House of Representatives
14 November 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2847

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that I have noted his Government’s prediction that Australia will have a population of 28 million by the year 2000. Is the Prime Minister aware that on current trends 70% or more of that population will be crammed into the major capital cities? What additional and positive role, if any, does he see for the Commonwealth Government in seeking a more balanced development of population and industry in order to avoid this abnormal and costly concentration of people in our capital cities?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 think it is generally recognised that not only in Australia but in countries generally there is a tendency for more and more people to go to the big centres of population. The Government has assisted and is assisting the development of industries throughout Australia, particularly the new industries concerned with minerals and other such matters. It is also, as the honourable member might well know, through the application of science in such fields as improved pastures and improved carrying capacity, taking such action as can lead to a greater production from our arable acres, particularly in the north, which in turn will have ils effect on the development of Townsville, Darwin and other cities in the north.

Mr Beaton:

– The trend is still continuing. What is the Government doing about it?

Mr GORTON:

– I said that this is a world-wide trend. The honourable member asks what the Government is doing or what action is being taken to establish population in other parts of the country. I have answered that question and have told the honourable member some of the things that have been done. In relation to the trend for people to go to the main centres of population, if people wish to live in such centres there is no way - nor should I think there would be a way - in which a government should seek to stop them from doing so. In this respect the Government has been providing, and will provide, to State governments sums of money which will enable them, and have enabled them, to cope with the problems that face Australia. This cannot be done as quickly as one would like, because we cannot have everything we want all at once. But, in general, the grants have been improving year by year.

page 2847

QUESTION

PHYSIOTHERAPY

Mr ARTHUR:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the widespread use of physiotherapists, and their recognised healing value, will the Minister for Health consider including physiotherapy among the items for which a Commonwealth benefit is provided under the health insurance scheme?

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

Mr Speaker, the efforts of the honourable gentleman in the interests of the health of his constituents are well known. I agree with his estimate of the value of physiotherapy. I point out that quite a number of medical benefits organisations pay a fund benefit in relation to physiotherapy. Therefore, their members do get some relief in that direction. So far as a Commonwealth benefit is concerned, the Government to date has limited Commonwealth benefits under our health scheme to services rendered by registered medical practitioners. One of the difficulties of extending the scheme to include physiotherapists would be that we could not consider this matter in isolation. We would need to consider services provided by dentists and also other para-medical services such as optometry, home nursing and so on. The cost of this would probably be very great. However, I point out to the honourable gentleman that the particular matter that he has raised comes specifically within the terms of reference of the Nimmo Health Insurance Committee of Inquiry and, as he knows, the Government has undertaken to consider the report of that inquiry when it is presented.

page 2847

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 desire to ask the Acting Minister for External Affairs a question. Is it a fact that the Department of External Affairs is to rent portion of John McEwen House, the Country Party headquarters at Canberra, at an annual rental exceeding $41,000? Is it also a fact that the value of this building, is $280;000, so that the rental for a period of 7 years will pay off the property? Would it not be more economical for the Department of External Affairs to erect another building for its own use?

Mr FREETH:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable gentleman has given in the form of a question, a great deal of information the correctness of which I cannot vouch for at the moment. It is true that the Department of External Affairs will be taking a lease of portion of John McEwen House. The Department made its requirements known to the Department of the Interior. It was advised by the Department of the Interior, which normally looks after the property requirements of Government departments, that these premises were available, that they were reasonably adjacent to the existing offices of the Department of External Affairs and that the rental was comparable with rental for similar office space in other parts of Canberra. In the circumstances, the Department of External Affairs was quite happy to have the premises.

page 2848

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– I. direct a question to the Minister for Education and Science. I refer to the Commonwealth grants for secondary school science blocks and libraries. Can the Minister say what measures are being taken to ensure that, science blocks and libraries for independent schools meet the requirements of his Department?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– There is an Australia wide standards committee composed of experts in both fields. There is one standards committee dealing with the science laboratories project and another concerned with the libraries project. The function of the standards committee is to define the standards of the libraries or of the laboratories appropriate to schools. Members of the committee visit schools and, in relation to the science laboratories scheme, depending on the amount of science teaching at a school, they decide whether that school requires 1, 2, 3, 4 or more science laboratories and what the size of those laboratories should be. I believe that this scheme has worked very well. If a school wants advice on any of these matters it can approach members of the standards committee.

Schools can and do approach my Department. All the advice is freely given and freely available to them in a way that will enable them to decide what they should do and to give proper instructions to their architects in the design stages.

Quite recently it has come to my notice that various private firms are trying to get into the business of selling advice to schools and advising schools what the Commonwealth will approve in relation to science laboratories or in relation to the library scheme which is now being introduced. I think that this is probably quite unnecessary because all the advice that schools would be able to obtain would be available quite freely from members of the standards committee or through my own Department. There is certainly no need for them to buy advice from any firm that might try to enter this particular field.

page 2848

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I desire to .ask a question of the Treasurer. As the .right honourable gentleman, in his speech to the AustralianAmerican Association, said that ‘private investment from North America in companies has been running in the region of $250m to $300m a year and we should like to have more’, and as he has also said that we must reduce our trading deficit with North America, by a reduction of imports from the United States of America or by an increase of exports to that country, or both, I now ask: As capital inflow or overseas investment in Australia’ consists mainly of goods that flow to this country to meet deficits on trading operations does the right honourable gentleman mean that he will promote the flow of capital to Australia if he reduces the flow of goods or if he in some way eliminates Australia’s trading deficits?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is far too long.

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

– I think 1 understood the sense of what the honourable gentleman said: Did I think that if. 1 reduced the flow of capital to Australia, I. would promote the sale of Australian goods to the United States? I cannot see the logical connection between those two factors. Nonetheless, in deference to the honourable gentleman I will closely examine, and have my officials examine, his statement, and then I will be able to give him a written reply about it.

page 2849

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EARTHQUAKE

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister give the highest priority to a favourable consideration - when a request is received - of the State Government’s case for increased Commonwealth aid to people who have suffered serious loss as a result of the disastrous earthquake in the Meckering area of Western Australia? Will he explore every avenue open to the Commonwealth Department of Housing with a view to ascertaining whether any constitutional means can be found to enable the Commonwealth directly to enter this disaster area with Commonwealth funds on long term at a low interest rate to restore and replace homes? May I add that the right honourable gentleman will appreciate that many of the homes of people in the farming community have been completely destroyed and that these people cannot leave their properties and live elsewhere as they have crops to harvest and stock to attend to.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will come to his question.

Mr MAISEY:

– Finally, will the Prime Minister, at the rising of this House at the end of this sessional period, endeavour to visit this area of Western Australia and afford himself the opportunity of witnessing what must surely be two modern miracles: firstly, that there was no loss of life and, secondly, the magnificent spirit of these people?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– A request from the Western Australian Government in regard to this matter will, of course, receive urgent consideration. The honourable member will know that we have already provided a gift of $50,000 to the Western Australian Government, or to a fund which it has sponsored, for the relief of personal hardship. He will also know that we have provided sixty Army huts from Northam for shelter for those people who are in need. These are the only two requests that have been received from the Western Australian Government, and both of them have been met. I am afraid that I cannot undertake firmly to visit the area at the rising of this House at the end of this sessional period, but all reports which I have received on the matter testify to the magnificent spirit of the people in that area, and I am bound to say that to me that comes as no surprise.

page 2849

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S NATIONAL ANTHEM

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the mounting criticism and discontent about Australia not having its own national anthem? Considering the 180 years of our development as a nation and the approach of the 200th anniversary of the landing of Captain Cook on the shores of Botany Bay will the Prime Minister approve a Government-sponsored nationwide competition for the composition of an Australian national anthem, with the successful entry being introduced as our anthem on Australia Day 1970?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I am not prepared to say that in fact Australia does not have a national anthem of its own in that ‘God Save the Queen’ when sung in Australia is a song which means ‘God save the Queen of Australia’ because this is the position in which she finds herself in Australia. Nevertheless, I have heard quite an amount of discussion as to whether there should be some change or alteration. All I would be prepared to say at the moment is that whatever the position may be, and whatever the views people may have as to the question of a national anthem, there is in my mind at any rate no doubt whatever that we do have a national song which is known by Australians and which has been used in war and peace when Australians get together abroad and overseas. In my view this song is ‘Waltzing Matilda’.

page 2849

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr BOSMAN:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. Has he observed a report of the proposed commencement of an air service between Darwin, Bali and Djakarta? I ask the honourable gentleman whether this is correct. Could he briefly indicate to me the effect of this on inter* national airline arrangements between Australia and Indonesia? Will it have any effect on the standardised international agreements on services ‘that are generally regarded as being of a larger nature than this proposed service?

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

– I did read in two Sydney newspapers a report that a service is to start between Darwin, Bali and Djakarta about the end of December. However, my Department has no knowledge of such a service. We have not yet received any application in relation to it and whilst I know there is an interest so far as Indonesia is concerned in having a link through that region, the only comment I can make at this stage is that if an application for a licence is made it will receive careful consideration.

On the question of air service arrangements, I wish to say that the most cordial relationship has existed between Indonesia and Australia for some years in the air services field. We have not had a formal agreement, and the position has been covered annually by an exchange of letters. This is quite a satisfactory arrangement under existing conditions. But because of the anticipated increase in air traffic in this part of the world, we have approached the Government of Indonesia to see whether we can arrange a formalised air service agreement. I am happy to say that in Djakarta last week I was able to confirm with the Government of Indonesia arrangements for negotiations to take place in Melbourne in March next year. J am very hopeful that as a result of these negotiations we will sign a formal agreement with Indonesia.

page 2850

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I ask the right honourable gentleman: Will he tell the House whether he intends to make a statement about Australia’s defence planning before the end of the parliamentary session?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I have every hope that we will be able to do that.

page 2850

QUESTION

HIGH COURT RULING

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Has he received proposals from me with regard to measures to avoid undesirable extensions of a recent High Court ruling? Will he outline those proposals and consider the desirability of measures to implement them?

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

– I have received some proposals from the honourable member for Evans. As they are recorded in yesterday’s Hansard in a question that was disallowed, perhaps it is unnecessary to summarise them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the Minister that reference to disallowed questions would not be in order.

Mr BOWEN:

– I withdraw that part of my answer, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, the honourable member’s proposal is that there should be no liability on a person giving advice unless the person seeking it notifies him at the time that he will place a special value on it or, to put it another way, unless the person seeking the advice brings to the attention of the person giving it that he will place a legal reliance on the duty to take care. The ruling of the High Court is, of course, a ruling on the common law. lt is a matter for each State to consider within its own jurisdiction whether it would wish to alter or affect the common law within its own territory. The Commonwealth is concerned with the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. 1 will consider the honourable member’s proposals when I have had an opportunity to read the reasons for judgment.

