doctrine. This is important. Within 3,000 miles of our northernmost posts are the Philippines, Ceylon, India, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam. What are the threats posed by these people? Threats by them are non-existent. The interesting thing is that all the people in this area except us have adopted a similar view of their neighbourhood. Hardly any of them feel the need for compulsory military service. Indonesia is considering introducing it but has not got around to doing so. A system of compulsory military service exists in the Philippines but is not used. The Cambodians do not have compulsory military service. Theirs is a civilian community. The Thais have a number of generals who run the place, but there are many more generals than there are divisions and more admirals than there are ships. Would anybody consider Malaysia to be a militaristic community? Would anybody consider Singapore, Ceylon and India to be militaristic communities? Burma is in such a state that it is difficult to say what it is.

People in the region to our north do not look at us through the wrong end of the telescope. We have, by our example, our influence and our threat, inflicted upon our neighbours the appearance of having an aggressive military posture which is foreign and irrelevant to this part of the world. I do not say that we should not have a defence potential or a defence attitude; I will say later how these things should be developed. The lesson that has been pointed out to us this morning is that we have an extraordinarily high per capita expenditure on defence in this country at a time when our neighbours do not see the need for such expenditure in their countries. After all, it is our neighbours against whom we would say we were defending ourselves. We are borrowing money for all sorts of things. We are raising loans for shopping purposes. We are to spend $300m overseas this year shopping for submarines, aircraft, weapons and missiles. It is my belief that, tragically, we have also shopped for our strategy. We are shopping for our commanders. Twothirds of our young men in Vietnam are under the command of Americans. They are now being thrown into the line as our young mcn were thrown into the line on the Somme in 1916 and 1917, and in Greece in the last war, to try to recapture areas lost by the mistakes of other people. The most tragic area of military administration at the moment is the misuse of our people in Bien Hoa Province in South Vietnam. We have been shopping for a war.

We on this side of the Parliament challenge the whole basis on which our defence posture stands. What are the objectives of our defence system? They are to prepare Australia adequately to defend itself and to be able to handle whatever threats arise. The questions that we have to ask are: Have we designed a system to meet the potential threats? What are the potential threats? I ask emphatically, as I have asked often: Where is the potential threat in the next 15 or 20 years? A little while ago the honourable member for North Sydney interjected and said that in 1929 we thought Japan presented no threat but in 1939 Japan was a threat. It is a fact that Japan started to build up her forces as early as the First World War. By the 1920s it was apparent to .anybody who could read that Japan was an effective mil’itary power. The Japan that invaded China in 1931 was very different from the Japan of today. I believe I am correct in saying that Japan now spends on military activities less per head of population and a smaller proportion of her gross national product than does any other country. I think my research assistant, the honourable member for Oxley, will confirm that statement.

Mr Hayden:

– That is pretty close.

Mr BRYANT:

– What of those terrible ogres, the Chinese? They have found that the paths of peace are much more successful than the paths of aggression. So we in this country are designing a system to meet something that does not exist. My view is that we must design a system which allows us to keep ahead of any potential threat. The Government, if it sees the need to acquire the Fill, which it says is good enough to hold off anybody for the next 10 or 12 years, must assume that within the next 10 or 12 years there will’ arise some threat with which this aircraft will be able to deal before it becomes obsolescent. So far I have not been convinced that this is the case. It is true that somebody with ill will could supply some of our neighbours with an equally dangerous piece of equipment, but it is highly unlikely. I believe that it is a waste of money to spend a tremendous sum on a weapon which probably, and almost certainly, will be obsolescent before anybody in the foreseeable distance can develop anything against which we can use it. We ought to be developing our own defence resources. Our defence should not be based on shopping around for expensive equipment. We have to consider our national morale, which I think is still high despite the fact that for the last 20 years this Government has been trying to build up a national inferiority complex. Australia’s manpower is not insignificant any longer. Honourable members opposite talk about 12 million people as though they were of no importance. Our population is larger than that of Sweden and is three or four times the size of that of Switzerland or Denmark. It is larger than the population of Holland or Belgium. Australia’s population is now about fortieth in the list of world population figures. About eighty countries have fewer people than Australia.

I now want to deal with Australia’s industrial capacity. This country has one of the largest industrial capacities in the world. 1 understand that our automotive industry is about the ninth or tenth largest in the world and that our steel industry is the thirteenth or fourteenth largest in the world. In fact we produce almost as much steel as does China or India, which have 20, 30 or even 70 times the number of people we have. We have a technical capacity and technical inventiveness which is second to none. It is on technical inventiveness that we have lavished so much neglect. One infinitely valuable and desirable characteristic that we have is social stability and organisation, which is second to none in this part of the world. We should be developing all these capacities with which we are richly endowed, and we should be doing so on such a scale that we will be able to use them at what might be called reasonable defence notice. It would be presumptuous of me to say that I know what reasonable defence notice is, but I find it difficult to believe that it would not be possible to tell 3 or 4 years ahead that any of our neighbours was mobilising its armed forces to deal with us.

What is the state of Australia’s defence industry? We manufacture most of our small arms, but we are not manufacturing all our major weapons of artillery even though we have a capacity to do so. We have a large capacity to produce missiles, but it is mostly unused. In the field of aircraft construction we have a large capacity which is slowly wasting away. I hope that honourable members who are not aware of the potential of the Government aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend will take time off to visit it during the recess to see the potential we have there and how it is being neglected. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) is usually wrong in his politics, and I think he is incorrect in his strategy. But his attitude towards what one might refer to as the tactics of defence might well be in line with mine - that is, that Australia should be developing its own native capacities in the area of defence. We continue to shop for naval vessels despite the fact that we have a very large capacity to build our own. In other fields we have shown an infinite capacity to ignore our own people. I have been shown an article by Sir Samuel Jones who is the Chairman of the Australian Telecommunications Development Association. He referred to the failure of the Government to use the telecommunications capacity of this country for defence purposes. I will not read all the article, as it may be obtained from the Library. Sir Samuel Jones said:

Australia will never be in a position to defend itself until it can produce all or most of the communications equipment the armed services need.

He went on to point out that some years ago the Post Office realised that Australia had this capacity, approached ..Australian manufacturers about it, and established a continuing liaison with them. He pointed out:

All that is necessary is for the Defence, Supply, Army, Navy and Air Departments to give the Australian industry the same opportunity the Australian Post Office has given it over the past 20 years.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BRYANT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was reading from an article written by Sir Samuel Jones, Chairman of the Australian Telecommunications Development Association. It showed that the defence Services did not realise that Australian industry had the capacity to meet many of our defence needs. I shall conclude my quotation from the article with these words:

I am certain local industry could, in the main, come up with the Services’ requirements if the Services decided to take them into their confidence about their planning for the future. .

One of the deep regrets of Opposition members is that the Government and its defence planners have failed to appreciate Australia’s industrial capacity. This has done Australia not only a short term disservice but long term harm. We have a large industrial capacity. Our automotive industry is very large. We have a very large heavy earth-moving equipment industry. Some thirty-five firms are making heavy earthmoving equipment and some of the equipment is manufactured completely in Australia. Other firms are making heavy commercial vehicles, engines and so on. Our aircraft industry has built the Jindivik. There is no reason why we should not be able to build any type of aircraft that we decide is necessary for our defence. We have made the Mirage to the designs of other people, but the Jindivik was our own aircraft right from the drawing board stage.

The basis of Australia’s defence capacity is the intellectual and technical knowledge that is developed when we design and use our own equipment. The most serious indictment of the Government at the moment is its failure to plan for the development of this capacity. The Government has failed to ensure that Australia has the capacity it needs. Our shipping industry, for instance, has a very large potential. We have the skills that are needed for the manufacture of all types of engines and we can build very large ships, even up to 100,000 tons. The New South Wales State Dockyard, according to people in the shipping industry, is one of the world’s most efficient dockyards. It is a credit to government enterprise and to the skills of Australians. This capacity should have been used to build the destroyers that we purchased overseas. It does not matter whether we look at heavy industry or light industry, electronics or anything else, this country has a tremendous capacity to produce whatever is needed. The Government should have developed our capacity in all these fields.

The backbone of a defence system is transport. This includes the dockyards and all the services that go with them. But over the last 20 years our defence planners have taken very little note of the need to develop the Australian railway system, for instance. In recent times we have poured almost unlimited sums of money into the airlines system. The Australian airlines are heavily subsidised with money obtained from the taxpayers. The Tullamarine Airport will cost an astronomical sum. It will cost Si 00m or perhaps a little more. The aircraft we buy cost $6m, $7m, $8m and $9m each. At the same time our railway network, which is the basis of our transport system, carries 70 million or 80 million tons of goods a year and some 500 million passengers. But it is largely neglected because of the eccentric nature of the federal system and the failure of the authorities to develop a sound financial structure. Surely the standardisation of the railway system along the east coast of Australia and the extension of the network through to the west is a part of defence planning. The development of ports and docks in the north must also be a part of defence planning. It is a serious reflection on the way we think, that the dockyards and berths for ships along the coast of Western Australia and the Northern Territory are being developed by private enterprise for purposes other than defence. In any commonsense evaluation of Australia’s defence capacity and needs, the development of these facilities should have had a very high priority.

We on this side of the House regret that the Australian Government has failed to develop our own capacities. Let us consider missiles. Some months ago, by buying a missile from someone else we were able to put a satellite into orbit. I have no doubt that Australia had the capacity to manufacture the rocket as well as the satellite. It is in this area of defence planning that we have the gravest doubt. We can challenge the tactics on the ground and the strategic concept that has made us a satellite of another people’s defence and warlike operations, but we are also concerned about the Government’s failure to understand the need to develop Australia’s capacity. The Government has the aptitude to magnify the fears, doubts and phobias that we have always had about Asia and our neighbours, but in doing so it has confounded our proper defence planning. I hope that in the course of this debate some honourable member on the other side will take up the points 1 have made so that we can hear the reasoning of some of the honourable members on that side who are not necessarily so confounded by the defence planning of the past that they are incapable of seeing the illogical nature of the present system and its irrelevance to Australia’s needs.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I would not have risen if the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) had nor asked me to do so. I feel that somebody should put in perspective some of the arguments used by the Opposition in what I thought would be a debate on loans. When I saw that the Loan Bill was listed for today I thought it was not within my realm, but the debate on the Bill has related mainly to Australia’s defence. The arguments that have been put by the other side seem to me to be fairly innocuous. I waited patiently to hear an explanation of the Opposition’s defence planning. I thought that this might have been the time when some insight into the Opposition’s planning on defence might have been obtained and the public might at last have known what the Labor Party’s views on defence were.

I do not wish to speak at any great length and 1 certainly have not made any preparations for this debate. I listened to the honourable member for Wills. Again 1 was intrigued to hear the Opposition change its ground. When it suits the Opposition’s case, it speaks about what Australia should be doing to defend itself and then, if speaking against what has been done for our defence suits its case, it uses an entirely different tack. 1 am intrigued by the argument consistently put by the honourable for Wills that our population of 12 million people is not small but is a large and effective force. He argues that Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Tanzania and a few other countries have defended their shores magnificently against threats. I point out to the honourable member and to the Australian public that, with the exception of Switzerland, all these countries, when they have been engaged in hostilities in an effort to retain their independence, have been occupied and overrun. It took an enemy no more than a couple of days to do this. Therefore, to say that all Australia need do to defend itself is to model itself on Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium or some other country is absolute rubbish, and 1 think the Australian people ought to know this. I remember when the honourable member for Wills toured Tibet. I do not know whether he was affected by the yak milk, but on his return he made statements to the Press in which he told the Australian people how their defence could be assured. I think he had allotted one man per 700 miles of the coastline of Australia standing with a . 303, as he said, a la Sweden.I do not know when the honourable member is going to be realistic.

The other thing that one should bear in mind when the Opposition criticises the Government in respect of defence is the actions taken within the Australian Labor Party. I do not wish to labour this point because I know that the honourable member for Wills is sensitive about it. Look at the Melbourne conference last weekend. Look at the motions proposed by Mr Goldbloom, an outstanding member of the Labor Parly and of the Australian and New Zealand Peace Corps. This man said that the alliance with America should be scrapped - thrown out. He and the Labor Party were saved from this disgrace by the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) always a staunch supporter of the American alliance, who came in and retrieved the situation to a degree which left the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) perhaps a square inch to negotiate on should an election come at any time. These are the people who get up when a Bill such as this Loan Bill is before the House and start talking about defence.

Another thing that the honourable member for Wills said was that the Fill was a waste of time. He said this not because of the shortcomings of the aircraft which may or may not be apparent at the moment but because the aircraft would be out of date within 10 years’ and that no need existed to buy a sophisticated aircraft of this type. Indeed he said that we would be given warning before we needed anything of this type. If he can assure the Australian public and me of this fact, he will be doing a great service. But I remember distinctly and he remembers distinctly little things like Pearl Harbour and instance? where small incidents have blown up and wars have started fairly easily and fairly quickly. The honourable member knows, as does the Australian Labor Party, that sophisticated equipment cannot be bought off the hook. I have said that before. The FI 1 1 aircraft and other equipment have to be ordered by a country years in advance if it is to obtain a place in the priority line to purchase the requirement. Anybody from the Opposition side who gets up now and says that we do not need to buy this equipment or that we do not need to have this equipment will be - I do not know that I should use the term - sucking wind. I think that the Australian public will find it very hard to be convinced by the honourable member for Wills and his friends about this matter of time to prepare for defence against an attack.

In the mass of verbiage which comes from the other side of the House respecting defence there are a few sensible arguments actually. I will agree with the honourable member for Wills on the assertion that we should be placing more emphasis on the electronic industry, on the communications industry and on the support industries in Australia, which can produce adequately the things that we require for defence purposes. But I do not agree with the honourable member when he talks about Australia building its own ‘Charles F. Adams’ class destroyers or DDGs. He seems to think that it is just a matter of building the shell somewhere up in Queensland, or wherever it may be, and then asking somebody who may have the electronic components, the black boxes and all the internal equipment to supply what is required. The honourable member expects those people to give this equipment to us willingly. They may not decide to give it to us willingly.

Honourable members opposite never take an argument to its full conclusion. The honourable member for Wills wants us to build sophisticated aircraft. Australia has an order in at the moment for a certain number of Fill aircraft. But an aircraft industry cannot be tooled up to build 24 or 48 aircraft and then cut down again. A market must be found for those aircraft. I hope that at this time the Government is looking at the Australian aircraft industry to see in what way it can be used. The honourable member for Wills spoke about the Jindivik as if it were a Mirage or an Fill. All that it is is a target aircraft. Let us not forget the situation that developed in the last war. We had the Wirraways, the great hope of the Royal Australian Air Force. Let any bloke who was in the Air Force tell honourable members about the Wirraway when it was first put into action. I have been thanked now by our Deputy Whip for giving him the 5 minutes that were necessary. I thank you, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– If Australia ever faces a defence emergency, its success or failure in defending itself will not depend on the equipment that it has at the time the emergency arises. It will depend on Australia’s capacity to supply those whom it will require to defend it. We are running down those industries which have the capacity to back up the equipment that we may have at the time of the outbreak of any defence emergency. I speak particularly of the aircraft industry which, twice in recent years, has been completely run down and which at the moment is in the process of being utterly destroyed by lack of Government initiative.

We have to read the daily Press to get any indication of what the Government is planning for this industry. People who read an article in yesterday’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ will find that the Government is supposed to be negotiating with Great Britain for a supersonic fighter aircraft, based on the Jaguar, to be built as a joint project; but that the Government is not prepared to announce anything about this project because it is afraid that the people who have lost their jobs and others who will lose their jobs before next Christmas in the aircraft industry might have their hopes built up that they might be retained in the industry. It would seem that either this is going to be done or this is not going to be done. If there is no prospect of such a project being undertaken, the skilled people in this industry, who have developed their skills working on the Mirage programme should not be thrown out in the same way as those who developed their skills by working on the earlier Sabre construction jobs in Government aircraft factories.

Every time we allow the backlog of skills that have built up in the aircraft industry to be run down by retrenchment of personnel, we lose a generation of experience. We lose the basis to train the next generation to a higher plane of skills. This is exactly what we are doing now. This is exactly what we did in 1936. If we genuinely believe that it is necessary for Australia to have a defence capacity, it is equally necessary for Australia to have a capacity to build up the supplies which will be required by Australian servicemen whether they be in the Navy, Air Force or in any other branch of our Services.

The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) mentioned naval vessels. Australia had, and still may have, naval vessels in action off Vietnam. Those vessels were allowed to remain in action only because the Soviet Union did not supply North Vietnam with anti-ship missiles. I understand that this has been done only because of an agreement with the Americans not to mine Haiphong harbour. If the North Vietnamese were supplied with anti-ship missiles in the same way as they are supplied with ground to air missiles, our ships would be completely useless in this capacity. They would be blown out of the water. 1 do not wish to take the time of the House in discussing this matter. 1 am quite sure that we wish to get on with other business. But I do appeal to the Government to have a very serious look at what it is doing to the Australian aircraft industry. It is not good enough to run down this industry and again have many skilled workers leave the industry and get other jobs. Even those people who hold executive positions, although their jobs are not at stake, must feel that it might be better for them to look for more permanent jobs which offer them some chance of promotion. We cannot expect people to stay in the industry on the offchance that some time in the future the Government may decide thai it seriously needs back up industries for defence.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2217

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ FURLOUGH BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1817), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– In dealing with these three companion Bills, I propose to direct my attention first of all to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2). The Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden), in his second reading speech, stated that the main purpose of the Bill is to reduce the qualifying period for furlough entitlements for Commonwealth employees who are retrenched. Currently, an employee who is retrenched is eligible to apply for a pro rata payment of furlough if he has had at least 8 years service. It will be remembered that when the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act was amended in 1967, the Opposition raised the position of employees of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority who would be affected as a result of the work of rostering and allocating waterside workers passing to the employers, as provided for in the stevedoring industry legislation that was subsequently enacted. Serious problems faced the staff of the Authority following the adoption of the report of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference which met under the chairmanship of Mr A. E. Woodward. All parties, including the unions concerned, the employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government, subscribed to that report. But its adoption raised problems for the staff of the ASIA. These problems were raised by myself in this House and I received an assurance that the issues I raised would be looked into. When the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill was being debated in another place last November, these points were again raised, and the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), then a Minister in the Senate, had this to say about the staff of the ASIA:

I am prepared to say that the Government will press forward the examination, which has already begun, of the superannuation and furlough benefits to apply on retrenchment to all Crown employees, of whom the members of the staff of the ASIA would be some, with the intention of introducing legislation in the autumn session. Any legislation which is introduced will apply retrospectively to those members of the staff of the ASIA involved in redundancy as a consequence of the introduction of the permanent employment scheme.

The Bill before us provides that the qualifying period for furlough benefits on retrenchment will be reduced from 8 years to 4 years. This is a good feature.

The Public Service Act and the Furlough Act both specify that the qualifying period in the case of death, or retirement because of permanent ill health, shall be 4 years. The Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) will bring the qualifying period for pro rata payment on retrenchment down to 4 years. The 1967 amendment to the Furlough Act virtually eliminated all the differences between that Act, which applies to temporary employees, and the Public Service Act, which applies to permanent

Commonwealth employees. The present amendment, which was one of the matters raised by the Opposition last year, will be of benefit to the staff of the ASIA who have been retrenched or who will be retrenched in the future as a result of the stevedoring industry legislation. It is noted that, as promised by the present Prime Minister, the new provision will be retrospective to 1st September 1967. This is something that we were told, when we discussed this subject before, would be looked at.

The Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) will affect many thousands of employees in various government departments and instrumentalities. These include the Department of the Navy, where 7,500 will be affected; the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 4,500; the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, about 1,000; the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, about 1,000; the Australian Wheat Board, about 225; Trans-Australia Airlines, approximately 6,000; the Australian Broadcasting Commission, about 3,000; the Commonwealth Railways, about 3,000; the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, which did have 3,000 employees, though I understand this number is gradually being reduced; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, some 900; the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, just over 100; and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which did have 370 employees when furlough legislation was last before the House, though that number has now been considerably reduced. So we can see that the Bill will affect quite a number of employees of Government departments apart from those who are classified as temporary employees.

In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The Bill also seeks to reduce from 8 years to 4 years the qualifying period for furlough for persons who retire after age 60, thus bringing it into line with a similar existing provision in the Public Service Act. This proposed amendment will also apply to an employee who retires, in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment in a particular field, by reason only of having attained an age less than 60 years, for example, an air hostess.

An air hostess, of course, may not be employed in that capacity until she is 21 years of age, and she is compulsorily retired at the age of 35. The passage of this Bill will mean that air hostesses can obtain pro rata payment for furlough provided they have completed 4 years service. A person retiring at age 60, and having completed 4 years service, would become eligible for pro rata furlough after 4 years service. An important amendment of the Act in 1967 was the repeal of a provision which imposed a limitation on the period of prior service with a State or a State authority which could be counted for furlough purposes. That limitation was an anomaly and was taken care of by the 1967 measure. Most States were already recognising service with the Commonwealth or with another State for the purpose of continuous service. When we were considering the 1967 Bill we suggested that service with a local government authority should be covered by that legislation. Local government bodies are closely linked with State and Federal activities and we regret that the Bill does not recognise this. I suggest to the Minister that he have a look at this matter and be ready to deal with it when the Act comes up for amendment in the future. An employee leaving a local government authority for employment with the Commonwealth should be treated in exactly the same way, in regard to his prior employment, as is an employee who was formerly employed by the State or an authority of the State. In our view, this <s still a major deficiency which is being carried over and is not dealt with by the Bill now before us. Many local government employees are persons with high qualifications and they could perform valuable service for the Commonwealth. 1 emphasise this point and I hope it will be considered when a measure to amend the Act next comes before us.

I do not want to let this opportunity to pass without mentioning some of the history of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act. I shall be very brief in this regard. The Chifley Government brought temporary employees of the Commonwealth within the provisions of the Act. Prior to that, thousands of temporary employees, some with service of perhaps 20 years or more, were not covered by the Act. The Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill 1944, introduced by a Labor Government, brought every employee of the Public Service within the provisions of the Act and gave them all the benefits of long service leave. Prior to that, only permanent employees were entitled to these furlough benefits. However, the 1944 measure did not affect the rights of persons who were previously covered by other regulations which gave them greater benefits than did the 1 944 Act.

When the Chifley Government was defeated in 1949 and the Menzies Government assumed office, employees of the Commonwealth Railways were entitled to 3 months long service leave after 10 years service. In 1952 the Menzies Government, by direction of the then Treasurer, instructed the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner that rights which had been enjoyed by railway employees were to be taken away from them - rights which they had actually enjoyed since 1937. It was the Labor Government’s intention that the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act should not supersede the Commonwealth Railways by-laws in respect of furlough. Despite representations which were made by the Opposition the Treasurer persisted with the instruction and it meant that Commonwealth railway employees instead of getting long service leave after 10 years had to wait for 15 years. At that time employees who had worked for more than a year were entitled to pro rata leave. Now they have to wait for 8 years, but even with this amendment they will still have to wait for 4 years. I mention these points to record the situation concerning Commonwealth employees’ furlough. 1 deal now with the second of these three companion measures, the Public Service Bill. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

In section 20 of the Public Service Act there is provision for the retirement, that is retrenchment, of an officer who is excess to staffing requirements. The provision is rarely used and action under it would only be taken as a last resort, lt is, however, obviously necessary that the furlough benefits in the Public Service Act do not lag behind those in the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act. This Bill therefore provides for reduction of the furlough qualifying period in the event of retirement under section 20 of the Public Service Act, from 8 years to 4 years.

This amendment also is retrospective to 1st September 1967 and, as with the former Bill, we support this proposal. We regret that the Minister has not gone further in introducing amendments to the Act. It will be remembered that when the Act was amended last year we moved that the word ‘may’ be deleted from and the word ‘shall’ be inserted in sub-sections (1.) and (2.) of section 73 of the Act. Our objective was to bring the Public Service Act into line with awards of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which has ruled that under its awards employees have the right to long service leave after 15 years service even if they are dismissed for misconduct. The Public Service Act leaves it as a matter of discretion for the Public Service Board to say whether a Commonwealth public servant is to receive his long service leave at all after 15 years service. This means that an employee could have completed more than 15 years service and, if dismissed for misconduct, could be deprived of his long service leave. lt is to be regretted that the Government has not brought the Public Service Act into line with decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and 1 suggest that consideration be given to this matter when the legislation is amended in the future. On 11th May 1967 the Commission gave two decisions, one affecting the metal trades, and the other affecting the printing industry. In these decisions the Commission dealt fully with long service leave qualifying periods, pro rata payments and the effect of misconduct. In one passage of its judgment the Commission said:

An employee who has completed 10. but not 15 years service and whose employment is terminated by death or by the employer for any cause other than serious and wilful misconduct, or by the employee on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity will bc entitled to pro rata payment.

An employee who has completed 15 years service and whose employment is terminated or ceases for any reason, will be entitled to pro rata payment.

The Commission also said:

Thus our awards will provide that such an employee whose employment is terminated by death or by the employer for any cause other than serious and wilful misconduct, or by the employee on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity will be entitled to pro rata payment. Neither proviso will apply to an employee who has completed 15 years service.

So when an employee has completed 15 years service, under Commonwealth awards he now becomes entitled to long service leave no matter what may be the reason for the termination of his service. For employees in the Commonwealth Public Service this Act overrides the decision of the Commission. If a public servant is dismissed after 15 years service his furlough depends upon the discretion of the Public Service Board. Commonwealth public servants are disadvantaged as compared with all other workers who come under awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Persons employed under awards get long service leave as a right after 15 years service. Employees who come under the Public Service Board can be deprived of furlough even though they have completed more than 15 years service. However, we support the Bill and thank the Government for so promptly meeting the assurance that it gave in both this House and the Senate about the examination of furlough benefits for retrenched employees. At the same time I ask the Minister to take note of the points I have raised.

I come now to the third of these companion measures, namely, the Superannuation Bill (No. 2). In his second reading speech the Minister said:

This Bill amends the Superannuation Act 1922- 1967 by removing the qualifying period for eligibility for retrenchment benefits provided by the Act. The amendments have become necessary in consequence of the Government’s decisions concerning the furlough and superannuation benefits of Commonwealth employees who are retrenched. In this respect, this is a companion measure to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968.

At present the Superannuation Act provides that to qualify for retrenchment benefits a Superannuation Fund contributor must have contributed for noi less than 10 years and a Provident Account contributor must have been in continuous employment for not less than 10 years immediately before the termination of his service.

Contributors to both the Superannuation Fund and the Provident Account who at present do not qualify for retrenchment benefits are deemed to have been discharged and receive a refund of their own contributions without any Commonwealth supplement. The amendments contained in this Bill, in removing the qualifying period provisions, have the effect of extending the benefits, currently provided for those who qualify for retrenchment benefits, to all contributors whose service is compulsorily terminated for the reason that their service or position is nol necessary. .

This amendment eliminates any qualifying period whatsoever. It is quite a good amendment. The result will be that contributors to the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account will receive the benefit of the Commonwealth contribution as well as their own contribution when they are retrenched, irrespective of their length of service or membership of the Fund or Account. As in the companion measures, this amendment is to be retrospective to 1st September 1967.

The Government has done the right thing with this amendment and also with the companion Bills. They are good amendments, and we strongly support them. They have become necessary, of course, because of retrenchments in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and, no doubt, because of retrenchments at the Government Aircraft Factories and in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Although the Government has made these concessions with regard to furlough and pension rights, it still persists in its opposition to the principle of severance payments for retrenched employees. In doing so it is tagging a long way behind what are being accepted as community standards.

In the H. C. Sleigh case the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission expressed the view that there should be provision for compensation for redundant employees. On page 4 of the judgment of Kirby C.J., Moore J. and Commissioner L. G. Matthews, delivered on 26th March 1968. we find the following comment:

We consider an award requiring these employees to be kept in employment would be too restrictive on the employers concerned in the light of what the employers have already done and that in this instance justice can be done to the employees concerned by compensation if the employers are unable to keep them in employment.

The House can see that compensation was mentioned in the judgment. On page 5 the following remarks appear: lt is our view that employees and their welfare are as important in the planning of a change of the kind we have had to consider as any other aspect of the change and that they, both individually and through their union, should be brought in at the planning stage.

That is something the Government could well consider.

Mr Snedden:

– Does the honourable member suggest that the decision said there should be severance pay?

Mr WEBB:

– Not entirely, but I will direct attention to another section which makes the view of the Commission even more clear. The Commission did not say there should be severance pay, but it did say that the employees should be given compensation, which could be interpreted to mean severance pay. The Commission said, in the last page of its judgment:

If in the future the Commission’s attention is drawn to instances in which the future welfare of employees has not in its view been properly dealt with in company planning the Commission may find it necessary to intervene in the interests of industrial justice.

I mention those matters because this question is going to become very important in the future. Retrenchment as a result of redundancy has hit the Federated Clerks Union rather severely. The union has negotiated severance payments for many of its members in the oil industry. We know that the Government adopted the Woodward report which provided for ‘redundancy pay’ to waterside workers. The severance payments of which I speak are payments made on termination of service in addition to other payments to cover long service leave, pensions and the like.

In the United States of America the unions are demanding at least a year’s pay for workers made redundant. A British Act of Parliament provides for severance pay when a worker becomes redundant. A genuine hardship is involved when men or women are called upon to give up jobs in which they have invested a considerable period of their lives and for which they prepared themselves by years of study and training. It is impossible to persuade a worker in such a situation that he will he better off if his job is made redundant. Society in general may be better off, but what is true in relation to society in general may not be true for an individual. It is therefore necessary for society to provide adequate protection for those who are displaced by technological change or by economic or social policy. The provision of severance pay is one of the ways in which this Government can protect its employees from the personal burden of the social costs of change. 1 repeat that in these three 3 ills the Government has gone quite a considerable way to assist retrenched employees, but I ask that it go somewhat further in providing for its employees who become redundant and are retrenched, and that it give consideration in the future to the provision of severance pay along the lines of the payments that are being made in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. We support the three Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2222

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 30 May (vide page 1818), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2222

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 30 May (vide page 1818), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2222

OFF-SHORE PETROLEUM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The decision of the Government to continue to pay an incentive subsidy to Haematite Explorations Pty Ltd and Esso Exploration and Production Australia Inc. in respect of crude oil production from their Gippsland and Bass Strait off-shore areas.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places).

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– In directing the attention of the House to this matter I wish to point out that the Opposition 2 weeks ago discussed in the House the prospect of progressive increases in Australian petrol prices following the rises in Australian crude oil production. That prospect of price increases is now a certainty, following the answers to a series of Opposition questions to responsible Ministers on 29th and 30th May last. The Ministers’ answers show the Government’s determination to continue to pay an incentive subsidy to Esso-BHP for crude oil production from its GippslandBass Strait off-shore areas. The incentive and quality total subsidy of $1 per barrel of crude oil will, on the admission of the company, result in payments to it by Australian motorists at the rate of $87m a year by the end of 1970. Less understood and less publicised is the fact that the gross profit rate, before taxation, of Esso-BHP from crude oil from this area alone will, at the end of 1970, be over $200m a year. Unmentioned to date in this issue is the additional minimum of$1 00m annual income of the consortium from sales of natural gas produced in this area.

The Acting Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) in reply to a question by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) on 29th May last, reaffirmed that the Government is determined to play Santa Clause to Esso, the world’s largest international oil producer, and to Australia’s largest company, the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. He is determined to follow to the bitter end his brainstorm of trebling the production incentive of 25c recommended by the Tariff Board inquiry in 1965. Thanks to the Acting Prime Minister this Government is now caught in a subsidy production scheme, the underlying assumptions of which are shot through with holes. In the best Country Party traditions, this subsidy happy Government is distributing largesse to all companies which strike oil in Australia whether they need it or not. To use the homely mataphor, the Government is determined to grease the fat pig. The only question about petrol price increases now to be resolved is how much and for how long.

The Government has maintained a stony silence on the estimate of Dr Hunter of the Australian National University that the minimum price increase for petrol by 1970 would be from 5c to 7c per gallon. Dr Hunter’s figures are correct and the Government dare not deny them. The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) has admitted that there has been pressure from the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association for production incentive payments to be maintained after 1970. In the meantime the Government will attempt to brazen out an embarrassing situation. Even our phantom Prime Minister has called for special Cabinet consideration of its implications. The Opposition will fight the next Federal election on this issue because it is part of the general issue of this Government’s feckless, fatuous and farcical giveaway of Australia’s natural resources. The Government has been criminally negligent. Wc will fight this Government at every opportunity. Wc will expose it by every available form of parliamentary procedure, by public protest and Press propaganda. The real issue will not be the prospect of petrol price increases but the need and practicability for progressive decreases in petrol costs to the 3i million Australian motorists of up to at least 7c per gallon.

The results of this Government’s policy constitute the greatest sell-out of Australia’s assets of all time. Other nations cannot imagine how a people, sitting on unimaginable resources, should be so slow in developing them, so free to give away control of them, and so haphazard in planning for their development and disposal to bring the maximum benefit to Australia and themselves. Australia’s major tragedy is the absence of a national fuel and energy policy into which a policy for crude oil, natural gas and other derivatives could be integrated for the welfare of the nation as a whole.

We have heard much from this Government of the overriding need for the physical defence of Australia. Who needs to invade Australia today with an army of occupation when the open door is offered to overseas interests in the terms of current policy, or the lack of policy. Australia’s resources are here for the taking by any international commercial interest. The Commonwealth Government has in fact, in the words of Professor Sawer: ‘Abdicated its responsibility for the national interests and its own authority … the scheme now in operation is grossly inconsistent with the adequate protection of the national interest, and with the clear principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament’. The President of the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Mr John Collins, in requesting an inquiry by the Federal Government into petrol prices generally, has said:

The retail oil companies are exploiting the public to the tune of S50in per year, by grossly inflating their wholesale prices on petrol from imported crude oil.

The Government is mealy mouthed in its mumbling defence of production incentive payments to Esso-BHP. The $1 per barrel incentive is money largely wasted so far as any large international oil company such as Esso is concerned. There was extensive oil exploration in Australia before the Tariff Board was asked, at the end of 1964, to consider protection for crude oil production. The decision by Esso-BHP to survey and explore the Gippsland and Bass Strait offshore areas was taken long before the Tariff Board inquiry began and the work would have continued regardless of whether or not an exploration incentive was offered. When the incentive legislation was introduced in September 1965 Esso-BHP already had admitted discovery of vast natural gas fields in the area, estimated to yield $2.500m worth of natural gas over a period of 20 years. They had already discovered the existence of a major oil field.