As some concern has been expressed, perhaps 1 should add that I believe the High Court pointed out that this duty does not arise on social occasions. Furthermore, although a great deal of gratuitous advice is given from day to day, very little of it is in fact acted upon. Even where it is acted upon, only a small proportion of it is given negligently or without reasonable care. Of that small proportion, only part leads to actual loss or damage. However, where there is damage a serious claim can be made and 1 think this warrants consideration of the honourable member’s proposals.

page 2850

QUESTION

PARIS EMBASSY

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has the Government yet arranged to sell the property of the Department of External Affairs in Paris which has been empty for some 3 years and which had to be put up for sale because of its deficiencies in structure and as to security? What arrangements have been made for suitable accommodation of Australian delegates and advisers if the Vietnam talks in Paris require or justify their presence?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I do not have in my mind the answer to the question as to whether the Department of External Affairs has disposed of the property it bought in Paris. I suggest that the question be put on notice or that I give the Leader of the Opposition a written reply.

Mr Whitlam:

– Will you give me a written reply?

Mr GORTON:

– Very well.

page 2851

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. Has he seen a statement made to the Press by a young man in my electorate that he and another member of the Communist Party have distributed in secondary and technical schools 12,000 copies of a pamphlet advising young men not to register for national service and promising to hide them from the authorities? ls he aware that this man has stated that he knows the pamphlet is illegal under the National Service Act and is probably illegal under the Crimes Act: but does not believe the Government will take any action? Has the Attorney-General knowledge as to whether in fact these men have broken the law and, if they have, is action likely to be taken?

Mr BOWEN:
LP

– I have seen the report and I have read a copy of the pamphlet. The officers of my Department are at present examining the pamphlet and considering whether a prosecution is warranted. I can assure the House that if a prosecution is warranted it will be instituted.

page 2851

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is he aware of statements by sections of the Australian motor vehicle industry that the share of the small car market of Australian manufacturers registered under plan A has fallen from 77% to 49%? If so, what action has the Government taken to halt this decline in view of the serious consequences that any extension of it would have on the future expansion of and employment in this industry?

Mr Chaney:

– I rise to a point of order. There is a question on the notice paper relating to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! What is the number of the question?

Mr Chaney:

– It is question No. 925.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I rule that the question is in order.

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

– It is a fact, as I understand the situation, that problems warranting consideration are affecting the small car market. What may be regarded as the large car market is not in any trouble at all. These problems have been the subject of representations to me through my Department for some time, and there have been close consultations between officers of my Department and the industry. The matter is at present under urgent examination by the Department.

page 2851

QUESTION

DEVALUATION COMPENSATION

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry, by recalling that it is almost 12 months to the day since Britain devalued its currency. I recognise that the Government has made certain payments to assist primary industries affected by devaluation, but what does the Government propose to do about the future financial losses which the affected primary industries are facing?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is a pity that the honourable member has to remind me of that day. I think it is to the credit of the Government that during the past 12 months it has been able to look after primary industries which have been severely affected by devaluation and in which losses have been demonstrable and unavoidable. Up to date the Government has committed itself to helping those industries in respect of immediate losses and postdevaluation losses to the extent of about $60m. The Government has already announced that it will look at the situation in the following year, but as yet no decision has been made as to what its altitude will be.

page 2852

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Air a question. Is it a fact that certain young Australian citizens who were born in Malta are not allowed to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force because Malta is not now a British colony, even though it is an independent country inside the Commonwealth and still recognises Her Majesty the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth? If a boy 18 years of age who came to Australia with his Maltese father, an ex-serviceman of World War II, 10 years before Malta became an independent country can be denied the right to enlist in the RAAF, what hope has this country of continuing to attract Maltese migrants? Will the Minister consult with his colleague the Minister for Immigration on this matter?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– I am afraid that I am not certain of the details of the matter raised in the right honourable gentleman’s question. I will consult wilh the Minister for Immigration.

Mr Calwell:

– I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the reports.

Mr FREETH:

– I accept that. I will certainly have a look at the matter and see what can be done.

page 2852

QUESTION

FIAT MOTOR COMPANY

Mr Andrew Jones:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that representatives of the Fiat company are at present in Australia with a view to setting up a $l£m manufacturing and process plant for four-cylinder and six-cylinder motor vehicles in either New South Wales or South Australia? Is he aware that South Australia offers better facilities than New South Wales for such a project? Consequently, will he see that South Australia receives the same accommodation as or better accommodation than New South Wales?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have heard that the Fiat company has under consideration the possibility of establishing itself in Australia. I doubt whether there are many more competent manufacturers of motor vehicles than the Fiat organisation. It would be very welcome here. I think I must leave it to the honourable member for Adelaide and his friends in South Australia to establish the claims about their State relative to another.

page 2852

QUESTION

APPLE CIDER

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I address my question to you, Mr Speaker. Will you use your considerable influence to have Tasmanian apple cider made available to members and visitors in the dining rooms of Parliament House and also at official functions? If you concur in this practical way of assisting Tasmania’s apple industry to increase the consumption of its products, will you make sure that non-alcoholic cider also is made available? I might mention that you have helped South Australia and northern Victoria in a similar manner with respect to the availability of their products in Parliament House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I appreciate the qualities of Tasamian cider, although I am not so conversant with the alcoholic form of it. I will give consideration to the honourable member’s request and see whether it can be acceded to.

page 2852

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact that the South Coast of New South Wales was declared a drought area as far back as February and has been eligible for maximum drought relief loans from the Commonwealth and record rail and road freight subsidies from the State? Was the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee formed only recently when it was thought that a Federal general election was imminent and after 9 months of severe drought and a very severe winter? Has the Treasurer any information about the affiliations of those who organised the Committee and who are using it as a medium to attack Liberal and Country Party governments in the Federal and State spheres, thereby restricting the farmers’ willingness and determination to make the maximum use of government assistance?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the fust part of the honourable gentleman’s question, the New South Wales Government has been entitled to get the maximum assistance under the scheme which was terminated on 30th September. In other words, it was entitled to get help in relation to the maintenance expenses of primary producers and also to permit money to be made available for reconstruction. It was entitled also to subsidies in respect of transport costs, and any commitments that had been made will be met by the Commonwealth Government. Since that date an agreement has been made between the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales that the Commonwealth Government will subsidise on a $1 for $1 basis assistance that might be given by that Government. This is a pretty generous measure. The honourable gentleman would know this because he has attended several meetings in the area in an attempt to show the appropriate method of obtaining State assistance and, consequently, Federal assistance. I understand - I think the facts will prove this to be correct - that the New South Wales Government has done all in its power to bring to the attention of the primary producers of the Bega Valley the way in which they can obtain assistance from the State Government.

What the honourable gentleman said in the second and last parts of his question is true. It was only when it was thought that a Federal general election was imminent that the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee decided to take action, although it should have been aware that the appropriate means were already being adopted to give assistance to the farmers. I think it would be most regrettable if we were to make this a political matter rather than give help to those farmers who are so desperately in need of it. I know that Mr P. D. Hills, the former Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Labor Party, was closely identified with the movement, as was a former State and Federal President of that Party. The appropriate thing for the honourable gentleman to do, since he knows the facts better than anyone, is to use the procedures of the House in order to show, if he can - I think he can - that this was a political movement or that it had a political motive, and let the House itself judge the matter.

page 2853

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for National Development a question which also arises from an attack made on the honourable gentleman’s Government by a Liberal Party Minister of the New South

Wales Government. The honourable gentleman will have noticed that last weekend the New South Wales Minister for Conservation stated that although the national water resources development programme had been announced in November 1966 and the New South Wales proposals had been in the hands of the Commonwealth for 12 months, and some of them had been on the short list for the Commonwealth’s consideration since May this year, the New South Wales Government still has not seen the colour of the Commonwealth’s money. I ask: What are the reasons for the delay in making any money available to New South Wales under this two years old scheme? When may New South Wales expect to receive some money?

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

– The New South Wales Government may not have seen the colour of any Commonwealth money in the national water resources development programme but it has seen the colour of a considerable amount of Commonwealth money for water conservation. New South Wales has already had $667m for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. It has had about $8m for flood mitigation in northern New South Wales. It has had a long term loan of about $22m for the Blowering Dam. Already some payments have been made to Queensland from the national water resources development programme. Payments have been made also in respect of two projects in Victoria which will assist New South Wales because they are designed to reduce the salinity of the Murray River. New South Wales uses water from the Murray and is . anxious to see the salinity reduced.

The two applications by New South Wales under the national water resources development programme- in relation to the Booroorban scheme ‘ and the Gwydir scheme - are being closely examined. Interdepartmental committees have met on four occasions in the last two weeks. I expect to receive very soon a report on one of those projects. The work on the Gwydir scheme is of such a nature that a considerable amount of information is still required. For example, we have only recently received from the New South Wales Government the necessary information relating to soil tests which must be made before one can assess the benefits likely to accrue from this scheme. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would not expect the Commonwealth to make payments to the State under this programme before fully investigating the benefits and the costs involved. We have said that $50m will be made available to the States over five years. Only two years of that period have elapsed. We are doing our utmost to see that this work proceeds as quickly as possible but we do not believe that decisions should be made before we have all the answers.

page 2854

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. I refer to the commencement of the overseas container shipping service early next year. Will the Minister say whether the shore facilities will be completed on schedule? Will the first ships arrive at the port, of Fremantle? If so, will the Minister consider visiting the port on that occasion?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I know that the honourable member for Canning has been particularly interested in developments in the port of Fremantle. Work on the port and other facilities is proceeding, as I understand the position, so that they will be able to service the container vessels when they commence operating early next year. The requirements are not just at the waterside; there are also necessary back-up facilities. The concept of a container service involves the complete transportation of cargoes from vendor to consumer and a minimising of the handling involved in trans-shipping goods from a vessel to some form of intermediate transport and in unloading the goods at their ultimate destination. The Australian Government, realising that this system is to commence next year, is very conscious of the necessity to ensure that Australian shippers and consumers share in any economies that may result from the new procedures. I think that ail of us are interested in seeing that these economies are achieved. I will certainly be most interested to see how these new facilities work not only at the port of Fremantle but also at other ports on the Australian coast. Whether or not I will be able to visit the port of Fremantle at the time of arrival of the first container vessel is a matter that

I would prefer to decide at some time a little closer to the expected time of arrival of the vessel.

page 2854

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Did he last Tuesday answer a question as to whether pressure had been exerted on the Australian Broadcasting Commission with regard to the Bob Sanders programme ‘People’ by saying that there had been no pressures in relation to the determination of the contract of Bob Sanders with the ABC? Were the words ‘in relation to the determination of the contract’ chosen by htm or by the Chairman of the Commission to conceal that there had been pressures on the ABC by a Minister, backbenchers and the Australian Democratic Labor Party? If so, will he say what representations or communications were received from, or what influences were brought to bear by, such people, and will he discuss with the Chairman of the ABC methods that might be adopted to ensure that these pressures are made known to the public?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thought I indicated on Tuesday that the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission had stated to me categorically that there had been no pressures whatsoever, whether by Liberal Party members, by Australian Labor Party members or by Australian Democratic Labor Party members, or by members of the public or by anybody else if it is possible to find another category of person, in an attempt to exert any influence in relation to the termination of the contract between Sanders and the ABC. I pointed out to the House that Sanders was under a contract and that either party to a contract is entitled to indicate to the other party, as the contract draws towards its conclusion, whether he wishes it to be completely terminated. I am not quite sure that I understand the innuendo which the honourable member for Yarra makes in relation to this matter. I think it would be a hopeless position if the details of every discussion that I have with the various members of the authorities under my control were required to be made available to the House, just as it would be a hopeless position if any other member were required to make available details of similar discussions that he might have. I do not believe there is anything sinister in relation to the conclusion of this contract. If any honourable member has a suspicious mind he must live with it.

page 2855

QUESTION

SHIPS ENTERING AUSTRALIAN PORTS FROM HAIPHONG

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is he concerned in any way whatsoever that Polish ships are presently in Australian ports - and more of them are to come - after proceeding here direct from Haiphong? As it is obvious from previous answers that the Minister considers these ships have an unfettered right of entry to Australian ports under the 1923 convention, can he say in which cases in recent years this right of entry has been abrogated and whether it is ever intended to deny it to other ships?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– As I have explained in previous answers in this House, the Australian Government, as a party to the 1923 convention, would need to take serious cognisance of the results of placing any embargo on ships from other nations plying to Australian ports. It is of concern that the conference system should be maintained, because the system is designed to provide an efficient service capable of moving the products of Australian industry when they are available, not only from the principal ports but from our outports and without picking the eyes out of the trade. Therefore it is of concernto note that ships from countries which are not members of the conferences are entering into the Australian trade.

I understand that some countries have denied the right of access to ports to trading vessels of nations with which they are not enjoying amicable relations. Of course, fishing vessels and ships of war are excluded from the terms of the treaty. For Australia to take the step that other nations have taken would create extreme difficulties, as Australia in its role as a multilateral trader is dependent upon continued access to world markets. I would not like to comment at this stage on the position in the future.

page 2855

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Civil Aviation - Australian Institute of Urban Studies - Care of Deaf Children -

Drought Relief - Decentralisation -

Transfer of Commonwealth Departments to Canberra - National Service - Vietnam

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted:

Mr DEVINE:
East Sydney

– I rise to express what I believe to be a genuine grievance by the parents of a boy who was killed in an air disaster at Tennant Creek in 1966. I am aware that this accident happened over 2 years ago butI believe that because of the concern of the parents of this young fellow it is just to raise the matter here. Since the disaster the parents have travelled around Australia interviewing many of the relations of other people who were involved in the accident. As a result of their investigations they have obtained some startling information that I think should be aired in the National Parliament. Their investigations reveal that the Department of Civil Aviation has not been effectively policing the air navigation regulations and that it has been lax in its checks on pilots and air crew and in respect of other matters appertaining to aircraft. I raise these matters so that members of the Parliament will be aware of the situation that exists.

On numerous occasions I have referred to the laxity of the Department of Civil Aviation in not policing regulations in respect of commercial aircraft. The matter I now raise concerns small companies that are engaged in aerial surveys and inflying around Australia. The aircraft involved in the accident at Tennant Creek was a Hudson bomber. Honourable members can imagine its age, but such aircraft are still being certified to fly in Australia and to undertake certain work. The accident to which I refer involved six people. The aircraft had been out on a survey. It was coming in to land. It made a circuit over the airport and was about to make its approach run when the crash occurred. The aircraft had flown over the airport at 9 o’clock in the morning and made its turn to come in to land. Nobody at the airport or at Tennant Creek thought of asking where the aircraft was for about an hour. Then it was decided that those concerned would have a look to see where the aircraft was. It was found within three-quarters of a mile of the aerodrome. It had crashed, but nobody had seen the crash or taken much notice of the aircraft. This indicates to me that the Department of Civil Aviation officials at the airport or those who were in charge of the airport at this stage were either relaxing or were not concerned about the aircraft and did not worry about something having gone amiss.

The unfortunate part of this accident is that six people were killed. In the aircraft four seats were provided but there were only three safety belts. There were six people in the aircraft with three safety bells. The Department of Civil Aviation must have known that there were only three safety belts because it grants certificates of airworthiness to aircraft. The report of the coroner following the accident reveals that the bodies of two of the people killed in the crash were thrown out of the aircraft. Those killed in this fashion were an 11 -year-old boy and the son of the parents to whom I am referring. One person had been thrown against a tree and another was under a wing. The others died inside the aircraft. I say that here was a case where not sufficient safety belts were provided in the aircraft.

I want to say a few words about the pilot of this aircraft. I do not think he ought to have been allowed to fly or that he should have been given permission to fly by the Department of Civil Aviation. His record shows that he was in ill health over a considerable period. His previous history revealed that be was employed by Air France. Because he suffered from vertigo, which is a form of giddiness. Air France severed its relations with him. He came to Australia and was employed by the Adastra company. He was carrying people in this aircraft for the company. Approximately 3 weeks prior to the disaster he suffered a blackout at 15,000 feet. The Department of Civil Aviation knew this quite well. It was classified. But he was allowed to take the aircraft up again. We know what happened. When we look at the report from the Department of Civil Aviation on this accident we see that it shows that an investigation of the history of the pilot revealed that he had been in ill health for 9 months. This came out at an inquiry after the accident. Why was not some sort of inquiry made into this matter prior to the accident?

No doubt exists in my mind that many similar instances could be found in Australia today of people who cannot get positions with commercial airlines, because of the high health standards that are required, flying for smaller companies. I believe that even at the present time the company 1 have mentioned has a pilot flying its aircraft, doing survey work and carrying passengers, who has reached the ripe old age of 71. I am sure that many of us would not be prepared to fly in an aircraft the pilot of which was 71 years of age. But as our civil aviation regulations stand and because of the policy of the Department of Civil Aviation, this pilot is able to fly an aircraft. I feel that a greater check ought to be kept on the standard of health of pilots flying aircraft.

The investigations that have been carried out over a period by the parents of the young fellow who was killed in this crash have revealed that the aircraft involved had a great run of unserviceability. For instance, props fell off the aircraft. The situation was such that 3 weeks prior to the disaster the pilot had sent a telegram from Tennant Creek to the company concerned asking who put the chock of wood in the wing of the aircraft. 1 do not know whether it was put there to stop the rattles or the shakes, but at least it was put there. A telegram was sent to the company but. to my knowledge, it was not answered. Also I am led to believe that in August of the same year there was a mass walkout by employees of the company at Hall’s Creek and also at Tennant Creek. They refused to fly the aircraft because they maintained that to do so would involve them in a great deal of risk. If these are the facts, I believe that DCA should investigate them a great deal more than it has done so far. I think that DCA should take a little time to interview the father of this young man who was killed, because he is a barrister and he has carried out an intensive investigation into many relevant questions concerning this accident.

I want to say something about the coroner’s inquiry which was held into this accident. I see that, the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) is sitting at the table. Tt appears that under Commonwealth legislation or ordinances evidence in these inquiries is not taken under oath. I believe that it ought to be taken under oath in such inquiries. Time does not permit me to speak for very long on this matter, but I point out that as soon as one engineer heard of the disaster he said: ‘It has happened.’ In other words, he was expecting a disaster to occur at any time. It did occur, and those were the words he uttered when he heard about it. This engineer was not called to give evidence at the coroner’s inquiry. Within a couple of days of the disaster occurring he was transferred, very hurriedly I might say, to New Guinea, out of the range of the coroner. Although he could have given evidence at the coroner’s inquiry, he was not called to do so. Also, the company and the relatives of those people who were killed in the disaster were not given representation at the coroner’s inquiry, although the parent to whom I have referred requested that he be allowed representation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– I wish to make a plea on behalf of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies for financial support to be provided by the Commonwealth Government. The institute is a body composed of representatives from major governmental, private and professional bodies and groups involved in urban planning, lt was formed as a result of those chiefly responsible for the development of cities having expressed a need for a body to undertake studies on which their recommendations and decisions must be made. These authorities and bodies found that they did not have the resources, funds and often the trained personnel1 on their staff to carry out the research they required, and therefore, major planning decisions were based on inadequate studies or none at all.

I refer the House to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) appears to be cognisant of the need for city planning. In an article which appeared in the ‘Australian’ late in October 1968 he is reported to have addressed the eleventh congress of the International Union of Building Societies and Savings Associations in Sydney, which more than 1,000 delegates from forty-five countries attended, and to have told the audience that it was part of their responsibility to foster a pleasing environment in cities as they grew and as new ones were created in order to maximise human potential, and that planners could do this with vision and forethought.

Almost 82% of our national population lives in urban areas, and within those areas the greater part of our gross national product of $20,000m is produced each year. They house the whole of our government apparatus, as well as the decision making elements of the private sector of the economy. They accommodate nearly all our educational, social and cultural facilities. Their shortcomings as centres of production, administration and habitation are therefore of major concern to the whole nation. Every citizen and every enterprise is affected by obsolescence, congestion and inadequate service and amenities. Each year over $3,000m is spent on the development of Australia’s towns and cities yet the amount spent on research into improving the efficiency and amenity of this urban development is meagre. Urban research in Australia is virtually limited to the modest research effort of urban government agencies and universities.

I am not proposing that the concepts that are at present carried out in this sphere be taken over by any department of urban studies such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has put forward. I have pointed to the fact that the Institute has been formed and that the Prime Minister himself is well aware of the need for planning in this direction. 1 now want to deal with the vitally urgent matter of finance for the Institute. I understand that the Institute has made representations to the Prime Minister. By what the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) has said, he, together with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), is probably well aware of this Institute.

Mr Killen:

– I support you completely in this.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Thank you, 1 thought you would. 1 would imagine that the honourable member has done the research which is necessary after the initial representations were made. The Institute, of course, put very clear and cogent arguments to us and I am pleased that the honourable member supports me. As I said, J understand that the Institute has made representations to the Prime Minister and honourable members. 1 am informed that the Government has been asked to provide $120,000 over 3 years for the institute’s operating programme and §100,000 over 3 years for ils research programme. That is not a great deal of money. The latter sum is to be matched $1 for Si from other sources.