Mr Fairbairn:

– That is quite wrong.

Mr CONNOR:

– They were sitting on it. They well knew about it. International oil companies such as Esso have their own special outlook. They come to Australia to explore because of the strong possibility of finding a large commercial oil field in the young sands of the largest continental shelf in the world. Additionally, Australia has strong prospects of market growth increase. Any discoveries of oil in Australia are well placed to supply the needs of Japan, which is a major oil market. The policy of oil companies is always to divert cash flows to those parts of the world where they will yield the highest return, consistent with security. At the same time they are prepared to snap up any local available investment funds, as Esso did with its recent $30m debenture issue. Australia is attractive, as a physically secure country, to Esso or to any international oil company which has experienced the political instability of such areas as the Middle East. The exploration incentive is not only an unnecessary inducement but, in the case of Esso-BHP, is an unmitigated scandal.

In the last week there have been three more successful drillings by Esso-BHP proving the existence of adequate natural gas supplies not only for the needs of Victoria but also to supply New South Wales. Why is the Government so tenderly solicitous of these company giants? Only a royal commission can elicit the answers to the questions being asked by all Australians and particularly by all responsible motoring and transport organisations. Only at a royal commission will the Government be forced to table its files of correspondence, reports and legal advisings. Only by a royal commission can the details of some of the sordid secret manoeuvres be fully revealed. The Gippsland-Bass Strait field undoubtedly can supply all Australia’s oil needs. The Government has failed to disclose the minute proportion of the area which has been drilled with such amazingly successful results. It certainly would not table, other than to a royal commission, details of the drilling cores it holds which will show a depth of oil bearing sand of up to 300 feet. Even the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) admitted, on 26th October last, that each square mile of the Gippsland-Bass Strait field was worth $350m for its crude oil content alone.

Why is there continued silence about Esso-BHP production costs for the GippslandBass Strait area? Where is the Government expert to refute Dr Hunter’s claim that the well head production cost of EssoBHP crude is 80c per barrel and that the refinery gate cost is $1.20? Will the Minister for National Development deny that the gross profit for Esso-BHP on each barrel of this crude is $2.30 - the highest in the world? Will he deny that the comparable gross profit of a typical international oil company on Persian Gulf crude does not exceed 85c to 90c per barrel? What is the Minister’s answer to the impulsive outburst of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) on 17th May last year when he said that the oil companies were concealing information vital for the calculation of the Australian Government take on oil and gas production as compared with other countries; that the companies had been at great care to conceal essential factors on which a judgment could be made; and that Australian tax concessions, subsidy payments and royalty charges were most favourable to them? Will the Minister for National Development deny that, on present profit potential, Esso-BHP can recoup the whole of its capital outlay in much less than 2 years from the areas now proven?

Will the Minister come clean and reveal the full details about negotiations between the heads of government and Esso-BHP which led to the abandonment of the graticular surrender policy in respect of proven oil fields? What would be the auction value of the four-ninths of the Kingfish, Halibut and Marlin fields, which should have been available for competitive sale under the terms of the Government’s former policy - a policy it evolved and later abandoned? How much has Australia and its States lost by the miserable increase in royalty in substitution for the graticular principle? How is the Government to determine the well head price on which royalties are to be determined? No provision for assessment is made in the production permits. The haggle over this issue is now proceeding behind the scenes between the producing companies and the State and Federal Governments.

Is the royalty computation to include the production incentive and quality premium? What inquiry is to be made into the crude production costs of Esso-BHP to calculate its true profits for company tax purposes? Is the Tariff Board’s recommendation that the value of Australian produced crude oil be $2.48 per barrel, to be the cost base on which taxation of its profits is to be calculated? Even on imported crude, the Commissioner for Taxation calculates profits for company tax on a notional landed cost figure of $2.50 per barrel. Is the Government prepared to check Dr Hunter’s calculation of $1.20 per barrel? What is to be the fair price for natural gas? In Melbourne the city gate price is 3.9c per therm. What is to be the cost basis for company tax calculation of natural gas? How much of the Esso subsidy is to go abroad?

It is noteworthy that even in the case of Moonie, foreign capital has a four-fifths interest. In the case of Barrow Island it is a six-sevenths foreign interest. The Opposition raises no objection to a selective subsidy based on the production and transport difficulties of the Barrow Island and Moonie fields. It is vehemently opposed to the Gippsland-Bass Strait folly of this Government’. The Government has yet to satisfy Australia as to the real reason for the trebling of the rate of subsidy recommended in the Tariff Board’s recommendation. I repeat that the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments have been played for suckers by the crafty, close-mouthed Esso-BHP consortium. They have been outwitted and outmanoeuvered by two completely sophisticated companies.

Considering the financial strength and other circumstances of Esso-BHP it seems absurd - almost unbelievable; - that a national government would continue to subsidise, in the present lavish fashion, their production of oil from a world ranking oil and natural gas field. The Government’s policy is gratuitous and discriminates unfairly against other oil search companies. The price support scheme should be terminated immediately. A Labor government will immediately establish a royal commission to reveal, and provide remedies for, the whole of the gravest national scandal in Australia’s history. It will ensure that petrol and other oil derivatives are sold to Australian motorists at reduced prices, and introduce a national fuel and energy policy, lt will, where necessary, provide selective subsidies to oil producers until they reach the point of efficient and economic production,

The Opposition charges the Government not only with a fantastic give-away of Australia’s natural resources, but with ineptitude of the worst kind. The Government has failed even to establish an effective basis for calculation of well-head royalties. It will allow to slip through its net of company taxation at least two-thirds of potential tax revenue. Worst of all, it has failed to ensure that, in respect of existing oil discoveries, it retains at least a majority controlling interest for the national welfare. It has further failed to pursue, in its own right, produc tion, by a Statutory Corporation, of the oil and natural gas needs of the Australian people.

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

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · Farrer · LP

– The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) has made a considerable number of completely inaccurate statements. The great difficulty is to be able to reply to every one of them within a period of IS minutes, and I am afraid it would be impossible for me to do so. But I think that during my 15 minutes I will be able to say enough to show a number of the inaccuracies. The honourable member for Cunningham referred to the Government continuing to pay an incentive price to Esso-BHP. Continuing to pay’ is a rather odd phrase to use, because we have not started to pay it yet. I do not understand how we can continue to pay something that we have not as yet started to pay. But the honourable member for Cunningham has legal experience, and he should be able to express that resolution more accurately.

There are two questions involved in this matter and I intend to touch on both of them. The first is: Should Esso-BHP and, of course, all other producers, enjoy the incentive price; secondly, what should be done about local prices of petrol? The honourable member for Cunningham said that a price increase was a certainty. Of course it is by no means a certainty. On the question as to whether we should, as he puts it, continue to pay an incentive subsidy to Haematite Explorations Pty Ltd and Esso-BHP. the honourable gentleman’s stand is incredible. The honourable member is saying that the Government should repudiate or dishonour the agreement which came before this Parliament and which was accepted by the Parliament without opposition from any quarter, (f it was an excessive price or if it was the wrong thing to do, where was the Opposition when this agreement passed through the Parliament?

If the honourable member cares to refer to Hansard he will see that in September 1965 a tariff proposal was brought forward setting out the basis on which incentive payments would be paid to all people who explored for and discovered and produced petroleum. The Opposition was so completely bereft of interest in this matter at that time that it did not even bother to debate it,, and eventually the matter was wiped off the notice paper. Yet today the Opposition is saying that we should welch on the agreement which was made in good faith by the Government. Shades of Jack Lang! You say something, you make an agreement, and on the good faith of the government companies go out searching and make their decisions and adjust their policies. But if you discover that the companies will do better than you thought they would do, then you just welch on the agreement. That absolutely staggers me, but apparently that is the policy of the Labor Party in this matter.

In September 1965 my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) made a perfectly clear statement in which he said:

The Government has decided that the method of valuation recommended by the Board coupled with the 75 cents per barrel incentive allowance will operate for 5 years but the Government would consider reviewing the valuation during this period, if it considers that the incentive to exploration has proved adequate.

There was no discussion on this statement by the Opposition. I take it that the Opposition agreed with it. Now, of course, when oil has been discovered the Opposition says that we should tear up this agreement which was accepted by both sides of the House in September 1965. Perhaps looked at with hindsight - who knows - the Government may have been more generous than it was necessary to be in order to get this tremendous search for and discovery of oil which has been of such enormous benefit to Australia.

Let me very briefly and very quickly, because I do not have a great deal of time, recount to the House the decision that was made. At that time oil had been discovered at Moonie. For nearly 1 8 months it was hawked around the country to every refinery but no-one would buy it. Eventually the Minister for National Development at the time, my predecessor, Sir William Spooner, brought the parties together, knocked their heads together and said: ‘This oil has to be taken.’ It represented less than 2% of Australia’s requirements. So a temporary agreement was made to take this oil. The Minister for Trade and Industry then put to the Tariff Board the problems facing us and he said: ‘First of all, we want any locally produced indigenous crude oil to be taken and, secondly, we want you to tell us what the price of that crude should be.’ The Tariff Board came up with a system whereby it was provided that local crude must be taken and there was a penal clause to ensure that it was taken. Then the Tariff Board said that an incentive price should be paid.

At the time, we felt that the incentive the Board recommended was inadequate and was not sufficient to encourage the search for and the discovery of oil because, as 1 have said, only a very small field had then been discovered at Moonie. Another field had been discovered at Barrow Island, but it was of somewhat doubtful commercial quantity because of the fact that it was a long way away and that the particular oil bearing rocks there were not very porous. Contrary to what the honourable member for Cunningham said, no oil had been discovered in Gippsland, nor did we know that it was likely to be discovered there. We knew it was a possibility; but only gas had been discovered. This was the situation that existed when the Minister for Trade and Industry said that in order to encourage the search for oil in Australia the Government would continue to pay this incentive price, which the Government felt should be a little higher than was recommended by the Tariff Board. This is the agreement which the Australian Labor Party now wants to have torn up. This is an indication of how much faith companies could have in a future Labor government. No wonder companies have doubts about what a future Labor government would do. It could say something and a short while later say: ‘We are sorry; we did not mean that’.

Another extraordinary thing about the speech made by the honourable member for Cunningham was his singling out of the Esso-BHP group for attack. Why did he not mention the WAPET or UnionKern organisations? The one organisation singled out for attack is the group in which a great Australian company has a 50% shareholding. The Government is accused by the honourable member of giving away our local resources to an organisation in which an Australian company, with shareholders all over Australia, has a major interest.

What is the position in Bass Strait today? We know that production from the Bass Strait area will commence in about April 1969. Because of the incentive price, EssoBHP will get a considerable profit in the short term until September 1970, when the incentive price is due for review. 1 am told that if production proceeds as it is hoped it will proceed, the extra amount that Esso-BHP will obtain from the incentive price over the period in question will be a little more than $50m. We know that the company has said - I think this is fairly correct - that about 50% of its profits will go to pay royalties, taxes and the like. Out of this sum also, we must not forget that Esso-BHP has an extensive programme of exploration to finance. The programme is confidential, but nobody has any doubt that the exploration programme being carried out in Bass Strait is very considerable in size. Over and above the cost of its exploration programme the company will have to spend $300m to bring the Bass Strait field into production. lt is all very well to single out the one successful company, but what of the companies that were not successful? In my room I have a little phial of oil. One might think that it is not very valuable, but it cost $50m to discover that oil. It came from the WAPET field on Barrow Island. All told, $443m has been spent by private companies in the search for oil in Australia. What have they got in return so far? It cannot be said that they have not got anything, but they have got very little. Large sums will still have to be found to bring fields into production. The BP organisation has spent $35m and has not found a drop of oil. The Aquitaine company has spent $15m. A well was drilled recently by the Burmah oil company at a cost of $4m, and it was sealed off and abandoned. These are the things we do not hear about. We hear about the successes only. In the eyes of members of the Labor Party the worst thing a company can do is become successful and make profits.

Of course this Government is concerned to keep prices down. We are particularly concerned to keep down the price of petrol, because no country is more dependent on petrol and other fuels than is Australia with its vast distances. I think the Government has been very successful in its endeavours to date. The price paid for standard motor spirit in Australia is only a fraction higher than the price paid in New Zealand and New York. Charges in New Zealand are lower than they are in Australia because New Zealand does not have the distribution problems that face us in this country. New Zealand does not have the remote outback areas to serve. The price of petrol in Australia is 38.1c per imperial gallon. The Government pays a subsidy of SI 5m a year in order to keep down the price of petrol in remote areas. The price of petrol in Britain is 56.5c a gallon; in Italy 78.9c a gallon; and in France 79.7c a gallon. Of course the Government is anxious to keep down the price of petrol. There is no guarantee that oil prices will rise, as the honourable member for Cunningham has said they will. The Government has this matter currently under review. What ways are open to us to keep prices down? Basically, either the motorist pays the price or it is paid by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer pays, he does so through a system of tax remissions, a subsidy system or reduced excise charges. Or the Government could negotiate with the oil companies. Under the current agreement the companies know that they will get a certain additional incentive price. If the companies were prepared to have this incentive payment spread over a period longer than the 18 months stipulated in the agreement, this would be one way of ensuring that there would be no considerable increase in the price of petrol. These are matters which the Government is investigating. We do not have to rush immediately into dealing with the problem, because it will be April of next year before the first of the EssoBHP wells comes into production; but we do have the matter under close review.

In hindsight, the Commonwealth may have been more generous with the exploration companies that it need have been. Now that the oil has been discovered it is very easy to say that the Government need not have offered an incentive. I do not doubt that even if the Commonwealth had not offered an incentive, Esso-BHP, in due course, would have drilled most of the areas that it had under permit in Bass Strait. But I am certain that the company would not have brought its wells into production as quickly as it is now doing had it not been for the Government’s incentive. There are considerable doubts whether the Barrow Island field in the north west of Western Australia would have been declared commercial had it not been for the special action taken by this Government. The benefits to Australia from the success of the fuel policy pursued by this Government will be enormous. There will be the benefit of security. We have heard only today, in a previous debate, of the advantages in making our own defence equipment. Surely it is of much greater advantage to find oil in this country. Another benefit will be the reduced cost of importing crude oil. We are currently spending $3 40m a year on the importation of crude oil. Extra revenue will flow to the Commonwealth from increased taxes and royalties on discoveries of oil in this country. New industries will be set up. We will be able to export oil products. When 1 last spoke on this matter 1 said that Esso-BHP intends in the not too distant future to export annually 1 million tons of liquid petroleum gas. All of these benefits to Australia flow from this great crime which, in the eyes of the Labor Party, these companies have committed by being successful. What an extraordinary situation it is that the once great Labor Party should now be apparently doing its best to repudiate agreements and to force companies not to spend the vast amounts of money that they are currently devoting to oil exploration. The Labor Party’s policy seems to be one of continual reliance on petrol from abroad.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The House is discussing a matter of urgent public importance raised by the honourable member- for Cunningham (Mr Connor), namely, the Government’s policy of paying to oil companies an incentive subsidy on the production of oil in Australia. The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) has said that the Australian Labor Party did not oppose the principle of incentive payments when it was announced by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) on 8th September 1965. Let us be clear as to what was intended at that time. If we analyse what the Minister for National Development has said this afternoon, it is clear that in 1965 the Government did not expect the results that have flowed from its incentive scheme. The Minister admitted that the Government may have been over-generous with its incentive. If the Government has been overgenerous, it is obvious that in 1965 the Government was not aware of the ramifications of its proposal. At that time the Labor Party was concerned to see that the search for oil continued in Australia. When oil was discovered we were concerned that it be developed. When it was necessary that some incentive or assistance be given to enable the Moonie field and later the Barrow Island field to produce, we were in favour of that assistance being given. But we are not in favour of assistance being given at this stage when it is obvious that the hand out that will be given to these two substantial companies, Esso and BHP, will be in the vicinity of $87m a year. Admittedly the Acting Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), in reply to a question asked by myself about a fortnight ago, indicated this would not start in its entirety until some time in 1970, and the Government has not yet determined what will happen in 1970. But unless the Government reverses its policy this substantial hand out will come into operation in its entirety somewhere about that time. One of the things we want the Government to do is to answer the honourable member for Cunningham and Dr Alex Hunter in relation to the actual cost of production. Let us have an inquiry into the actual cost of production at the Bass Strait and Gippsland fields. Let us know what these companies are making. Investors today have a pretty fair idea, particularly when one notes the substantial increases that have taken place in the price of BHP shares. We do not know how far the value of Esso shares has gone up because those shares are completely owned by Standard Oil in the United States; but we all know of the extraordinary and substantial increases in the price of BHP shares over the last 12 months or less. When we deal with the international oil companies we are dealing with a tough, ruthless, monopolistic group of companies that operate on an international plane. The Esso company, as I have said, is owned by Standard Oil in the United States of America. Standard Oil has been involved in price fixing and underhand deals in that country and has been subjected to inquiries by the United States Department of Internal Revenue, which is the equivalent of our Taxation Branch. It has been subjected to inquiries under the anti-trust law. It has been subjected to more investigations by the authorities than any other company in the United States. Yet this Government is showing great concern as to whether this company is getting a raw deal or is entitled to its share of this sum of $87 1/2 m. As I said, when we are dealing with oil companies we are dealing with a ruthless group of companies.

If one reads the Tariff Board reports of 1959 and 1965 one wonders how the Tariff Board arrived at the price that was fixed for Moonie oil at that time. In those reports reference is made to the methods of purchasing crude oil overseas from companies owned in other countries, the shipping of that oil in tankers owned by those self same companies, and how they charge themselves all sorts of prices so they can make high profits in low taxation countries. In Australia, where there is a reasonably high degree of taxation, these companies make low profits; in many cases they make a loss. If one examines the profits of oil companies one wonders how they carry on. It must be obvious to honourable members, as it was to the Tariff Board in 1959, that these companies are operating in an underhand manner. On many occasions when these companies publicly declare a loss the Taxation Branch does not believe them and proceeds to levy tax against them. If one takes time to read the Tariff Board reports the illegal and underhand practices of these companies become obvious. The information is contained in these reports for honourable members to read - at page 15 of the 1959 report and at page 9 of the 1965 report. As I said, I do not know how the Tariff Board arrived at its price for petrol at that time. The President of the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Mr John Collins, in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 18th May 1968 said that oil companies were exploiting the public by more than $50m a year by over-pricing petrol by at least 4c a gallon. He went on to say:

Higher wholesale prices let oil companies offer big discount prices to a large number of preferred buyers among industry and primary industry.

These are the companies that the Government is prepared to go out of its way to assist by way of subsidy and incentive bonuses. The Barrow Island field was already in operation, so the incentive had no effect whatsoever.

What is the well head cost of production of oil in the Gippsland and Bass Strait fields that has caused the Government to be so generous as to provide this additional incentive? I referred earlier to Dr Alex Hunter, Senior Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University. He has publicly stated that on his calculations the cost of production at the refinery gate is $1.20 per barrel. This leaves the company a quite substantial and reasonable profit of $2.30 per barrel. If one takes into account the company’s publicly stated estimated production rate of 244,000 barrels a day, it means that the company will make a profit of $561,000 a day or approximately $205m a year. If the $1 per barrel incentive is removed the profit will still be $118m. In considering this question of oil search and production one has to take into account the fact that the Government pays approximately 40% of the cost by way of incentive. The Minister will not deny these facts. In the event of the project being successful, the total cost of production less the subsidy becomes a taxable deduction against future unearned profits. If this company is going to make a profit of about $118m a year and if, as it has been publicly stated, the company is going to invest about $400m, one can clearly see that without the incentive the first 3i years of its production will be almost tax free if it wants to write off the whole of its $400m investment. If the venture is unsuccessful the total cost to the company still becomes a taxable deduction. So I feel that the Government is generous to companies that engage in the search for oil. Oil companies do not come to Australia because of this incentive. They come here because they want control and want to hold a monopoly of oil production throughout the world. If one examines the number of companies in the world that are producing crude oil, one finds that the number is very limited and select. These companies want to retain their position. They do not want people intruding into their field of operations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr MACKAY:
Evans

– This is a most illuminating debate. I trust every Australian will pay attention to it, giving some thought not just to the issues which have been raised immediately but to the political and economic philosophy that the Opposition has expounded in this particular field. lt is a field in which I have a particular interest, and I announce that interest with pride because, as honourable members know, I am concerned with the increasing Australian activity, equity and interest in the search for oil. I do so at this time in a climate that is becoming entirely different because of the activities of the Australian Government and because of the unprecedented success that has followed the measures it has adopted.

Today in this House we heard honourable members opposite use expressions such as the crafty, close-mouthed BHP consortium’. Opposition members said that the price support scheme should be terminated immediately and that a Labour government, if in office, would do so. The implications of this assertion deserve the serious consideration of every Australian. We hear a good deal of criticism of the ethics of some business organisations and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Jones), who preceded me in this debate, was critical of the past history of American exploration. But surely a government’s word should be its bond and this would-be alternative government stands on its own admission in this place as a self-expressed welcher, a twister, and a confidence trickster. Opposition members revealed themselves as the kind of people who would invite others to risk their money in an investment and, when they have invested their money, remove from them the clearly stated basis on which they were induced to do so. This presents an appalling spectacle of the miserable, grovelling socialism that would kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Let me take an illustration. One can imagine the spectacle of a mentally retarded vagrant using a stone to scratch the sides of parked cars simply because they are shiny and beautiful and are the property of the successful and the wealthy. Having seen that spectacle, one can pity the despoiler and perhaps understand his twisted motives. That is bad enough. But what if the despoiler is actually destroying the property of his own family, which he himself will inherit, simply because it is a success symbol and he himself is far from a success? Only one word can describe this attitude and that is psychopathic. Today we listened to proposals that come very close to the illustration I have used. The words used by the honourable member for Newcastle were surprising. The debates in this place show that the Government has laid the foundation for the situation in which we now find ourselves. Its efforts have been successful and it has pressed ahead. Now, simply because it seems that the sums of money involved are large, simply because production of this country’s resources is bounding ahead, simply because Australia has become a magnet for other capital, other know-how, brains and ability and is growing strongly, we have this miserable psychopathic attitude emerging from Opposition members who want to hit something simply because it is successful. 1 turn now to the most ridiculous argument advanced by the Opposition. Anyone anywhere in the world who knows anything about the search for oil would ridicule this argument. The Opposition wants to ally a kind of taxation attitude to the actual cost of production of a particular oil field in a particular locality. This is absolutely irrelevant. We are talking about enormous expenditures. Esso has been mentioned, but other large overseas companies could also be mentioned. For instance, at times Shell has spent many millions of dollars investigating fields in various parts of the world and has not produced one drop of oil from any of them. We have heard about BP. This company has spent many millions of dollars on the search for oil in this country without success, and I hope this situation does not continue for too much longer. Companies have spent $440m so far and have received only minor returns from Moonie and Barrow Island. To date our reserves are equal to only about 26% of our anticipated domestic requirements in the 20 years from 1970 to 1989. We desperately need more production. We need more production inland where it is less vulnerable in times of national emergency than it is in the seaboard areas. We need production for reasons of decentralisation. The development of the country’s agricultural industry requires more and more of the kind of fertilisers that can be produced as byproducts in the petroleum industry.

The criticisms we have heard have been levelled largely against the Government because it has undertaken to implement a careful, painstaking piece of legislation in relation to offshore tenements and holdings. Co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth, which is the envy of most other nations, particularly those with federal systems, has resulted in the nation going ahead to the very successful current situation. Time is extremely limited in this debate and I am unable to deal with all the fallacies that have been produced by honourable members opposite. However, one should not pass from this subject without drawing attention to the misunderstandings that exist about subsidies that apply to oil exploration. This subsidy is not an outright grant, It is not even something new. It is not peculiar to the activities of this Commonwealth Government. State governments across Australia have used it for years in mineral search over a wide range of methods of mining and of drilling on mining leases. As soon as production is undertaken and the economics of the discovery begin to work in favour of the owner of the tenement or lease, the subsidy is to be returned. This, of course, is true of the Esso-BHP consortium. All the subsidies paid out on wells that arc now about to produce will be returned forthwith to the Commonwealth.

What will be the final situation? There is need to continue the search for oil, especially on land and in other offshore areas. Some fields in Victoria and possibly in Western Australia have been highly successful, and thank goodness they have for Australia’s sake. The principle at stake is to ensure for the explorer a return attractive enough to justify his risk. The incentive payment is really needed only for reserves up to a certain size, in regard to location, prediscovery and production costs, including transmission to the refinery. Discontinuing incentive payments to some fields and not to others would make some indigenous crudes cheaper than others and dislocate the marketing of the whole Australian product, unless other controls were instituted.

There are various ways in which we can act in relation to the distant future. One possible way would be to subsidise the costs of remote fields to bring a net price return for crude at the Tefinery gates. But this has its problems. A discovery of oil near Darwin or Wyndham or in far west Queensland may not have the same value to the nation as would discoveries nearer our largest markets. On balance my own attitude would be to favour an incentive which eventually reduces with the magnitude of profitable recovery after a base period that is clearly understood by the industry, before the companies risk their capital in the exploration for oil. After this base period of, say. 5 years production, it could be coupled with some measure of inducements or incentives relating to certain prescribed areas where oil production would be greatly in the national interest. These prescribed areas could bc pointed out to the oil exploring companies and incentives could be related to them. But to remove al) incentives and above all to stand in front of the oil industry as a government that would deliberately and calculatingly take away what it has promised and undertaken faithfully to perform is an act that no responsible government could contemplate for one moment.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– The honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay) has spoken fluently in the defence of Esso-BHP and has indicated in the course of his address his own special interest in this subject. He has confessed to the Parliament that be is a shareholder. He has told the House of his interest as an investor. I should like to ask the honourable member to disclose to the Parliament just what are his interests and to tell the nation for whom he speaks in this place - whether it is the electors who put him in the Parliament or the shareholders with whom he is associated in these ventures. He has spoken at length of other oil companies, about their interests and what the preservation of the arrangement with Esso-BHP means to them. It must be known that what money is being paid to Esso-BHP has little or no bearing on the situation affecting unsuccessful companies. If a company is successful in finding a major field, it will get its reward. It will receive its reward by way of the treatment that the Government will dispense. The company will receive its reward in the size of the market that is available and in many other directions. On the position of unsuccessful companies this subsidy will have very little bearing indeed.

What is necessary is a plan that will stimulate the search for oil. It has been mentioned previously in debates in this Parliament that this plan should involve a payment similar to the gold bounty that tapers off with the successful operations of a company. When a company can return 10% or more the subsidy should disappear. In the present instance we find that the Government has trebled the amount of subsidy originally granted at the time of the first successful finding of oil in Australia. The Tariff Board recommended that the price of oil should be $2.48 per barrel with a subsidy of 25c and also 27c for premium quality oil, bringing the price to $3 per barrel. But this Government was not satisfied with that recommendation. It has increased the amount to be paid per barrel of oil to $3.50. It trebled the original subsidy grant. It trebled the price to make a large payment to Esso-BHP. In this matter, the Government and Esso-BHP are aligned against the best interests of the Australian people.

Here the Government takes its place in repudiating the community. One of those who has been to the fore in this kind of repudiation is none other than the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen). In this Parliament recently I asked him a question dealing with the subject of loading the cost of this increase on to our transport industry, the effect of the increase generally on the community and how this increase would affect our export industries by adding to the burden of cost in transportation. The Minister fobbed off my question and pleaded the alibi for BHP that it was not engaged in the transport industry. Everybody knows that it has its own company, Haematite Explorations Pty Ltd which represents BHP, and which is BHP. If there is a glimmering of light in this whole matter of any value to the community it is that this is an Australian company with 50% of shareholding interests in this country.

We have all to consider the importance of our transport industry. When we remember that approximately 25% to 30% of our productive effort is involved in the transport industry, we realise that we should not be loading that industry up with additional costs and so affecting the small people in our community. Who will suffer as a result of this increase? Those who will suffer include the Sunday driver, the person on the farm taking his children to school or his goods to market and the long distance haulier representing a section of our transport system, all of whom use petroleum products. There is hardly one person in the community who will not pay a penalty in aiding and adding to the profits of EssoBHP. If these were struggling companies finding it difficult to balance their accounts, immediately the Opposition would say that they should be supported and assisted. But these companies do nol require assistance.

The farmer will be penalised by the increased price in the cost of his petrol, kerosene and diesel fuel. This increased price will help Esso-BHP. The small industry will be penalised also. Is this what we stand for in this Parliament? Surely there ought to be an appreciation of this problem. The Government has failed to establish a case for the proposed increase in the price of petrol and other petroleum products, which is to be borne by the Australian people. Spokesmen for the Government have not justified the generous subsidy proposals to inflate the profits of Esso-BHP in its exploitation of this major oil and gas field off the Gippsland coast. This is a major field making a substantial contribution and is unlike the Moonie field which is remote, small and far from the market. The Gippsland field has a market right on its doorstep. Yet the Government, in the words of the honourable member for Cunningham, using a rural expression, seeks to grease the fat pig. The Opposition has sought and has not received from the Government the facts and figures to warrant an increase in petroleum charges. We have sought it by question and by speech in the Parliament.

Already it is known that costs will increase. The price of petrol may increase by 5c per gallon. This in turn will lead to increased costs all round, including increased air fares. Should the Australian people be called upon to make this contribution to Esso-BHP? I believe that we have paid this organisation sufficient already. We have already given it generous subsidies. The oil companies generally have received slightly more than $60m in subsidies for the search for oil in Australia. Taxation concessions have been granted. Esso-BHP will be able to claim these concessions until it recoups its expenditure in its search for oil. It will have the benefit of a depreciation allowance. lt has its royalties which will be 12% here compared with 16 i% in certain foreign countries. Those figures are according to information provided to me by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). The number and size respectively of graticular block schemes will be nine blocks of 25 square miles each. The company has received assistance through the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the high price policy which affects this industry affects also the people of Australia.

The honourable member for Cunningham has referred to natural gas and other rich products which could be of advantage to all Australia and which are being denied to most of Australia. Mr Pettingel of the Australian Gas Light Company has protested as have other leaders in this field. The mayors of Albury and Wagga hara expressed their concern that no provision has been made to supply natural gas to those country cities of New South Wales. Natural gas can be sold for 3c per therm in Victoria as against lc per therm in Brisbane, from the small Roma field. In every way, Esso-BHP enjoys advantages.

I have asked for some justification of this proposed price increase. There is none. As to the matter of a campaign in this direction, ample evidence has been provided that this is so. The Minister for Trade and Industry, after I spoke in Parliament and asked him a question about this said that there was no campaign. But the ‘Australian Financial Review* of 22nd March 1968 reveals: ‘Esso joins small producers in high crude price campaign’. We have the words of the Treasurer replying to the case presented by the oil companies. He told them that they were being very well treated. This was in a statement published on 27th January of last year. Again a rebuttal came from the late Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, when he refuted the charges of a top oil man concerning the attitude of the Government in these matters. On every occasion it has been revealed that the oil companies were prosecuting a campaign for increased prices. In an article published in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 17th March 1967 the Treasurer said that royalties favour oil companies’.

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

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Murray · CP

Mr Acting Speaker, the matter of urgency proposed for discussion by the Australian Labor Party is a phony. The honourable member who initiated this debate, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said: Labor will fight the next general election on this issue’. I can understand the Labor Party wanting an issue other than the decisions of the Victorian Labor Party conference held last weekend. I can understand that very well. But the Labor Party will avoid the issue, lt must. During this debate no more than eight Labor members have been in the House. There are not a dozen present now. It was the Labor Party which brought up this great issue. What is the attitude of the Labor Party? There is no industrial oil producing country anywhere in the world that does not protect its own oil production. The United States of America protects its own oil production by a much higher incentive payment per barrel. Canada, Germany, France and Italy protect their oil industries. What is the attitude of the Labor Party? Does it not want to protect the oil industry in Australia? It is not an industry that is solely Esso-BHP; it is an Australian oil industry. We want oil found and produced.

We do not abolish tariffs on motor cars because General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd is a big and wealthy firm. The policies the Government has adopted in regard to these industries are for the good of the Australian nation. A few years ago it was claimed that self sufficiency in oil would be for the good of Australia. Now the

Labor Party argues that because oil can be bought much more cheaply from the Arab countries, we should not protect the Australian oil industry. We could argue that because sugar could be bought more cheaply elsewhere we should not produce it in Australia; likewise with butter. There is always someone willing to dump products such as these on the Australian market. We could also buy most manufactured articles elsewhere at lower prices than we pay for goods made in Australia. We could certainly do these things if we did not want a healthy, growing, thriving and prosperous nation. To take this line of argument further, we could even hire labour more cheaply from outside Australia if we did not want to protect employment in this country. Where have the principles of the Labor Party gone? Where is its Australian policy? It clings to its name as the Australian Labor Party, yet argues against Australia’s interests because the fortunate companies that have found this bonanza of oil happen to be very rich companies. Therefore, according to the Labor Party, these companies are bad, and they are to be traduced and misrepresented. lt is nonsense to talk about the cost of producing oil at the well head. The important factor is not the cost of turning on the tap once the oil has been found but the cost of finding the oil. The cost of drilling a dry well is about $4m, and there are hundreds of dry wells. The Labor Party talks nonsense about the cost of producing oil when it has been found, but it does not take into consideration the cost of finding the oil. Indeed. the cost of not finding it is the real trouble. This Government was jubilant and delighted when the first oil well was found. But it was dismayed to find that no-one in Australia would buy the oil. Our present policy was adopted because we could not get a buyer for the oil found at Moonie. This policy was publicly debated in both Houses of the Parliament. We instructed the Tariff Board to give us the best advice it could on the basis of a policy that has been applied to other products for many years. When we produce in Australia only an insignificant proportion of our total requirements of a commodity, we do not want to burden the consumers by imposing a tariff on the bulk of the supply to protect the producers of the small proportion derived from Australian industry. So we have devised a method by which we let firms bring in imports duty free if they undertake to buy the Australian product at a proper price. This is done in respect of a number of Australian products. We have assured a market and induced people to grow coffee, cocoa and rubber in New Guinea by telling the great companies that are large buyers of these commodities that if they undertake to buy the supplies produced in New Guinea they can bring the remainder of their requirements into Australia duty free. That is the kind of policy that was adopted in respect of oil at a time when there was no real reason to expect the finding of the bonanza in Bass Strait. Oil has been produced in the Gippsland district since the 1920s. But it has been produced at a loss. The search for an economic oil field in Gippsland has been continuous for the last 40 years and a mere trickle of oil has been found in the whole of that time. Yet. a bonanza has now been found just a few miles away. But who had the foresight to see that there would be a bonanza of oil?