The Chairman of the Victorian group committee of the Institute advised me in a letter dated 2nd October 1968 that private enterprise has given or promised more than $65,000 over the first 3 years of the Institute’s operations and all six State Governments have promised a total of more than $45,000. provided the Commonwealth also contributes. Thus more than $100,000 has been promised to match SI for $1 the $100,000 requested from the Commonwealth for research. Unquestionably therefore, the funds from the Commonwealth are vital to the future of the Institute. Without them there will be no State funds; nor can funds from philanthropic bodies be expected. So I strongly urge the Government to make the requested funds available to the Institute.

Perhaps I should add in conclusion that the Institute comprises .100 elected and nominated members who are leading persons in the community and are serving in an honorary capacity. These people are representative of all main interests in urban affairs and research in Australia. The board of management has appointed a full time director and has embarked on a programme of needed urban studies. The Institute’s headquarters, I am advised, are located in Canberra and groups of council members and associate members have been established in each State - that answers the question put by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) - to ensure that the problems of the principal Australian towns and cities will be watched at close quarters and that the studies promoted will be of real value to them.

I am gratified with the remarks that have been made in passing during my address by the honourable members that I have mentioned before. 1 also notice that the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Bridges-

Maxwell) indicates his support for the proposal. So, if I may, on behalf of those honourable members and the Institute. I urge the Government to give very real and close attention to the representations that have been made to it by honourable members and by the Institute in the hope that the financial support desired and needed will be forthcoming.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– My address this morning is headed: The Deaf are denied, despised, neglected and rejected by society. There is no area today more neglected by church or State than the education of handicapped children. In the following statement I am speaking about only one group of these handicapped children - the profoundly deaf and born deaf children. I affirm that in this year of 1968 with so much advance - swift and radical - and so much concern for education generally, the plight of these children is no better than it was 25- years ago. In fact the gap between them and society is getting bigger. Theirs is not the society you and I know; nor is it the society that other physically handicapped children enjoy. Behind ali the facade of covering up, behind the morass’ of ideologies and philosophies and methods, we come face to face with children - children who have never heard a human voice, but whose birthright it is to receive equal opportunities for social development that is the birthright of every child. This is basically the problem.

Society generally - and this must include all authorities within our society - harbours the mistaken philosophy that time and money spent on the handicapped may be tolerated out of pity and benevolence. The question of human rights and dignity does not seem to enter their minds - that education may be given them out of charity only, instead of realising it. is a matter of justice. Education is for children and the purpose of education is the same for all children. Until this is recognised there can be no thought of raising the standard of deaf adulthood; we will continue to offend the dignity of deaf children and from our schools we will continue to produce the unintelligible, the illiterate, the socially withdrawn, the socially detached and the socially uncommitted deaf that lack of recognition of this work forces us to produce. If the deaf child were mentally retarded we would be justified in saying: This child is capable only of third or fourth grade standard.’ But the deaf are not mentally retarded. 1 repeat: ‘Not mentally retarded.’ This statement should be inserted in sayings of the week.

Deaf children have normal intelligence and their speech organs- are in no way defective. Everyone please comprehend that: their speech organs are in no way defective. There are 4 and 5-year-old children who have the potential for intelligible speech but who will never learn to speak because they are not being given the opportunity. Our deaf are failing to achieve a fraction of their potential because administrators and authorities have failed them and continue this day to fail them and fail them badly. This is not done wilfully but is due to a lack of understanding of the problem.

On an average, deaf children, al the age of 16, after .12 years at school attain a fourth grade standard and a 9 to 10 year old reading level. At St Joseph’s School for the Deaf in St Louis, United States of America, 65 children over the past 7 years have gone from form II to form III and on to colleges for hearing children. I would like honourable members to note that 12 have gone on to university. Nothing like this has been achieved in Australia.

An instructional programme for deaf children requires within the organisation assurance of equality of educational opportunities for all children, lt also requires the establishment of a structure of organisation which is realistic enough to be maintained and to include finance, recruitment of teachers, training of teachers, curriculum development and integration. There should also be reliable diagnostic and evaluation services; responsibility for a parent guidance scheme and pre-school instruction; nursery trained teachers; trained teachers in all classrooms, which is the accepted procedure in all schools; and adequate accepted classroom appointments.

We should be doing many things, but there is one thing we must do. We must bring the aims and purposes of the education of the deaf into line with the goals for all education. We cannot continue to offer these children the crumbs and the dregs, saying in effect: ‘This is good enough for you because you are handicapped.’ Today the churches and the States are being asked to assume responsibility for the eduration of the deaf. They have gone as far as they can with the tools that are available to them. At this point in history, when parents, teachers and friends of the deaf want the children to achieve something of their potential, the present tools just will not do.

Badly needed changes in the education of the deaf are essential. The same ideas and systems that have been in vogue for the past 40 years cannot be regarded as satisfactory today. Today the adult deaf citizens are withdrawn, detached and uncommitted to society, and the deaf children of today will develop in the same way unless radical changes are made, lt just will not do to patch up here and there, lt will not do to attempt more than can be managed and it will not do to modify what already exists, if what we attempt to do is done as unprofessionally, as half-heartedly and as unfairly as the present efforts are. It is obvious from the facts I have given that this work cannot continue without finance. It should be obvious that the complexities of this special form of education are beyond the present organisation of church and State.

A mild epidemic of German measles in New South Wales in 1965 caused deafness in more than 150 children who are now 3 years old. About 80 deaf children a year are born in New South Wales. The challenge to cope with deaf children from the preschool stage through to secondary schooling is colossal. The teachers of the deaf in both church and State schools are dedicated and are applying their knowledge and ability generously. But as the teachers from St Joseph’s School in St Louis, who came to Australia earlier this year, have shown, deaf children taken in hand at a very early age can attain to secondary and tertiary education. This a cause that I espouse. Many schools for the deaf in and around Newcastle and Sydney deserve monetary support. I would like those people who may he hearing me today to support St Gabriel’s School. I do not make this appeal because the school is in my electorate. It is concentrating on the St Louis system of teaching the deaf and requires a lot of money to bring teachers to Australia and to train teachers in Australia in this wonderful method of teaching the cleat” so that the more intelligent of them can attain to some of the greatest and most responsible offices in our nation.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– 1 shall devote the ten minutes allotted to me in this debate to discussing the drought in Tasmania and the assistance provided by the Commonwealth. The drought in Tasmania has affected a strip about 40 miles wide down the east coast of the island. The area is all in my electorate. It is an extension of the drought in the south-eastern part of New South Wales. The drought extends from Sydney through Bega and across Bass Strait for a distance of 120 miles down the Tasmanian coast to Port Arthur.

This area has not had any substantial rain for 2 years and the drought has become more severe month by month. In the first week of October the Premier, Mr Reece, appealed to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) for aid of $lm. 1, backing the Premier, and on behalf of the Australian Labor Party Rural Committee of which I am secretary, interviewed the Prime Minister on 8th October in his office here and left with him a document giving personal details of the drought farm by farm down our east coast which I had visited on Sth October. Later in the House I asked the Prime Minister how the aid for Tasmania was coming along. He replied that we had unspent Federal money in the State Treasury and he would expect the State to use it for the relief of the farmers concerned. At that stage in early October about 140 farmers were affected in varying degrees. This was shown by a survey made by the State Department of Agriculture. When I saw the Prime Minister the number had increased to 200. and now about 300 farmers are badly affected by the drought.

The Prime Minister, in trying to load the responsibility on to the State, was, in my humble estimation, being unfair. No other State has ever been asked to spend so-called unspent Federal moneys in the State Treasury as a condition to the grant of Federal aid for drought relief or for relief following any other disaster. The Prime Minister was referring to the Farmers Debt Adjustment Act of 1936. It was ascertained that the State had about $288,000 of so-called unspent money or money that had been repaid by people who had obtained loans 32 years ago. The Opposition in Tasmania turned this into a tremendous political gimmick and applied pressure to the Premier demanding that he make this money available for drought relief.

The House may be interested to hear a little of the history of this Act. lt applied to every State and every State has money that has been repaid over the past 32 years. But no other State has ever been asked by a Prime Minister to spend the loan money it has recovered from farmers over the past 32 years as a condition to the grant of Federal aid, whether on an interest free basis or a $1 for $1 basis. This, to my mind, is an outrageous aspect of the negotiations for drought relief for Tasmania.

The Prime Minister has now promised to make available Sim on a $1 for $1 basis. He is reported to have said:

Assistance will be on the same terms as those which have applied in other drought-hit Stales.

This is not so. it is conditional upon the Tasmanian Government’s spending $288,000 of Commonwealth funds granted it years ago for relief of farmers.

The Commonwealth will provide dollarfordollar to match the amount provided by Tasmania.

We are grateful for this aid, but a tremendous burden is placed on Tasmania, a little island with a population of only 380,000, when it is asked to raise huge sums to help drought stricken farmers on a $1 for $1 basis. I say quite deliberately that this is discrimination against Tasmania and 1 have facts to prove that it is. I have been in touch with the top men in Victoria who distributed drought aid in that State. The Commonwealth Government gave Victoria $19m and not one dollar of it was on a $1 for $1 basis. It was a straight out, interest free grant or it was a long term loan. None of it was on a $1 for $1 basis. 1 have checked with the New South Wales Treasury and have found that not one dollar given by the Commonwealth Government to New South Wales to help during the big drought it experienced 3 years ago was on a $1 for $1 basis. Why should the Commonwealth discriminate against Tasmania in this way? Tasmania is a small island and it does not have the huge financial resources that the bigger States on the mainland have. This is a very bad business indeed.

New South Wales and Queensland were affected by the drought almost simultaneously. The relief they received from this

Government amounted lo $50m. According to my information, none of the assistance to those two States was on a $1 for SI basis at that time although since 30th September the Federal Government has decided on a $1 for $1 scheme for New South Wales. T have proved the information as it relates to New South Wales and, although 1 have not been in touch with Queensland, I assume that the information relating to it would be correct. Assistance given to Victoria during the drought this year was not on a $1 for $1 basis. Tasmania has been discriminated against and has been forced to find money to help its 300-odd drought stricken farmers, most of whom have sold all their beef stock although they are trying to hold on to their sheep. The prices at which they sold their beef were ridiculous. Some of these farmers are agisting their stock on other parts of the island where assistance is being given by other farmers through the Tasmanian Farmers Federation. Losses are extensive. The cost of feed and freight charges are heavy and the future is frightening.