I am told that the presently known resources in Australia can meet a proportion of Australia’s oil requirements only until 1990. Do we not want oil for all time? If we do, we must have a policy that seeks to provide enduring supplies. It is true that our policy has turned out to favour greatly, if ‘favour’ is the right word, and to profit greatly a great combination of wealthy companies which has found oil near the great demand point of Melbourne. But noone had the foresight to expect that this would happen. The policy now adopted by the Government will not endure for all time; it will continue for 5 years. That policy is designed not to deal with the cost of production of oil but to induce investment in, and to encourage, the search for oil. This is what our policy has done. It has been in operation for 3£ years. In this period, half as many holes have been drilled as were previously drilled in the whole of our history. Now we have three commercial producing oil fields. Surely this is success. Yet the Labor Party wants to fight the next election on the issue of oil and petrol prices. It condemns the Government for the success that has attended its policy.

The Esso-BHP field will be in production in a small way in about a year’s time. The period for which the incentive price established by the Government’s present policy will apply expires in about 15 months time. We have made it clear from the outset that our policy will be reviewed before it runs out at the end of the 5-year period. This has been the attitude of the Government from the outset. I just cannot comprehend the Labor Party’s aligning itself with policies of repudiation and condemning the success of the companies involved and of the Government’s policy. As I have said this policy will not continue for all time, but will run out in about 18 months time.

Mr Connor:

– Two years and 3 months.

Mr McEWEN:

– I accept the correction. The policy will run out in September or October 1970. My arithmetic is bad but my intention is not. Anyway, our policy will run out in a short time. What I meant to say was that it will have another 15 or 16 months to run after the oil starts to flow. Before our policy runs out, a review will take place.

The Opposition has no grounds on which to condemn this Government for inducing an activated search for oil. There is nothing to condemn this Government for in aligning itself with every other industrial country that is producing oil and protecting its own oil industry. We will do this and be proud of doing it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I enter this debate for the purpose of expressing my pleasure that the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) as spokesman for the Opposition, has indicated quite clearly that the next election will be fought primarily on the issue of petroleum prices. t There is no doubt that the decision of this Government to continue to pay an incentive subsidy-

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to.

That the business of the day be called on.

page 2235

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1822), on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The principal objective of this Bill is to replace the three non-official members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council with three fully elected members. This move is welcomed but, as I said during a debate on the measure which provided full voting rights to the member for the Northern Territory, the Government intends to continue with the stranglehold exerted by Canberra over the administrative functions of the Legislative Council. I can see no reason for altering the views that I expressed then. In actual fact, one could argue that the stranglehold has been tightened because the Bill seeks to enable the Governor-General to withhold assent from part of an ordinance.

The announcement of this legislation was received initially with some enjoyment in the Northern Territory but it was not long before members of the Legislative Council came out strongly in condemning the measure, some referring to it as the thimble and pea trick - ‘Now you see if; now you don’t’. Until the Legislative Council assumes a greater say in the legislative functions of the Northern Territory it is less a power than even a shire council. I draw attention to a report which appeared on the front page of the Darwin ‘News’ soon after this legislation was foreshadowed. It stated:

The announcement came from the Minister for the Interior, Mr Peter Nixon, yesterday morning in Canberra and yesterday afternoon from the Assistant Administrator, Mr Frank Dwyer, in Darwin.

Mr Nixon’s statement was at first welcomed ; then it brought a rain of criticism for a proviso in his statement.

Non-official and elected members of the Council said the latest constitutional reform was cancelled out by the inclusion of a provision enabling the Governor-General to withhold assent from part as well as the whole of an ordinance.

Previously the Governor-General had been able to withhold assent only from the whole of an ordinance or suggest amendments.

The editorial expressed similar views. One of the most glaring problems concerned with the Legislative Council is the salaries paid to members of the Council. From memory, I think the salary is $1,800 per annum and members receive an allowance of $200 if they represent a Darwin electorate and $400 if they represent an electorate outside Darwin. My figures may be wrong, but that is my recollection. The salaries are such that members could not regard their position on the Council as a full time job. Not long ago one of the leading elected members had to attend a murder case in the Northern Territory and he had to absent himself from the Legislative Council for several days. This caused much trouble in rearranging the agenda of the Council. This situation could not obtain in any respected parliament. It could not happen here, and I doubt whether it could happen in New Guinea now. Members of the Legislative Council must receive adequate salaries and adequate electoral allowances. It is impossible for them to do justice to their electorates on the salary and allowances now paid to them. They must get more if they are not to regard their service in the Legislative Council as a sideline activity.

The decision to replace the three nonofficial members of the Council has been advocated for many years not only by members of this Parliament but also by members of the Legislative Council. Nonofficial members who met with the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), then Minister for Territories, made it clear that they believed that they had outlived their usefulness on the Council. I am quite certain that the present Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) holds a different view from that held by the former Minister. He wants to get things done in the Northern Territory and since his appointment we have had more legislation concerning the Legislative Council, the voting rights of the member for the Northern Territory in this House, and the Northern Territory generally than we had for several years. However, the Minister should study closely the Northern Territory (Administration) Act because it has been claimed by some of the elected members of the Council that the withholding of assent from part of an ordinance will actually make the situation worse than it is now. They claim that Canberra will be able to amend legislation without referring it back to the Council. I should like the Minister to indicate whether that is a correct interpretation of the situation.

The arguments advanced by the Minister as to why the Northern Territory cannot have a greater say on matters affecting the Territory have been debated frequently in this House and there is no point in reiterating them, but I believe that they are spurious when used in comparing functions in the Northern Territory with State functions - that is, in comparing the ratio of expenditure on State-like functions in the Northern Territory with expenditure in the States. I have argued that some expenditure on Aboriginal affairs, roads, education, health and port facilities in the Northern Territory should be a national responsibility just as the development of Canberra is a national responsibility. Why do we hear arguments about State-like functions in the Northern Territory but not in the Australian Capital Territory? I am not talking now about administrative functions but about finance.

If the Government wants to be progressive with respect to the Legislative Council there are many items of legislation that the Council could consider without the oppressive overriding law that enables the Governor-General to withhold assent from ordinances passed by it. It appears, unfortunately, that the Government treats the people of the Northern Territory as irresponsible, as incapable of exercising the slightest measure of responsibility over their own affairs. Until the Legislative Council has some effective or positive action available to it it will be devoid of any effective power and will in fact be a joke. It was a joke in the days of the old Department of Territories and 1 have no doubt it is still a joke because, after all, the officers who are now principally concerned in Canberra with the administrative affairs of the Northern Territory are the same ones who had these responsibilities in the Department of Territories.

The Government refuses ‘ to take any action which would lead to freeing the people of the Northern Territory from the chains of oppression binding them and from the outdated colonial imperialist system under which the Legislative Council functions. As I said before, I hope the Minister for the Interior will take the Northern Territory (Administration) Act home and study it at length. I am sure he will find many things in it which are most revealing and many things which call for revision, lt is impossible, for example, for me to move an amendment with respect to salaries because this would commit the Government to additional money. Nevertheless I do believe that we cannot expect Legislative Councillors to do their job properly when they are only part time councillors.

There is one important amendment that we will be moving. Under the existing Act the Governor-General has the power to give assent to an ordinance or to withhold assent, but there is nothing in the Act which prevents him, or prevents the Government or the Department, from pigeonholing the ordinance - forever if that is desired. We shall be moving an amendment which to my mind is constructive, ft simply places a time limit on the Government within which assent must be given or refused. Let me give an example of the way in which the present provision can operate. The Rates (Freehold Title) Ordinance of 1967 was sent to Canberra on 8th September last, and nothing further has been heard of it. It was sent here 9 months ago, and surely it is only fair to the people of the Northern Territory that some action should have been taken on this measure which was passed through the Legislative Council. The fact is that if the Government does not like an ordinance but does not want to refuse assent it can hold up that ordinance indefinitely.

One of the most intrinsically important provisions in this legislation is that which concerns electoral boundaries. With the substitution of three elected members for three non-elected members more electorates will have to be defined and I assume that all the existing eleven electorates will have to be divided up under some formula. We have seen nothing to suggest that the principle followed in the Commonwealth sphere, giving power to define electorates with up to 20% more or 20% fewer voters than the quota decided upon, will be followed in this case. All we have seen is a statement by the Minister for the Interior to this effect:

In the creation of more electorates we would have to recognise the geographical features of the Northern Territory.

Fair enough. Then he went on:

Territorians would recognise the need for adequate representation for remote areas and the danger of domination by Darwin if electorates were fixed on a purely population basis.

Here, it would seem, is a warning of a gerrymander, and I want to make honourable members aware of the dangers of gerrymandering. The best example 1 can give is from the State of Queensland, of which I have had some experience. I suggest that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who is trying to interject, listen to what I have to say, because I do not think that he, as a liberal member, would agree with what is happening in Queensland and about which I will now give him some details. The Country Party in that State gained 27 seats from 150,000 votes, while the Labor Party won 26 seats from 350,000 votes. The Liberal Party won 20 seats with 200,000 votes. Forgetting about the Democratic Labor Party vote for the moment, it can be seen that the Liberal and Country Parties together polled about the same number of votes as the Labor Party; yet they finished with 46 seats as against 26 for the Labor Party. Can anyone argue that this is right?

Mr Ian Allan:

– Yes.

Dr PATTERSON:

– No doubt the Country Party sees a great deal of justice in this, but I am pointing out how it can react to the detriment of country areas. In Queensland in fact the distribution is working against the rural areas because of what I may call tactics of virtual blackmail by the minority coalition partner, the Liberal Party. The Country Party has the Premiership and it has the greater number of Cabinet portfolios, but it also realises that it is safe only so long as the Liberal Party declines to make a deal with the Labor Party on a redistribution. As a pay-off for declining any such deal the Liberal Party is, in my opinion, being allowed to get away with the things in the rural areas that it should not be allowed to get away with.

Let us look at some of the things that are happening. The excessive rail freights that are charged throughout the rural areas of Queensland were a major subject of discussion at the Country Party conference recently held in Townsville. Let me remind the House that it is the Country Party which is the major partner in the coalition Government.

Mr Nixon:

– There is nothing about this in the Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:

– No, 1 am simply mentioning this to illustrate what could happen in the Northern Territory if there were any gerrymander there. The rural areas of the Territory could suffer. I was referring to the point-blank refusal to reduce rail freights in Queensland. This has had a significant effect on sugar mills. I mention this as an example of the way in which the Country Party is unable to defend itself. If it did so the Liberal Party could immediately say: ‘We will side with the Labor Party on redistribution. The figures I have given show that the Country Party could not get more than 19% of total votes, so that the Labor Party or the Liberal Party would become the major party and the Country Party the minor party. I do not blame the Country Party for this if it can get away with it. All T am saying is that when dealing with the Northern Territory, if we do not have the electoral boundaries fixed on the basis of one-vote-one-value, or according to the formula fixed by existing Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, injustice could be done to the rural areas of the Territory, as has been done to the rural areas of Queensland. A party may get the greatest number of seats and form a coalition with another party, but it knows that unless it can command the greatest number of votes it runs the risk of having its coalition partner side with the Opposition party to obtain a redistribution, after which it would become the minority party. This is plain logic and common sense.

The Minister talks a lot about local government, but 1 wonder whether he knows what is going in the Northern Territory with respect to local government. I will give him the example of the Katherine Town Management Bill, lt was adopted and agreed to by Government members on the Council but the Government, by tiding delaying tactics, is refusing drafting assistance to the Council to enable it to legislate on the report. I would like to hear the Ministers comments about this matter and what the Government proposes to do with the Katherine Town Management Bil! that has been passed by the Council. The Bill will he pigeon-holed. of course. This also is the opinion of some members of the Legislative Council.

The Labor Party gave serious consideration to moving an amendment for the abolition of official members on the Council. However it would seem that the best way to handle this problem is progressively to replace the official members. This in fact is what should be done. The Government is making the Council more representative of the people by abolishing three nominated non-official members. After all, the Council needs the guidance of experienced Government members, or members speaking on behalf of this Government, for as long as members are not available who can make it a full lime job. The present situation is that the Legislative Council cannot get full time members. For as long as members have to make this a quarter or half time job, the efficiency of the Council will have to rely to some extent on the official representation of the heads of the various divisions in the Northern Territory.

One must really question the appointment of official members to the Council because I believe this creates personal problems for them. I know most of these people, if not all, and I know that they have private views on politics and policies. Quite frequently, as was stated by the President of the Legislative Council. Mr Harry Chan, in a paper he published, official members of the Council agree in private with views opposing those of the particular Government policy but present the opposite view officially because they know that in the Council they must follow Government policy. I will quote what was stated by Mr Chan:

I have Mien wondered loo about the identifi cation of official members with the government in power. We all know that, in the excellent traditions of the British civil .service, the permanent public servant carries out the policies of the government in power. He carries them out without fear or favour and without reference to his own personal opinions. The greatest difficulties in our system come after a government has been in the hands of one party for a very long time. The possibility then always exists that the public servant will come to identify himself with the policies of that particular party. When the public servant is called upon, noi only to carry out the policies but to publicly defend’ and present them in a legislature, his position becomes very different from that of the traditional unbiased public servant. As I said before, I have often wondered about the position of some official members who over the year, in my opinion, have *none beyond the simple action of defending ‘hr government’s policies and have, in fact, identified themselves with the government parties. It is, I suggest merely another one of the many problems of an anachronistic house.

With respect to official members he also said that an official member: . . may haveto defend policies which, with his intimateon-the-spot knowledge, he knows to be absurd.

If this statement is correct then it is a pretty serious one because those are the words of the President of the Legislative Council who says that an official member representing the Government may have to defend policies he knowsto be absurd because of his on-the-spot knowledge. The word absurd is a strong one. It sometimes happens that an official member agrees, in the seclusion of a committee room, with a certain proposal but records his dissent with it inthe committee’s report because he knows that he will have publicly to take an opposite view when the matter is debated in the Council.

I appreciate the problems facing a Federal Government and I think that at present there are arguments for having official members. That is the reason why I will not be moving an amendment in relation to this matter. For as long as elected members can treat membership as only a parttime job or a sideline activity it will be necessary. I believe, to have some official members on the Council in order that full knowledge on all subjects can be aired in the Council. However. I give notice that intime, probably within 12 months, a member of the Labor Party will move an amendment calling for the abolition of official members. The matter does need study. I admit, to see how the Council performs and operates with eleven elected members.

Those arethe main points I want to mention about this Bill. There is one other amendment which I will be moving on behalf ofthe Labor Party in Committee. That amendment calls for changing the name oft he Legislative Council to that of Legislative Assembly. If the title Legislative Assembly is good enough for Papua and New Guinea surely there is nothing wrong with giving the Northern Territory body the greater status that goes with the name Legislative Assembly. After all, the majority of Council members qualified to vote are really elected by the people of the Northern Territory. There is no reason that I know of for the Government to refuse to re-name the Legislative Council and call it the Legislative Assembly.

I want to refer to the administrative problems facing the Council. I will mention what is happening at Katherine in order to give honourable members some examples. I do not have time to deal with all of the problems that exist throughout the Northern Territory so I will deal with one compact area. 1 mentioned earlier the Katherine Town Management Ordinance and I asked what was going to happen about that measure. Land in Katherine is extremely hard to obtain at the present time. Vacant housing blocks have been selling recently for over $2,000. A freehold commercial block at the end of the main street, which had very little improvement, was sold recently for $30,000. I find it extremely difficult to understand why, in an area in which a lot of land is supposed to be available, residents of the Northern Territory have to pay such large amounts. People of the Territory know something about land and the members of the Legislative Council are somewhat skilled in this respect. They can put forward appropriate suggestions to the Government in their own right and they could pass ordinances which could be assented to in good faith by the Government.

Regarding health matters in Katherine, there is a desperate need for a dentist to be stationed there. Only two visits were made to Katherine last year by the Commonwealth Dental Unit. Each visit was of one week’s duration. Also, water for the residents of Katherine is pumped from the river and every wet season the water becomes unfit for human consumption due to the presence of foreign organisms and bodies, including dead fish. I am using these small items about Katherine to illustrate that these are important matters to the people of the Territory generally. These matters cannot be fully appreciated by a government run exclusively from Canberra but they can be appreciated by a government which has some responsibility for passing certain laws in the Northern Territory. I shall conclude on that note because I do not think there is any point in going over the ground again and repeating points

I made some weeks ago when speaking in the debate on the legislation which gave full voting rights in this House to the member for the Northern Territory. I have posed certain questions that I hope the Minister will answer either when he replies to the second reading debate or at the Committee stage. They concern the formula which the Government intends to adopt in the Northern Territory with respect to the redistribution of boundaries, the question of the Government withholding assent from part of an ordinance and whether the Government is able to reject part of an ordinance without it going back to the Legislative Council for consideration.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the Bill. I was glad to hear that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) welcomes it although there are a few minor points in it with which he does not agree. I should like to repudiate his statement that this Bill will place a stranglehold on legislation in the Northern Territory. This Bill is a step towards granting greater responsibility to the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Dawson said that the Bill will make the present position in the Northern Territory worse. Who says it will do this? There are three or four Labor members in the Legislative Council in the Northern Territory, and they are the people who say that the Bill will make the present position in the Northern Territory worse. The honourable member for Dawson also referred to the salaries for members of the Legislative Council. I think that all honourable members have heard me speak on this matter in this chamber. I, together with the Government, am aware that these members have to travel a long way and that it is not a very lucrative business to be a member of the Legislative Council.

The honourable member for Dawson referred to the typical Labor policy of onevote one-value. When the Labor Party was in office in Queensland, 2.43 country votes were worth one city vote. Members of the Labor Party raise this matter when it suits them, but they forget it on other occasions. The honourable member for Dawson also referred to what Lord Mayor Harry Chan said about the Council and the general attitude to it of Government members in the

Council. 1 point out to honourable members that Harry Chan, the member for Fanny Bay, is a Labor-elected politician. Naturally he would have something to say against the Government. The honourable member for Dawson then referred to the Rates (Freehold Title) Ordinance which was introduced in the Council by the member for Elsey. He said that it has been pigeonholed down here for 9 months, it is just as well it has been pigeon-holed down here, because I have heard people in the electorate of the member for Elsey castigate him for introducing it. I was present when people in the electorate of the member for Elsey tore into him for introducing the Ordinance. Had it been passed it would have resulted in all the small freeholders in that area being put off their blocks. It is a good thing that it was pigeon holed. I should think that the Government will find a better way in which to deal with ‘.he matter of freehold land title.

As regards the honourable member for Dawson’s proposition that all electorates should have an equal number of voters, I point out that under the redistribution, of which I know nothing at the moment, Darwin must get another seat. It already has four seats, one of which is Arnhem. Arnhem is not only a country electorate: it includes the city of Darwin, the Royal Australian Air Force base and the Narrows, which is a part of the city, lt extends out as far as Bathurst Island, Groote Eylandt and Gove Peninsula. So I should think that some redistribution will take place in this area. I also point out that the wealth of the Northern Territory is to be found in this area. I instance the operations now going on at Gove Peninsula and on Groote Eylandt.

The fishing industry, the great cattle industry and the mining ventures are all miles away from a city. Why should not people in those areas have proper representation? The people who live in those areas know the story. The honourable member for Dawson asked what people in Canberra know about what goes on in Darwin and in the Northern Territory. By the same token, people who live in cities do not know much about cattle stations, mining ventures and fishing projects. The only mining venture in the Northern Territory that is in a town area is the Peko mine near the town of Tennant Creek. But offsetting that there are new developments at the Warrego mine, which is 30 or 40 miles out of Tennant Creek, and the Ivanhoe and Orlando mines which are also out of town. The iron ore projects at Frances Creek and Mount Bundey and the uranium project at Batchelor are miles away from a city. Then there are the beef production areas of Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill stations. It is from these places that the wealth of the Territory comes. This is where the real development is taking place.

The Bill is designed to change the composition of the Legislative Council and to give the Governor-General the right to withhold assent from part of an ordinance. At present the Council consists of 8 elected members, 6 Government-appointed members and 3 members nominated by the Government. It is proposed that the new Council will have 11 elected members and 6 Government-appointed members, who will be the Directors of Social Welfare, the Director of Mines, the Director of Primary Industry, the Director of Local Government, the Crown Law Officer and the Assistant Administrator.

At present the three nominated members of the Council are under constant pressure. They have the casting votes on almost every matter that comes before the Council. The elected members are led very often - almost continually - to oppose the Government. There are 3 or 4 Labor members in opposition in the Council, so party politics have been introduced into that body. These Labor members oppose the Government. They can vote against any measure knowing very well that the three nominated members - tie meat in the sandwich - have the responsibility on their shoulders if the measure is passed. The nominated members feel that this is an intolerable situation. Every time a measure is introduced the elected members vote against it and after a report of the proceedings is published in the Press tremendous pressure is put on the nominated members. So the nominated members themselves have asked to be replaced by elected members. On more than one occasion in this House I have said that the replacement of the nominated members in the Council would be a forward step towards granting self-government to the Northern Territory.

The present intolerable position was illustrated very clearly last year when the honourable member for Dawson was continually speaking against the Tipperary sorghum scheme. He was supported by many of the elected members of the Council who had been whipped up into a state of frenzy by the local Press. On that occasion the nominated members were under tremendous pressure to block the Bill and so prevent the Tipperary land corporation from starting on a scheme on which it had already spent approximately $7m and on which in the next 5 years it will spend another $15m, and eventually a total of §45m. The honourable member for Dawson objects to this development, and a number of elected members of the Legislative Council have followed his cry. What a good example the honourable member for Dawson sets for northern development when he tries to close the door on development which is worth $45m. In the area between Darwin and Katherine this development will take place. The nominated members of the Council were only just able to withstand the pressure that was brought to bear on them, and they voted to pass the ordinance. Had they not done so the Tipperary Land Corporation would not have been able to go ahead with its venture. The Corporation has harvested its first crop of sorghum. The crop is probably not as good as it might have been, but the project has been proved viable. The Corporation has proved that sorghum can be grown and harvested. Early in the operation the season was good, but at the finish there was continual rain and a lot of difficulty was experienced in getting the harvested sorghum to Darwin.

When this Bill is passed the elected members of the Legislative Council will have to declare why they oppose measures such as the one to which I have referred. They will have to face their electors. They will no longer be able to vote en bloc and leave the nominated members to carry the can, as it were. Elected members and nominated members alike, as well as the northern Press, have constantly called for the replacement of nominated members with elected members. They all have advocated this. The replacement of nominated members by elected members is a step in the right direction and one which will lead towards responsible self government for the

Northern Territory. 1 cannot understand the pin pricking attacks on this proposal, some made by people from the north.

The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to that clause of the Bill giving the Governor-General power to withhold assent to an ordinance or part of an ordinance. I think that the proposal embodied in the Bill is reasonable. Some people have attacked the proposal, claiming that it is a restraint on Legislative Councillors in the running of their own affairs. It is true that the Legislative Councillors have brought down a number of measures - the member for Elsey, for example, introduced a Bill relating to freehold lands - and have had very good ideas on many occasions. They have introduced more than 100 pieces of legislation into the Legislative Council, but some of that legislation has been badly drawn. Under this Bill the Governor-General will be able to allow the good parts of legislation to pass and to block those parts that are not in the interests of the Territory. 1 have pleasure in supporting the Bill and indicate that I cannot support the proposed amendments.

Mr ARMSTRONG:
Riverina

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) referred to the redistribution proposals for the eleven electorates that are to be created in the Northern Territory. In citing Queensland he chose an unfortunate example. He should have had regard to earlier history. About 30 years ago in the days of the Forgan Smith Government the electorate of Barcoo, held by the Labor Minister for Agriculture and Stock, Mr Bulcock. comprised about 3,000 electors, whereas a Brisbane metropolitan seat held by the non-Labor forces, comprised about 20,000 electors. There are other examples of this kind of disparity. It is my considered opinion that every elector is entitled to the same degree of service from his member. I am sure that you. Mr Deputy Speaker, coming as you do from the vast Darling electorate, will appreciate my argument. The point to be considered is not so much the number of electors in an electorate but the degree of difficulty which a member of Parliament has in giving his constituents the service to which they are entitled. The honourable member for Dawson appears to argue that the electorates of Barkly and Stuart in the Northern

Territory should have the same number of electors as the two city seats in Darwin, but has not put forward a reasonable case to back his argument. The honourable member said that Aboriginal affairs, roads, welfare, port facilities and education were purely Commonwealth matters and should not be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth in allocating finance to the Northern Territory. If we were to carry that line of reasoning to extremes we would be confronted with the proposition that everything was a matter for the Commonwealth.

This Bill will replace the three nonofficial members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council with three elected members. So, after the elections next October for the Legislative Council there will be I I elected members and 6 official members. The Bill also includes a provision that will enable the Governor-General to withhold assent from part or all of an ordinance. The Commonwealth’s attitude, as expressed in this Bill is that the Legislative Council and the Administrator’s Council shall provide the means by which representatives of the Northern Territory community will be afforded the greatest possible opportunity to participate in the government of the Territory. At the same time, because of the dependence of the Territory on finance made available by the Commonwealth and because of the Territory’s importance to the future development of Australia, the Commonwealth, in order to discharge the responsibilities resting upon it, needs to retain the right of final decision in respect of matters that might arise from time to time.

The inclusion in this Bill of a provision that will enable the Governor-General to withhold assent from part as well as all of an ordinance has been misunderstood in some quarters in the Northern Territory. In other quarters there is every reason to suspect that this provision has been misrepresented for purely political reasons. The charge that the changes make the Legislative Council worse off than it was before 1960 is not consistent with the facts. It is unreasonable and irresponsible to suggest that the Council is being treated as if its members were boys. I agree with the honourable member for Dawson on one point: Serious consideration should be given to increasing the salary of Legislative Councillors. This matter has been raised consistently by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). It is a fact that many good men do not seek election to the Council because of the fees at present paid to councillors. This applies particularly to people who reside in remote areas. Under this Bill elected members of the Legislative Council will have a majority of II to 6 and thus will become the only body of members able to originate legislation for the Northern Territory.

I endorse the statement by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) that it is reasonable for the Government to expect that arrangements will work on the basis of give and take, lt is necessary to have a proper balance between the responsibility for making decisions and the exercise of legislative power associated with putting such decisions into operation. I am confident that when this Bill is examined thoroughly by those people in the Northern Territory who have been so critical, it will be accepted as a real step towards enabling the Territory to look after itself, lt is to be hoped that responsible opinion - there is an abundance of it in the Territory - will make an earnest endeavour to co-operate with the Government in ironing out any difficulties that may arise. But while this Government is supplying most of the finance for the development of the Northern Territory it is unrealistic to suppose that the Legislative Council will have an absolutely unquestioned right of expenditure.

The transformation that has taken place in the last decade in northern Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, is difficult to measure. It has to be seen to be believed by people who know the area. I first went there almost 40 years ago. Perhaps the biggest contributing factor in this transformation - there are many, not all sponsored by governments - has been improved ground communications. There are now more than 2,500 miles of all weather road in the Territory. This includes more than 1 ,000 miles of beef roads, costing more than $1 7m. A further 1,000 miles of road are under construction or proposed. The construction of these roads has resulted in better living conditions for people not only in the remote areas of the Northern Territory but in the urban areas as well. It has resulted in easier and more economic obtaining of materials for improvements, the stepping up of properties, the better management of herds, the introduction of better bulls and cows in certain cases to upgrade herds, as well as completely changing the pattern of marketing. Other factors have assisted, of course, but it is true to say that Government policy in general as well as the policy on road communications in particular has been a great factor. I recently saw in central Australia 15-month-old steers that had been sold for $126 and cows and calves that were expected to be bought by a buyer from south eastern Australia for over $200. It is possible to go out into these remote area’s to bring these cattle in only because of better communications.

All-weather roads have been built to supply cattle to the Katherine meatworks. Those roads have made possible its successful operation. The same comment applies, to some extent, to the Darwin meatworks. I mention the Darwin works because there has been a great deal of agitation in the Northern Territory recently on the part of some of the pastoralists with regard to rail facilities, which it is alleged have been interfered with by the carrying of heavier loads of iron ore. To show that the Government is earnest in its endeavours to keep up with the expansion of the Northern Territory the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) promised at least iwo additional locomotives. Perhaps a third locomotive has already been supplied to the Northern Territory and is in operation.

Something else that comes into the context of the matter we are discussing is that, particularly in areas which have more than 30 inches of rain annually, Townsville lucerne is becoming a very great factor in the expansion of the cattle industry. This Government saw fit to bring the freight rebate into line with that at Townsville to enable people in the Territory to buy superphosphate at the same price as in Townsville. I am confident, as are the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and many people, including I am sure the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), that the introduction of Townsville lucerne will have a spectacular effect on the value of the beef output and not only on the quantity of output. The value of output has more than doubled in less than 10 years. I might mention that a variety of the Townsville lucerne plant known as Brazilian lucerne, which has a greater yield, has been grown highly successfully in similar climates in New Guinea. 1 am confident that its introduction to northern Queensland and the Northern Territory will have spectacular results. Experiments with Townsville lucerne, particularly in the Katherine area, have led the CSIRO to believe that in certain circumstances and on certain types of country it will increase the capacity to carry cattle by as much as fifty times, that calving percentages will be increased dramatically, and that the period of turnoff will be shortened considerably. lt is confidently expected that in the Katherine district, areas of less than 100,000 acres, considerably less in some areas, will be large enough to set up a prosperous cattle enterprise.

Roads have also encouraged tourism, which is an important industry in the Northern Territory, particularly now that Americans are finding that the sun is not as oppressive as they thought and are going there in the summer as well as in the winter. Tourism will become an increasingly important factor in the expansion of the Northern Territory. Mining development also has been accelerated by better land communications. For all these benefits this Government is entitled to take a great deal of praise.

The development of Tipperary Station is of particular interest in relation to this Bill. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory said, this project was bitterly opposed over a period of time by the elected members of the Legislative Council, and it was only after several deferments that the necessary legislation was introduced which granted the right to use areas of up to 200,000 acres for agricultural purposes. This legislation is directly responsible for the development that is now taking place at. Tipperary Station. The first crop of 12,000 acres of grain sorghum has recently been harvested. Yields might not be spectacularly high; they have been affected by an unusually wet autumn and early winter rains. But it has been shown that crops can be grown successfully, and it is hoped that three crops per annum can be grown. It is planned to sow about 200,000 acres within 5 years and to produce large quantities of grain. Incidentally, sorghum not only is used for stock fodder but is used in parts of Asia quite extensively for human consumption. Experiments are being carried out with maize, cow beans, soya beans and sunflower seed, which is an important source of oil. It is planned to create Australia’s largest agricultural scheme at Tipperary Station. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory said, a sum of more than $7ro has been invested in the first stage. I think he said that a further sum of $16m or $18m will be expended on the second phase. It is envisaged that tractors costing $90,000 each will be used as well as disc harrows costing $13,500 and ploughs costing $1,900. lt is thought also that this company will, after due negotiation and approval, consider the building of a dam which will involve about $50m in total as well as an expansion of activities into the fishing industry. Australia cannot expect this type of risk capital to be invested in an entirely new field unless there is some hope of reward.

The provision for eleven elected members for the Legislative ‘Council of the Northern Territory is an indication of the Government’s realisation of the Territory’s advancing maturity. I hope that all Territorians will realise and appreciate that with greater privileges go greater responsibilities. The co-operation of the Legislative Council with the Government for the advancement of the Territory is vital to its well being and it is also of great importance to Australia. The importance of the Northern Territory to Australia geographically because of its close proximity to South East Asia, socially and economically is such that it deserves the attention of all Australians. As has been suggested by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop), in due course - we hope it will be soon - the Northern Territory will need a new rail link to Alice Springs. It needs more roads and expanded port facilities at Darwin to cope with the expansion of the pastoral, agricultural and mining industries. This legislation is a step forward, and I support it. This Bill and the legislation which gave the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights are due in no small measure to the persuasiveness and unflagging energy of the honourable member for the Northern Territory on behalf of all Territorians.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to raise two or three matters that are not apparent to honourable members, particularly those in the Australian Country Party. First of all, this Bill is about the development of parliamentary democracy in a difficult area. It is not difficult inasmuch as the people are any more difficult than lots of other people in this country, but because it has been substantially maintained by subventions from the Commonwealth purse to the tune of $53m which I think was the sum the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) mentioned in his speech. It means, of course, that we are claiming an extra territorial right to administer this area rather than, say. large areas in the country such as the Mallee, which also gets a large subvention from the Commonwealth purse, or even the electorate of Wills, which also gets a subvention from the Commonwealth. It is this obsession with what might be called materialist concept, which holds that if we supply the money we are entitled to have all the say. that we are looking at this afternoon.

In some measure this is progress, but it is most important that we insist upon equal electoral representation. It is part of the conceit of the Australian Country Party that more difficulty exists with spinifex, sands hills, mallee scrub and such like than exists with people. I have sitting before me on the front bench for the time being - it will probably not be long before he is permanently on the front bench on the other side of the House - the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) who represents some 900,000 square miles of Australia. I have just made a rough check. I should say that those honourable members of the Country Party who are sitting here now represent, or misrepresent, about 230,000 square miles of Australia. But the honourable member for Kalgoorlie finds no difficulty in carrying out his duties with extraordinary skill and competence. His ability has been recognised, because his majority increases at each election. Honourable members opposite say that great developments are occurring in the Northern Territory. But great developments have also been occurring in Kalgoorlie, since the present honourable member started to represent it. In the Australian context, the question of area is invalid.

Mr Nixon:

– What about Britain, the United States and Canada? If the honourable member is not satisfied with our system, he should look at the British system.

Mr BRYANT:

– The Minister for the Interior, must, of course, carry this kind of obsession with him into his continuing political life. If he does not the Country Party may cease to exist. Here we must find some satisfactory way to put eleven people into the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. In my view the area of the electorates need not be equal. If one is 20,000 square miles, another 2,000 square miles and a third 20 square miles, that is the way it goes. My electorate covers only 7 square miles or so, but it contains 18,000 people with sufficient wit and political perspicacity to retain the political representation they now have. My friend, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Hansen), who is sitting beside me, represents an electorate that covers 70,000 or 80,000 square miles. It is a very large area of Queensland and he represents it quite satisfactorily. There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to make an impact on a large metropolitan suburban area than it is on a country area, even with large cities. This is just one of the factors that cannot be gainsaid in Australian politics. lt is part of the conceit of honourable members opposite that some particular difficulties are associated with space. This has resulted in the continuing gerrymandering that has produced a persistent mockery in South Australia and other places. I wonder whether this is not the time to consider the Senate system of election, the quota preferential system or the system that prevails in Tasmania. I put this only as a suggestion with no sort of religious conviction about it. If we have to elect eleven people in the Northern Territory, would it be better to have some system in which they were elected for the northern part or the southern part, with five or six for each area, making a total of eleven? The problem we face arises from our continually thinking about politics in our present situation. We are accustomed to single seat electorates and we can think only of such electorates.

We are accustomed to thinking of the Parliament supplying the money. We therefore think it should have all the authority. We think in terms of the Northern Territory being sparsely populated and therefore needing to be directed from Canberra, which is far away from the Northern Territory. These are intense problems, of course, but the difficulty arises because we do not face the constitutional parliamentary challenges that are involved. I hope that the Minister, in the next 15 months while his government is still in office, will be able to do something about it.

The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) referred to the payment of members. 1 think the Act provides that members of the Public Service cannot stand or be elected to office in the Legislative Council. We would wish that the Council’s name be changed to the Legislative Assembly. A large body of the people in the Northern Territory are public servants. In the logic of it, I would expect that they would represent a pretty competent area of the citizenry. 1 know that in the Australian and British tradition public servants are not allowed to become members of the Parliament of which they are the servants, but other countries have found a solution to this problem. I understand, for instance, that Denmark does not place a restriction upon members of the public service and that they can become members of the parliament. If we are restricting the area from which applicants for candidature for the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory can come, we are acting badly. The other way in which we can solve the problem is to pay the members.

It is a sad commentary on Australian politics and on parliamentary representation that there is no Aboriginal in the Legislative Council. For some time the Minister has had the power to appoint people to the Legislative Council. This power has resided in the Commonwealth Government for the 20 years of the Council’s existence. Why is it that in an area where half the people are Aboriginals not one has been appointed to the Legislative Council? At one stage a number of us thought that one of the Aboriginal people we know in the electorate of Arnhem, the population of which is predominantly Aboriginal, ought to have been the candidate, but the ones we know are public servants. The public servants could not stand unless they surrendered their positions. The emoluments, allowances and other payments to members of the Council were quite inadequate to sustain them. This is part of the problem in the Northern Territory. I listened in vain for the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) to raise these issues. This is what he should be doing. He should be supplying this House with the information on which it can make competent judgments in these matters.

I hope that honourable members will realise that some pretty important principles are at stake. We will oppose to the end any proposal that there be a differential between the electorates. Plenty of other electoral systems can be adopted to meet the difficulties. But 1 do not see any evidence to suggest that the Government is thinking in this way. This is a matter of making parliamentary democracy work. But let me say again - we cannot say it often enough in the light of the amendments to the Electoral Act that were introduced some time ago - that the current situation in some State Parliaments is a disgrace to democracy. There is a gerrymander which enables one body of people to have a bigger voice than another. I should think that the Australian tradition of one vote one value would be deeply ingrained in people’s minds. Honourable members may have forgotten the State election in Victoria in 1952 when this became the principal and in fact the only issue in the election.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 suggest to the honourable member for Wills that his remarks are more relevant to a debate that will take place in this House later in the year.

Mr BRYANT:

– I refer to the statements made by the Minister for the Interior in which he referred to the enlargement of the Council and in which he said that there will be a completely new electoral distribution. With all respect, it would seem to me that the principles upon which that redistribution is to be made are relevant to this debate. However, I would like the Minister to say what steps he has taken to ensure that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory will be satisfactorily represented and that their electoral rights will be satisfactorily safeguarded. The problems raised in this House in recent weeks by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in this context have been challenged by the Minister both as the Emperor of the Northern Territory and as the Minister for the Interior who has charge of our electoral fortunes or misfortunes.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– in reply - I will reply to most of the points that have been raised during the Committee stage, as they are more relevant to the debate at that stage. However, I want to give some information now to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) on some points that are not relevant to the Committee stage. The first relates to the Katherine Town Management Board Bill. The honourable member asked what had become of it. It was passed this year in the May session of the Legislative Council. Was the honourable member talking about the Katherine Town Management Board Bill?

Dr Patterson:

– No, I referred to the Rates (Freehold Land) Ordinance.

Mr NIXON:

– The honourable member raised the Katherine Town Management Board Bill.

Dr Patterson:

– Yes, that is right. What has become of it?

Mr NIXON:

– To my knowledge it has not yet been sent to me for consideration. ] do not even know whether it has been presented to the Administrator yet. Therefore it would be improper for me to announce at this time what my advice to the Governor-General would be in respect of that Bill.

It is true that it is 9 months since the Northern Territory Legislative Council passed the Rates (Freehold Land) Ordinance. I would not like the honourable member to think for one moment that it has been pigeonholed. Quite to the contrary, it has been receiving the closest attention of the Government. It has some far reaching implications. Concerning land that is now relatively out of production, we find that on the surface there seems to be no title holder. This matter currently is receiving consideration by the Government. It certainly has not been pigeonholed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2a.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

I was most interested to listen to the comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). No doubt the people of the Northern Territory and the members of the Legislative Council will share my interest. The honourable member could see nothing whatsoever wrong with the provisions of this Bill. I must say that in scanning the newspapers of Alice Springs as well as Darwin, 1 have seen nothing to suggest that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is justified in making that statement. All the newspapers criticise this Bill. The honourable member has stated thai this criticism represents the viewpoint of the members of the Legislative Council who are also members of the Australian Labor Party. I would remind the honourable member that in the ‘Northern Territory News’ of Friday, 17th May 1968, the two non-official members of the Legislative Council, Mr Bernie Kilgariff and Mr Joe Fisher, said that they were disappointed with this Bill. 1 suppose the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) will say that they are members of the Labor Party too and that the newspapers are owned by the Labor Party. It would be a change if they were. It is a very strange thing that the only person in the Northern Territory who is publicly supporting this Bill is the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

I did not hear the honourable member for the Northern Territory say - and I hope that he rises to his feet to give me an answer - what he thinks about changing the name of the Legislative Council to Legislative Assembly. This is the wish of the members of the Legislative Council, both elected and non-elected. Also, I have discussed all of the amendments proposed by the Labor Party with some responsible people in the Northern Territory. I do not know what their political views are. All of these amendments have not been proposed idly. They have been thought about deeply. Ac I mentioned earlier, consideration was given to proposing an amendment to abolish official members of the Northern Territory legislature. But it was thought that this would not be a responsible action at this stage until the salaries of the elected members were raised so that they could be full time members, one might say, of the Legislative Council.

The whole purpose of this amendment is to give greater status to the Northern Territory Legislative Council. It was thought proper to change the name of the Papua and New Guinea Legislative Council when the majority of members in that legislature represented electorates. The Legislative Council in the Northern Territory now will have a majority of elected members. Therefore, why cannot the name of the Legislative Council be changed to Legislative Assembly to give it greater status? What is the reason? I will be glad to hear the views of the honourable member for the Northern Territory on this matter. I will be interested also to hear the views of the Minister for the Interior on this important point respecting the status of this legislature in the Northern Territory. It would follow automatically that the President of the body would be referred to as Speaker. But no point is served at this stage by moving an amendment to that effect. The principal amendment respecting this matter is simply to change the name of the Legislative Council to the Legislative Assembly now that provision is made for a majority of elected members in that legislature.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– Perhaps I should explain the traditional procedures with respect to the names ‘Council’ or ‘Assembly’. There has been a continuous pattern throughout history regarding this matter. It does not rest quite where the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) believes it to rest, that is, that as soon as the elected members of a legislative council become a majority in that council the name ought to be changed to legislative assembly. Usually other powers have been attendant to a council before its name has been changed to assembly. For example, a difference exists between the position in Papua and New Guinea and the position concerning the Northern Territory Legislative Council. The House of Assembly in Papua and New Guinea has the right to raise and collect taxes and to distribute the resources so raised. This power does not reside with the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory at this point in time.

I hold no strong views in respect of this matter but I believe that we ought to follow the traditional pattern. Just because the change of title suggested appears to give status it will not, in fact, give the Legislative Assembly status. Personally, I would prefer to see the position reached where the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory proceeded to the point where it had powers for the raising of revenues and distribution of resources in the Territory. These are powers similar to those which have been granted in the traditional way to other legislative councils in the British institution throughout the years. That might be a more appropriate time to change the name of the Legislative Council to that of Legislative Assembly. I oppose the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– While it might well be true that originally legislative councils were advisory bodies and had restricted powers, in fact legislative councils in Australia have become the continuing instrument of the status quo. This is the case in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. Fortunately, the Legislative Council was abolished in Queensland and this body has a different structure in New South Wales. The legislative councils of this country were created in the last century, in the 1830s and 1840s, and they were confirmed in their authority in the 1850s at the beginning of representative and responsible government. The people who were members of those assemblies were people of substance. They were the ones asked to draw up the constitutions of the various States. They drew them up in such a way that they guaranteed the continuance of the power of people of property or substance, as one might say. So we find continuing undemocratic institutions in most of the States. In fact, three of them have a restricted franchise. The Victorian Legislative Council has unequal electorates. In the Australian context, the term legislative council generally is presumed by most people who think at all about their politics as being representive of undemocratic practices. It carries with it that stigma.

The other point that I wish to make is that while originally a legislative council may not have had much power in the British tradition, as the Minister for the Interior said, these days a legislative council has great power. This is the power of veto. The power of veto lies in the legislative council in each State where it continues to exist. While the terminology is not terribly important in the real sense, it is important in the political sense in this country. I believe that the Northern Territory legislature would have a different look to the citizenry up there if the name were changed to Legislative Assembly. I personally look forward to this development to the stage where we have a fairly effective model unicameral system developed in at least one area of Australia - in the Northern Territory. I wish the Legislative Council cum Legislative Assembly well in its new area of activity, and I urge the Minister to seize the opportunity to be a constitutional adventurer instead of a square.

Question put:

That proposed new clause 2a be inserted (Dr Patterson’s amendment).

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Hon. W. C. Haworth)

AYES: 33

NOES: 59

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

Section 4c of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - “(1.) For the purposes of the election of the elected members of the Legislative Council, the Territory shall be distributed into as many Electoral Districts as there are members to be elected.”.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

-I move:

I covered most of the points concerning my amendment in the second reading debate. But I would like to deal with a point raised by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Armstrong) and, I think, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). They cited an instance in which, when the Queensland Labor Government was in office, the electorate of Barcoo consisted of 3,000 voters and an electorate in the metropolitan area of Brisbane had 25,000 voters. I do not know whether this claim is right or wrong. I do not care whether it is right or wrong; I think it is unjust, and I make that very clear. Just because it happened 20 or 30 years ago is no reason why it should happen in 1968. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who sits and interjects, ought to read the editorial in today’s ‘Courier-Mail’. He would see quite clearly what that newspaper thinks of the present set-up in Queensland where the Australian Country Party, which got 150,000 votes or 19% of the total, can be a dominant force in politics, and where the Liberal Party with 200,000 votes has twenty seats in the State Parliament and the Labor Party with 350,000 votes has only the same number of seats.

The member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) said that we have to give representation to the remote cattle stations. I do not argue with that but I do not see why the manager of a station, such as the manager of Argadargada Station which the honourable member for the Northern Territory was once on, should have a vote which is equal to two votes in Darwin or Alice Springs. I fail to see why an Aboriginal in the Simpson Desert should get virtually the value of two votes when a public servant in Darwin gets one vote. It is for that reason that I move the amendment to provide that in the drawing of electoral boundaries for the eleven elected members the number of electors entitled to vote in each electoral district shall be approximately equal. This is the only fair way in which the views of the people of an area as a whole can be heard.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– The Government opposes the amendment. We could debate this matter all night, knowing full well as I do the feelings of honourable members opposite on the subject of electoral quotas and redistribution. To put the matter in perspective, I remind the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) that the criteria laid down in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act have applied since 1959 and, to my knowledge, have not been challenged by the Opposition. The Act provides that due consideration must be given to the distribution of population, to community or diversity of interest, to means of communication and to physical features. No quota is required to be determined. The honourable member’s proposal, if accepted, would result in the 13,000 electors who live in Darwin and

Alice Springs, that is 68% of the total of 19,000 electors in the Northern Territory, having 7 or 8 of the 11 seats. In an area of 520,000 square miles, eight elected members would come from less than .2% of the Territory. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) will not agree with me on this point, but what the Opposition is saying is that three elected members should look after one-sixth of Australia.

Let us examine the situation in other States and in other countries. When the honourable member for Wills was speaking I interjected to draw his attention to the weighting of electorates in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would fit at least twice into the Northern Territory yet in the United Kingdom some electorates are weighted two or three times more heavily than any electorate in Australia. We are modest in our approach to this question. The Queensland Labor Government during its time in office certainly did not agree with the principle of one vote one value. It never tried to implement that principle and so it had electorates with 4,300 voters and electorates with 14,500 voters. If we adopted the principle of one vote one value in the Federal Parliament it would not provide for fair representation. In Tasmania there would be 40,000 electors in a district, yet in New South Wales there would be 52,000 or 53,000 electors in a district. That would not be a case of one vote one value. I suggest that honourable members should be realistic. The Northern Territory is a big and developing area. The criteria for redistribution were laid down in 1959 and we ought to allow those who control the redistribution to conduct it without any unseeming squabbles in this Parliament about it.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) ignores the fact that nowhere where there are provisions that give a widespread freedom to create great differences of enrolment numbers between electorates, has any political force in power been able to resist the temptation to use this power for its advantage. I have not the slightest doubt that if in the history of Australia, Labor governments have gerrymandered and if non-Labor governments have gerrymandered, that makes it desirable to devise a constitutional provision that will prevent gerrymandering by anybody. We do not know who is going to have a majority in the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. If the Minister is so passionate about special interests and special needs being represented, why does he not make provision for the representation of Aboriginals? There never was an advance in the status of the New Zealand Maoris until they had special representation, and there will never be an advance in the status of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory until they can have their own people speaking for them in the Legislative Council.

We must face the fact that statements justifying small enrolment because of the tremendous areas that some members represent are rationalisations of the self interest to particular political parties. My colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), represents an area about equal to one-third of Australia. In one sense that may seem to be an appalling area to have to represent but in truth large sections of it are completely empty. Within his electorate there are certain definite points of settlement. There is a point of settlement at Broome, a point of settlement at Port Hedland, another at Kalgoorlie, another at Wyndham, and another at Geraldton and new concentrations of settlement are developing in the new mining areas. There are scattered stations but the largest groups of people are actually concentrated. In these days of air travel the honourable member may have some advantages in reaching his electors that some smaller but still large constituencies do not give to their members. The point is that the argument favouring representation for a rural interest or some other interest is in reality to favour a party. Someone sent a letter to one of the newspapers concerning the gerrymander in South Australia. The writer asked why a hard-working soldier settler in the more remote districts of South Australia should not have a vote that counted for more than the vote of a drink waiter in Adelaide? ‘Fair enough’, somebody replied, ‘but what about the drink waiter in the hard-working soldier settler’s area? His vote has greater value than the vote of the drink waiter in Adelaide.’ These kinds of arguments are always rationalisations.

If there is one thing that politicians have a passionate belief in, it is that’ no matter how the people vote they should return me’. If there is one thing that the Country Party has a passionate belief in, it is thar no matter how the people vote they should return a Country Party member. I remember the Acting Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) saying in a speech in this House that in a sense he did not care whether the country people returned a Labor man or a Liberal man or a Country Party man, and that the only important point was that the country should be well represented. But he knew perfectly well that the high likelihood was that the country people would return a Country Party man. I could draw electoral boundaries giving treble weight to industrial areas and say quite solemnly: T think the industrial worker should be represented but I do not mind if he is represented by a Liberal member or a Country Party member or a Labor member’, but I would know very well that the chances of his being represented by a Country Party man would be virtually negligible.

Gerrymandering is intended for one thing only, lt works this way: If there is a turn of opinion against the gerrymandering party it will have so distorted the measuring device an election is supposed to be of the public will that it ensures that its power is perpetuated. Australian political history is full of it, and why, for heaven’s sake, do we continually have dragged out to justify the distortion of electorates this hoary argument about the unequal representation of States in the Senate? Constantly we hear this new argument that the Senate is a gerrymander because there are 3 million voters in New South Wales and 300.00C in Tasmania. Of course those arguing this ignore the fact that nobody drew State boundaries to favour a Party. The founding fathers did not set out to favour any Party particularly. States are not especially attached to certain political parties and they do not favour particular parties. Equality of representation in the Senate was part of the original federal compact. Perhaps it is wrong; perhaps we should have a unitary state. But it is no use trying to defend legislative provisions that give a Government or a majority a right to gerrymander by saying that in the Senate there is a gerrymander with the unequal representation of people in different States because of differences in State populations.

I know what this legislation will do, of course. The Northern Territory is, almost more than anywhere else, an area in which there will be a temptation to exclude the political influence of some. I think in particular of the Aboriginals. There is a temptation also to exclude the political influence of concentrated settlement which has developed and is developing at places such as Darwin or Alice Springs. The Territory is an area where there is a particular temptation to favour entrenched special interests. I think it would be wise to come back to the simple proposition that a parliament represents people. 1 do not think an equality of electoral districts in the Northern Territory would favour the Labor Party. Alice Springs is a developing centre and is certainly no Labor Party centre. I think it is a district with no particular sympathy for the Labor Party at all. Darwin is also extremely mixed. A constitutional provision giving a general direction for an honest distribution of electorates and equality of electorates would be a wise one, and I think the Minister should accept the amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is rather interesting to listen to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) so freely advocating this principle of equality of voting. Let me remind the House that under the present system of electorate distribution any electorate may have 20% more or 20% fewer voters than the quota that is arrived at, but we do not hear any complaints from honourable members opposite about this. The honourable member for Dawson represents what is largely a country electorate and he is evidently prepared to sell out his own people. The late Labor Premier of South Australia was prepared to sell out the country people of that State. The honourable member for Dawson said it was 20 or 30 years ago that a Labour government in Queensland indulged in gerrymandering. Let me tell him that a little more than 10 years ago in Queensland, following a redistribution while a State Labor government was in office, it took 2.43 country votes to balance one metropolitan vote, and the Australian Labor Party used this situation to its political advantage. Honourable members opposite tell us that Parliament represents the people. Of course it does. No one in this House would deny that proposition.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the Northern Territory (Administration) Bill (.No. 2) and the attack by members of the Australian Labor Party on the concept of one vote one value. During the suspension I was described as a 19th century Tory but that is not necessarily my opinion. I was pointing out to the Committee the inconsistency of members of the Australian Labor Party when they talk about one vote being of one value. The point is that the Constitution, as originally drawn, allowed a 20% variation one way or the other of the quota, that is, in the number of electors required in an electorate. Yet in 1962, when the Government introduced a redistribution measure - which incidentally never came to fruition - an amendment was moved on behalf of the Australian Labor Party for the variation to be reduced to 10%. I believe that the concept of one vote one value is a rather sweeping one and allows for no variation whatsoever. Yet the Labor Party, in 1962, sought a variation in the quota of 10% up or down in the number of electors in each electorate. I felt 1 should draw this particular point to the attention of the Committee in support of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). As I said earlier, as the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) represents a country electorate, I was rather surprised to see him stand here this afternoon and hear him say what he said about this legislation.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– There are two observations I would like to make about the comments of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). The honourable member has been a member in this place now for about 18 months and has just discovered that the Australian Labor Party is opposed to the gerrymandering of rural areas so that the number of electors in them is below the set quota. If this demonstrates the rate at which the honourable member learns the procedure of business in this House and the attitudes that are expressed, I hope he will be here for a very long time so that he can learn a minimum of what goes on in this place. However, on second thoughts I hasten to add that in the interests of democracy I had better quickly review my assessment. I trust that his stay here is short and happy. lt is singularly distressing to discover a man of 25 years of age in this time and era expressing mid- 18th century Tory views on electoral reform. I draw his attention to the fact that today even the ‘Courier Mail’, Queensland’s daily -newspaper, has been moved to express concern at the imbalance in electorates favouring rural areas - that is, areas held by the Country Party - in the State. This would hardly give the honourable member for Griffith encouragement to persevere in his attempts to justify the shocking gerrymanders in that State where it requires 350,000 votes for the Labor Party to get 26 seats but only 126,000 votes for the Country Party to get 27 seats. I do not want to go any further into the details of the lopsided, dishonest gerrymander that has taken place in Queensland.

Some honourable members on the Government side have made observations to the effect that Labor administrations in some States, including my own State of Queensland, have been responsible in the past for gerrymanders. This is true. I am not happy about this and I sincerely trust that everyone now in the Labor Party is most unhappy that this took place in the past. The people who were responsible for this are no longer within this party, thank goodness. I sincerely trust - and I believe, from the expressions of members of the Labor Party - that this sort of thing will not be tolerated again.

Let us face squarely this matter of the size of electorates. It does not matter how much moralising or protestation members of the Country Party make on this occasion about this clause of the Bill. The simple barefaced fact is that it is their aim to set about a gerrymander in the Northern Territory. They sense that they can. win an election in the Northern Territory in their own right, which is something unique for them, so their heads are back and their nostrils are aquiver in keen anticipation of achieving this end. Obviously they are prepared, from what they recommend in this particular clause, to set about a gerrymander and to arrange the electoral boundaries in the Northern Territory. The history of Australia is too cluttered with this sort of political jiggery by decaying political forces which endeavoured to prolong their lives by creating rotten boroughs to thwart the public will. I sincerely urge honourable members to try to inject some virtue into their consideration on this issue and to remember that if we are to have democracy then the principle should be one man equals one vote equals one value.

Honourable members are not elected to this place to represent empty square miles of territory, or to represent clumps of spinifex, cows, brumbies or anything else. We are here to represent people. It is a completely fallacious and sophisticated argument to claim that because there is a scattered or spare population in an area it is in the interests of the member for that area to have fewer electors so that he can get around his electorate. The purpose of democracy is not to serve the interests of members of this Parliament. The purpose of democracy is to serve the interests of the people in the electorates on a fair, honest and equal basis. To argue that we have to aim at compressing the size of electorates so that members can get around them more easily is to argue that we have to make it as easy as possible for members to work in their own electorates in order that they can save their seats at forthcoming elections. This is not the purpose of our presence in this place.

We are here to represent the people and to represent issues. It is true that this has been pointed out by various speakers at various times in the past. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr St John) pointed out recently in some articles he wrote for the Press that members of Parliament do have an obligation to help individual people with their problems - problems which probably are small in terms of the overall national responsibility that we have to discharge but serious and pressing for the people concerned. We do have this responsibility but it is not the sole purpose or the major purpose of our presence here.

The major purpose of our presence in this place is to legislate; to accept the responsibility for handling the affairs of this country; and to see that the best consideration is given to those affairs of this country; and to see that the best consideration is given to those affairs at all times. We should not rush out of this House as quickly as we can, after making excuses and arranging pairs, in order to return to our electorates to attend a Sunday afternoon function or a Saturday afternoon fete, to kiss babies, to drink tea and to eat cake. Certainly wc do these things, every one of us, but we only do so in order to maintain some sort of public relation and support in our electorates. This is understandable and is something we do for our own political selfpreservation. But this must not be understood to be the responsibility of elected members of Parliament in the discharge of their democratic responsibilities. Members discharge democratic responsibilities within this place when they handle legislation and give it careful consideration. Those honourable members - and there are some - who regard this place as secondary, those honourable members who make a minor contribution or no contribution at all to the events that happen in this place but who are champions at working back home looking after the Saturday afternoon fetes and all the other things that members of Parliament have to do to the exclusion or detriment of their responsibilities here, are doing a very bad service for the community and are helping to erode the strength of our democratic institution. lt is not square miles that we represent. It is not cows, goats, brumbies or clumps of spinifex that we represent. We represent the democratic institution of the people in the Australian community. It is quite wrong and quite dishonourable to argue that because someone lives in the country area he has to have more electoral power and more electoral leverage in this place than someone who lives in a city. One could easily convert this argument, that because areas are sparsely settled there must be fewer people in an electorate in country areas so that they can get adequate representation, to the opposite point of view that because people are concentrated in small areas they have very serious personal problems of much greater magnitude than people living on the land who have their own means and capital resources. Therefore, one could say that there ought to be fewer people in city electorates and more people in country electorates. Honourable members can argue about this matter rationally or irrationally, whichever way they like. But if the members of the Country Party are to argue that sparsity of population in a district is the determining factor in the influence that those people should have in the halls of decision making, then they ought to carry this through to a further logical extension. They ought to be arguing that in the place where international affairs are dealt with, the place where the nations meet - whether the United Nations or elsewhere - Mongolia ought to have more say than the United States of America because Mongolia has the sparsest population of any country in the world. America probably would have the highest population concentration per square mile of any country, ls this how the members of the Country Party are arguing? ls this the sort of argument that the Minister is trying to put before the Committee? Is he saying that sparseness of population decides the loading of votes?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What basis did the Australian Labor Party use in 1952?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I had no influence in the Australian Labor Party in 1952, but I was disgusted with the gerrymander then. 1 ask the honourable member for Griffiths not to judge other people by his own deplorable standards, lt is obvious that the Country Party is to set about a gerrymander in the Northern Territory. That is the only place in which it could win an election in its own right. Once having won it, you can guarantee that the gerrymander will grow as time goes on. Democracy will become a rapidly disappearing institution in the Northern Territory, as it will in the Commonwealth under the influence of the Country Party.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I should like to comment on the statements made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). I listened to his speech in amazement. Rarely have I heard such illogical and inconsistent arguments advanced. I would not mind if the honourable member stated once what he believes in. But as the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has pointed out, the honourable member for Griffith got up in this chamber and criticised the Labor Party for what it allegedly did - rightly or wrongly - some time ago. The honourable member for Griffith argues that because the Labor Party did that, it is logical for the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party to do the same thing now. Is this logical? lt may be logical in terms of the honourable member’s argument, but it is not logical in terms of anything else that has been stated in this chamber.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Armstrong) said that something happened in Queensland 20 years ago. The honourable member for Griffith says that therefore it is perfectly all right for the Country Party and the Liberal Party to do the same thing now. But it is not all right for the Country Party and the Liberal Party to do it now. I refer the honourable member for Griffith to the editorial in today’s ‘Courier Mail’, lt is quite evident that the honourable member does not even know his own party’s policy on this matter, lt is quite obvious that the Liberal Party is most unhappy with the gerrymander that is taking place in Queensland. For the honourable member for Griffith to support the Country Party in this gerrymander-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I was not supporting the Country Party. I was dealing with your hypocrisy.

Dr PATTERSON:

– He is not supporting the Country Party now, Mr Deputy Chairman. It is about time that he made up his mind what he is doing.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I raise a point of order. I point out that the honourable member for Griffith, in referring to the honourable member for Dawson, said: ‘I am dealing with your hypocrisy’. I suggest that hypocrisy’ is an unparliamentary word which should be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. W. C. Haworth) - Order! It is not an unparliamentary word.

Mr Peters:

– I would be thrown out if I said that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is the honourable member for Scullin casting aspersions on the Chair?

Mr Peters:

– That would be the last thing I would ever do.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The next point I make refers to what I consider is certainly a personal reflection on myself. The honourable member for Griffith suggested that I was selling out the electors of Dawson because I am not arguing that their votes should have twice the value of votes of people in Rockhampton, Townsville, Toowoomba, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Maryborough or Cairns. The honourable member for Griffith suggests that because I represent a country electorate I should be arguing that the votes of my electors should have twice the value of the votes of people in the cities I have mentioned. Have honourable members ever heard anything more illogical or inconsistent? It is utter tripe. That is all I can say about the argument of the honourable member for Griffith. Perhaps when he has been in this Parliament longer he will at least learn to argue with some logic. By interjection he said that he does not believe in what the Country Party is doing. Why does he not get up in this chamber and make that statement in a speech instead of making it by interjection?

The final point I make is that in this Parliament today we heard the Leader of the Country Party, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), lauding the oil companies. According to him the oil companies are becoming the great earners of export income for Australia. Most of the people connected with these oil companies live in the cities. Surely if this logic is to prevail, the value of the vote of these people should be lauded also. Basically this is the reason why the Labor Party is arguing that as near as possible - we say approximately - each electorate in the Northern Territory should contain an equal number of electors. I fail to understand the argument that the value of the vote of an Aboriginal living in the Simpson Desert should have twice the value of the vote of an Aboriginal living in Darwin or, for that matter, that the value of the vote of a manager of a cattle station near Ayers Rock should have twice the value of the vote of a manager of a cattle station within 30 miles of Darwin. I cannot see the logic in that argument. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– AsI said earlier, we could debate this matter all night. There are different philosophies concerning it. When the findings of the redistribution commissioners are placed before the Parliament in October all honourable members will have an opportunity to debate this question of one vote one value. I do not think that honourable members, by putting forward their views tonight, will have any effect on the minds of the commissioners. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has made his point. He has moved an amendment. Let us get on with the business of the Committee.

Mr Hayden:

– Are you going to gag the debate? This is a democratic chamber.

Mr NIXON:

– I do not want to gag the debate. The honourable member for Oxley is arguing about the value of a country vote as against a city vote. How does he compare the value of a Western Australian vote with that of a Victorian or a New South Wales vote? How does he argue that a Tasmanian vote is worth more than a Victorian or a New South Wales vote? Is the vote of a Tasmanian senator worth more in the Senate than the vote of a Victorian senator? The honourable member for Oxley is being so unreal in this matter that his argument does not warrant any further reply. 1 rose mainly to reply to what the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) have said. They have raised matters of substance in this debate which deserve the consideration of the Committee. First I shall refer to the matter raised by the honourable member for Fremantle. He suggested that the Committee should consider establishing a special seat in the Legislative Council for an Aboriginal, in the same way as has been done in New Zealand in respect of the Maoris.

Mr Hansen:

– He said that we should consider appointing an Aboriginal to the Council.

Mr NIXON:

– That is my understanding of what the honourable member for Fremantle said. I would prefer to see an

Aboriginal elected to the Northern Territory Legislative Council in his own right. When the elections are held I would prefer to see him stand as a candidate in the normal way. I think that an Aboriginal would have every opportunity of doing this if, for example, a redistribution resulted in an extra seat being provided in the Northern Territory But on the Labor Party’s proposition of one vote one value, there would be eight seats for Darwin and Alice Springs and three seats for the rest of the Territory.Under those circumstances I doubt whether an Aboriginal would have an opportunity to win a seat. That may not be the be all and end all of the matter, but nevertheless it is an argument worth advancing.

The honourable member for. Wills was concerned to know whether Aboriginals are being educated to vote. I want him to know that in the Northern Territory the Commonwealth Electoral Office has concerned itself with this matter a great deal since 1962, when Aboriginals were given full voting rights. A continuous programme of education of the Aboriginals has been undertaken to make sure that they have a proper understanding of their rights and privileges in democratically casting their vote. It is important that the honourable member should know that since 1962 the Northern Territory Administration has been paying particular attention to this matter..

We can argue the matter of one vote, one value philosophically. The honourable member for Dawson has twice made his point. We have other business to deal with. 1 hope that the debate on the amendment will conclude at this point.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– At the Committee stage at least we can speak for 6, 7, 8 or 10 minutes without inhibition. Surely we have time to enable all those who wish to participate in the debate to do so. I have no wish to embarrass the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) in the performance of his duties.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Hon. W. C. Haworth)

AYES: 56

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the amendment (Dr Patterson’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Hon.W. C. Haworth)

AYES: 32

NOES: 56

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5.

Section 4x of the Principal Act is amended -

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move: in proposed section 4x (I.), after ‘shall,” insert within six months from the day on which it was presented to the Administrator for assent,’.

I made the reasons for this amendment clear at the second reading stage. The principal reason is that 1 understand that until 1959 the Governor-General had 6 months from the day on which an ordinance was presented to him to make up his mind whether he would assent to it. This was changed in 1959. It would seem from the way the Act reads - I mentioned earlier the example of the Rates (Freehold Title) Ordinance of 1967 - that it is possible for the Government to sit on an ordinance for any period of lime it wishes. In other words it can pigeon-hole a particular ordinance. That is the reason for the amendment.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– I think I should explain some of the history involved in what the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) is now proposing. It is correct to say that before 1959 the Act did provide that the Governor-General’s assent must be given within 6 months if it was to be effective. The honourable member is quite right when he says that that provision was removed in 1959. He ought to know that it was removed upon the insistence of the members of the Legislative Council, who found it to be impracticable and not desirable. The decision to remove the provision came out of a conference between the Minister for Territories of the day and the Legislative Council. The provision was criticised quite heavily in those days by the members of the Legislative Council, and I think it would be a retrograde step for the Parliament now to bring it back into the Bill by way of an amendment. I would oppose the amendment, but at the same time I give the honourable member for Dawson an assurance that I would not unduly delay dealing with any ordinance that came before me. The Government does not delay these things for fun. When the honourable member for Dawson spoke about the Rates (Freehold Title) Ordinance of 1967 at the second reading stage I explained what is happening to that ordinance.

The Government does not wish to delay dealing with an ordinance that it receives from the Northern Territory. However, as I said, the Northern Territory Legislative Council of the day asked for the requirement that an ordinance be dealt with within 6 months to be removed and it would be a retrograde step if we were to insert this requirement now. Therefore the Government opposes the amendment.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I accept the explanation given by the Minister to the extent that I do not quarrel with his assertion that the Legislative Council of the day may have asked for the requirement to be removed. However, the fact that the Legislative Council in 1958 or 1959 made this request does not in logic mean that the Legislative Council in 1968 also makes it. I have received a letter from some members of the Legislative. Council in which they ask for this very amendment. For this reason and for the reasons I gave earlier, we press the amendment.