The parent Bill, the Loan (Fanners’ Debt Adjustment) Bill, introduced by Dr Earle Page on 21st March 1935, provided for £12m to be allocated to the six States as a non-repayable grant and was expected to save between 30,000 and 40,000 men on the land, who were crippled by the low prices of the depression, from bankruptcy. The distribution of that money was as follows: New South Wales £3,450,000; Victoria £2,500,000; South Australia £1,300,000; Western Australia £1,300,000; Queensland £1.150,000 and Tasmania £300.000. This is the first occasion on which a State has been asked to find money, which in this case has been repaid under the Farmers” Debt Adjustment Act passed by Tasmania, as a condition of a Federal loan. Under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland received £6,515,000 by way of Commonwealth loan but they have never been asked to spend this money, which has lain unspent in the State treasuries, as a condition of drought aid. However. Tasmania has been asked to do this. This is why I say there is discrimination. I cannot think of another word for it.

The parent Federal Act ensured the distribution of this money to farmers, and it was to be allocated as a straight out grant which was not repayable to the Commonwealth. The States were to handle that money in their own way for debt adjustment. As I have already said, that legislation saved about 30,000 men on the land throughout Australia from bankruptcy. The farmers have been paying this money back into the State treasuries over the last 30 years. In Tasmania the last payment in liquidation of these loans was made recently. In the last 10 years Tasmania has spent thousands of dollars on farmers’ relief. The Premier of Tasmania also has stated that this money has not been idle. Why should Tasmania be in this difficult position of having to comply with the conditions of this recent loan? It is absolutely necessary to establish a national disaster fund in this country to prevent politics from entering into these kinds of appeals. The establishment of such a fund would put the matter on a businesslike basis. I point out that I first raised the idea at least 10 years ago.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

– I want to use the time allotted to me in this debate to bring to the notice of the Commonwealth Government again the vital and urgent need to decentralise the population of Australia or, to put it in another way, the increasing problem of the centralisation of our population and industries. Over the last 2 years 1 have constantly referred to this matter in questions directed to the late Mr Holt and the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). I admit that I have been very disappointed with the activities of the Joint Commonwealth-State Decentralisation Committee. That committee was established about 3i years ago. I will deal later with the lack of activity on the part of that Committee.

First 1 want to quote a few figures to underline to the House the increasing problem of centralisation. In 1933 46% of Australia’s population was living in the six capital cities. The latest figures available from the Bureau of Census and Statistics for the year 1966 show that the proportion was 58%. This percentage is increasing all the time. Not only the percentage is increasing, but also the numbers. In 1966 39% of our population was living in two cities. It would be 40% by now. It appears to me that in 20 years’ time in this huge country of nearly 3 million square miles - as big as the United States of America - 50% of our population will be living in two cities. If one includes Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong with our capital cities, one finds that 63% of our population is living in nine cities. This percentage is increasing all the time.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What do you suggest we should do to rectify this?

Mr HOLTEN:

– I will make a suggestion shortly. Can any responsible Australian citizen deny that this tendency is bad for Australia? Having studied a number of reports and attended a number of seminars on this matter, there is no question in my mind that the key to this problem is finance. The solution to this problem will cost big sums. The Commonwealth Government is the only body in Australia that has the sort of finance which is needed to solve this problem. This finance has to be used to give incentive to secondary industry leaders and entrepreneurs who are setting up new industries in Australia from time to time. I do not believe that there should be any direction; I believe that there should be incentives. This is no brain storm of mine. It is not a fresh idea which I have suddenly brought to this Parliament. A number of countries throughout the world are solving the problem of centralisation by giving long term low interest loans to companies to build their factories, to purchase the land to put their factories on, and to buy plant and machinery. There is nothing new in what I am suggesting. France, Britain, Canada, the United States of America and many other countries have tried and proved this method.

Those countries, most of which are not as centralised as is Australia, found it necessary to offer this incentive. Surely the Australian Government must realise that it has to take action on those lines. In answer to questions on decentralisation various Ministers have quite rightly said that the Commonwealth Government has brought down legislation that has provided finance to encourage decentralisation. This is quite true. It cannot be denied. The policy of the Country Party - the policy that is the basis of its members’ activities in this Parliament - of fighting for the farmers of Australia has contributed a great deal to the develop ment of country areas, country towns and provincial centres. The Government, to its credit, has supported this policy.

Even though decentralisation policies have been introduced they have not been effective. The test is not to say that we have policies for decntralisation and therefore we are doing enough. The test is to ask how effective those policies have been. Mathematical facts show that no matter what policies have been introduced by Federal and State governments they have not been effective. So we need new policies and proper finance. As I said before, it does not matter what reports on decentralisation we read or what seminars we attend where complaints are made about the centralisation of our population in our cities. The putting into effect of every suggestion, recommendation or report eventually involves finance. Anyone in this Parliament knows that there are many demands on finance from the Commonwealth Government. We have to tackle this problem. We are told constantly about financial, economic and social problems and the pollution of the atmosphere that occurs in the huge cities. It is recognised in Australia and around the world that it is bad for a country to have its population centralised in a few cities, let alone to have a large percentage of it virtually in only two cities. If we include Newcastle and Wollongong, which are rapidly becoming part of Sydney, as parts of that metropolis, we can say that practically 50% of our population is congregated in two cities. This is not good enough.

I want to devote the last couple of minutes available to me to some comments on the joint Commonwealth and State committee on decentralisation. That is a properly constituted committee which until recently had met only twice in 3 years. In answer to questions, I have been told that a technical party is investigating decentralisation all the time. We are told that there is continual consultation between State and Federal officers. Maybe there is, but where is the result of 3 years of so called activity? The Prime Minister, in answer to a question asked by me on 15th October - less than a month ago - gave the most encouraging reply I have received over the last 2 years. He said that a draft report had been almost completed. I ask that this draft report be completed immediately, if it has not already been completed, and that it be made available to the relevant Ministers. I ask also for some action on this problem of the centralisation of our population in too few cities around this vast country.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We have once again listened to a speech by a member of the Australian Country Party who was critical of the Government’s policy. As the junior partner of the coalition Government, the Country Party has done very little about decentralisation. I think the Party that would be most opposed to decentralisation in this Parliament would be the Country Party, because the day that decentralisation ceases to be a burning issue that Party will go out of existence. It knows that every industrial worker who goes into a country town represents one more vote that it will not receive. Members of the Country Party are the ones who are most opposed to decentralisation. But they find it convenient to talk about it continually and, in the final analysis, to do nothing about it. I did not rise to speak about decentralisation.

Mr BOSMAN:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Is the honourable member about to talk politics?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– No, I do not want to talk politics; I want to put the record straight. Certain inaccurate statements were made in this place in a debate on 12th September. The honourable member for St George (Mr Bosnian) was involved, as he no doubt knows. I have given the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) timely notice that I proposed to raise this subject, and I am pleased that he is with us in the chamber. During the debate on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation when the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1968-69 was before us, I made reference to a report in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 3rd September. I had a copy of the report with me then and I have it with me now. Under the heading ‘No Airport Planned at Towra Point’, it states:

Mr J. D. Dobie, M.H.R., said last night that the Commonwealth had no intention of establishing an airport at Towra Point, near closely populated residential suburbs.

I referred to this report and said - I do not propose to name the gentlemen concerned - that two officers of the Department of Civil Aviation had told me, one only a few days before I raised the matter in this place, that the Department of Civil Aviation had asked the New South Wales State Planning Authority to reserve Towra Point as the site for a second airport for Sydney. An alternative site was available in the vicinity of Richmond, but there were complications with that site because of its proximity to the Royal Australian Air Force base there, and the Department of Civil Aviation preferred the site at Towra Point. The Minister’s reply to my statement appears at page 997 of Hansard. He said:

It is very interesting to look back at the origin of the site at Towra Point. It was submitted for consideration as far back as 1954. It was first of all proposed as a possibility for development as an airport by the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales in conjunction with its port development. The Maritime Services Board was considering the development of a deep water port at the southern end of Botany Bay and later at the northern end of Botany Bay. As I said, the proposal on the Towra Point site originated from the Maritime Services Board in New South Wales at that time.It was quite a legitimate proposal to put forward for consideration then. In 1964 the proposal was definitely raised by the Minister for Local Government in the State Labor Government of New South Wales.

The honourable member for St George interjected and said:

What was his name?

Of course, this was a deliberate attempt to rubbish Mr Hills. The Minister continued:

I believe his name was Hills. It was submitted to the Federal Government for consideration. The proposal originated in the ranks of the Labor Government of New South Wales, and it has subsequently been considered by the Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation.

I do not have time to read on, because I want to place on record a letter that I have received from Mr Pat Hills, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. The letter reads:

Mr C. K. Jones, M.P.,

Commonwealth Parliament Offices, 526 Hunter Street,

NEWCASTLE, 2300.

Dear Charlie,

I am writing in regard to your recent telephone call concerning the suggestion that an airport may be developed at Towra Point and referring particularly to remarks made by the Minister for Civil Aviation when speaking on the Appropriation Bill on 12th September 1968.

I have since had the opportunity of looking at the Federal Hansard. I can say that what the Minister said is completely untrue.

The suggestion regarding Towra Point did not emanate from the Labor Government of this State.I can tell you quite definitely that it was first raised by the Department of Civil Aviation with the then Chief Town Planning Officer of the Department of Local Government, Dr Bradfield, an officer of the Department of Civil Aviation, informed the Town Planning Section of the Department of Local Government that in the replanning of the locality in question provision should be made for construction of an airport at Towra Point.

It was indicated at the time that the Department of Civil Aviation felt additional airport facilities in Sydney when required should be located close to the present Kingsford-Smith Airport. The Department regarded this as essential to provide for adequate control over air space. 1 can tell you that this proposal was never put forward by me as Minister for Local Government. As indicated, it was initiated by the Department of Civil Aviation and conveyed to the Planning Section of the Department of Local Government by Dr Bradfield on behalf of the Department of Civil Aviation.

I hope this information may be of some assistance to you. The letter is signed ‘Pat Hills, Leader of the Opposition.’ In my opinion it completely refutes all that the Minister said on 12th September.

Mr Swartz:

– It certainly does not. It was years before that. The matter originated with the first suggestion for the development of a deep water port on the south side.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– All I can say is that a few days prior to 12th September I made inquiries of the Department of Civil Aviation and was advised that the Department had made submissions to the New South Wales Planning Authority. I was told that the idea originated with the Department of Civil Aviation and that it was the Department’s responsibility to decide how many airports are required in a particular locality. It is the Department’s responsibility to tell the planning authority which areas it would like reserved for airport facilities. In this House only this week the Minister referred to discussions with the Victorian Government about reserving land around Tullamarine Airport in order to overcome the problems of noise and approach pattern that now exist at Essendon and Mascot. The Department of Civil Aviation made the approach to the New South Wales planning authority. A senior officer of the Department of Civil Aviation - I do not want to mention his name - told the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffiths) and me in the passageway just outside the door to this chamber that in the Department’s opinion the second airport for Sydney should be located on the south side of Botany Bay. The place referred to was Towra Point.