Mr Stokes:

– What are the honourable member’s views?

Dr PATTERSON:

– 1 have put my views. lt must come as quite a surprise to the honourable gentleman who is interjecting to learn that these are not only our views but that in fact members of the Legislative Council suggested the amendment themselves - in 1968, not in 1959.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Hon. W. C. Haworth) Ayes .. .. ..31

In division:

AYES: 0

NOES: 56

Majority . . . . 25

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Question so resolved in the negative.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

This amendment relates to the right of the Governor-General to refuse assent to part of an ordinance. The point worrying us is whether the Government has the right to amend an ordinance without reference to the Legislative Council. That is the reason for the amendment.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– In answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) as to what the Government intends in respect of the amendment which is included in this legislation, I point out that the position is that we could reject part of an ordinance without rejecting the whole of the ordinance. We could not add words to an ordinance without reference back to the Legislative Council. We could reject part of an ordinance and let the main substance of the ordinance stand. I hold the view very strongly that this amendment will be to the advantage of the legislative councillors. They can bring down an ordinance. The Government might agree with the sense of the ordinance but there might be part of the ordinance, because of bad drafting or policy or other reasons, which is not germane to the main point of the ordinance. Nevertheless, the Government might find objection to that part. If this provision is agreed to, the Government will be in a position to accept an ordinance from the Legislative Council but to reject any part which it believes to be unsuitable.

I feel that I should expand a little further on this point. This is not a new principle at all. In fact it has been in operation in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act since 1954. All we are seeking to do is to extend it to ordinances which have been reserved for the Governor-General’s pleasure because this provision is extended already to an ordinance that has been assented to by the Administrator. There is nothing new in it. Nothing sinister can be suggested about this provision; nor should it be overplayed. It seems to me that in the Northern Territory itself some misunderstanding of the Government’s intention has arisen. The honourable member for Dawson referred to this in his second reading speech. I think that it should be put on the record that my belief is that this is an improvement from the point of view of the legislative councillors. The added protection is given that if assent to part of an ordinance is withheld, the Minister will have to table, the reasons for withholding that assent in both Houses of the Parliament. This is similar to the practice when the whole of an ordinance is withheld. Therefore, I must say to the honourable member for Dawson that the Government rejects the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Clause 8 refers to ‘Fees, allowances and travelling expenses’ of the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. If that does not concern members in another’ Parliament who are responsible for the administration of this matter: it ought to. The facts are that members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council receive a completely inadequate travelling allowance and completely inadequate travelling rights.” They have a completely inadequate telephone allowance and receive a fee which in no way approaches a salary. It has been a tradition of Australian parliaments that members ought to be able to attend to their duties on a full time basis. If we are taking any steps at all towards giving the Northern Territory Legislative Council some sort of autonomy, its members ought to be given full time salaries as it were. I would not say what that salary ought to be.

It is quite impossible for a large number of people in the Northern Territory to become members of the Legislative Council. I mentioned this matter earlier this afternoon. Any member of the Public Service who wishes to stand for election to the Legislative Council must resign from the Public Service. This means that he must find some other form of salaried employment. It is logical in this case that the longstanding system that prevails in the rest of Australia should be part of the system in the Northern Territory. I am appealing on behalf of members of the Legislative Council in the first instance for access to free telephone services. They have long distances to cover and a lol of their work has to be done by telephone.

The next matter to which I refer is their right to travel. It is again a long-standing practice in Australia that - members of Parliament have the right to travel on public transport. In the State parliaments, as far as I can determine, the right of free travel on the railways grew’ up contemporaneously with the railway systems. Free’ travel has ‘ been a long-standing practice. In our case the right and .capacity to travel come from the voucher, book system which prevails. This, I .believe, has been very useful in enabling parliamentarians to carry out their work. It is .), 000 miles from Alice Springs to Darwin and 400 miles from Darwin to Yirrkala or Groote Eylandt. How on earth is any member of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory to handle the. problem of. travelling those distances unless free travelis provided? I hope that the Minister will attend to that matter forthwith.

As to the actual salaries paid to members, admittedly the Legislative! Council is not a full time legislature in the sense that ours is. But it is a full time legislature in the true sense of that term more than are some legislatures in the States. I hope the Minister will take immediate steps to put the matter of salary on a professional basis, if professional is not a dirty word in this context, or at least provide for members on a full time basis so that the legislature may work in the way in which it will be.-, required to as the Northern Territory develops.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland · CP

-^-! should draw the attention of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) to the fact that in speaking to this point’ on clause 8 he was in fact talking about (he members of the Administrator’s Council arid not about” the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, I will accept the substance -of what he has said as referring to members of the Legislative Council. AH I will say is that the very matters that he raised are under very pertinent consideration at this time.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2261

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June (vide page 2081), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

- Mr Acting Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address myself to this Bill this evening. I wish to refer to the fact that in his second reading speech the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) stated:

The Bill does two things. It extends to workers employed by the United States Navy at the Navy’s communication station at North West Cape in Western Australia the terms of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930-1967 as if they were employees of the Commonwealth. It also gives to such persons or, in the event of death, another person, the right to recover damages from the Commonwealth independently of the Compensation Act, and again as if the Commonwealth were the employer, in the event of damage as a result of injury or death suffered directly as a result of employment with the United States Navy.

I wish to say that the Opposition supports the Bill. The only criticism that we have to make in regard to it is the long time that it has taken the Government to act on this matter. For some time there was grave danger of industrial trouble at the North West Cape if the workers employed there by the United States authority were not given adequate compensation coverage. The conditions of employment are covered by an agreement between the United States. Navy and the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia on behalf of the unions concerned. This agreement was signed in December 1966.

Some of the unions concerned - I understand there were about fourteen - were reluctant to become signatories to the document until some firm assurance was given by the United States Navy in respect of the following matters: The relevant workers compensation Act under which employees of the US Navy would be covered; the authority that should determine disputes arising out of workers compensation claims; and also the legal position in regard to claims for damages where a worker suffers death or disability as a result of the employer’s negligence. The position, of course, is that an Australian citizen cannot sue the United States Government. So it is obvious that where an employee of the US Navy who is not a United States citizen suffers disability or death arising out of or in the course of his employment, and the accident is due to the employer’s negligence, no claim can be processed under Australian law.

On 21st December 1966 the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia wrote to the commanding officer of the station. I would like the terms of this correspondence recorded because they are very important. The letter stated:

  1. That the unions have now been advised to sign the agreement upon the condition that its operation shall be subject to review within 3 months if the negotiations at present being conducted for adequate compensation coverage have not been satisfactorily finalised during that period.
  2. That as an interim measure the unions will accept the provisions of the Commonwealth Compensation Act as varied from time to time until current negotiations are completed.
  3. That the parties to the agreement continue negotiations for the purpose of achieving an overall indemnity compensation coverage for workers employed by the United States Navy.
  4. Upon final agreement between the parties on compensation coverage and matters connected thereto, workers and/or their dependants shall be entitled to claim such benefits retrospective to the date of engagement with the United States Navy.

The Council also wrote to the Acting Regional Director for Western Australia of the Department of Labour and National Service on 21st December. I do not want to quote the whole letter but it reads in part:

Except for the matter of workers compensation, including civil law action, the agreement has been finalised and is about to be signed.

The unions have now decided that they are reluctant to sign the agreement until such time that the compensation question has been finalised.

We are aware that the United States Navy n immune from the laws of the Commonwealth and the State in respect to this question, and to date they have not brought forward a proposal which will adequately cover and protect the rights of the workers they will be employing, particularly in the area of civil law suits.

As we consider this a vital and fundamental question, we proposed to you at yesterday’s conference what would be the view of the Commonwealth Government to accepting liability as the employer for the purposes of compensation claims including civil law action on behalf of the United States Navy, to overcome the present impasse.

That was about 18 months ago. On 21st July 1967 the Council wrote to Captain R. Friedman, the commanding officer of the United States naval communication station at North West Cape, and conveyed to him the views of the Council in respect of this matter. I shall quote part of the letter containing a resolution agreed to by the Council. It is as follows:

That in view of the decision reached by the unions connected with the United States Navy agreement concerning employment conditions of Australian workers employed at the North West Cape in January, this year, to sign the agreement subject to review within 3 months if adequate overall indemnity coverage had not been effected, and the fact that little progress has been made since that time, the Council decides;

The letter then set out the resolution of the Council, in the following terms:

That the United States Navy and the Federal Government be informed that unless a clear and concise agreement satisfactory to the unions is effected within 14 days to give adequate compensation and other legal coverage to Australian workers - a right under normal Australian laws - the unions shall be called together to give consideration to withdrawing from the agreement and advising workers at present employed at the ba*e to withdraw their labour from the project.

A letter in similar terms was sent on the same date to the Department of Labour and National Service. Correspondence of a similar nature has passed to and fro between the Department and the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia during the intervening period. At the conclusion of the letter to the commanding officer of the United States naval communication station, the Secretary of the Council stated: lt would be indeed a tragedy if the good relations we have established between yourselves as an employer and our Council and the workers employed by you were allowed to deteriorate because of the procrastination and inefficiency of people at a higher level, who I have already referred to.

He was referring, of course, to officials of the Department of Labour and National Service, which is involved in this matter. Also, there has been correspondence between the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury), and between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Minister, with regard to this matter. On 3 1st July 1967 the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service forwarded a letter to the Acting Secretary of the Council. I would like to quote this letter to keep the record straight. The Secretary of the Department wrote:

I sent Mr Coleman a telegram on 18th July about the workers compensation problem of Australian employees of the United States Navy at the North West Cape. Since then one of my senior officers in Melbourne who is working on this whole matter has been in touch by phone with Mr Coleman in Adelaide.

Both you and Mr Coleman will know from your earlier association with the exercise of negotiating terms and conditions of employment for Australians at the project that the fact that the United States Navy is the employer introduces some complicating factors - these are equally present in regard to this matter of workers compensation. 1 don’t doubt that on this current matter the outcome will satisfy you and your colleagues. But to get to it, consultation involving a number of Commonwealth Departments and as between the Commonwealth and United States Governments is involved. Since my telegram to Mr Coleman much progress has been made. We arc now at the stage when the arrangements can shortly be put to Ministers.

In the circumstances, I must ask for the forbearance of yourself and your council. No one will be prejudiced by the unavoidable delay in finalising arrangements.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) raised the matter and the former Prime Minister, the late Mr Harold Holt, wrote to him on 31st August 1967 and in part stated:

However, certain technical and legal questions are involved which require further close scrutiny before Ministers give the matter final consideration.

The Minister for Labour and National Service also wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 1 1 th October concerning this matter. The point I make is that there has been quite a lot of delay in the settling of this matter, it was said, of course, that the workers at the North West Cape were protected if death or disability resulted from negligence of the employer. But the workers did not enjoy this protection as a right. Indeed. the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech:

Nor would any worker have been able to take action at common law had he wished to do so.

Someone once said: ‘An oral agreement is not worth the paper it is written on’. This is so in this case. If the workers were without coverage for workers compensation in the event of disability or death arising out of or in the course of their employment with the United States Navy, no action could be taken against the United States Navy if disability or death occurred owing to the negligence of the employer. The United States Naval Communication Station Agreement, which was approved by the Parliament by Act No. 30 of 1963, was signed, I regret to say, without any thought being given to the position of the workers to be employed at this station. The unions’ tolerance has, in fact, been exploited and matters have been allowed to drift until the present time. This matter has been raised in this House by myself and by other honourable members and it has taken the Government a considerable time to move. If we refer back to the 1963 agreement, it has taken the Government 5 years to act. I do not want to delay the House for long but I do wish to point out that the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia has referred to two clauses. Clause 3 says: . . ‘the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act’ means the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act 1930-1967.

We have been told that this Act is to be amended in the August session. 1 wonder whether some simple amendment could not be made whereby the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act could be defined to mean that Act as amended from time to time.

Mr Bury:

– I will take note of that suggestion.

Mr WEBB:

– My only other point relates to the Schedule wherein reference is made to section 16(3.) of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. Sub-section (3.) states, inter alia:

The notice may be served:

by delivering it to the above-mentioned Civil Commissioner; or

by delivering it to the person in charge of the work on which the employee was engaged at the time of the accident.

There is frequent mention of the Civil Commissioner. I am informed by the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia that the North West Cape area will not always be administered by the Civil Commissioner, ft is expected that a local shire will be established in the district and it has been suggested by the Council that notice could be served on the nominal head of the establishment, that is, the person actually in charge of the station. This would simplify matters. I ask the Minister to take note of this point.

I have offered a few words of criticism about the delay in bringing down this Bill - a delay of 5 years if we refer back to 1963. But I now thank the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) and the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) who, at my request, permitted this Bill to be debated this evening. Debate on the Bill was supposed to have been adjourned until the spring session. It was not mentioned on the business sheet, and 1 am pleased that they have seen the way clear to bring it forward this evening so that the workers concerned will have the right to this protection for the 2 months between now and the spring session.

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Wentworth · LP

– in reply - I thank the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) for his support of this legislation. He will realise that one of the causes of the delay stems from the fact that this is an international matter involving complexities of law. All kinds of factors have been involved. There has !>een no lack of will on the part of myself or my Department to conclude consideration of the measure as quickly as possible. I am glad to have had the co-operation of :he honourable member for Stirling in getting the Bill through now. I can assure him that there has been no avoidable delay on my part or on the part of my Department.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2263

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1968

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendment No. 1:

After clause 11, insert the following new clause: 11a. Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(4.) Where a person has, whether before or after the commencement of this sub-section, failed to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him under sub-section (1.) of this section, the Secretary may at any time serve a further notice on the person under sub-section (1.) of this section.”.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 2:

After clause 13, insert the following new clause: 13a. Section 29aofthe Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.).’.

Senate’s amendment No. 3 -

After new clause 13a, insert the following new clause: “ 13b. After section 29c of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 29ca. - (1.) Notwithstanding sub-section (7.) of the last preceding section, where a court of review in a State has given a decision under that section after the commencement of the National Service Act 1968, a party to the proceeding before that court -

may appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of that State constituted by not less than three Judges on a ground involving a question of law only; and

may, with the leave of the Supreme Court of that State, appeal from that decision to that Court constituted by not less than three Judges on any other ground.

Notwithstanding sub-section (7.) of the last preceding section, where a court of review in a Territory of the Commonwealth has given a decision under that section after the commencement of the National Service Act 1968, a party to the proceeding before that court -

may appeal from that decision to the - Commonwealth Industrial Court constituted by not less than three Judges on a ground involving a question of law only; and

may, with the leave of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, appeal from that decision to that Court constituted by not less than three Judges on any other ground. (3.) The Court in which an appeal under this section is instituted -

shall hear and determine the appeal;

may affirm, vary or set aside the order of the court of review;

may give such judgment, or make such order, as in all the circumstances it thinks fit, or refuse to make an order; and

may remit the case for rehearing and determination, either with or without the hearing of further evidence, by the court of review. (4.) A decision of a Court on an appeal under this section is final and conclusive except so far as an appeal may be brought to the High Court by special leave of the High Court.’.”.

Clause 20. “51a. - (1.) Where a notice has, whether before or after the commencement of the National Service Act 1968, been served on a person under section twenty-six of this Act and the person fails to render the service that he is liable to render under this Act in the Regular Army Supplement, the person is guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period equal to the period of service that he is so liable to render. “(2.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply in relation to a failure of a person to render the service referred to in that sub-section where that failure took place or began before the commencement of the National Service Act 1968.

Senate’s amendment No. 4 -

Leave out sub-sections (1.) and (2.) of proposed section 51a, insert the following sub-section: “ ‘(1.) Where a notice has, whether before or after the commencement of the National Service Act 1968, been served on a person under section twenty-six of this Act and the person fails, after the commencement of the National Service Act 1968, to perform duties lawfully required to be performed by him in the course of rendering the service that he is liable to render under this Act . in the Regular Army Supplement, the person is . guilty of an offence and, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period equal to the period of service that he is so liable to render.’.”.

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That Senate’s amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

This amendment’, like amendment No. 4, is basically a clarifying provision. Amendment No. 1 inserts new clause 11a which relates to the issue of a call-up notice. Where a man fails to comply with a call-up notice for acceptable reasons - for example, because of a sudden family bereavement, which is the most common cause - it has been the practice of my Department to issue a fresh call-up notice. A second notice is issued where a man who has been convicted for failure to obey a call-up notice enters into a recognisance to obey a further notice. Doubt of a legal character has arisen as to whether the issue of a second notice is authorised under section 26 of the Act. The purpose of the amendment is to remove this doubt.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– This legislation is addled legislation. It is shot through with anomalies. It has been amended, as far as we can gather - one almost needs a computer to calculate it - about fourteen times. It has created in its integral part such doubt in the minds of the Government’s legal advisers that they have found it necessary to introduce new clauses to make it completely effective. In the case we are considering, the Government is uncertain as to the operation of call-up notices under section 26 of the principal Act both before and after the enactment of this Bill. It is for that reason the new clause 11a has been included.

The comment I want particularly to make relates to the new clause which seeks to insert new sub-section (4.) in section 26 of the Act. This section, as the Minister said, relates to notices of call-up for military service. Sub-section (I.) of section 26 states:

  1. The Secretary may serve on a person liable to render service under this Act a notice calling up that person for service with the Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

Liability to render service is one of the prescribed matters under section 52 and it is therefore a matter of considerable importance. Liability to render service will apply to students, at universities, in particular, and already there has been a distinct and sharp reaction to the operation of this measure. No less a person than the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Sir John Crawford, said yesterday that he hoped ‘ the University would not be asked by the Government for information about suspected evaders of national service. It has now been discovered, of course, that while clause 22 in its original and obnoxious form, which imposed a specific obligation on universities and other organisations to permit the Department of Labour and National Service to run a fine tooth comb through their books -

Mr Stokes:

– What has this to do with clause 11A as proposed? .

Mr CONNOR:

– ft has everything to do with it because it relates to the liability to render service. Of course the last thing the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) wants is to have any reference made to the revolt of the universities. Sir John Crawford has already defined the attitude of the Australian National University. Similar objections have come from the University of New South Wales and, I understand, from quite a number of other universities. In fact the Committee of ViceChancellors has indicated to the Government its views, and this has been the cause of the Government’s backing down on some of the clauses of this Bill. I think it would be fair to say that the Government has been progressively backing down, and thatit is still back pedalling in relation to the whole of this measure. It is an ill conceived and ill timed measure. It is a badly drawn measure. It is bad in principle and bad in law. It is a patchwork job, and that is the best that can be said of. it. However, when the Government is prevented from knock-, ing at the front door it goes round the back, and while the direct obligation on universities to allow a fishing expedition through their records is no more, because of the abandonment by the Government of the original clause 22, nevertheless an obligation will remain when- the name of a particular person has been given to a responsible officer of a. university. The university will then be caught under the nether millstone instead of the upper one.

This provision will cause even more trouble for the Government. The Government, has only itself to blame for the mess in which it finds itself. The whole of the libertarian community: of Australia, irrespective ‘ of political . persuasion, is adamantly opposed to this. Bill, to. its whole concept and to the method of its implementation. Every member of the community is well aware pf the purpose of the Government in introducing the Bill.. We believe that the application, of this legislation to universities will light a bush fire throughout Australia. Today more than ever the universities are the citadels of freedom and democracy, and we pay tribute to them. The people in the universities are the leaders of public thought and play a very considerable part in moulding public opinion. I repeat that the Government will have only itself to blame for the ills that it will suffer as. a. result of this legislation.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– This is the first time I have taken part in this debate. Having read the clause proposed in the amendment and understood the intention of it, I have been wondering, as has the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes), how the devil we managed to get on to the subject which has been discussed by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). But throughout the whole debate on this Bill Opposition speakers have displayed a tendency to discuss matters far removed from the particular aspects of the legislation under discussion at the time. I was not here for the debate in the House, but 1 listened to it, and I also listened to the debate which took place in the Senate. It seemed that one theme ran through the approach of Opposition speakers; whatever the clause under discussion they wanted to get back to an attack on the Government’s motives. They constantly tried to belittle the intent of the Bill and to cripple, as far as possible, the whole national service system as it exists at present.

The Minister gave an explanation of this part of the legislation. He said that if after a person had received a notice one of his relatives died, or he could point to some similar compassionate ground, he was granted a deferment or, alternatively, the notice was allowed to stand and he was given time to visit his family and render what assistance he could. This procedure is understandable and 1 think it is to the credit of the Minister and the Department. But when the person has not answered the first call-up notice, and has not had permission so to ignore it, then a further notice can be delivered. A further notice can and should be delivered if the compassionate grounds originally put forward no longer exist. I cannot see how this is arguable in any way. Yet we have the honourable member for Cunningham telling us of the gratitude that we, the people of Australia, should feel towards certain people in our universities, the few who are creating all the furore at the present time. I have read what Sir John Crawford has said and what other distinguished gentlemen at universities have said, and I wonder what is happening in this country when we have a Labor Party and university dignitaries who seem to support the view that people at universities and the other academics of this country should be above and beyond the ordinary people. If humble John the plumber, or some motor mechanic, did what is being done by people at universities the Labor Party would not do anything to lend its support. But the members of the Labor Party are only too willing to jump on the bandwagon of any pink professor or other such person and ride along with him to the end.

I listened recently to my distinguished friend the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) delivering a speech through a loudspeaker outside the General Post Office in Melbourne, hailing the youth of Australia gathered before him. Nine out of ten of them could not have passed the Army medical examination in any case, but the honourable member exhorted them to rebel against the National Service Act. He said he would champion in the Parliament the great cause of conscience and would denounce the proposition that anybody in the universities should be asked to tell anything about anyone. My feeling at the time, let me tell the honourable member, was that here indeed was a great man! He was not running any risk. The risk that was being run was by the young hollow-chested, extraordinary-looking types who were surrounding him. Yet this was exactly what he was propounding, and I found it quite extraordinary.

If Sir John Crawford believes that he is above and beyond the ordinary person in Australia, if he is of the view that the universities, which are supported by the taxpayers of Australia, are above and beyond the ordinary institutions of Australia and that the ordinary rules that apply throughout Australia should not apply to universities, then let him state that clearly. Let us understand that legislation that applies to other people is not to apply to people who go to universities. I did not go to a university myself - I did not have the opportunity-

Mr Peters:

– That is obvious.

Mr JESS:

– It is obvious, I know, but I look at some of the distinguished members on the other side who did go to universities, such as the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Curtin), and I wonder just what they are representing at this time. If this Fabian character who is now a sort of national idol in Australia should have any dealings with the Federal Parliament I can see all the members on the other side supporting him to the hilt.

I can only say that I am interested, as I hope the Government is interested, in the ordinary, normal human beings in Australia, whether they be universityeducated or not. I am not interested in a man simply because he goes to a university, but because he is an Australian citizen. I will not go along with the rubbish that is being disseminated, that a university academic can take any action which the ordinary citizens of this country are not allowed to take. All that the honourable member for Cunningham has done has been to ignore the amendment under discussion and to carry on wilh the old diatribe designed, as I believe the Labor Party intends, to belittle and to scuttle the national service system as quickly as possible. My view is supported by what happened at the conference of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria last weekend. I think the people are becoming concerned about it and, furthermore, 1 believe the majority of university students are becoming concerned about it. I do not mean the oddballs who get all the publicity, but the decent ones whom members of the Opposition do not represent and who do not come to their meetings. 1 read in The Canberra Times’ a report of a meeting at the Australian National University. I saw that a certain Senator Wheeldon had addressed the students. He urged them on and, in effect, said: ‘Be there with the flag. Get out into the streets and protest. Come before Parliament House. You ethereal beings are above and beyond the rights of normal people. You should not be affected, whatever any ordinary person may be asked to do. You should not be asked this and we of the Labor Party will support you in opposing this legislation should it affect you’.

I see no reason in this world why somebody in a university, a professor or whoever it may be, should not have the same obligation imposed on him to answer when asked a direct question as 1, or honourable members opposite or any other ordinary citizen. I give no right to the academic to stand above and beyond the ordinary little people of Australia.

Dr J. F. CAIRNS (Yarra) 1.9.31]- The National Service Bill which we are now discussing in Committee has had a remarkable career in this Parliament. It now has been amended eighteen times. Compared with what it was when it was introduced about 4th May, if is completely unrecognisable. It seems to me that this highlights the remarks made by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) over a week ago in this House. He wondered what state of mind the Government and its advisers who designed the original Bill were in to have brought in a Bill that had provoked so much opposition. It has now been amended greatly in response to that opposition. The honourable member for Fremantle suggested that the Government and its advisers were completely out of touch with the ordinary people.

There have been eighteen amendments to the original Bill. 1 want to make only one comment about them. They have been brought about largely as a result of what has happened in the Senate. In various parts of Australia, a small party represented in the Senate, the Democratic Labor Party, has claimed for itself great credit for having amended the Bill. 1 am very pleased to see that members of the Democratic Labor Party can see their way clear to claim any credit for amending a Bill of this kind. 1 think the influence of the Democratic Labor Party ought to be taken into context because every vote in the Senate that led to an amendment of this Bill had the support of two Democratic Labor Party senators and twenty-four Australian Labor Party senators. Therefore 2/26ths of the weight that amended this Bill came from the Democratic Labor Party and 24/26ths of the weight came from the Australian Labor Party. When claiming credit for themselves I think that members of the Democratic Labor Party ought to do their arithmetic and ought to point out that if the main body of the Opposition in the Senate, members of the Australian Labor Party, had not acted as they did, the amendments would not have been carried.

Following the speech just made, by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess), no honourable member on the Government side should complain if the discussion on this Bill widens a little. The honourable member for La Trobe spoke about members of the Labor Party belittling the intent of this Bill and the national service scheme. If the honourable member had listened to the opposition put forward by members of the Labor Party Opposition he would have realised that we were criticising the Bill because the Government was seeking to extend the powers of the authorities considerably further than it had ever done in regard to almost any other matter before. The Opposition pointed out that we were assuming the national service scheme to be taken as given, and we were asking the people and the Parliament whether they agreed to extend the powers of the authorities and the extent of law in the way that this Bill provided.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Fox) - Order! I remind the Committee that we arc dealing with amendment No. 1. The discussion has become a little wide. 1 suggest that honourable members should not try to canvass the scope of the Bill but should confine themselves to the amendment.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Of course, amendment No. I is an example of this extension which the Opposition has pointed out had never been considered in this Parliament, even in the case of the most serious crimes on the calendar such as murder, garrotting, rape and all the rest. No-one ever thought it necessary to make it compulsory for any person anywhere in the Commonwealth to answer questions of this sort about serious crimes. But to pursue a few national servicemen who may be evading national service, the Government thought it necessary to offend against all the provisions safeguarding the limitations of law that have governed this Parliament before. The Opposition made this clear. The honourable members for Cunningham (Mr Connor) and La Trobe related the application of amendment No. I to the universities. They pointed out that the universities had resisted this provision and said that they would not give the information that the Government required. The Government has never staled whether or not it would ask the universities for this information.

Mr Stokes:

– I rise to a point of order. The point of order I raise is that amendment No. I relates to the addition of a new clause requiring a second notice to be served. The question being debated -by the honourable member for Yarra is completely wide of the mark. The honourable member has canvassed your ruling. Sir. on two occasions and I’ ask that he be brought back to the clause before thc Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Chair will watch the position. Honourable members up to the present have wandered a little away from the subject. I allowed latitude to the honourable member for La Trobe but I would suggest to the honourable member for Yarra that he confine himself to amendment No. 1.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– lt seems to me that amendment No. 1 is hardly required. Section 26 of the principal Act provides that the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service or somebody authorised by him may serve a notice upon a person who has failed to comply with the requirements of a notice. It would seem to me that the principal Act is adequate. The Secretary may now serve a notice and if the person concerned is given a deferment of service on compassionate or other grounds it seems that the original provision in section 26 is quite adequate. The Secretary, or someone acting on his behalf, may again serve a notice under the same power. There does not seem to me to be any commonsense need for an additional amendment of this kind.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) merely has explained the reason why the Government has passed it. Does the Government consider that some court may hold that the notice given by the Secretary, or someone authorised by the Secretary, is illegal? Is the Government or its advisers considering that it might meet some legal challenge some day in the court’s? I think this is an interesting point. I would like to hear a little more from the Government and its advisers on matters of this kind. What is the reason for this sort of thing? We have seen this very frequently in the operation of the National Service Act.

I have heard complaints recently from people called up who said that they had undergone medical examinations on a certain date but that their actual call-up for service was 3, 4 or 5 months later. I know that this matter was raised in a letter to the Minister on behalf of a national serviceman who complained about the long delay. This man was not sure that he would be called up and he wanted to know his position because call-up affected his career. The only answer to the complaint of this national serviceman that came by letter from the Minister was that it suited the convenience of the Department to act in this way. lt seems to me that the convenience of the Department has been dominating the thinking of the Government, lt may well be that the reason for amendment No. 1 is again the convenience of the Department. Even so, what kind of convenience? Why is it that the Minister considers that the Secretary, or some other authorised person, needs this amendment? Why cannot the Secretary act under section 26 of the Act. Who will challenge this? Who will say that it is wrong? What is the real reason for this amendment?

In conclusion 1 point out that we have not been concerned to say that anyone we are seeking to protect under our amendments is especially privileged in a university. Of course we do not claim that universities are specially privileged. The Chancellor of the Australian National University does not claim that universities are especially priviledged. But what he could say, and what 1 say on his behalf, is that university people are a great deal more sensitive to infringement of civil liberties than a lot of other people are. At the same time, a characteristic feature has now entered into the thinking of the members of the Liberal Party in this chamber. They have no sympathy for educated people. They find that the great number of people on university staffs are against them on matters such as Vietnam and the National Service Bill. There is an element of anti-:intellectualism growing up in the Liberal Party in this chamber. It is becoming an anti-intellectual party.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Following on what the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) has said, one can only wonder exactly what this amendment means and why it is necessary. Sub-section (3.) of section 26 of the Act states:

The Secretary may, before the time specified in the notice, serve on the person a further notice that revokes the first-mentioned notice or varies the first-mentioned notice in such manner as is specified in the further notice.

Now it is intended to add sub-section (4.) which states:

Where a person has, whether before or after the commencement of this sub-section, failed to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him under sub-section (1.) of this section, the Secretary may at any time serve a further notice on the person under sub-section (1.) of this section.

So far as I can see, there is no evidence to suggest that the original notice has expired merely because the person has not complied with it. It seems to me that we are adding confusion and confounding the law itself; that we are making it more complicated, more abstract, more abstruse and more difficult to follow.

This piece of legislation deals with a lot of people, lt also deals with a lot of people who would like to turn to the laws of Australia and find out what their rights are, what their duties are and how they can meet their obligations or exercise their legal rights. Accustomed as I am to the gobbledygook that comes from honourable members opposite, 1 am still confused as to exactly why this sub-section is to bc inserted in the Act. 1 am wondering whether, when we provide that ‘the Secretary may at any time serve a further notice on the person under sub-section (I.) of this section’, we are not. giving a special charter for dithering. Does it run for ever? Does the time in which the ordinary call-up applies or the deferment applies exist until the person is aged 26 years? Does it mean that the statute of limitations will not apply to a person after he reaches the age of 26 years and that at any time in. the future he may be served with a notice by the Secretary?

It is all very well for honourable members opposite to say: ‘Get back to the Bill’. It has been a continuing feature of the handling of the procedures of the House in recent years, by careful drafting, by nomenclature and so on, to restrict debate in this place so that it becomes almost impossible effectively to debate a matter.

Mr -Bosman - That is . nonsense.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am quite confident that you have not even read the amendment. You do not know, what it is about. You have not the slightest understanding of what it means.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Wills will address himself to the Chair.

Mr BRYANT:

– Through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for St George has not read the amendment, he does not understand it and he does not give one jot or iota for the people who are involved. In fact, this system involves a handful of young Australians who, because of the Government’s policy, are being forced to sacrifice themselves for causes that are discredited throughout the world. 1 think that the least that the honourable member can do is to make sure that whatever is being done here is being done having proper regard for the continuing and traditional rights and obligations of people. 1 am quite convinced that honourable members opposite are not doing that. Very few of them participate in debate. They sit here until late into the night and grizzle about other people’s duties, but they do not respect any duty to this Parliament or our right to debate matters.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. M. C. Fox)

AYES: 58

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put.

That the Senate’s amendment No.1 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. M. C. Fox)

AYES: 58

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

The second clarifying amendment - amendment No. 4 - bears on proposed section 51a, relating to men who fail to render service. It is the intention that section 51a should apply to a man who fails to render national service where specific failure occurs after the date of operation of the amending legislation. The amendment places this beyond doubt, at the same time making it clear that no man may be punished by reason of conduct occurring before the Bill becomes law. I should emphasise that a prosecution under the proposed section will be launched only where the Military Board so recommends, and then only with the written consent of the Minister for Labour and National Service.

The other two amendments are concerned with conscientious objectionAmendment No. 3 relates to appeal provisions. Under the present Act an appeal from a decision of a magistrate on an application by a person for exemption on grounds of conscientious beliefs is brought before a District Court or County Court in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland and in the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, where there are no such courts, to the Supreme Court constituted by a single judge. These arrangements have been in the Act since 1953 and were based on provisions which applied under the National Security Regulations during World War 11.

It has, however, been stressed that with the change in approach to the man who refused to obey a call-up notice or to render service, under which committal to the Army is replaced by committal to civil prison, it is all the more important that men who claim exemption on the ground of conscientious beliefs should be able to have issues of law or critical issues of substance adequately considered. The use of prerogative writs has not been debarred but it is argued that this approach is not entirely satisfactory. What the amendment proposes, therefore, is to permit an appeal to the highest court in the State, namely the Full Supreme Court, or in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Industrial Court - an appeal as of right on a question of law and on any other ground with the leave of the Court. The amendment, moreover, does not preclude an appeal to the High Court where that may be brought by special leave of the High Court. This arrangement not only has regard to the proper hierarchy of courts but as honourable members will appreciate will ensure that men in all States are placed on a similar footing in terms of convenience.