After I made my earlier statement in this place and after the Minister replied to it on 12th September I made further inquiries of the New South Wales Planning Authority. Public servants who supply information in matters such as this are reluctant to be identified - I do not blame them - so I do not propose to name the gentleman concerned, but honourable members may take it from me that a leading member of the New South Wales Planning Authority told me that Towra Point was the site selected by the Department of Civil Aviation and that the Department had asked the planning authority to make the necessary reservations so that the second airport could be located at Towra Point. I bring these matters to the attention of honourable members in order to set the record straight. First of all, Pat Hills did not ask for the site to be reserved: The request came from the Department of Civil Aviation.

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

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– lt is not my intention to become involved in the matters raised by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) but it may be wise of me to read a copy of a telegram sent by the Acting Minister for Civil Aviation to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Dobie) in late August this year. The telegram reads:

Cabinet has never approved nor has it ever considered any specific proposal for the construction of an airport at Towra Point or the resumption of land for this purpose. Indeed the last time Cabinet considered the matter it decided that the assumption could not be made that such a resumption would take place and that no future planning for this purpose could proceed without direct Cabinet approval.

As I have said, it is not my intention to become involved in the affairs of the Department of Civil Aviation because I have a really important matter to.grieve upon today. It relates particularly to the impending transfer from Melbourne to Canberra of additional officers of the Department of Supply, a department being transferred shortly to Canberra. It Ls my contention that the conditions under which these officers are to be transferred are not up to the same standard as those which applied to officers of other departments transferred to Canberra in 1967 and earlier. I will try lo make the point that the personal costs incurred by officers of the Department of Supply are infinitely greater than in the case of officers of other departments.

The first point I should make is that up to 1st January this year it was obvious that officers of any department were transferred to Canberra to their permanent home. This is a very important point. In deference to the Public Service Board perhaps I should state the procedure followed when a department is transferred to Canberra. First, officers of the department concerned are given ample notice that the transfer is pending. The officers and their families therefore have ample time to prepare for the change. Then the Public Service. Board cancels the officer’s position in Melbourne or Sydney, as the case may be, and re-creates that position in Canberra so that the officer in Sydney or Melbourne can apply for the re-created position in Canberra.

For the officer to decide not to apply for the position in Canberra is almost a fatal move because the prospects of obtaining a similar position at a similar salary in Melbourne or Sydney are fairly remote. To leave the Public Service for private enterprise is ‘generally unacceptable to those personnel who have made the Public Service their lifetime’s activity. These factors, together with superannuation commitments and a genuine liking for the work in the department, make public servants loath to leave the job which they may have had for some years and so they look upon the move from Melbourne or Sydney to Canberra as a compulsory move.

The Public Service covers certain expenses involved in the move, and so it should. It covers the cost of personal transportation of the officer and his family to Canberra. It covers the cost of removal of furniture and personal effects to Canberra. It allows the officer $100 to cover damage to his personal effects during removal. But at least $50 of that $100 must be spent on having a telephone connected when the officer moves into his home in Canberra. That leaves the officer with only $50. For officers of the Department of Supply transferred to Canberra the Commonwealth pro vides a house at a reasonable rental, although the house is usually of only 10.5 squares. Many of these officers have bigger and more pretentious homes in the cities in which they now live.

The important matters not covered by the Commonwealth are, firstly, the problems involved in an officer selling his home in Melbourne. If he sells it for §15,000 he has to pay an agent’s fee of $500. The Department does not reimburse the officer for that expense. The officer must also pay legal fees associated with the sale amounting to S70. As I have said, the officer is offered and must accept a 3-bedroom rental home of 10.5 squares. This is not a very large home in which to rear a family of four or five children. The officer who comes from Melbourne will have to supply in his new home in Canberra light fittings, carpets and other floor coverings, wardrobes - a large family needs more wardrobes than are provided built in - cupboards, curtains, blinds and sun blinds, because Canberra can get very hot in summer. The rented house is on virgin land which means that the new tenant, who owned an established home in Melbourne or Sydney, has to carry out landscaping and so on. He has to provide a garage or a carport. He has to provide a tool shed, because he needs tools with which to prepare his garden in his new home in Canberra.

It is my understanding that for the first time officers of a government department transferred to Canberra have not been allowed immediately to purchase the home allotted to them here. They have been told that they cannot buy their rented noma until they have been in it for 3 years. This means that they must buy light fittings, install cupboards, build garages and tool sheds and prepare their gardens and carry out landscaping all at their own cost. I think this is an unreal situation. I have made an assessment of the cost involved for an officer of the kind I have in mind. It would cost him some $2,000 for the facilities I have mentioned. In addition, there would be $500 for estate agent’s fees and $70 for legal fees. It has also just occurred to me that when the officer sells his home in Melbourne Sir Henry Bolte takes lc for every $10 that he receives. This amounts to an additional cost of Si 5 on the sale of a $15,000 home.

I have estimated that it would take a departmental man of the calibre I have in mind 15 years to save $2,500 to $3,000. It is difficult for me to believe that the Commonwealth Government, the Public Service Board and the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), to whom I have written on this subject, will not treat this matter seriously and try to rectify the situation in the future, lt is not good enough that permanent officers of a government department should be treated in this way. The fittings that the new tenant in the 10 1/2 - square home purchases and installs may, of course, bc sold in 3 years time, that is, when he is allotted a permanent home but at a highly depreciated valuation.

As far as 1 can discover, the Commonwealth accepts no responsibility or liability for these costs that the departmental officer has to meet. This is difficult to believe, especially when officers of other departments have been brought here under fatbetter conditions. I say that this is an injustice that should be rectified forthwith. For many reasons, the men in these departments are content to accept their transfer, and they are resigned to inconveniences and upheavals in their homes. They expect to face some reasonable monetary loss. Many of them are prepared lo work in their gardens and to do the work that husbands ordinarily do in setting up new homes for their families. But it is too much to ask them to face a monetary loss of up to $3,000 as well as the upheaval in their home life, with children having to start afresh in different schools, and so on. As far as I can make out, no private enterprise, bank, insurance company or oil company, treats its transferred personnel in this way. 1 have also had a look at the prices charged for homes by private builders. 1 have found that a small house in Canberra costs from $1,500 to $3,000 more than a similar house in Melbourne. 1 do not know why this is so. On the average, a house in Canberra would cost $2,500 more than a similar house in Melbourne. These public servants who are more or less compulsorily transferred from Melbourne to Canberra should be assisted by the Public Service Board. They should be reimbursed for estate agents’ fees, legal fees and telephone installations. They should be reimbursed in part - and 1 suggest to the extent of 50% - for the cost of light fittings, floor coverings, curtains, blinds, garage, tool shed and all other things a family must find when it makes a move of this kind. I appeal to the Government to have a look at the tremendous costs that must be faced by these people, who are first class public servants, and to give the assistance which in all justice they deserve.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-! agree with much of what the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) has said. For some mysterious reason our governmental or bureaucratic decisions seem to be arrived at without taking real account of the kinds of facilities that families need around their homes. But I want to raise a much more urgent matter of injustice. It involves what is being done to one 21 years old young man, and what will happen to a lot more such young men unless we take steps to change the system that we have inflicted upon them. This is a time of great ethical crisis for many 20-year-olds. They find themselves in a state of deep conflict. On the one hand they are aware of what an Australian ordinarily does, where his duty in the community lies, how he obeys the law and so on; on the other hand they are conscious of what the law now imposes upon them as 20-year-olds subject to the call-up, while being concerned - and many of them very deeply concerned - about the ethical basis of and the moral values involved in the war in Vietnam.

I have circularised all honourable members about this matter. Anybody who follows the news will be aware of the case of John Francis Zarb, who lives in Pascoe Vale. These draft resisters, as we might call the young men who are concerned in these matters, are not layabouts. I have no doubt that there are a number of persons who might be called draft dodgers, evaders or just shirkers, and who, call them what you will, are difficult young men who are simply delinquents. But people like the young man 1 am speaking of this afternoon are not delinquents. With the increasingly critical nature of the situation in Vietnam this matter of the call-up is becoming more and more critical for a number of them. I have heard young men say that they do not intend to register, and I have advised them lo register. I have told them that they must move within the system and use what rights are available to them. If they find, when the chips are down, that they cannot carry out the orders that are given to them, they must face some consequences, and I think it is our duty as decent Australians with some sense of humanity and sensitivity to find an alternative to the civil prisons in which they are now placed.

Mr Turnbull:

– Are there not the Citizen Military Forces?

Mr BRYANT:

– The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He is interjecting about a field in which he has made no study at all. A young man of 20 cannot volunteer for the CMF and be taken in. Let the honourable member go and find out. He may laugh if he likes, but under the seal of this Government, which his Party supports, he is committing what J consider a crime against humanity. He is no doubt a good, Christian citizen who will adopt all sorts of attitudes and posterings. But let him turn to the question of humanity as I will place it before him. 1 say that these young men are not delinquents and they are not layabouts, and for them we are taking away all the dignity that should be associated with being an Australian.

Mr Turnbull:

– Why does he not join the CMF?

Mr BRYANT:

– Why are a lot of other people not in the CMF? The case of John Francis Zarb is, in my view, an exercise in administrative malice. Where is our sense of proportion? Let me place the facts on the record. This young man lives at 429 Gaffney Street, Pascoe Vale, which is now in the electorate of Wills. He was born on 22nd March 1947. He registered as he was in duly bound to do and as the law required. He was called up and was medically examined and told th.it he had been passed. He claimed exemption as a conscientious objector on 27th September 1967. The hearing to determine his application for exemption was held on 2nd November 1967. On the following day he received a Form 9, of which I have a copy, and on which it is stated that the magistrate had found that he held conscientious beliefs that did not allow him to serve. T have circularised honourable members with the actual terminology of these documents and I have no doubt that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), who is interjecting, is quite familiar with all these procedures.

To continue with the story, a few days later this young man received a further notice stating that the first form had been issued in error. He was told: ‘Please return it and take note that you have to serve’. He was advised that the notice had the force of law. If the second one had the force of law then the first one had the force of law. However, he was later called up again. This was the second time. He was called up on 20th November 1967 but nothing happened until 23rd May 1968 when he received a summons. On 13th June he was taken into court. The case was listed. He sat with his parents and advisers. There was a discussion across the table and the Commonwealth withdrew the charges and the court awarded $30 costs. I have the documents here showing that he was advised, through his legal advisers, that this was the case and that he had been awarded $30 costs.