I come now to the final amendment, amendment (2.), which seeks the deletion of sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of section 29a, the effect of which will be to remove the present requirement that an enlisted national serviceman who applies on ground of conscientious belief for total exemption or exemption from combatant duties must show that he formed his beliefs after call-up. In a very small number of cases magistrates have interpreted these sub-sections quite strictly; where the beliefs have been formed wholly or substantially before enlistment magistrates have dismissed applications whether or not they might have been satisfied that the person then held, at the time of the hearing, beliefs which did not allow him to engage in military service. The Government recognised this situation though, as I said at the outset, only a very small number of men were affected and, as I intimated in my second reading speech, it was proposed to deal with the matter administratively. What was intended was that the Minister’s representative at conscientious objector hearings should take up a position the essence of which is that serving applicants should not be precluded from receiving the benefit of the exemption provisions of the Act if the Court at the time is satisfied that the applicant holds a conscientious belief and that his state of mind is due to some genuine change or development of his beliefs held before callup or to some clarification or intensification of those . beliefs. The amendment now before this House would have the effect of dealing with this particular matter legislatively rather than administratively, and to this the Government does not see any serious objection.

The amendment will, however, effect a second change in the existing arrangements. The present provisions were designed so that as far as possible the question of exemption on the ground of conscientious beliefs would be disposed of before a man was called up. Honourable members will appreciate the practical sense in this both for the man himself and the Army. The amendment would, however, enable a man who did not apply before call-up to apply after call-up and to base his case on the beliefs he held before enlistment. On the other hand, to date such case’s have been rare though the existence of the present sub-sections (3.) and (4.) has doubtless been a discouragement. “

In the light of all the circumstances, the Government has decided not to oppose the amendment but will keep the matter under review.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Not since the Crimes Act 1960 has the Minister in charge of a Bill had to tread such an ignominious course as has the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury). He has now gone to Canossa for the last time. The Opposition will support the three amendments. In fact, two of the amendments were proposed by the Opposition. The last of those which the Minister dealt with was proposed in this House; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) moved it and I spoke in support of it. The Minister advanced arguments against accepting the amendment and every Government member voted against it. That was only a fortnight ago. The last of the amendments is meant to cure the situation under the National Service Act in which it is not possible for a person who has once entered combatant or non-combatant service then to claim to be a conscientious objector unless he establishes that his conscientious objections arose after he commenced to render that’ service. In speaking in support of the amendment a fortnight ago I quoted Mr Justice Windeyer’s judgment in Collett’s case, in which he said:

No doubt the Act proceeds on the assumption that beliefs are ordinarily firm and constant and are likely to remain unchanged in the time between registration and call-up. Sudden conversions - if conversions ever occur without some kind of premeditation - are no doubt unlikely to occur. Nevertheless it seems that months may elapse between a decision rejecting an application for exemption and a call-up notice. And in that time it is possible for a man’s conscientious beliefs genuinely to change and develop, to clarify and intensify and become for him more dominating and compelling.

I would have thought that the arguments which Mr Justice Windeyer and the Australian Labor Party put were dominating and compelling. They were not so regarded by the Government in this place as recently as a fortnight ago. They were not so regarded by the Government in another place a week ago. However, the members of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party in another place, and the independent senator, all found them dominating and compelling and were able to compel the Government. The Government, with what grace is still left to it in the debate on the National Service Bill, now accepts the amendment in this place. Accordingly it will now be possible for conscientious objectors in Australia to receive the same benefits as are received under legislation of comparable countries where conscientious objection is acknowledged as a ground for exemption from national service.

The second amendment which the Minister supported was suggested in another place by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition there. It was moved .in an elaborated form by the Leader., of the Democratic Labor Party. Thereupon .the Government accepted the amendment as it now stands. There was no division in the other place on this amendment. Under the legislation as it left this House appeals from decisions of courts of summary jurisdiction could go to County Court or District Court judges in the three eastern mainland States and to Supreme. Court judges in the other States and in the two Territories. The decisions of those County Court, District Court or Supreme Court judges were to be final and conclusive. In the other place this amendment, which allowed an appeal on matters of conscience, was carried. Clearly there should not be fewer opportunities of appeal than are generally allowed from County Courts and District Courts, or from Supreme Courts in States or Territories where there are no County Courts or District Courts. The amendment that was carried in the other place allows the normal right of appeal on law as of right and on fact by leave. Accordingly this amendment also is supported by the Australian Labor Party in this House. There have been eighteen amendments to the Bill, lt is still not satisfactory; but at least it shows that, with an aroused public Opinion, it is still possible to curb some of the illiberalism of the Liberal Minister and his colleagues who sponsored the Bill in the dying months of national service for overseas service.

Mr STOKES:
Maribymong

– I wish to refer to amendment No. 2, which has the effect of omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.) from section 29a of the principal Act. As the Minister said, sub-section (1.) of section 29a provides:

A person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in any form of military service is, so long as he holds those beliefs, exempt from liability to render service under this Act.

Sub-section (2.) relates to non-combatant service. The Act naturally has always provided that a national serviceman can claim exemption on the ground of conscientious beliefs after his enlistment. By omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.), we are allowing the wider area to prevail, so that a national serviceman can claim conscientious objection, whether his beliefs were formed before or after his enlistment.

That is the position as J understand it. But 1 am concerned about the operations of section 29a after sub-sections (3.) and (4.) have been omitted. Does it mean that at some time, perhaps 21 months or 20 months after his enlistment, during active service in some foreign clime a national serviceman can say: ‘I have conscientious beliefs and I want to get out’? As the Act now stands, with the amendments, he will be accorded the right to appear before the courts of this land to establish his conscientious beliefs and the progression through the courts is laid down. If, after that process of law, it has been found that he has not established his conscientious beliefs, he is returned to his unit. What happens then? I ask the Minister for some clarification. Does the amendment cover this point? What happens when the soldier is returned from the hearing of a procession of appeals to his unit for active service and he refuses to carry out an order or to undertake further service? The military requirement is to charge him immediately. He is charged before his commanding officer and if the offence is aggravated he is courtmartialled. Does that man remain in the Army under military law or is he in the position of a man who makes a conscientious objection before he is called up? If a conscientious objection is taken before the call up the man is tried by a civil court and can be awarded punishment by a civil court.

I ask the Minister to clarify the position in my mind and to tell me whether, under the authority of the amended Act or of some other legislation, this man can be taken before a civil court, where his case should be dealt with. He should not remain in a position where he may infect others and upset the good order and military discipline of a force on active service in the field. In my opinion he should be removed from that area, brought back to Australia and dealt with in the civil courts. I hope the Minister will tell me whether the Government will have the authority to do exactly this and not allow a position to arise in which men in the field fighting a war can be upset by having people in the ranks who refuse to carry out orders in the face of the enemy.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Temporary Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Snedden:

Mr Temporary Chairman, I wonder whether I could intercede with the honourable member for Ballaarat and ask him to withdraw his motion and withhold it for another 10 or 15 minutes.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– The three amendments now before the Committee are supported by the Opposition. We are very glad that the Government has been forced by the numbers to accept them.

Mr Snedden:

– I take a point of order. The honourable gentleman has made a statement that has no basis in fact. He referred to the weight of numbers. When it comes to the weight of numbers, that will be felt here.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 should have thought that the Leader of the House would know by this what a point of order is. Section 29a is quite important. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) has dealt with some of its implications. 1 think he looks at the Bill and its application from the point of view of the interest of the Army. He wants to get whatever is necessary in the interest of the Army. I will discuss the section for a little while from the point of view of the interest of the individual. Of course the time has now long past when the Liberal Party of Australia thought of the interest of the individual. It thinks of the interest of the Army and the interest of the state. In recent times it has moved to the position where it is the advocate of the all-powerful state. The great Liberal Party of Australia is no longer the spokesman for the individual if it ever was. But 1 want to look at this provision from the point of view of the Liberal Party and see whether it can find some way to approve of it.

I know that honourable members opposite are very uncomfortable about this. If it had not been for the numbers in the Senate, they would not vote for these amendments, as they will vote for them in this House tonight. Most of the members of the Liberal Party are against these sections and would be delighted if they could vote against them, but their Party discipline demands that they vote for them. Because the Senate has passed these amendments, all the members of the Liberal Party who would like to vote against them cannot do so. They must accept the decisions of the Party which have been determined in another place. It would be perfectly easy, however, if the members of the Liberal Party were thinking about the interests of the individual instead of the supremacy of the state and of the Army, for a genuine Liberal to find a way to support the amendments. What they provide is that, if an individual in the Army develops a belief after he is called up, it may be an adequate basis for him to claim conscientious objection. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to accept that a man called up, placed in the Army and sent into conflict with the enemy may in the course of that conflict see and experience things that would develop in him a conscientious objection to doing such things.

Mr Stokes:

– I. have heard it called something else - sheer fright.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is perfectly natural and I would think that most of the people who are conscientious objectors have more courage than the honourable member for Maribyrnong who seems to wish to–

Mr Snedden:

– I rise to order. 1 want a withdrawal of that.

Mr Stokes:

– He served 12 months in the education service. He never saw a shot fired in action.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Do you want to test your courage against mine?

Mr Stokes:

– I know your record very well.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Committee will come to order. The Leader of the House has taken a point of order.

Mr Snedden:

Mr Deputy Chairman, 1 have never heard a - more disgraceful remark.

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

Mr Snedden:

Mr Deputy Chairman-

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Leader of the House as usual is quite ignorant of what is a point of order as well as the procedures of the House.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Committee will come to order. I have ruled already that there is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Snedden:

Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise to take a new point of order. The honourable gentleman made a remark which was a gross reflection upon the honourable and gallant member for Maribyrnong and I ask for a withdrawal.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Deputy Chairman

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

Mr Snedden:

Mr Deputy Chairman, I ask for the remark of the honourable member for Yarra to be withdrawn. The honourable member for Yarra made a reflection upon the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I ask that it be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The Committee will come to order. As I understand it, there was no reflection on the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Mr Snedden:

– There was a very gross reflection, Mr Deputy Chairman, and if the honourable member for Yarra will have the courage to repeat it and withdraw it and apologise-

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will repeat it exactly if you will sit down.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Do you want to withdraw it?

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– No.

Mr Stokes:

– Come outside and say it in King’s Hall.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will repeat it exactly if you will sit down-

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr E. M. C. Fox)

AYES: 58

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2276

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment:

Loan (Airlines Equipment) Bill 1968. States Grants (Deserted Wives) Bill 1968. Copyright Bill 1968. Designs Bill 1968.

Science and Industry Research Bill ((No. 2) 1968.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1968. Canned Fruits Export Marketing Bill 1968. Navigation Bill 1968.

Railway Agreement (Queensland) Bill 1968. Loan Bill . 1968.

Tasmania Agreement (Hydro-electric Power

Development) Bill 1968. Western Australia Agreement (Ord River

Irrigation) Bill 1968. Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968. Public Service Bill 1968. Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1968. States Grants (Technical Training) Bill1 968. Railway Agreement (New South Wales) Bill

Slates Grants (Beef Cattle Roads) Bill 1968.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1968.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1968.

Superannuation Bill 1968.

Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1968.

International Development Association (Additional Contribution) Bill 1968.

Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1968.

Without requests:

Customs Tariff Bill 1968.

page 2276

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1968

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Immigration · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. .

The purpose of this short Bill is to widen the scope for the granting of leave without pay to officers of the Commonwealth Public Service where the -public interest would be served. At present, under section 72a of the Public Service Act, the Public Service Board has power to grant leave to an officer, on his application, for the purpose of service with a prescribed international organisation, or with the Government of ‘any part of the Queen’s dominions or of a British Dependency’. The provision is not limited as to period, except that if the period exceeds 3 years the Public Service Board must be satisfied that the granting of leave is in the public interest. In addition, under existing section 71, the Public Service Board has a general power to grant leave for any purpose, but the period is limited to 12 months. This power has been used, for instance, in relation to Nauru.

The need is now seen to provide for leave over a wider area than section 72a presently permits, for example, to cover leave to serve in an Asian country. It is desired to provide a specific power for this purpose, particularly as the general power under section 71 is, as indicated earlier, limited to a period of 12 months. This Bill therefore seeks to amend section 72a so that the countries covered will not be confined as at present. In view of the widening of the section, where the leave is for more than 12 months, a certification by the Minister responsible for administering the Public Service Act - that is, the Prime Minister - that the engagement of the officer in the employment concerned is in the public interest, will be required.

There are other reasons for amendment of this section. Following the affiliation of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, with the University of New South Wales, a power is needed to permit leave to academic staff of the College to serve with the University. The Bill is framed broadly enough to allow periods of teaching at other educational institutions, thus facilitating a greater interchange of views, ideas and knowledge. A certification by the Prime Minister of the sort mentioned earlier will be required for leave in excess of 12 months.

In the course of this general review of section 72a it was seen to be desirable that a power exist to permit leave to be granted to serve in other prescribed organisations where such service would be in the public interest. Organisations will be prescribed as actual cases arise. Again, the Public ServiceBoard will need the ministerial certification if the period is to exceed 12 months. I take this opportunity tomention the valuable work done in the past by officers of the Commonwealth Service for other countries ami international organisations. This Bill seeks to extend the scope for assistance and for the gaining of added experience in these and other areas of work outside the Commonwealth Service. I commend the Bill to the House. .

Debate (on motion by Mr Webb) adjourned.

page 2277

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Reference to Public Works Committee Mr KELLY (Wakefield- Minister for the Navy) [10.36]- I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1966, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works foi investigation and report: Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport - Extension of north-south runway to 13,000 feet, with associated pavement works.

The proposal involves the extension of the existing north-south runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to 13,000 feet to provide facilities for Boeing 747 aircraft. The 3,900 feet extension will be constructed further into Botany Bay. The estimated cost is $23m. I table plans for the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2277

WAYMOUTH TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Reference to Public Works Committee Mr KELLY (Wakefield- Minister for the Navy) [10.37] - by leave - I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1966, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Proposed erection of Waymouth Telephone Exchange Building, South Australia.

The proposal involves the erection of a fifteen-storey building on a Commonwealth site in Waymouth Street, Adelaide. The estimated cost is $6m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2277

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 2277

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed: That the House, at hi rising, adjourn until a date and hour to tie fixed by Mr Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The Opposition will vote against this motion. The conse quence of defeating the motion would be that the House would come back at the normal time of 2.30 next Tuesday afternoon. The Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) has given no reasons for seeking the adjournment of the House until some time to be notified by letter, presumably until the day when the Budget is brought down. A fortnight ago the Minister moved that we suspend the 11 o’clock rule. At that time the House had more often concluded its business after 11 o’clock than before it, and frequently in fact had concluded after midnight. In an effort to let the House rise we sat until well after midnight for the whole of last week. On Wednesday last week we adjourned at 1.21 a.m.; on Thursday last week we adjourned at 2.26 a.m. and on Friday last week we adjourned at 2.33 a.m. Honourable members will recall that throughout that period a great number of important Bills were introduced after 11 o’clock for debate. I cannot recall a period when the House has debated so many matters after 11 o’clock and after midnight as it has done in the last few weeks. The whole of this has been done in order to conceal debates from the Press, because any debates at that hour are too late to be reported in the morning newspapers, and to conceal the debates from listeners, because the House goes off the air at 11.30 p.m. at the latest. Apparently there are many reasons why the Government does not want the public to hear or read what we say.

The . Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has been away last week and this week. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) are away this week. In fact, this morning the Acting Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), who returned to cover the periods when the Prime Minister would be away, gave as the reason for the House not debating the Rhodesian sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs were absent. They ought to be back next week. This is clearly a matter which ought to be debated. The first time that the United Nations Security Council approved sanctions against Rhodesia a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, made a statement to the House 4 days later. The House debated that statement the following day.

The Security Council’s latest sanctions resolution was passed over a fortnight ago. The Minister for External Affairs was available in the House only last week to make a statement on it. The Prime Minister did, in fact, turn up one day last week. He could then have made a statement on it. The House should have debated this matter. The House will not be able to debate the matter now because the Security Council’s resolution must be acted and reported upon by 1st August next. If the Government has its way the House will not be in session for 12 days after that, the Budget being due on 13th August. This means that one matter which clearly should be debated now no less than it was 3 years ago will not be debated.

Many honourable members from both sides would like to debate it. There is no division in the ranks of the Australian Labor Party as to the attitude that the Australian Government should take upon the Rhodesian matter. There is very great difference of opinion among Government members as to what the Government should do about it. One honourable gentleman, the honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs), is interjecting. He is one of the Rhodesian lobby.

Dr Gibbs:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is another highly inaccurate statement from the Leader of the Opposition. I am not a member of any lobby, least of all the Rhodesian lobby.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Dr Gibbs:

– Of course, we are used to this sort of untruthfulness from him.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have drawn blood with this very precise reference to a matter which is being concealed from the House because the Government does not want the public to see the division in its ranks. But there are other matters which clearly ought to be debated, and promptly. The Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence are at this moment in Kuala Lumpur, and have been for the last few days, discussing five-power arrangements with Malaysia, Singapore, Britain and New Zealand. The Prime Minister also has visited those countries. The Prime Minister might at last be able to give the House some idea of this country’s commitments to Malaysia and Singapore. He might at last be able to give the country some idea of the implications of ANZUS if there is an attack on Australian forces in Malaysia and Singapore. All these matters have been concealed from the House on the pretext that the Ministers are not here. They all can be in Australia - the Prime Minister, the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence - next week.

If this motion is defeated the House will sit next week. The Prime Minister and his senior Ministers will then be able to make statements to the House. The Prime Minister himself will no longer be able to hide behind hints, suggestions and interpretations. He will have to be precise as to these matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the motion before the House concerns the adjournment of the House to a particular date. I suggest that he should not debate the matters that he instances as reasons why the House should come back next week.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that I am giving the reasons why the Opposition will vote against the motion - why we want the House to sit at the time it will sit if the motion is defeated, that is next Tuesday.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I am aware of that. The Leader of the Opposition may make illustrations, but I do not want him to continue to debate the matters that he suggests the House should return to debate next week. If this were permitted then every honourable member could engage in a wider debate on the subject matters that the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. He may make illustrations, but he must not debate those illustrations.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will make no further reference to the matters that the Government has withheld from the House and from the people. I will content myself by drawing attention to the notice paper and to matters that are awaiting debate and which, if the motion is carried, will not be debated until the middle of August.

Mr Snedden:

– Which matters do you want to debate now?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Firstly, the matters which the Minister and his colleagues have introduced.

Mr Snedden:

– Which ones?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Let me read the list to the Minister. The Judges’ Pensions Bill, which was introduced on 16th May-

Mr Snedden:

– Do you want that debated now?

Mr WHITLAM:

– We are prepared to debate it now.

Mr Snedden:

– And what did you say last week?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Immigration will cease interjecting.

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 said the same thing. Mr Snedden - Oh, now, really; you are testing credulity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– -Order

Mr WHITLAM:

– My Party’s attitude to the tol low ing Bills was determined al least a fortnight ago. As far as we are concerned debate can proceed today or next week upon them: The Judges’ Pensions Bill, introduced on 1 6th May; the Law Officers Bill, introduced on the same day; the Spirits Bill, introduced on the same day; the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill, introduced on 8th May; the Extradition (Foreign Stales) Bill, introduced on the same day and the Patents Bill, introduced on 16th May. On all these matters the Government gave its reasons for introducing the legislation 4 to 5 weeks ago. My Party has determined its attitude on all these Bills, lt could proceed on all of them tonight or, better still, next week. If the motion is defeated debate will proceed on these Bills at the time the Government determines that it will proceed.

There are two other Bills on which 1 concede my Party has not determined its attitude. One is the Bankruptcy Bill, which was introduced on 6th June, and the other is the Fisheries Bill, which was introduced on 20th March. What has happened to the Fisheries Bill? Is the Government abandoning the Bill or is it now acknowledging the political dangers it would face if it proceeded with the Bill as it was introduced 12 weeks ago? 1 have referred so far to matters which the Government introduced. There are in all, eight Bills which the Government itself has introduced, one of them 12 weeks ago, and now we find that the Government does not want to proceed with debate on these Bills until the Budget period. Then there are some statements which Ministers have made and on which debate has been adjourned. 1 moved an amendment to the motion that the House take note of one of these statements. It was a statement on frequency modulation broadcasting made by the PostmasterGeneral on 6th June. I moved that a select committee be appointed from this House to inquire into the matter. I remind honourable members that on 4th April the Postmaster-General said in answer to a question by me: 1 hope thai before this autumn sessional period concludes I will be able to make a statement that will enable a debate to take place.

The honourable gentleman made the statement a week ago. The debate upon the statement cannot proceed if this motion is carried. In fact it cannot proceed for at least another 2 months. We all know the mechanics of the House and we know that no debate on this statement would take place until the Budget debate was concluded and the debate on the estimates for each individual department was concluded. Here again the absence of the Minister for Defence is a boon to the Government, because he is widely known to differ from the Postmaster-General on this issue of frequency modulation broadcasting. He spoke in the House 7 years ago against the Government’s abandonment of frequency modulation broadcasting. He spoke 3 years ago to a professional body, favouring the restoration of frequency modulation broadcasting.

There are many other statements on the notice paper. Let me mention some of them. There is a ministerial statement on the Chowilla Dam. This concerns three States. It concerns this Parliament. It concerns a work which was unanimously approved by SOO members of the three State Parliaments and this Parliament only 4i years ago. Now the whole project has been deferred, lt may have been abandoned. This project, which was applauded by us all, is not now to be debated. I could mention many other ministerial statements on matters on which the Ministers invited debate, and about which they are now voting to defer any debate.

In addition to the matters which the Ministry has brought up there are matters which private members have brought up and which remain to be debated. There is one by a Government supporter, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), concerning British ships trading to Haiphong. There are two by me on representation in the Senate for the two mainland Territories and an Act to abolish capital punishment under federal laws, and there is one by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) concerning representation in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Then there is a private member’s Bill which remains to be voted on. It is the Death Penalty Abolition Bill which was debated by my Party, by me and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), on Wednesday of last week. It was passed in the Senate at the beginning of last week. The Government does not want its members and supporters to vote on the Bill because that would expose the divisions in the Government’s ranks. There are several members of the Liberal Party at least who would vote for the abolition of the death penalty if the Government allowed a vote to be taken. But the Government again, to avoid the exposure of its divisions, is postponing any vote on this Bill. The Government says it is a matter of conscience. In other words, there are divided opinions amongst honourable members on the other side, and therefore, it becomes a matter of conscience. The Labor Party as a matter of conscience believes in the abolition of the death penalty. It has worked for it. It has secured the abolition of the death penalty in Queensland and New South Wales. It has succeeded in having a Bill passed in another place for the abolition of the death penalty. Now the Government will not allow a debate to be resumed in this House on this Bil) or a vote to be taken on it, although the Bill has been passed in the other place.

Mr Daly:

– And a man is under sentence of death in the Northern Territory.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, a man is under sentence of death at this moment in the Northern Territory and his life depends upon the passage of this Bill. A week ago I asked the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) about this and he said that it depends on the Executive Council. What is to happen to this man? Is he to be hanged before the Parliament resumes? The sentence has been deferred for a month pending an appeal to the High Court. If the appeal does not succeed this man can be hanged because this House has not abolished the death penalty. The Government is refusing to allow this House to complete the Federal parliamentary process of abolishing the death penalty in the Northern Territory, where the man stands under sentence of death.

There are many matters, most introduced by the Government but others introduced by private members - on the Government side in one case and on the Opposition side in another - which are awaiting debate or awaiting the conclusion of a debate and awaiting a vote. The House should come back next week when senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister will be able to report to us and account to us. Even if they absent themselves next week the fact is that there are many matters which could not be disposed of in the early hours of the morning last week or the previous week which we could debate more decently if we came back next week for the purpose of debating these matters, voting on these matters and completing the unfinished business which Ministers and private members have introduced. We will vote against the motion.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Immigration · Bruce · LP

– The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is remarkable, and I congratulate him on it. One could not avoid congratulating him on it. He wishes to be remembered. He desperately wishes to be remembered. He wants to build a monument, a monument to Whitlam, the Whitlam monument. And do you know what it is?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I remind the Minister that in referring to the Leader of the Opposition he should refer to him as such.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– How else can I state the title of the monument than by using the name? I cannot say ‘The Leader of the Opposition monument’.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Minister should know what the Standing Orders allow him to say and what they do not.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I do, and I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have referred to the honourable gentleman as the Leader of the Opposition on every occasion I have referred to him. I have used the term ‘the Whitlam monument’ only to spell out the name which would be given to it.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to order, Mr Acting Speaker. The Minister is still on his feet. Would you ask him to sit down while I have the floor.

Government members - Oh!

Mr Hayden:

– The Standing Orders provide for this. Would the Minister sit down?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– 1 would be delighted.

Mr Hayden:

Mr Acting Speaker, 1 understand that under the Standing Orders it is not permissible for an honourable member to canvass the ruling of the Chair, ls there an exemption for Ministers? Is this evidence of preferential treatment for them or is this evidence that the Minister is trying to intimidate you?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Oxley. I have already raised the point with the Minister for Immigration.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We are accustomed when the House rises in December to hear what was described by a distinguished Prime. Minister of earlier times as the Christmas hypocrisy. We are now having an innovation - the autumn hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition picks up the notice paper, reads through it and says: There is Government business, there is private members business, there are statements, and we are ready to debate them’, retreating, as he always does, from Moscow. This is the new hypocrisy. Let us examine his statement and reveal it for the shabby sort of statement that it really is.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 suggest to the Minister that he restrain himself in his remarks about this matter.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, has said that he wants the Parliament to sit next week. At a later point in his speech he said that the Labor Party likes to determine matters on questions of conscience. He would nol get a vote on this present question, not a vote.

Mr Webb:

–You put it to a vote.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We will put it to a vote here and now, tonight. We will put it to a vote. The honourable gentleman will find that his Party will be committed on this conscience issue to vote according to the caucus will. The honourable gentleman has been talking about the death penalty and the capital offence. The honourable member for Higinbotham (Mr Chipp) asked me 3 or 4 weeks ago whether I would take up with the honourable Leader of the Opposition the question of a conscience vote on capital punishment. I informed the honourable member that I would take the matter up. I did indeed take it up. I spoke to the honourable gentleman. Subsequently I was asked by the honourable member for Higinbotham whether I had done so and what the response was. The response was a melancholy response. The Opposition refused to permit a conscience vote.

Mr Whitlam:

– Not on this one,

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Opposition backbenchers are saying: ‘No, no, ‘ no, no, no’, and the Leader of the Opposition is saying: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’.

Mr Whitlam:

– I did noi. I said no.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Leader’ of the Opposition ‘ agreed that there was’ no capacity for members of the ‘ Opposition to have a conscience vote–

Mr Whitlam:

– On capital punishment, certainly.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That is right. That is what he said.

Mr Cope:

– I rise to order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Watson is not in his place. He will resume his seat.

Mr Cope:

– If the Minister for Immigration wishes to pay 15c he can obtain a copy of the policy and platform of the Australian Labor Party-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Watson will resume his seat.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Leader of the Opposition then said, amongst other things, that he could not recall a session in which more Bills had been debated after 11 p.m.

Mr Turnbull:

– I could tell him of a few.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Mallee has been here for many years and he would know how unreal was the statement of the Leader of the. Opposition. I can remember sitting on the front bench there when the Leader of the Opposition was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and was having a tactical battle with a former Leader of this House. At 5 a.m. a motion was proposed to begin a new sitting at 5.30 a.m. There still exists copies of the notice paper of that day, which was a printers draft pull for 5.30 a.m., and, because of the efforts of the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we solemnly had prayers and petitions at 5.30 a.m. The honourable gentleman has a very short memory. He is not noted for his tactical skill. He said, of course, that the reason for debates after 11 p.m. was to conceal what was said from the newspapers and, because the broadcast of the proceedings had ceased, from the public. The reality of the situation is that the Opposition constantly is unable to harness its members in order to make the affairs of this Parliament move in the manner they ought to move. Because the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), or any other member occupying the Opposition front bench, cannot harness members of their own Party, we on this side of the House cannot know how the progress of the House will move. There has been no attempt whatever to conceal anything from the Press or from the public, through the medium of the broadcasts, and the honourable gentleman well knows this.

The Leader of the Opposition made some remarks about the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was away last week and this week. Then he used this phrase: He turned up one day last week’. The Prime Minister of Australia is elected to discharge the most onerous duty that this nation can call on a man to discharge. In order to discharge that duty it is absolutely essential that that man exercise his judgment as to where he ought to be at any time. No honourable members would gainsay - and if they would, let them say so now loudly and clearly - that they believe the Prime Minister should not have gone to the United States of America.

Mr Devine:

– I believe he should not have gone.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns), and many Victorian members of the Australian Labor Party, no doubt would say this.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable members for Oxley and East Sydney will cease interjecting or I will take action against both of them.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Yarra and other honourable members from Victoria no doubt would support him, would regard our relations and alliance with the United States as something ephemeral which need not be actively pursued. They feel that a relationship, with all its sense of understanding and reliance, one upon the other, is something which is to be criticised and regarded as undesirable simply because of the intimacy and closeness of the relationship. I deprecate those comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition then spoke about the Bills listed on the notice paper and said he was prepared to proceed with the debate on every Bill. The honourable gentleman really must think that everybody here has newly arrived in this place. He must think that somehow or other those people who report these events are unaware that on the Tuesday in August that we resume my right honourable colleague the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) will make the Budget speech. On the following Tuesday night, by tradition - a tradition we would not wish to shake - the Leader of the Opposition will make reply. There will therefore be a full week available to this Parliament and it is the duty of the Leader of the House to make sure that legislation which can be left until that time - another 8 weeks or so - will be there to occupy the Parliament. That is precisely why these matters have been left on the notice paper. In relation to the specific matter first raised by the honourable gentleman, the Judges’ Pensions Bill, I go no further than to say that the honourable gentleman well knows that there are good reasons why this Bill should be left over. Indeed, they are reasons which he would not wish to contradict. 1 will carry it no further, because to do so would be to trespass upon the confidentiality of a conversation. There is a very old story - and it remains true, and the converse also remains true - of a man who insults somebody in public and apologises in private. There is nothing more despicable in a man’s character than that. The converse is true; that is, to co-operate in private and to refuse to co-operate in public.

The Leader of the Opposition has talked about private members’ motions. The honourable gentleman knows as well as any other honourable member in this House that the Standing Orders provide for the giving of notice. If he cares to open up the notice paper which I see he has in his hot hand and looks at page 608 he will see there under ‘General Business’ the following: Notice given for general business Thursday No. 5’; ‘Notice given for general business Thursday No. 6’; ‘Notice given for general business Thursday No. 7’; and ‘Notice given for general business Thursday No. 8’. He knows that General Business alternates with grievance day. If he were to have us sit here until we finished general business No. 8 we would be here for a great many more weeks than merely next week. If he is the protector of General Business, it was he who today agreed that General Business should not be taken, that Government Business should have precedence. This is the gentleman who is anxious at11 o’clock at night, to protect General Business.

Mr Whitlam:

– Do you mean to say that we cannot debate the Death Penalty Abolition Bill except on Thursday mornings?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We have difficulty in debating the Death Penalty Abolition Bill because on this side of the chamber we have always believed that when a man has an issue of conscience he should vote according to his conscience. The Opposition believes that conscience must be submerged to the Party caucus; that we cannot have a free vote in this House. We on this side of the chamber will have a free vote. But a free vote will not be permitted on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, as well as any other honourable member in this House does. Tonight the honourable gentleman has decided to part from custom and to try to build a new tradition. If he succeeds in building that tradition of the autumn session hypocrisies, I can only wish him well and hope that every honourable member remembers that he started it.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2284

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill (No. 2) 1968.

United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1968.

page 2284

RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I wish to inform honourable members that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr A. K. Healy, will reach the retiring age of 65 years on 1 8th June next, thus ending nearly 34 years of service to the Commonwealth Parliament. Although this is not a record period of service for a member of the Hansard staff, it is interesting to note that Mr Healy filled the vacancy caused by the retirement of Mr W. Admans, who had been appointed to the staff when it was formed in 1901; so the service of these two gentlemen - original appointee and his replacement - covers the whole span of federation.

Mr Healy was born and educated in Queensland. He was a journalist in that State for 12 years and when he joined the Hansard staff at the age of 31 he had the reputation of being a highly efficient verbatim shorthand writer.

He was a reporter for 21 years, and his progress through the various senior positions on the staff began at the lime when Hansard was undergoing its greatest changes with the introduction of the daily publication. He became Principal Parliamentary Reporter in 1964. I am sure all honourable members, particularly those who have bad close personal contact with Mr Healy, wish me to record our appreciation of his long and faithful service to the Parliament and to say that we wish him and his wife contentment and the best of health in his years of retirement. I have also to announce that upon Mr Healy’s retirement, Mr W. J. Bridgman will be the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr K. R. Ingram the Second Reporter and Mr G. R. Fraser the Third Reporter.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Immigration · Bruce · LP

Mr Acting Speaker, as you have reminded us, Mr Healy has been a very valuable officer of this House since he was appointed to the staff in 1934. Indeed, 1 believe that this was several months before the oldest members - in terms of service - of this House entered this chamber. Mr Healy has served under seven Speakers and ten Prime Ministers. I hesitate to think how many members he has reported or how many members have passed through his hands, so to speak, in those 34 years. Perhaps with Ministers the casually rate is even higher.