Why was this done? It was because we in this place had passed a law which would bring him more certainly into the net, which would shackle him more closely to our requirements. But that law had not been proclaimed. It was proclaimed on 24th June and once again he was issued with a summons. It is common knowledge what happened. He was taken to court and later sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. First, why were the charges withdrawn? Why did not the Commonwealth proceed in acordance with the law of the time? No reasons were given; no guarantees were given. It was a premeditated act of malicious persecution, in my view, because the Department of Labour and National Service believes it must pursue these young men to the very last inch. So he finds himself visited with a piece of retrospective savagery. The fact is that when he broke the law, as indeed he probably did, because he did not answer the call-up, the law had a different connotation altogether from that which it assumed later. He would have been sent into the Army. He would have been subject to military discipline and to the military courts. But, of course, we have applied the principle of retrospective legislation to this situation and when he was first called up, when he broke the law, he would have been subject to this requirement. But we find that a completely different system operates under the Australian Military Regulations and Ordinances. I was one who did not want to see young men dragged into the Army like this and the Army being used as a penal institution. I resent it.

Despite what they do in the military corrective establishments - I wonder who thought of that euphemism - the system is different from and potentially less harsh than the system we have laid down in the Act as amended last June. The regulations state:

Sentences should vary according to the requirements of discipline, but in ordinary circumstances, and for the first offence a sentence should be light. Care should be taken to ‘ discriminate between offences due to youth, inexperience, temper, sudden temptation or unaccustomed surroundings and those due to premeditated misconduct.

The regulations also prescribe punishment for various offences - for desertion and so on. They state that in the absence of a previous conviction or of aggravating circumstances the punishment shall be detention not exceeding 28 days. For striking a superior officer, disobeying a lawful command and for some forms of desertion the penalty is detention not exceeding 89 days. But John Francis Zarb is in a civil prison for 2 years. He has committed no crime. His is the sin of omission. He will not answer the summons. It is not that he is not prepared to serve.

We have not applied ourselves conscientiously to the alternatives to this form of service. We have pursued lohn Francis Zarb in a way in which no Australian Government ought to pursue its subjects. Where is our humanity? Where is our common sense? Where is our decency? Where is our sense of perspective? Why is it that the full vigour of the law has been visited upon this young man who, as I have said, is not a delinquent or lay-about? Why have we used the processes of the law in such a way that in the first instance he thought he had been exempted because he was a conscientious objector; in the second instance he thought, when he moved away from the court, that the victory was his, if that is the way one should think of it, and that he had been released; and then, when we amended the legislation and proclaimed it, we pursued him with the full vigour of the law? This is not the way in which the Government of this country should pursue Australians. We ought not to be doing this. This young man ought not to be persecuted in this way; nor should all the others who are likely to be the victims of this law.

We must find some satisfactory alternative. To imprison a young Australian - a decent, conscientious, well educated young man who is attempting to make his way through life - for 2 years in Pentridge is a disgraceful penalty. Honourable members opposite and the Opposition disagree on conscription and national service, but I believe that we should apply a completely different set of standards. Pentridge prison, in which this young man finds himself, h a disgrace to a civilised community, anyhow. This is no reflection upon the people who run it. But we have made no advances at all in penology and the way in which we treat people in these circumstances. We have given no thought whatever - we are the ones who should be responsible for thinking about it - to the question of adequate and alternative service.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I will not answer the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) at this stage. 1 want to deal with something allied to what he said but which is rather more important. At this particular point of time the attitude of the Australian Government to the Vietnam war seems to be just as confused and as difficult to understand as that of the caretaker Government in the United States of America. The answer of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) to a question asked of him by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) today, and similar answers which have been given to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and myself on other occasions, with regard to Polish, Russian and British ships trading into Haiphong is typical of such confusion of thought - 1 might have used a much stronger term, but I prefer not to - which reacts tragically against the safety of our troops in Vietnam.

At the moment the ./.,n—1: Nowotko’ is loading in Sydney. She carried arms and equipment into Haiphong. If the Government wants to know the source of my intelligence. I shall be glad to disclose it, but 1 will not announce it publicly here. However, I can assure the House that this vessel carried arms and equipment into Haiphong - to what was referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) recently as our identifiable enemy. She is allowed to come here and load wool and other merchandise from Australia at cut rates in order to try to pay for some of her carriage of goods into Haiphong. Would any Minister deny that the Government’s laxity in failing to take action to stop this trade is betraying the troops it has sent into the war zone to protect our own and our allies’ security? The Government has no right to send troops on a mission of this nature and then to aid and abet the enemy in obtaining arms and equipment. Five times in a speech in this House the Deputy Prime Minister declared that we are at war: therefore the answer given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport to the honourable member for Lilley does not fool anybody. It was wishy it was washy, it was weak. It represents a betrayal of our troops in Vietnam.

What is the attitude, of the Government to the peace conference in Paris? Did Australia receive , the same assurances that the Prime Minister of Korea told the National Assembly he had received from America before they agreed to the bombing halt - first, that no coalition government would be forced on South Vietnam; secondly, that there would be no official recognition of the National Liberation Front; and, thirdly, that if there was no reciprocal action on the part of North Vietnam, the bombing would be resumed? Who can blame South Vietnam for the action it has taken and which has been criticised in headlines in all of the morning newspapers? Its stand is 100% in line with an article that Mr Richard Nixon, the incoming President of the United States, wrote in the ‘Readers Digest’ in January 1966. Will the Australian Government ask the incoming President to be true to his own beliefs and the international promises that he made at (he time when he was visiting South East Asia?

What is the outgoing caretaker Government in America trying to do? Is it trying to establish some sort of place in history, and, if so, on what basis? Is it to be another Marshall mission mess-up such as happened in the late 1940s? Is it to be another Truman tendentious tragedy like Korea which has left behind it the longest armistice in history and which, as I have said before, is one of the world’s greatest comedies as a memorial to one of the world’s greatest tragedies? What did the incoming President, Mr Nixon, say in his article in 1966? He said:

Before jumping into premature negotiations we must find answers to three basic questions.

How do we get the Communists to the conference table? The way not to get the Communists lo the conference table is to talk now about our willingness to negotiate. As one Asian leader told me, ‘You Americans must stop assuming that the Communists react as you do. You do not regard a willingness to negotiate as an indication of weakness. But Communists never talk about negotiating unless they are losing’.

As has been stated, they are losing, and the Minister for the Army (Mr Lynch) was criticised the other day for telling the truth at the Returned Services League conference. The article continued:

With whom do we negotiate? There can be no compromise on this question. We can negotiate only with the primary aggressor - the North Vietnamese Government. Under no circumstances can we agree to negotiate with the Vietcong guerillas.

This goes to the heart of what the Vietnam war is all about. The Communists claim it is a civil war. Actually it is naked aggression on the part of North Vietnam. . .

If North Vietnam would get out of South Vietnam - withdraw its troops and logistical support - the Vietcong rebellion would either collapse or be weakened to the point where it could be liquidated by the South Vietnamese forces without our assistance.

What should we negotiate?

There are three minimum conditions we must insist upon in any negotiation with the Communists: North Vietnam must stop its aggression against South Vietnam; South Vietnam’s independence and freedom from Communist control must be guaranteed; there must ,be no reward for the aggressors. J realise that talk of victory is unfashionable today, but there can be no substitute for victory-

Vide General MacArthur - . . when the objective is the defeat of Communist aggression.

Important as are all of the above questions about Vietnam and America’s role in that nation’s tragic history, there is one issue that is, perhaps, more important than all of the other questions combined. The question is one of simple morality. Has America the right - after pledging to support a small nation in its fight for freedom - to negotiate a settlement that would destroy that nation’s freedom?

I do not think that it has but a number of people seem to think that that can be done.

He then quotes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who said: ]f one small country is unsafe from Communist domination, all are. The United States stands for the safety of all free nations in Asia by defending South Vietnam.

He also quotes Sir Winston Churchill’s remarks on the liquidation of Czechoslovakia at Munich. Sir Winston Churchill said:

The belief that security can be obtained by throwing a small state to the wolves is a fatal delusion.

Finally, the incoming American President states:

We believe every nation should have the right to choose the system of government that best fits its needs. Wc came lo Vietnam to protect that right. The Communists are there to destroy it. Never forget that no nation in the world today could afford the luxury of neutrality if it were not for the power of the United States.

There is no reason for Americans to be defensive or apologetic about our role in Vietnam. We can hold our heads high in the knowledge that, as was the case in World War I, World War II and Korea, we are fighting not just in the interests of the United States, but for peace, freedom and progress for all peoples.

That was the belief - and I understand that it still represents the principles - of the incoming President of the United States of America. I hope that the Australian Government will support, him right up to the hilt in all that he has stated there. I do not think that anybody should criticise the South Vietnamese for supporting those beliefs. That in effect is what they are doing. They are supporting these beliefs and supporting the promises that were given to them.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

- Mr Deputy Speaker, as the time for this debate has almost expired, I can see that I will be allowed approximately 3 minutes only. It was my intention to speak on fatalities in Australian coal mines and equate the figures with details given in a recent article in the “Sydney Morning Herald’ which shows that in the United States these figures have reached an alarming level. In fact, 5,500 miners have been killed there since 1959. But because of the speech made by the honourable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) I feel bound to comment on his remarks. The honourable member virtually is asking his Government to forbid or place an embargo on ships that call at Haiphong coming to Australia to load wool, wheat or other primary products. I want to comment on that remark because I believe that the very fact that these ships come to Australia shows what a racket this war is. It is a war . that Australia should never have been involved in.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member would not think that it was a racket if he were in Vietnam.

Mr JAMES:

– No, but our troops should not be there and it is only for the likes of the honourable member for Chisholm and others on the Government side that they are there. It is obvious to the world that America regrets ever having got into the war in Vietnam. The honourable member for Chisholm did not tell the Parliament that in the last 3 or 4 years Malaysia, which produces about 80% of the world’s raw rubber, has been sending approximately £Stg15m worth of raw rubber to People’s China or Communist China, whichever term honourable members like to use. It would have been better if the honourable member for Chisholm had stood up in the Parliament and protested about the actions of this British Commonwealth country, Malaysia, which Australia has been protecting with troops for a number of years now and looks like continuing to protect until the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) or the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) makes a statement to the Parliament about our future defence policies. Malaysia is selling £Stg15m worth of raw rubber to People’s China.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! It is now 12.45 p.m. and in accordance with standing order 106 the debate is interrupted and I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2870

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL (No. 3) 1968

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

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · Lowe · LP

– I move:

On 29th May 1968. when tabling the report of the Commonwealth Actuary on the third quinquennial investigation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, 1 informed the House of the decisions the Government had taken in the light of that report and a minute addressed to me by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board. This Bill gives effect to those decisions. As well, it makes provision for members of the forces under 18 to contribute to the Fund and provides for increases in certain existing invalidity pensions. The Bill also includes some machinery amendments of a minor nature.