Mr Healy has reported the whole range of Government business, lt is interesting to think that the issues alive in 1934 remain alive today in at least a couple of respects that 1 can think of. In 1934 there was of course the Aboriginal problem; the Aboriginal problem remains today. Doubtless great advances have been made, but I mention it only to show that it is in our minds today as it was then. The copyright legislation is an interesting subject. The Copyright Bill had just been passed in the House of Representatives when Mr Healy came here and as honourable members will remember a major revision of the Copyright Act was passed in this very session. It is interesting to reflect that when Mr Healy came to this Parliament the total Budget for the Commonwealth was $72m. If my recollection is right - and the Treasurer will correct me if it- is wrong - last year’s Budget was 56,000m.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– You cannot blame Mr Healy for that.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We do not blame Mr Healy for that but it is worth citing to show the change in the role of the Commonwealth Parliament in the era through which he has lived. Those of us who remember 1934 or were born in Western Australia and heard of it by way of folk lore will know of course that 1934 was the year of the secessionist movement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How did the Minister vote?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I was born in Western Australia and it has come to me by way of folk lore. This was the time when the very idea of federation or union - which ever way you prefer to describe it - was at risk. Fortunately that threat to the Commonwealth did not eventuate. Let me return to Mr Healy. Mr Healy is known to every member, 1 am sure. Unfortunately he is not here sitting in the chamber; I inquired and found that he could not be here tonight. But we all know him as a quiet man, a very courteous man, and I think most significantly a faithful servant of this Parliament. We who are members of the Parliament like to think of ourselves as cast in the mould of parliamentarians committed to the concept of parliamentary government. Mr Healy, as an officer of this Parliament, is no less cast in that mould. There is one blot on his escutcheon: he is a keen rugby union man. On this occasion we might well overlook this very serious shortcoming, especially when we know that he has helped to foster the code amongst Canberra schoolboys. I wish he had been fostering Australian Rules, but unfortunately he was not. But his work among the young people of Canberra has no doubt earned for him the honour and recognition due to him. He will return to his first love, which is journalism. We as members of this House have depended upon him, and his staff for many years

Mr Healy has helped to establish the reputation of Australian Hansard. Establishing the reputation of Australian Hansard was not quite as difficult as making way for the original Hansard. I was reminded of this fact when thinking about Mr Healy and I am sure that honourable gentlemen, certainly those of us who have had some association with the law, will remember these famous cases of Stockdale v. Hansard. My learned friend from Parkes (Mr Hughes) will remember. 1 remind the House of these cases. These things are worth recalling. Between 1836 and 1840 a very real struggle went on to establish the right, privilege and immunity from suit of those who are required by our Standing Orders to report the proceedings of Parliament. The Messrs Hansard reported some matter in the British Parliament and a gentleman named Stockdale brought an action for libel against them for the report they printed. The matter went to the court and it was held by the court that the report by the Hansards was not covered by parliamentary privilege. The Hansards then went to the Parliament and sought the protection of Parliament. The Parliament responded very rapidly and quite effectively by imprisoning the sheriffs of Middlesex who had been required to execute the judgment of the court. When the plaintiff’s solicitors’ clerk came along to execute the judgment they imprisoned him too. This was the first chapter in the story.

The occupational hazard of the Hansard reporter was something for those reporters to think about. The position has improved very much since 1836, and essentially it improved as a result of an Act of Parliament passed in 1840. In that year the Parliament ordered that if such an action as this were brought the recorders of the parliamentary proceedings were not to enter any plea at all. When an action was brought litter parliament passed an Act which said, in effect, that there was no right of action against the Hansard reporters for reporting parliamentary proceedings. That brought the very protracted legal argument to an end. The only requirement was for the Hansard reporter to produce a certificate from the Parliament.-

Since those days, the privilege which the Parliament accords to those who report its proceedings - they are named ‘Hansard reporters’ after the originator of the report - have had their occupational hazards materially reduced. The only possible hazard that seems open to them these days is that they may be called into, court to give sworn evidence that the report is accurate. Originally the Parliament had. to assert the very important privilege that there should be a standing record of what was said in the Parliament so that it could be read by all who were interested in public affairs. lt is. in that role that Mr Healy has served this Parliament and the public of Australia for 34 years. That is a long time to serve the public and it. deserves from all of us who have been members of this House during Mr Healy’s period of office our very warmest good wishes to him, our thanks for his services to us, and our thanks for his services to the country.

Honourable members ; Hear, hear!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am sure that all honourable members join with me in wishing Mr Healy the most happy of active retirements - for active he proposes to make it - and 1 am sure that he would like me to express our good wishes for a long period of service in the Hansard tradition to Mr Bridgman, Mr Ingram and Mr Fraser.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Healy came to Hansard with a very fine record of public service and a very fine training in his profession. He came from the ‘Daily Standard’, which was a Labor paper in Brisbane. He has reported five of my predecessors. He came to Hansard when James Henry Scullin was Leader of the Australian Labor Party. At that time Mr Scullin’s successors, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, had been defeated at an election and had not yet been reelected. Of course, their successors, Dr H. V. Evatt and the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) had not yet been elected. At that time the present Governor-General of Australia had just become Assistant Treasurer and the predecessor of the Liberal Party of Australia was able to govern without the assistance - or the connivance - of the Australian Country Party. This was a generation of fascinating political, constitutional and economical developments in the history of our country and, insofar as these developments have impinged upon this Parliament, Mr Healy has played his part in recording them and - I think we must all confess - improving the record of them.

Mr Healy is the fourth Principal Parliamentary Reporter who has retired during my time in the Australian Labor Party. I have known them all, since I did my secondary schooling in Canberra. When I heard that Mr Healy was retiring and was being succeeded by Mr Bridgman, with the assistance of Mr Ingram, it was a chastening thought to me because I went to school with the daughters of the first of those four Principal Parliamentary Reporters, Mr Campbell. 1 also went to school with the wife of the new Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Bridgman, and with his assistant, Mr Ingram. Members of the Hansard staff who join it now at the age Mr Healy was when he joined, and serve for as long as Mr Healy did, will see in the next century.

Mr Acting Speaker, we are all very much in the hands of the Hansard staff. The Hansard reporter in this House must work with greater speed and possibly with greater discretion than his counterparts in the State parliaments or the courts do. Commonwealth Hansard is the apex of all Hansard staffs. Mr Healy has certainly preserved the high standards and handed them on with the assistance of a very fine staff. His successors will continue the tradition that he has so well preserved. We in this House know the members of the Hansard staff well. Insofar as the rest of the world will remember us, it will depend largely on their efforts. We wish well to Mr Healy and his successors and their staff. We wish Mr Healy and Mrs Healy a continuation of the happy, useful lives that they have lived amongst us.

page 2286

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

- Mr Acting Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.42 p.m., until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker and to be notified by him to each member by telegram or letter.

page 2287

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Commonwealth Establishments in Sydney Suburbs (Question No. 5) Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which Departments, other than the PostmasterGeneral’s, and which instrumentalities other than the Commonwealth Bank, have established branches in Sydney suburbs?

When and where did they do so?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– There are problems of definition involved in providing an answer to the honourable member’s question. Departments hold differing views as to what constitutes a branch and there are problems in defining Sydney suburbs.

The following information, therefore, covers the whole range of Commonwealth establishments in the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Sydney (excluding the inner city area) as defined for the Commonwealth census.

Education : Expenditure (Question No. 56)

Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Will he revise the two tables which his predecessor supplied in answer to my question No. 280 on 16th August 1967 (Hansard, pages 165-6) to include the following additional information:

    1. any figures for later years which may hare become available since the tables were, supplied;

Cb) in respect of the table headed ‘Estimates of Expenditure on Education as a percentage of the Gross National Product’, a dissection between the public and private sectors so that the figures for the public sector are consistent with the totals of amounts shown on pages 19 and 21 of the paper ^National Income and Expenditure 1966-67’ presented by the Treasurer on the occasion of the last Budget; and

  1. in respect of the table headed ‘State Authorities - Estimated spending on Education’, amounts shown to the nearest $’000 and compiled so that all Commonwealth payments specifically for education, such as for universities, colleges of advanced education, technical training, etc., are excluded from the figures of State expenditure?

    1. If figures of State spending for 1966-67 are not yet available, can he ascertain from the Commonwealth Statistician the reasons for the delay in compiling such figures?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions, prepared in consultation with the Commonwealth Statistician, are:

  1. The following two tables give estimates of expenditure on education as a percentage of Gross National Product for 1966-67, the latest year available, and earlier years; and spending on education by State authorities for the latest year available and earlier years. Where they differ from similar figures issued earlier, it is because of normal revisions to the national accounts series on receipt of later information.

The figures for public authority direct spending on goods and services for education are the sum of those shown on pages 19 and 21 of ‘National Income and Expenditure 1966-67’ for net current expenditure on education and fixed capital expenditure on new assets for education, respectively. The original figure of 413 on page 19, for net current expenditure for 1963-64, has been revised to 412 in the further publication ‘Australian National Accounts 1953-54 to 1966-67’, page 68. These figures, however, do not show the full extent of the public authority effort in the field of education. In the national accounts, expenditure is attributed to the actual purchaser of goods and services, so that expenditure out of transfers of government money to the private sector (scholarships, bursaries, giants for science laboratories, etc.) are attributed to the private sector. These transfers are shown explicitly in Table 1.

As requested by the honourable member, the figures of spending by State authorities in the second table are shown to the nearest $’000 and all expenditure out of specific Commonwealth grants to the States for education are excluded, as indeed they had been excluded in the answer to the honourable member’s previous question, the footnote being in error in suggesting the contrary.

page 2289

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

fa) The figures exclude expenditure out of specific purpose grants by the Commonwealth to the States for. education.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 58)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been allocated to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation each year since the Organisation was established?
  2. How many full-time staff members were on the staff of the Organisation during each of those years?
  3. How many of those staff members were appointed in each of the States for each of those years?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 2 and 3. It has not been the practice of Governments to give information relating to the workings of the Organisation.

Universities: Financial Assistance (Question No. 71)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What was the per student allocation of (a) capital and (b) recurrent university grant for (i) each State and (ii) the Australian Capital Territory and (iii) the Commonwealth for each year of the past two triennia?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The capital grants allocated by the Governments on the recommendation of the Australian Universities Commission are for a triennium and not for individual years. The capital grants per student in the following table have therefore been calculated for the 1961-63 and 1964-66 triennia in relation to the number of students enrolled at the end of each triennium.

The honourable member will appreciate that this arithmetical expression of the amount of capital grant per student is of doubtful meaning because of the widely different situations of new and developing universities on the one hand and of established universities on the other, e.g., at any particular time the capital grant for the former group is frequently greater although the student numbers will be relatively lower.

  1. The Commonwealth’s grants to the States for recurrent expenditure are related to the sum of the fees and State contribution paid in respect of the universities; the total recurrent income available on the recommendation of the Australian Universities Commission from these sources, per student enrolled, is shown in the table:
  1. The recurrent grants shown include amounts for teaching hospitals and halls of residence. Any additional amounts received by State universities from their respective State Governments beyond the amounts recommended by the Australian Universities Commission have not been included.

The honourable member will realise that the figures shown for the Australian National University in the above tables are not comparable with the figures shown for any other university. For Australian National University, the totals include the whole cost of the six research schools in the Institute of Advanced Studies.

Papua and New Guinea - Excise (Question No. 101)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Do Australian manufacturers of musical instruments and other products pay excise on exports to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?
  2. Are similar products entering the Territory from foreign countries via Australia exempt from these charges?
  3. Will he consider creating a free trade area between Australia and its Territories?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. No. Excise is an internal tax imposed on certain goods manufactured and consumed in Australia. It is not payable on goods exported from Australia.
  2. Yes.
  3. Australia accepts a special responsibility in the Territory of Papua-New Guinea. The Government endeavours to see that there is a market for the products of Papua-New Guinea. The question of a free trade association wilh Australia raises a policy issue which is not appropriate to be dealt with in reply to a question.

Phoenix Islands (Question No. 143)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Phoenix Islands in the Pacific Ocean are administered by the United Kingdom, but claimed by the United States?
  2. If so does the Australian Government recognise British sovereignty over these islands?
  3. Does Australia claim sovereignty over any territories which we do not actually administer?
Mr Hasluck:
Minister for External Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Both Britain and the United States claim sovereignty over the Phoenix Islands. Without prejudice to their respective claims, the US and British governments, in an exchange of notes dated 6th April 1939, agreed to the joint administration of two of the islands, Canton and Enderbury, for a period of 50 years.
  2. The Australian Government was consulted at the time on the foregoing arrangement and has been in agreement with it.
  3. No. The degree of administration varies, of course, according to the circumstances of the territory in question - for example, very little in the way of administration has hitherto been needed in respect of a number of small uninhabited islands in the Coral Sea over which Australia claims sovereignty.

Gold (Question No. 190)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the cost of production of a fine ounce of gold in Australia (a) without subsidy and (b) including subsidy?
  2. What was the production of gold, in fine ounces, in 1967?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. A figure is not available of the average cost of producing gold in Australia. Large producers (i.e., those producing more than 500 ounces per annum) whose cost of production, as defined in the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Act, exceeds $27 per ounce of gold are paid a subsidy to the extent of 75% of the excess, up to a maximum of $8 per ounce. Most of Australia’s large producers of gold are now subsidised.
  2. Mine production of gold in Australia in 1967 was 810,418 fine ounces.

Shipping: Repairs and Maintenance (Question No. 204)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What ships trading on the Australian coastline have had repairs, alterations and maintenance work carried out at overseas ports over the last two years?
  2. How many of these ships are owned by (a) Australian companies and (b) overseas controlled companies?
  3. Where was this work carried out?
Mr Sinclair:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Fifteen ships trading on the Australian coastline had repairs, alterations or maintenance carried out at overseas ports during the last two years. They were:
  1. (a), (b) Thirteen of these ships are Australian owned and two are owned by overseas controlled companies. They are the ‘Poolta’, which is owned by Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand Ltd and the ‘Iron Cavalier’ which is owned in the United Kingdom but is on charter to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited.
  2. The overseas ports and the type ofwork undertaken are as follows:

Superannuation (Question No. 223)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When will the 45th Annual Report of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board and the report of the ninth quinquennial investigation of the Fund be presented to Parliament?
  2. What are the reasons for the delay in the presentation of the annual report and the completion of the quinquennial investigation?
  3. Will he take action to ensure that similar delays do not occur in future?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

It is expected that the Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Superannuation Board for the year 1966-67 will be presented to the Parliament before the end of the current session; the Board does not expect that the Ninth Quinquennial Investigation of the Fund will be completed for at least another 12 months.

The Board has appointed the Commonwealth Actuary to undertake the Ninth Quinquennial Investigation of the Fund in terms of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, and considerable progress has been made in the specification and preparation of statistical and valuation data required for the period between 30 June 1962 and 30 June 1967; some 950 separate tables of basic data are required. It is unlikely that the information for the year ended 30 June 1967 can be completed until the end of this calendar year; other material will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Actuary progressively.

To set this matter in perspective, it is relevant to note that the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund has by far the largest number of contributors and pensioners of any fund in Australia. Hence any major changes affecting contributors and pensioners produce marked fluctuations in work loads with inevitable delays in the presentation of annual reports and of the statistical and valuation material for actuarial review. Comprehensive salary increases since 1962, the recent reconstruction of individual contributor records retrospectively to the inception of the Fund in conjunction with other action necessitated by the legislation arising from the Quinquennial Investigation of the Fund as at 30 June 1962, the conversion of records to decimal currency, and legislative amendments providing for progressive improvements in this Scheme are examples of such changes. At . 30 June 1967 over 400,000 adjustments to contributor records were outstanding. The Board has been developing new computer systems which are the only means of meeting such fluctuations in work loads: although sufficient progress should have been made to enable an earlier tabling of the next annual report, that for 1967-68, this development will not be fully implemented before 1970.

The President of the Superannuation Board has assured me that the Board is very conscious of the need to maintain up-to-date records and to prepare promptly annual reports and other necessary information; he also states that progressive improvements in organisation and methods are being introduced in addition to the computer developments and that every effort is being made to advance the preparation of the material required for the ninth quinquennial review.

War Veterans (Question No. 229)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. How many veterans of (a) the Boer War and (b) World War 1are still living?
  2. What is the approximate or estimated average age of the survivors of each of these two wars?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

The number of Boer War and World War 1 ex-servicemen still alive and their average ages are estimated to be as follows:

Boer War, 390 survivors, average age 87 years.

World War 1, 91,500 survivors, average age 73.6 years.

Imports (Question No. 238)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the value of (a) items of handicraft imported into Australia from less-developed countries, and eligible for customs duty exemption, since the exemption became operative and (b) other goods imported from less-developed countries and subject to preferential duty under the concession introduced by the Government?
  2. What is the estimated loss of customs revenue as a result of duty concessions granted on imports from less-developed countries?
  3. What is the value of quotas granted for the importation of specified goods from less-developed countries?
  4. What is the value of quotas taken up by importers?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The value of handicraft and other goods imported under the system of tariff preferences for developing countries since the concessions became operative in May 1966 has been as follows:
  1. The value of the duty concessions on these goods is estimated at $1,237,000.
  2. The present value of quotas available for importation of goods from the developing countries is $26. 3m annually, having been progressively increased from $13. 3m in 1966-67 and $20.5m in 1967-68.
  3. The value of quotas actually taken up by importers was $3.7m in 1966-67 and $9m in 1967-68.

Nuclear Weapons (Question No. 251)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report of a speech to Rotary in March by Sir Philip Baxter, Chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in which it is stated that Australia must equip itself with most sophisticated and effective weapons that man could devise, with no type excluded?
  2. If so, will he assure the Australian people that this is contrary to Australian policy?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. I have seen a Press report which purported to summarise a speech made by Sir Philip Baxter to the Sydney Rotary Club on 19th March 1968. I have not seen the text of the speech but I have been informed that the remarks quoted by the honourable member were reported out of context and that they related to a hypothetical situation.
  2. Ministers have stated the Australian Government’s policy on the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons several times in recent years.

Pensioner Home-owners (Question No. 253)

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

er asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Has he stated that the grant of remissions or rebates of general rates and water charges for pensioner home-owners is essentially one for State governments and local councils?
  2. Is it a fact that, in the Australian Capital Territory, where the Commonwealth has complete and unfettered control, the Government grants no concessions to pensioner home-owners who are required to pay rates and water charges to the Commonwealth?
  3. Is it also a fact that the Government has granted no relief to pensioner home-owners who are required to pay land rent to the Commonwealth, despite the requirement that some pensioners are now called on to pay land rents increased by 700% as a result of recent revaluations?
  4. If the position is as stated, will he use his good offices to ensure that pensioner home-owners in the Australian Capital Territory are granted at least the equivalent of the concessions, remissions or rebates available through State and local governing bodies in other parts of Australia, notably New South Wales?
Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes. 2, 3 and 4. The aspects raised in these parts are primarily the concern of my colleague the Minister for the Interior, The Minister has informed me that although there is no legislative provision to grant relief to pensioner home-owners in the Australian Capital Territory from the payment of rates, water charges and land rent, where persons are in necessitous circumstances and unable to meet their commitments, then arrangements can be made for the payment of ouch amounts to be made by instalments.

Further, the Minister has approved the introduction of a scheme whereby amounts of land rent and general rates raised in respect of land leased in the Australian Capital Territory by persons, including pensioners, who are found to be in necessitous circumstances, might be deferred. The amounts deferred would become a registrable charge on the land and will be called np, when a change in circumstances occurs and the deferment of these amounts is no longer justified, for example, on the sale of the land or the death of the owner. Legislation to give effect to this scheme is in the course of preparation and will be introduced as soon as possible.

Public Service (Question No. 257)

Bt Patterson asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What are the names of Second Division officers who have resigned from his Department in the last 7 years to take positions with private enterprise?

Is he able to state in what organisations these officers accepted appointments?

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

During the last 7 years so Second Division officers have resigned from the Department of the Treasury to take up employment with private enterprise.

Drought Relief (Question No. 261)

Mr Beaton:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. From what date was the Act providing 3% drought relief loans proclaimed in Victoria?
  2. When was the first loan provision?
  3. How many farmers in Victoria have omeo qualified for and received such a loan?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– It is assumed that tha honourable member’s question relates to the Drought Relief Act 1968 passed by the Victorian Parliament since this is the only legislation passed recently in Victoria relating to drought relief. This Act provides, inter alia, that farmers may obtain loans for a period of 12 months at an interest rate of 3% per annum in respect of wheat purchased from the Australian Wheat Board. Under an arrangement made by the Commonwealth Government the wheat acquired from the Australian Wheat Board by the farmers is sold in the first instance by the Board to the Victorian authorities on 12 months’ credit at an interest rate of 4i%.

The loans made available under this scheme are additional to the 3% carry-on loans being provided to farmers under the drought relief assistance arrangements agreed between the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments.

The following answer to the honourable member’s question has been obtained from the Victorian authorities:

  1. The Victorian Drought Relief Act 1968 was proclaimed on 18th April 1968.
  2. The first loan in respect of purchases of wheat under the Act was provided on the sama date.
  3. Four hundred and seventy-two farmers had qualified for and received loans under this Act up to 24th May.

Army Discipline (Question No. 269)

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

irns asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Was Denis O’Donnell recently sentenced to detention for breach of Army orders or regulations?
  2. If so, what was the term of detention, and where and under what circumstances was he detained?
  3. Was he transferred from the detention centre before the expiration of the sentence; if so, why?
  4. Where is he now, and is the Minister able to say what is his attitude to military service?
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Private D. J. O’Donnell was sentenced by court martial to 48 days detention for absence without leave from 23 November 1967 to 26 March 1968. He underwent detention at the First Military Corrective Establishment (1MCE), Holsworthy, under the conditions applying to soldiers so sentenced.
  3. Private O’Donnell received 11 days remission of sentence for excellent behaviour while at 1MCE.
  4. The soldier has been posted to an Army unit as a Service requirement and has been carrying out his duties satisfactorily. However, he has indicated quite recently that he will not continue to obey instructions. In the soldier’s interests, I do not intend to disclose publicly his whereabouts, but I will be happy to provide the honourable member with the information, privately. In view of the statements recently attributed to the honourable member in the Press, I would assume that this will not be necessary.

Devaluation of Sterling : Pensions (Question No. 280)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What effect has devaluation had on British pensions payable in Australia?
  2. Has this resulted in an increased cost to the Australian taxpayer and a resultant reduction in cost to the British Government?
  3. Has any approach been made to the British Government seeking an adjustment of pensions paid to the pensioners involved?
  4. Are recipients of British pensions denied rises which take place after they leave Britain, even though they have been regular contributors to national insurance?
  5. Does this also result in an increased charge on Australian taxpayers?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The value of British social security pensions expressed in terms of Australian currency was reduced following the devaluation of sterling currency.
  2. This has resulted in increased pension commitments for Australia in respect of Australian age, invalid and widows’ pensions payable to British pensioners. Not all British pensioners receive Australian social service pensions. As far as the British Government is concerned, the same amount of sterling currency is involved as before devaluation.
  3. Not by the Department of Social Services.
  4. Under British law, a person who is receiving a British national insurance pension when he goes abroad is not normally entitled to receive any subsequent increase in the rate of his pension unless he returns to Britain.
  5. The rate of a British pension received by a person is taken into account in the assessment of an Australian pension.

Cost of Living (Question No. 296)

Mr Daly:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

By what estimated percentage did the cost of living rise in (a) each State and (b) Australia during the period 1962 to 1968?

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I assume that the honourable member’s reference to ‘cost of living’ is to changes in retail price levels as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The changes in the Consumer Price Index for the six State capital cities individually and for the weighted average of the six State capita] cities between 1962 and March quarter 1968 (the latest available) are as follows:

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Employment Service does not keep statistics of persons registered for Sickness Benefit which is administered by the Department of Social Services. The number of Unemployment Benefit recipients is not available for particular localities within the metropolitan area which is treated as a whole.

page 2295

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX - ALL GROUPS

Change between the average of the four quarters of 1962 and March quarter 1968

Weighted average of six State capital cities + 15.5%

Sydney . . . . . . . . + 14.7%

Melbourne .. .. +15.8%

Brisbane . . . . . . + 17.2%

Adelaide . . . . + 15.2%

Perth . . . . . . . + 16.8%

Hobart . . . . . . . . + 15.6%

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits (Question No. 298) Mr Daly asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many (a) men and (b) women are registered for (i) sickness and (ii) unemployment benefits at the Newtown Commonwealth Employment Office?

Social Services (Question No. 299)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) men and (b) women are in receipt of (i) Sickness and (ii) Unemployment benefits at this date in (A) each State and (B) Australia?
  2. What is the present rate of benefits payable in each case?
  3. What was the date of the last increase in benefits in each case and by how much were the benefits then increased?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. As at 25th May 1968, the figures were as follows:
  2. The present maximum rates of unemployment and sickness benefits are:

    1. for beneficiaries 16-17 years of age - $3.50 per week
    2. for beneficiaries 18-20 years of age - $4.75 per week
    3. for adult or married beneficiaries - $8.25 per week
    4. for the dependent wife of a beneficiary - $6.00 per week
    5. for each dependent child under 16 years of a beneficiary - $1.50 per week.
  3. The effective date of the last increase in each of these categories, and the weekly amount of such increase, was:

    1. 17 October 1957-50 cents
    2. 17 October 1957-75 cents
    3. 1 March 1962-75 cents
    4. 1 March 1962-75 cents
    5. 1 March 1962-25 cents.
  4. Where is he now, and is the Minister able to say what is his attitude to military service?
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Private Phillipson was detained on three occasions at 2 Recruit Training Battalion, Puckapunyal, for periods of 96 hours, 120 hours and 168 hours respectively. He was subsequently sentenced to 40 days detention at 1 Military Corrective Establishment, Holsworthy. In the event, he served only 26 days during which he spent a total of 3 days in close confinement.
  3. It is not normal practice to publicise the location of individual soldiers. However, I will provide the information privately to the honourable member if he so desires. Private Phillipson is presently on leave without pay pending the hearing of his application to be registered as a conscientious objector.

Army Discipline (Question No. 309)

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Was Desmond Phillipson detained for some breach of Army orders or regulations?
  2. If so, what was the term of the detention, and where and under what circumstances was he detained?

Diplomatic Recognition by Australia (Question No. 321)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What governments which are in control of nations are not accorded diplomatic recognition by the Australian Government?
  2. Does Australia have trade arrangements with any of these countries?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. It is a matter of judgment whether a ‘government’ exercises de facto control over a country (or a part of a country). Among the governments which are recognised by some countries but not recognised by Australia are Communist China, North Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Rhodesia and Biafra.
  2. The Australian Government does not have trade ‘arrangements’ with any regime it does not recognise. Non-recognition does not, of course, in itself prevent trade being carried on by other agencies or by individuals with the countries concerned.

Sales Tax (Question No. 334)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What rates of sales tax apply to (a) school stationery, (b) lead pencils and slate pencils and (c) ordinary and ball point pens?
  2. What revenue is derived from sales tax on these articles?
  3. Has any investigation been made to ascertain what proportion of the total revenue from sales tax on these items relates directly to school requisites?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1. (a) school stationery - 124%

  1. lead pencils (other than propelling pencils) and slate pencils- 121%
  2. ordinary pens (i.e., not fountain pens)- 124% ball point pens - 25%.

    1. The amount of revenue derived from sales tax on school stationery is not known. However the estimated revenue in the 1967-68 financial year from all stationery, lead pencils and slate pencils and ordinary and ball point pens is as follows:
  3. Stationery 10,000,000
  4. Lead pencils and slate pencils . . 350,000
  5. Ordinary and ball point pens . . 1,500,000

    1. No.

Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve (Question No. 347)

Mr Crean:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When and for what reasons was the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve established?
  2. What amounts have been (a) paid into and (b) withdrawn from the Reserve in each financial year since its establishment?
  3. What was the balance in the Reserve at the end of each financial year since its establishment and how were these balances invested?
  4. What was the source or what were the sources of payments into the Reserve?
  5. For what purposes have amounts been withdrawn from the Reserve?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to’ the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve was established in 1955. The primary purpose of the Reserve is the reduction of Commonwealth debt by acquiring and cancelling securities before maturity. The Reserve also assists in debt management by acquiring early maturing securities in exchange for medium and long-term securities held by the Reserve, thus reducing the amount of early maturing debt held outside official hands and increasing the average period to maturity of this debt.

An important function of the Reserve derive; from the fact that funds available in the Reserve may tot invested in Commonwealth Securities until needed for debt redemption purposes. The Reserve has provided a convenient means by which the support which the Commonwealth has been giving to the Loan Council borrowing programmes could be made effective. At 30 June each year, the Reserve subscribes whatever is required by way of a special loan to complete the Loan Council borrowing programmes for the year. 2 to 5. Details of receipts and expenditure of the Reserve, together with cash balances and investments held each year since 1954-55, are set out in the following tables:

  1. This amount was held for investment in a Special Loan on 1 July 1967. The proceeds of the loan were applied to the redemption of the London loan maturing 1 July 1967.

Is he able to say what sums of money were provided, during the latest year for which figures are available, for the promotion of the Arts and Letters in:

  1. England;
  2. Canada;
  3. United States;
  4. each of the Scandinavian countries;
  5. Italy;
  6. Holland;
  7. France;
  8. West Germany;
  9. Austria; and (j) New Zealand?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

Inquiries have been made through our diplomatic missions abroad and the diplomatic missions in Canberra and the following information is as complete as it is possible to ascertain at this date.

Meals on Wheels (Question No. 354)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he consider a capital subsidy to Meals on Wheels organisations on terms like those for housing for the aged?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The Government has already indicated that it will review all aspects of social services and the matter raised by the honourable member will receive careful consideration. Any decision on the point will be taken and announced in the usual way.

Promotion of Arts and Letters (Question No. 59)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Arts and Letters in Australia (Question No. 61)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What official bodies have been set up by the Federal Government, and are still operating, for the promotion of the Arts and Letters in Australia?
  2. When were these bodies set up7
  3. Who are the members of these bodies, and what are their qualifications to serve on them?
  4. What is the age of each of these members7
  5. For what purpose was each of these bodies set up?
  6. What funds have been allocated to each of these bodies for each year from and including 1950?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. and 2. The official bodies set up by the Commonwealth Government and still operating for the promotion of Arts and Letters in Australia are:

The Historic Memorials Committee- established in 1908. The Committee is advised by the Art Advisory Board, established in the same year.

The Commonwealth Literary Fund - established in 1908. From 1908 until 1939 the Fund was administered by a Central Committee appointed by the Governor-General in Council. In 1939, when the Government decided to extend the scope of the Fund, an Advisory Board was appointed to advise the Committee of the Fund.

Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers - established 1967. The Government in 1967 appointed an Advisory Board to advise on projects designed to assist Australian Composers and to promote their work.

  1. and 4. The members of each of these bodies and their ages are: Historic Memorials Committee - The Prime Minister (Chairman) - 56, the President of the Senate - 67, the Speaker of the House of Representatives - 51, the Vice-President of the Executive Council - 61, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives - 51, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate- 45.

Art Advisory Board - Sir Daryl Lindsay - 78 (Chairman) - formerly Director of the National Gallery of Victoria; practising artist, Member of the Planning Commission of the National Capital Development Commission, consultant in art matters to a number of organisations.

Mr Robert Campbell, C.M.G., O.B.E.- 65- recently retired as Director of National Gallery of South Australia; formerly Director of Galleries in Perth, Queensland and Tasmania.

Mr W. A. Dargie, O.B.E.; 55; distinguished portrait painter and official War Artist World War II. Mr Dargie has painted many celebrated personalities.

Mr Douglas Pratt, O.B.E. ; 68 ; distinguished Australian landscape painter; Vice-President, Royal Art Society.

Mr Russell Drysdale ; 56; distinguished Australian artist, winner of Encyclopaedia Britannica Award in 1965 for services to Australian art.

Commonwealth Literary Fund - The Prime Minister is Chairman, and the members are Mr E. G. Whitiam- 51, Leader of the Opposition, and Mr P. E. Lucock - 52, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, representing the Country Party.

Advisory Board, Commonwealth Literary Fundi -

Sir Grenfell Price, C.M.G.; 76; (Chairman) noted historian and geographer, author of a number of books.

Professor T. Inglis Moore, O.B.E. - 66 - retired recently as Associate Professor of Australian Literature at the Australian National University; poet and critic.

Mr Kenneth Slessor, O.B.E. 67 celebrated Australian poet and critic.

Mr Douglas Stewart, O.B.E. ; 54 ; distinguished Australian lyricist and literary critic.

Miss Kylie Tennant ; 56 ; distinguished novelist and critic.

Mr Geoffrey Blainey ; 38; distinguished historian and writer, Professor of Economic History, University of Melbourne.

Advisory Board, Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers -

Sir Bernard Heinze ; 74 ; formerly Director, N.S.W. Conservatorium of Music; sometime Ormond Professor of Music, University of Melbourne; Conductor Sydney and Melbourne Symphony Orchestras.

Professor Frank Callaway- 48 - Professor of Music, University of Western Australia. Conductor University Choral and Orchestral Societies, Western Australia.

Mr John Hopkins; 40 ; Director of Music, Australian Broadcasting Commission; Conductor, formerly associated with leading orchestras in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Formerly Musical Director, New Zealand Opera Company. 5. The Commonwealth Literary Fund was originally established to provide financial aid to indigent writers and their families.

In 1939 the scope of the Fund was extended to encourage Australian writers and to stimulate an interest in Australian literature. It has also continued its original function of assisting writers in distressed circumstances.

The Advisory Board of the Fund advises the Committee on all literary matters coming within the scope of the Fund.

The Historic Memorials Committee was established to commission portraits of GovernorGenerals, Prime Ministers, Presidents of the

Senate, Speakers of the House of Representatives and Australians distinguished in the arts, sciences and letters.

The Art Advisory Board advises the Committee on the issue of commissions to portrait painters, and advises the Government on artistic matters which may be referred to it. Over the past 10 years or so the Board has been provided with funds to purchase paintings for the National Collection which will ultimately hang in a National Gallery in Canberra. In addition, in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, the Board arranges through the Prime Minister’s Department for Australian art to be exhibited overseas. It also financially assists State Galleries to circulate major exhibitions of Australian and international art throughout Australia.

The Advisory Board, Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers, was established to advise the Government on the expenditure of funds to assist any project which will facilitate the performance of Australian serious music composition and to promote a better understanding of Australian music thereby improving the status of Australian composers.

  1. Funds allocated to each of these bodies for each year from and including 1950 are set out in the attached table ‘A’.

In addition to the funds allocated to the above official bodies, the Government has provided insistance for the performing arts by grants-in-aid to the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, and to the Adelaide Festival of Arts and the Festival of Perth. Funds allocated to these bodies for each year from and including 1954-55, when the Elizabethan Theatre Trust was established, are set out in the .attached table ‘B’. This assistance is exclusive of the money made available through the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

It should be mentioned also that the Department of Education and Science provides the Secretariat for the Australian National Advisory Committee for UNESCO and its twelve specialist Committees. Four of these specialist Committees (Letters, Drama and Theatre, Music and Visual Arts) have, since their inception in 1947, been involved in activities which have contributed to the promotion of the Arts in Australia. Provision is also made on the vote of the Department for the cost of the meeting of all twelve Committees and for their various Australian activities, e.g. seminars, publications. Only an approximate estimate can be made of the proportion of this vote used for the four Cultural Committees. This estimate is set out in the attached Table ‘C.

  1. I would also draw the honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on 4 June when he announced the membership of the Australian Council for the Arts:

Dr H. C. Coombs (Chairman), formerly Chairman of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Thurst. Chairman of the Board and Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia, since 1960; Chancellor, Australian National University.

Miss Elizabeth Archdale, M.B.E., Headmistress, Abbotsleigh Church of England Girls’ School, Wahroonga, since 1958. Sometime Principal, The Women’s College, in the University of Sydney. Fellow of the Senate of the University of Sydney since 1959.

Mrs Jeana Bradley. Senior Lecturer in Langer in the University of Western Australia. Has had a long and close association with the theatre in Western Australia, as a dramatic critic and producer.

Mr W. P. Coleman, M.L.A. Barrister. Editor of ‘Quadrant’; a former editor of The Bulletin’. Sometime Lecturer in Government and Public Administration in the University of Sydney.

Mr Geoffrey Dutton. Poet, critic, commentator, biographer. Sometime Senior Lecturer in English in the University of Adelaide.

Mrs Dudley Erwin. Sometime Instructor in Art at New York University. Has organised and produced for stage and television. Council Member of the Ballarat Fine Arts Gallery.

Mrs H. W. Houghton. Associated with the Arts in Tasmania, with a particular interest, in cultural activities in country districts. Has produced a number of amateur plays.

Mr Barry Jones. Barrister and solicitor. Lecturer in History at La Trobe University. Extensive experience with radio, T.V. and major art forms.

Dr Karl Langer. Lecturer in Architecture and Town Planning in the University of Queensland. President of the Gallery Society of Queensland. Active interest in the arts.

Professor K. C. Masterman, C.B.E. Sometime Professor of Classics in the Australian National University. Active interest in the arts.

page 2302

TABLE ‘A*

page 2303

TABLE ‘B

page 2303

TABLE C

Reports on Development Projects (Question No. 109)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the reasons for not publishing reports prepared on (a) beef roads in northern Australia, (b) the Ord River project, and (c) the Nogoa irrigation project and for publishing reports prepared on brigalow development in Queensland and water reticulation in the south-west of Western Australia?

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

I should first say that reports on all the projects mentioned by the honourable member have been prepared by Commonwealth departmental officers for the information of Ministers in taking decisions on the projects. These are confidential reports to Ministers and it is not the practice for documents of this nature to be published. The only reports on beef roads in Northern Australia were prepared in this way by Commonwealth officers as confidential reports to Ministers.

I assume that, in the case of the other projects mentioned, viz. the Ord River project, the Nogoa Irrigation project, the Brigalow Development scheme in Queensland and the Comprehensive Water Supply Scheme in Western Australia, the honour abb member is referring to reports prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics either at the request of or with the agreement of the Governments concerned. In such cases reports are published only by mutual agreement between the Commonwealth and the Government or Governments concerned. In the case of the Brigalow development scheme in Queensland and the Comprehensive Water Supply Scheme in Western Australia there was a mutual agreement that the reports be published. In the case of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics’ reports on the Ord River project and the Nogoa irrigation project there was no such agreement.

Australian Capital Territory: Parks and Gardens (Question No. 113) Dr Patterson asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many persons have been employed by his Department to establish and maintain parks, gardens, lawns and nurseries, etc, in the Aus.tarlian Capital Territory in each of the last 15 years?
  2. What has been the total cost of parks and gardens activities in those years?
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The above figures are in respect of industrial employees only and cover costs directly related to services provided by the Parks and Gardens Branch of the Department of the Interior. Expenditure on plant and equipment and recoverable costs cannot be readily identified.

During the past 10 years the National Capital Development Commission has from time to time let contracts which include component costs for associated parks, gardens, lawns and other landscape features. The establishment costs for these features are not readily available and have not been included but the cost of maintaining such features by Parks and Gardens employees is included in the figures given.

Australian Capital Territory: Water Conservation (Question No. 114) Dr Patterson asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What was the total amount of Commonwealth funds spent in the last IS years on the conservation of water for the benefit of residents of the Australian Capital Territory?

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The expenditure on the major water storages provided by the Cotter, Bendora and Corin Dams and the cost of investigations into proposed storages during the last IS years was approximately $9,300,000.

Australian Capital Territory: Capital Works (Question No. 115) Dr Patterson asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the total amount of Commonwealth funds spent in each of the last IS years on capital works in the Austalian Capital Territory
  2. Can a break-down of the annual costs be provided?
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The information is available from the Annual Statements of Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the Australian Capital Territory which are tabled in Parliament each year in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and from the annual reports of the National Capital Development Commission.

Canberra: Lake Burley Griffin m& Bridges (Question No. 116)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister So? the Interior, upon notice:

What was the final cost of the construction of:

the Canberra artificial lake, and

the two bridges crossing the lake?

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The cost of Lake Burley Griffin amounts to $5,044,716,
  2. the cost of the two bridges crossing the Molonglo Mood plain amounts to $5,669,500.

Australian Capital Territory: Capital Works (Question No. 117)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What are the best estimates of the expenditure by private enterprise on capital works in the Australian Capital Territory in each of the last 15 years?

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The best available estimate of expenditure by private enterprise on capital works is the value of new private buildings, including major additions, completed in the Australian Capital Territory.

The values of new private buildings including major additions completed in each of the last 14 years (figures for 1952-53 not being available) were:

Reports on Development Projects (Question No. 166)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Waa it clearly stated by the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. H. E. Holt, that it was the Commonwealth Government’s rule not to release information on requests relating to development projects made by State Governments to the Commonwealth unless it was mutually agreed to make the information public?
  2. If so, has this rule been recently departed from?
  3. When did the Premier of Queensland and the Commonwealth mutually agree to release the fact that Queensland had asked for an evaluation of the Burdekin Scheme?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

The Commonwealth Government as a general rule does not disclose the terms of communications between the Prime Minister and Premiers unless it is mutually agreed to make the information public. This policy was stated by the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. H. E. Holt, on a number of occasions.

In the case of the Queensland request for an evaluation of the Burdekin Scheme, Mr Holt reiterated, as can be seen by reference to Hansard, 5 October 1967, page 1739, that it was not normal for the Prime Minister to disclose the terms of communications between the Premiers and himself. However, in this case, since the Queensland Premier had earlier announced in the Queensland Parliament that an approach had been made to the Commonwealth, Mr Holt confirmed that such an approach had been received and that it was being given consideration.

I might now mention to honourable members that the Commonwealth Government has agreed in principle to undertake an evaluation of the Burdekin Scheme, on the condition that the timing, nature and extent of the Commonwealth’s participation is worked out when the current investigations of the Bowen-Broken River area are nearing completion.

Queensland Water Conservation Projects (Question No. 167)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the name of each water conservation project located north of Brisbane for which the Queensland Government requested technical and evaluation assistance from the Commonwealth, other than from the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, from (a) 1st January 1963 to 31st December 1964 and (b) 1st January 1965?

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

On page 1247 of Hansard for 22nd September 1966 is printed the answer provided by the then Prime Minister to an identical question asked by the honourable member.

However, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided to his Question No. 166 on the Notice Paper in relation to the Queensland Government’s request for an evaluation of the Burdekin Scheme.

Department of Works : Tenders (Question No. 195)

Mr Beaton:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Did his Department last year call tenders for the supply and installation of equipment at the Department’s Taldera communications centre in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?
  2. If so, which company tendered successfully and what was the tender price?
  3. What other companies tendered?
  4. Was the successful tender the lowest?
  5. Was the equipment satisfactorily installed by the successful tenderer?
  6. If not, by whom was it installed, and what was the additional cost to the taxpayer?
Mr Kelly:
Minister for the Navy · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Works has supplied the following information:

  1. Yes by the Commonwealth Department of Works. Apart from inviting tenders to extend the Transmitter Building, tenders were also invited for the supply and delivery of 100Kw Generating Set (on 16th January 1967) and for the supply and installation of air-conditioning (on 6 January 1967).
  2. Supply and delivery of 100Kw Generating Set-

McColl Electric Works Pty Ltd, $11,501.62. Supply and installation of air-conditioning - Brian Bell Pty Ltd, $7,387.

  1. Supply and delivery of 100Kw Generating Set- Northern Electric Pty Ltd

English Electric Co. of Australia Hastings Deering (N.G.) Pty Ltd.

Supply and installation of air-conditioning -

Following the invitation of public tenders only one tender was received in the amount of $9,519. This price was considered excessive and selected tenders were invited from the following:

Carrier Air Conditioning

Brian Bell Pty Ltd

Coolah- Products

Port Moresby Freezing Co.

Only one tender was received, that of Brian Bell Pty Ltd in the amount of $7,387.

  1. Supply and delivery of 100Kw Generating Set-

The tender of McColl Electric Works Pty Ltd was the lowest tender complying with the specification.

Supply and installation of air-conditioning - Yes.

  1. Supply and delivery of 100Kw Generating Set-

The installation of the set is to be carried out by the Department of Civil Aviation. The work has not yet been completed.

Supply and installation of air-conditioning -

Yes.

  1. See answers to both contracts under 5 above.

Queensland Coastal Inlands: Jurisdiction (Question No. 197) Mr Whitlam asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

What Imperial, Commonwealth and State statutes and proclamations determine jurisdiction over the Islands and reefs off the coast of Queensland?

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

The relevant instruments relating to the islands off the coast of Queensland and to reefs off that coast that have the characteristics of islands (i.e. that are permanently above water) are referred to in Volume 2 of the 1962 Reprint of the Queensland Statutes at pages 712-720, 800-804 and 806-811. That volume is in the Parliamentary Library. 1 refer the honourable member in particular to the Letters Patent dated 6 June 1859; 13 March 1862; 30 May 1872; 10 October 1878; and 10 June 1925; to the Proclamations dated 22 August 1872 and 18 July 1879: and to the Queensland Coast Islands Act of 1879.

Immigration: National Security (Question No. 233)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to statements made by Mr Ferencz Molnar, National Secretary of the National Socialist Party of Australia, on the Melbourne Channel 7 television programme Encounter’ on 27th April 1968, in which he claimed to have been an active National Socialist for 30 years and a declared admirer of Ferencz Szalasi who was executed as a war criminal in 1946, and boasted that he had visited Dachau for interest during the war and that there was only one furnace going?
  2. As it is understood that permission to visit concentration camps, and Dachau in particular, was restricted to leading Nazis and such permission was not made available to tourists, does this suggest that Mr Molnar’s past history deserves close scrutiny?
  3. Will he investigate this case with a view to determining how Mr Molnar was able to become a naturalised Australian citizen?
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. I was not aware of the matter until the honourable member raised it, but I have now been informed of the nature of the broadcast.
  2. Provision is made for investigation of matters of this k:nd under the arrangements which exist for safeguarding national security.
  3. Mr Molnar arrived in Australia on 21st July 1949. He was accepted for emigration to Australia under the scheme, operated in conjunction with the International Refugee Organisation, for persons who had been displaced from their homes in Europe and were able to satisfy Australia’s requirements for settlement at that time. He became an Australian citizen on 1st May 1958, after meeting the prescribed conditions for the grant of citizenship.

Examination of Drugs (Question No. 235)

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did the annual report of his Department for 1966-67 state on page 112, table 53, that, of some 380 samples of pharmaceuticals registered under the national health scheme and examined by the National Biological Standards Laboratory, 86 (22.6%) failed to pass the examinations?
  2. Will he provide in each case of failure, the name of the drug, the reason for failure, and the name of the manufacturer?
  3. Does the high proportion of failures mean that the Commonwealth is subsidising the dispensation of drugs which do not fulfil the requirements claimed of them?
  4. Alternatively, does it mean that the Commonwealth is subsidising dispensation of drugs which are of inadequate standard?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The 380 samples referred to were not pharmaceutical benefits under the National Health Act but were, in fact, samplings of products submitted for testing prior to or with applications for the listing of the products as pharmaceutical benefits. Random tests of pharmaceutical benefits are included in the first item of Table 53. That item also includes samples tested for other purposes under the Therapeutic Substances Act by the National Biological Standards Laboratory. Records presently maintained by the Laboratory do not allow of easy identification of the drugs tested under the Therapeutic Substances Act as between those tested as pharmaceutical benefits and those tested for other purposes, e.g., supplies to Commonwealth hospitals. It is estimated however that about three-quarters of the 1,111 samples would be pharmaceutical benefits and that the failure rate would be about 23%. A failure rate at this level does not indicate that the Commonwealth is paying for drugs of inadequate standard because in many instances they are only marginally sub-standard oi they may be classified as ‘failed’ because of a labelling defect. In all cases appropriate ‘follow-up’ action is taken to ensure correction.

Immigration (Question No. 240)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many applications were received at Australian High Commission Offices and Australian Embassies in India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Hong Kong in (a) 1966 and (b) 1967 from persons wishing to emigrate to Australia?
  2. How many visas were granted in (a) 1966 and (b) 1967 to nationals of India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore wishing to emigrate to Australia?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Australian Cadet Corps (Question No. 244)

Mr Ian Allan:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. What is the ceiling strength of the Australian cadet corps?
  2. When was this limit (a) established and (b) reached?
  3. How many applications for the formation of cadet corps units are awaiting approval?
  4. What would be the total strength of cadet corps if it included all schoolboys of cadet age in all suitable secondary schools?
  5. What is the present cost of the scheme?
  6. What would be the estimated cost of a fully expanded scheme?
  7. What is the strength of professional cadres now providing instruction to cadets?
  8. What would this strength be with a fully expanded scheme?
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The ceiling for 1967-68 is 45,000. 2. (a) This ceiling was authorised at Army Headquarters on 16th August 1967.

    1. The Cadet Corps strength as at March 1968 was 43,351.
  2. One hundred and twenty-six schools are awaiting approval to form cadet units.
  3. A schoolboy cannot be enrolled in the Australian Cadet Corps prior to the first day of January of the year in which he reaches the age of 14 years. However, for the purposes of providing an estimate of numbers of schoolboys who would be eligible to join the corps, figures relating to schoolboys aged 14 or older have been used. No allowance has been made for those 13 year olds who would be eligible to join under present conditions, nor those aged 14 or over who would be ineligible on medical grounds.

Secondary schools with fewer than fifty boys aged 14 or over have been omitted from the calculations as, under present conditions, a cadet unit cannot be raised at a school unless a minimum of fifty boys is prepared to enrol in the cadet unit.

The figures used have been provided by the Bureau of Census and Statistics and the Department of Education and Science, and are the latest available.

On the basis of the above criteria the appropriate number of school boys in secondary schools aged14 or over, is 258,339 in 1,289 suitable secondary schools.

  1. The annual cost of maintaining the Cadet Corps is $8,300,000.
  2. The annual cost of maintaining a Cadet Corps of 258,000 cadets is estimated to be about $49,000,000. There would also be substantial initial capital costs in providing the additional accommodation, camps, vehicles, equipment and stores which would be required.
  3. The strength of the present Command Cadet staffs is 284.
  4. An estimate of the number of staff required to train and administer a Cadet Corps of 258,000 cadets is 1,308.

Hearing Aids (Question No. 267)

Mr Beaton:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Will it be necessary for some pensioners resident in country areas to travel either to capital cities or to major provincial centres in order to take advantage of the pensioner hearing aid scheme?
  2. If so, will his Department meet the cost of such travel?
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes. However, the centres have been located in areas of greatest pensioner population to mini mise the need for pensioners to travel to obtain hearing aids. Visits by Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories teams may be made to other towns if justified by the number of applications received.
  2. My Department does not have authority to compensate pensioners for travel costs incurred in connection with their attendance at a Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratory.

Immigration (Question No. 279)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Will he request the British Government to examine the loss of income to those British migrants in Australia who are in receipt of superannuation payments from Britain which have been reduced because of devaluation?

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

It is true that the decision taken by the British Government to devalue sterling has reduced the Australian currency value of pensions and of other retirement income from the United Kingdom denominated in sterling. Nevertheless, while the Commonwealth Government sympathises with those whose incomes have thereby been reduced in terms of Australian currency, the Government does not think it proper to make representations to the British Government on such a matter which is essentially one for that Government to decide.

In some instances, however, the devaluation of sterling may have had the effect of reducing the value of an individual’s means, expressed in terms of Australian currency, to a figure that comes within the limits governing eligibility for an Australian social service pension. The position of any British migrant who may be in this category may be established by approaching the local Commonwealth Director of Social Services.

Defence (Question No. 318)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia less threatened by the outcome of our present limited military operations than by the outcome of wars in which we have been involved?
  2. If not, why are we not at war?
Mr Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The threat to Australia’s interests varies in particular situations having regard to all the circumstances at the time. Our present forces overseas represent a substantial contribution to the overall effort and are valued highly by our allies, but a formal declaration of war is not required.

Taxation (Question No. 319)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What are the current rates of income tax la force on the following taxable incomes: $3,000, $5,000, $8,000, $12,000, $50,000 and $100,0007
  2. What is the maximum Tate of income tax?
  3. ls he able to provide similar details is respect of (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the United States of America?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The amounts and approximate average rates of tax payable by individuals at the rates of income tax at present in force in Australia on the specified incomes are as follows:
  2. Australia imposes income tax at a progressive rate. The maximum marginal rate of tax payable by an individual taxpayer is 68.3675 per centum. This applies to the amount of taxable income in excess of $32,000.
  3. The amounts and approximate average rates of tax payable in the United Kingdom and the United States of America on equivalent taxable incomes are as follows:

Notes

  1. Rates of exchange used to convert amounts in Australian currency to United Kingdom and United States currency equivalents were as follows: £stg 100 = $A214.7

$A1 = $US1.114.

  1. In each case the taxable income is the amount remaining after deducting all allowable deductions, e.g. concessional deductions in Australia; personal allowances, child allowances and earned income relief (where applicable) in the United Kingdom; and individuals’ exemptions and deductions in the United States of America.
  2. The amounts of tax payable in the United Kingdom include surtax but do not include National Insurance Contributions. The amounts of tax payable in the United States relate only to federal income tax but do not include Self-employment Tax, Federal Insurance Contributions or Federal Unemployment Tax.
  3. The rates used to calculate United States federal income tax are those applicable to individuals filing separate returns. Other rate scales apply in the case of the taxable income of a ‘head of household’ and in the case of total taxable income included in joint returns of married taxpayers.

The maximum marginal rates of income tax payable by individuals (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the United States of America are as follows:

  1. United Kingdom -

Income Tax 8s 3d in the £ (41.25%) - on excess of taxable income over £300. Surtax 10s in the £1 (50.00%)- on excess of taxable income over £15,000. Total 18s 3d in the £ (91.25%).

In addition, a special charge on investment income was imposed for the year 1967-68. The Maximum rate of the charge was 45%, applicable to investment income in excess of £stg8,000.

  1. United States of America - Maximum marginal rate 70% on excess of taxable income over$US100.000.

Waterfront Employment (Question No. 323)

Mr Devine:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is there an agreement between the Government, employers and relevant trade unions for a trial acceptable work period to evaluate the recommendations of the Woodward Committee?
  2. If so, has the agreement been broken as the result of an application by the Port Kembla Stevedoring Company to the Arbitration Commission for a variation of the award to reduce the wages of workers employed on permanent shifts?
  3. Is he able to say whether this application has caused unrest amongst employees on the waterfront?
  4. What action does the Government intend to take to see that all parties honour the agreement?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The application, which was by the Port Waratah Stevedoring Company Pty Limited, has led to some unrest amongst waterside workers.
  4. The Government expects all parties to the Conference, including the Waterside Workers* Federation, to honour the agreement.

Papua and New Guinea: Imports (Question No. 335)

Mr Luchetti:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories, upon notice:

What were (a) the total values, (b) the countries of origin and (c) the various categories of goods imported into the Territory of Papua ond New Guinea during the year 1966-67 and to the present date in the current financial Year?

Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

Information is not available for the current financial year for categories of imports.

Sugar (Question No. 340)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry:

What are the official duties and responsibilites in Geneva of each adviser sent by the Government to participate in the current sugar conference?

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

The negotiations at the recent United Nations Sugar Conference, aimed at concluding a new International Sugar Agreement, involved consideration of many complex aspects relating to the production, export and marketing of sugar. The advisers in the Australian delegation represented their respective industry organisations and provided technical advice on the whole range of issues arising in the course of negotiations. The industry advisers participated fully in the work of the delegation and were consulted at all stages.

Immigration (Question No. 341)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Are British migrants eligible for Australian citizenship?
  2. How do they obtain Australian citizenship?
  3. How many have applied for and been (al granted and (b) refused Australian citizenship?
  4. How many eligible British migrants still resident in Australia have made no application for Australian citizenship?
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1 and 2. Section 12 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act enables British migrants to apply for Australian citizenship by registration, as distinct from naturalisation, which is applicable to non-British migrants. Applicants must, as a rule: have lived in Australia or New Guinea for at least a year; be of good character; have an adequate knowledge of English and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; intend to continue to live in Australia or New Guinea.

Some or all of these requirements may be waived for minors and persons who are or were the spouses of Australian citizens. Upon approval of an application a Certificate of Registration as an Australian citizen is delivered to the applicant. The certificate is effective from the date of issue and the grantee is not required to take the Oath of Allegiance. 3. (a) 32,282 (b) 47.

  1. 780,000 (estimated).

Public Service (Question No. 57)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many applicants for appointment to the Commonwealth Public Service have been rejected because of a security report in each year from and including 1950?
  2. How many members of the Commonwealth Public Service were not promoted because of a Security report in each of those years?
  3. Did any of these persons have any right of appeal against the decisions concerning them based on the security reports; if so, what was the avenue of appeal, how often was it used and in how many cases was it successful during each of the years referred to?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

Since December 1949 the practice instituted under the previous Government has been continued whereby security reports are obtained before appointments are made in certain employment categories in the Public Service. The number of persons rejected for appointment or refused promotion on security grounds is very small.

The possibility of instituting a system of appeals from decisions based on security reports has been considered but it is not proposed to depart from the present procedures.

Vietnam (Question No. 108)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Is the Vietnamese woman who was tortured by an Australian warrant officer still alive?
  2. When was she last seen and examined by an officer of the Australian Army?
  3. If she is alive, is she still in the custody of the United States forces?
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

If this is intended to refer to the woman about whom I made a statement to the House on 14th March 1968, she was released by the South Vietnamese authorities after serving a period of imprisonment at the Civil Reform Centre. Her present whereabouts are not known.

International Exchange (Question No. 182)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will he consider having prepared, and making available to the public, an explanatory statement, free of economists’ jargon, on the proposed Special Drawing Rights or ‘paper gold’ as it has been dubbed, outlining how this proposed system of international Exchange will be administered and operate?
  2. Will he pay special attention in such explanation to the power which the administering agency of this scheme will have to influence and regulate and/or discipline the domestic economies of member nations?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. An explanation of the proposed scheme for Special Drawing Rights within the Fund was contained in my statement to the House on 30th May.
  2. In that statement I emphasised that the scheme would in no way impinge upon our sovereignty in the matter of domestic economic policy. I shall make another statement further outlining and explaining the scheme when I introduce the enabling legislation.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Question No. 189)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did Australia become a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
  2. What does Article 23 (2) of that Declaration state?
  3. What practical steps has his Government taken to fulfil its responsibilities under this article, especially in so far as Commonwealth Crown employees arc concerned?
  4. Has the Government power to legislate, if it so wished, to provide that the right referred to in Article 23 (2) shall apply to Commonwealth Crown employees?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Australia supported the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948. The Declaration was embodied in a resolution of the General Assembly and was not open for signature by member States. Australia has thus not ‘become a signatory’ of the Declaration. As the honourable member will be aware the General Assembly has power under the Charter to make recommendation but not to bind the membership by majority vote and the designation of a resolution of the General Assembly as a ‘declaration’ rather than a recommendation cannot make it binding.
  2. The text of Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as follows:

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.’ 3 and 4. The Government’s attitude regarding the introduction of equal pay for Commonwealth employees has been stated on numerous occasions. It isthe view of the Commonwealth Government that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is the proper body to make a thorough and dispassionate examination which a question with such far-reaching economic social and industrial consequences as equal pay requires. The Government does not consider that it would be acting responsibly if it were, by its own decision, to apply the principle of equal pay to its own employees in advance of a definitive determination by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 230)

Mr Gibson:
DENISON, TASMANIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is he satisfied that all of the residential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are given their share of cases by the President?
  2. Does the President’s eleventh annual report to Parliament fail to disclose which Presidential members were appointed to the cases?
  3. If so, will he provide a precise analysis of the matters dealt with by the President, Sir Richard Kirby, and the five Deputy Presidents, Justices Wright, Gallagher, Moore, Sweeney and Nimmo, during the years 1965 to date?
Mr Bowen:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The composing of benches including those comprising Presidential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is the statutory responsibility of the President. Such matters as competing priorities, availability of members and the requirements of particular hearings are taken into account by the President in exercising this responsibility, as he has indicated in his Annual Reports. I would be reluctant to interfere with the President in the exercise of his statutory responsibility.
  2. The President is required by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to report annually to the Parliament on the working of the parts of the Act affecting his Commission and on the extent to which the objects of the Act have been achieved. It is for the President to decide the extent to which detail of the type sought in this question should be included in any report. It has never been his practice to include such detail.
  3. The following list shows the matters dealt with by each of the Presidential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission during the years 1965 to date, other than matters in the special jurisdictions under

Divisions 2 (Maritime Industries), 3 (Snowy Mountains Area) and 4 (Stevedoring Industry) of Pan III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and other than matters heard by Mr Justice Gallagher as Coal Industry Tribunal. Mr Justice Gallagher is the Deputy President assigned to the maritime and stevedoring matters, although such matters have on occasions been heard by other Deputy Presidents or by the President himself. The list does not, of course, show periods of leave of individual Presidential members. Mr Justice Wright was on leave from 1 July 1964 to 3 June 1965. He also was absent through illness from November 1966 to July 1967.

Third Party Insurance (Question No. 241)

Mr Crean:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has he received a copy of a manuscript entitled Motor Car Insurance and Absolute Liability, written by Mr F. R. Power, a Victorian Justice of the Peace and the author of an earlier booklet Smash and Grab?
  2. Is it a fact that premiums exceeding $81m are paid in the various States for compulsory third party insurance? If so, is the matter one of considerable social and economic significance?
  3. Is it a fact that there exists in Australia eight differing jurisdictions in third party insurance with considerable variations between such jurisdictions?
  4. Is uniformity in Australia desirable under either the current ‘negligence’ concept or the concept of ‘absolute liability’ as advocated by many distinguished jurists and by Mr Power in his manuscript?
  5. Has the Commonwealth the power or the right to legislate in this field? If so, will he give the matter serious consideration?
Mr Bowen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: 1 have received a copy of the manuscript referred to in part (I) of the question.

Third party insurance in respect of injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents is required by the laws of each of the States and the two mainland Territories of the Commonwealth.

Each State and Territory controls the conditions and premiums for policies required by its own law. The conditions and premiums are fixed with regard to relevant local conditions, including the laws governing the rights to recover damages for negligence. 1 am not aware of the total amount of premiums paid in the various Stales for compulsory third party insurance.

So far as the concepts of ‘negligence’ and absolute liability’ are concerned, it is a matter for each State to determine to which concept it will give effect. The Commonwealth’s power to legislate on this relates to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The question whether uniformity is desirable is primarily a matter for the States.

Wages (Question No. 243)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Did he state at Canberra on 29th February 1968, during an address to the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, that until some 3 years ago, average wages in real terms were rising year by year, sustained by heavy investment and progressive improvements in productivity and that this had since ceased to be the case?
  2. If so, did he mean by this statement that average wages in real terms did not rise during the past 3 years?
  3. If his meaning was as stated, will he provide the statistics upon which he made this judgment?
  4. If he meant something else, will he explain his meaning and provide the relevant statistics upon which his judgment was made?
Mr Bury:
LP

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

In my address to the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, I advanced the thesis that if wages, salaries and incomes in this country rise a good deal faster than the capacity of the economy to support these increases, the end result will be inflation, a rise of prices and general economic instability. I developed this thesis in my remarks that followed the passage referred to in the Question. I mentioned in particular the need to observe priorities in making claims and in granting claims for a greater share of the national income. I pointed also to the need for greater productivity to sustain higher real wages and other things that the community may be seeking and for the maintenance of healthy industrial relations. The statement referred to in the Question must be read in this context.

Northern Territory: Social Services (Question No. 265)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What payments are available under section 12 of the Social Welfare Ordinance of the Northern Territory (No. 31 of 1964) to (a) deserted wives, (b) wives of prisoners and (c) children during the first 6 months following desertion or imprisonment?
  2. What benefits are available to (a) deserted de facto wives of prisoners and other unmarried mothers and (b) children?
  3. Are benefits paid by either (a) cash benefit or (b) vouchers?
  4. What is the (a) minimum and (b) maximum weeklypayment in each case?
  5. How many persons in each category were given assistance during the last 12 months?
Mr Nixon:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1 and 2. Assistance is available under Section 12 of the Social Welfare Ordinance 1964-1967 of the Northern Territory to persons in need. There is no fixed level of assistance, this being assessed according to the need in each particular case.

  1. Assistance is given in the form of emergency purchase orders usually for food and clothing and by transfer of funds for services such as rent and electricity and water supplies. Cash is not given.
  2. See1 and 2. above.
  3. No separate records ate kept of the various categories of beneficiary under the Ordinance.

National Service (Question No. 266)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: How many youths covered by Section 16 of the National Service Act 1951-1966 have applied to be registered under this Act since this section became effective in 1964?

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Up to 31st March 1968, 1,368 youths have applied to be registered under this section of the Act.

Con: mon wealth Industrial Awards: Inspection (Question No. 277) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many New South Wales. Western Australian and Tasmanian inspectors has the Commonwealth authorised to police Commonwealth industrial awards?
  2. How many Commonwealth inspectors have been authorised to police New South Wales, Western Australian and Tasmanian industrial awards?
  3. How many Commonwealth inspectors operate in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia?
  4. What progress has been made in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia on the Commonwealth proposal of August 1955 that the Commonwealth should authorise State inspectors to police Commonwealth industrial awards and that the States should authorise Commonwealth inspectors to police Slate industrial awards?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The undermentioned numbers of State Inspectors are authorised by the Commonwealth to secure the observance of Commonwealth industrial awards: New South Wales, 205; Western Australia, 6; and Tasmania, 18.
  2. The State of New South Wales has authorised 11 Commonwealth Inspectors to inspect the observance of Stale industrial awards and legislation; the State of Western Australia appointed one Commonwealth Inspector to inspect the observance of State industrial awards and legislation but the authority is no longer valid because the provisions of the Act under which the appointment was made have been repealed; the State of Tasmania has appointed 2 Commonwealth inspectors to inspect the observance of State Wages Board Determinations and industrial legislation.
  3. Nine in Victoria, four in Queensland and five in South Australia.
  4. The question of the reciprocal authorisation of Commonwealth and State Inspectors in all the States was first taken up in 1955 in letters from the Prime Minister to the Premiers. Since then the question has been regularly considered at the annual meetings of the Departments of Labour

Advisory Committee which comprises the Permanent Heads of the Commonwealth and State Departments of Labour. The States of Victoria, Queensland and South Australia have not indicated any willingness to participate in the arrangements. The last meeting of the Committee was in April of this year.

Northern Territory: Fishing ar.d Prawning (Question No. 305)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. On what dates has Dr Kesteven or a committee of which he has been a member been asked to report on the fishing and prawning industries in the Northern Territory?
  2. When and to whom did Dr Kesteven or the committee report?
  3. When will the report or reports be published?
Mr Nixon:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. In response to aa invitation in December 1961 from the Administrator of the Northern Territory Dr G. L. Kesteven and Mr G. R. Williams of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Mr C. G. Setter of the Department of Primary Industry visited the Territory to discuss the development of the Territory’s fishing industry.
  2. Following the visit a report was prepared jointly by the three officers and submitted in April 1962 to the Secretary, Department of Territories and to the Administrator of the Northern Territory.
  3. The report will not be published; it v/as prepared for internal advisory purposes.

Canberra: Naming of Streets and Suburbs (Question No. 339)

Mr Luchetti:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What rule is observed by the National Memorials Committee in naming suburbs, streets, parks and public places in Canberra?
  2. In the naming of suburbs, has each former Prime Minister been recognised?
  3. Have suburbs been given names of other than former Prime Ministers?
  4. Is the present practice of naming streets and public places a departure from earlier principles?
Mr Nixon:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Suburbs, streets, parks and public places in Canberra are named in accordance with the provisions of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928-1959. In relation to the names of suburbs both the National Memorials Committee and the

Minister for the Interior are to have regard to the names of persons who have made notable contributions to the existence of Australia as a nation.

In determining the names of public places, including streets and parks, the Minister is to have regard to:

  1. the names of persons famous in Australian exploration, navigation, pioneering, colonisation, administration, politics, education, science or letters;
  2. the names of persons who have made notable contributions to the existence of Australia as a nation;
  3. the names of Australian flora;
  4. the names of things characteristic of Australia or Australians; and
  5. the words of the aboriginal natives of Australia.

    1. Most, but not yet all names of former Prime Ministers have been adopted for Canberra suburbs.
    2. Yes.
    3. No.

Dental Health (Question No. 358)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report that a 1966 survey of children in Canberra showed 6% less decayed, missing or filled teeth (14% in the case of permanent teeth) than before fluoridation in September 1964?

    1. Are statistical details of these tests available; if so, where?
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. A report was prepared by my department which showed that those children who had been living in Canberra since fluoridation began averaged 6% less decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth and 14% less decayed permanent teeth than children in the same comparative age groups who were examined in 1964 prior to the commencement of fluoridation.
  2. 1 have arranged to let the honourable member have a copy of the statistical details requested by him.

Drugs (Question No. 362)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Will he agree to the drug alupent being placed on the free list?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Three forms of orciprenaline (Alupent) are available as pharmaceutical benefits. The oral tablet, 20 mg., is available as a general benefit. The injection, 0.S mg., and the solution for inhalation, 5% 7.5 ml., are restricted to use in approved hospitals only.

Orciprenaline (Alupent) in the form of a metered aerosol spray is being considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for inclusion in the list of pharmaceutical benefits. I will undertake to inform the honourable member when the matter has been finalised.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 June 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1968/19680613_reps_26_hor59/>.