As honourable members are aware, the Actuary’s investigation covered the 5-year period from 1st July 1959 to 30th June 1964 and was the first fullscale actuarial review of the Fund since the revision of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme following the Allison Committee report of 1959. The Actuary’s valuation as at 30th June 1964 showed that the Fund had a surplus of $4,465,770 in respect of members who became liable to contribute to the Fund before 4th December 1959 and a deficiency of $3,260,000 in respect of those who became liable to contribute on or after that date.

The distinction drawn by the Actuary between the two classes of member, to which I will refer as pre-1959 and post-1959 entrants, recognised the different bases on which the two groups contribute. Pre-1959 entrants contribute on much the same basis as Superannuation Fund contributors - that is they purchase units of benefit commensurate to their age and rate of pay. Post- 1959 entrants contribute a percentage of salary which applies to each member during service regardless of salary changes. At present the percentage is normally 5% but it increases to 12% for higher ages of officer entry. The Bill provides for the surplus amount of $4,465,770 in respect of pre- 1959 entrants to be distributed amongst eligible contributors and pensioners.

The provisions of the Bill in general are modelled on provisions in Act No. 97 of 1965 pertaining to the distribution of the surplus in the Superannuation Fund. The amount available for distribution will be allocated by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board amongst eligible pensioners and contributors in such manner as is determined by me, after receiving advice from the Commonwealth Actuary. The simplest possible basis of allocation is being devised commensurate with each person concerned receiving a fair and reasonable share of the amount to be distributed. Even so it will be some time before payments can be made: there are many thousands of contributors’ records to be consulted and many thousands of calculations to be made.

In my statement of 29th May. I informed the House of the measures proposed by the Government to restore the solvency of the Fund in respect of post-1959 entrants and the Bill makes provision accordingly. On and from the first pay day after the date of operation of the legislation the contributions of those post-1959 entrants who entered the Fund at age 20 or above will increase by i%. Such a member now contributing 5% of salary will in future contribute 51% while a member now contributing, say, 8% will in future contribute 8^%.. In the case of a private group 1 who entered at age 20 the increase in terms of the new pay scales will be from $4.38 to $4.81 per fortnight. The contributions of post- 1959 entrants who entered the Fund at age 18 or 19 will also increase but not to the same extent. The Bill provides for them to receive the benefit of the new tower rates that are to apply in future to those members who enter the Fund before age 20. The age 18 entrant now paying 5% will contribute at a 5.2% rate while the age 19 contribution rate will increase from 5% to 5.35%. 1 shall deal with the new provisions regarding younger members in more detail later.

The Bill’ also provides for ,an. increase in the Commonwealth’s contribution to the pension benefits payable by the Fund in respect of post- 1959 entrants. On and from the first pension pay day after the date of operation the Commonwealth’s contribution to pension benefits will increase from 77i% to 80%, thus reducing the proportion of benefit to be met from members’ contributions to 20%. Having regard to the levels of pension benefits payable this makes the D.F.R.B.F. scheme a generous one by any standard. In respect of pensions payable to or in respect of pre-1959 entrants the Commonwealth at resent meets 85% of entitlements taken up before 14th

December 1959 and 77i% of entitlements taken up on or after that date. Consistent with the action being taken in respect of post- 1959 entrant pensions, provision is made for the Commonwealth also to meet 80% of pre-1959 entrant pensions in future. However, the new percentage will not be applied to pre-1959 entrant pensions payable to or in respect of persons who ceased to be members on or before 30th June 1964, the dale on which the quinquennial period ended.

As I informed the House on 29th May. it is not the Government’s intention that the variations in the Commonwealth’s contribution to benefits payable should, of themselves, lead to future surpluses in the Fund which would be regarded as available for distribution. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the Actuary is to disregard any surplus to the extent that, in his opinion, it is attributable to the variations being made by this Bill to the Commonwealth’s contribution to pension benefits.

On 7th May 1968, when introducing the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1968, 1 informed the House of decisions the Government had taken in the matter of younger members of the forces after considering proposals submitted by the Government Members’ Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee of which the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) is Chairman. The Bill provides for the implementation of those decisions.

As I then explained to the House membership of the DFRB Fund is at present confined to eligible persons aged 18 years or more. Members aged 18 and 19 years contribute at the same rate as an age 20 entrant but are covered only for death and invalidity pension benefits until age 20 when service commences to count towards a retirement pension. Members under the age of 18, of which there are now over 3,000, have not been permitted to join the Fund even though many receive adult rates of pay. For such non-contributory members a small invalidity pension only is payable, even though the disability might be such as to seriously impair the member’s earning capacity for life.

The Bill removes the present minimum age limit of 18 years so that all younger members of the forces who are able to meet the other qualifications for entry can contribute to the Fund. Because contributory service before age 20 does not count as service for ordinary pension purposes new lower rates of contributions will in future apply to those members who are under 20 when they enter the Fund. The lower rates of contribution, which will apply throughout their Service careers, are on a sliding annual scale and range from 4)% of salary for an entrant at age .15 to 5i% of salary at age 20. These rates, which were calculated by the Commonwealth Actuary, take into account the increases provided for in post- 1959 contribution rates to which I have already referred.

Existing post- 1 959 contributors who entered the Fund at agc 18 or 19 years also will benefit from the new rales which will apply lo them during (he remainder of their contributory service.

Because the invalidity pension entitlement of some younger members would be unduly low in the initial years of their service if it were to bc determined by the member’s rate of pay and level of contributions to the Fund provision is made in the Bill for a basic rale of invalidity pension. Under the provision the invalidity pension that will be paid to a member in receipt of less than an adult rate of pay will be the pension that is payable to a private group I. the minimum adult pay grouping applying to age 17 entrants. The main categories of personnel who will benefit from the provision are cadets, apprentices and junior recruits.

Contributors who are discharged on invalidity grounds without pension entitlement receive gratuity at rates which arc higher than normal rales. At present, service prior to age .18 does not count for invalidity gratuity purposes even though such service does count for ordinary gratuity purposes. As members under the age of 18 years are now to become contributors to the Fund, it is appropriate, and the Bill so provides, that the existing restriction on the service that can bc counted for invalidity gratuity purposes be removed. Noncontributory service as a member before age 18 of existing members serving at the time the new provision comes into operation will count for these purposes as well as contributory service by younger members after that date.

The extension of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to all younger members of the forces on continuous full time service for 12 months or more will make unnecessary the provision for special non-contributory pensions for members retired on invalidity grounds before reaching 18. There are, however, 10 persons at present with pension entitlement under this provision, 2 having entitlement to Class A pension of $546 per annum and 8 to Class B pension of $273 per annum. These rates of pension were set in 1959 and could not now be regarded as adequate for persons whose earning capacities are noticeably impaired. In addition to these noncontributory pensioners there are a small number of former contributors who, by reason of their having been discharged before they became entitled to adult rates of pay are also in receipt of small invalidity pensions. In these cases also the earning capacities of the pensioners are noticeably impaired.

In the light of the provision for a basic invalidity pension rate the Government has decided that it would be appropriate to increase these small existing invalidity pensions and the Bill provides for this. In determining the increases that should be paid the principles followed in the 1967 DFRB pensions increases legislation have been adopted. Persons in receipt of small contributory invalidity pensions because they were at discharge on less than adult rates of pay will have their pensions increased by five-sevenths of the difference between their pension and the pension they would receive if they were to be discharged on the day the provision for a basic invalidity pension comes into operation and the provision were to apply to them. The pensions payable to non-contributory pensioners will increase to $1,105 per annum for Class A and $552.50 per annum for Class B, which amounts represent five-sevenths of the basic invalidity pension rates. The increases will be payable on and from the pay-day following the date of operation of the legislation. The cost, which is estimated in a full year to be $5,300, will be met by the Commonwealth.

The year 1968 has, indeed, seen great progress in the DFRB scheme. Through this Bill, and the legislation introduced into the House earlier this year, DFRB Fund membership will have been extended to an additional 24,000 servicemen and women so that the great majority of defence forces members will now have access to the first rate death, invalidity and retirement cover that the DFRB scheme provides. The reappraisal of the scheme continues. As I informed the House last May, the Government has put in hand a general review of the contribution basis of pre-1959 entrants with a view particularly to ascertaining whether it would be practicable to convert the basis to a percentage of salary as in the case of post-1959 contributors.

The Government Members Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee continues to pursue the interests of Fund members zealously and has submitted a number of proposals that are in the process of examination. There are also other proposed changes that are being considered. I hope to be in a position to introduce legislation in respect of some of these matters during the autumn session next year. Before I conclude, may I particularly thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong and his Committee for the diligent work that they have performed and the enormous assistance they have been to me while preparing the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion . by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2873

MEAT INDUSTRY BILL 1968

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

Second Reading

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill has two purposes. The first is to provide for an increase iri the number of meat producer representatives on the Australian Meat Board from 5 to 6. The second is to empower the Australian Meat Board to issue, cancel or suspend export licences, and to provide the applicant or licensee with a right of appeal to the Minister against a decision by the Board. The increase in the number of producer representatives on the Board is proposed so as to facilitate a more adequate representation of the major livestock producing regions of Australia and of the widely differing conditions under which cattle, sheep and lambs are produced. In particular, an additional producer representative should assure representation for producers in the southern States. Since the Board was reconstituted in J 964 there has been no meat producer representative from Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania despite the fact that these States account for a very considerable proportion of Australian meat production and exports.

When the present legislation was introduced the Government made it clear that the principal criterion for the selection of Board members should be their ability and experience. This will continue to be the case, lt is envisaged however, that an additional producer position on the Board will make it possible for the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee, when making its nominations to the Minister, to ensure that adequate geographic representation is also achieved. The proposal to make the Meat Board responsible for the issue, cancellation or suspension of export licences and to provide a right of appeal against the Board’s decision represents a significant change from current procedures. Currently applications for export licences are made to the Board which, after obtaining such further information as it considers necessary, makes its recommendation to the Minister. The decision to grant or refuse a licence however rests solely with the Minister or his delegate and there is no provision for appeal against that decision. Similarly the Minister may cancel an export licence if, on a report from the Board, he is satisfied that the licensee has contravened a requirement prescribed by regulation or a condition to which the licence is subject. In both instances the Minister must in practice rely heavily on the report and recommendation of the Board but must take the sole responsibility for the decision and in neither case is there any provision for appeal.

The proposed changes would require the Board to take responsibility for its decisions and would also ensure that any applicant who is refused a licence or any licensee who has his licence suspended or cancelled, has full opportunity to present his case to the Minister for review. The Bill also provides that the Minister may, if he considers it desirable, appoint independent persons to examine any appeal and to make a recommendation to him. 1 commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2874

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1968

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services and Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs · Mackellar · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is to some extent interlocked with the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Bill which follows it immediately on the notice paper, and I shall therefore ask the indulgence of the House in making some references to this second Bill in my speech upon the first one. I would also suggest to the House that it might suit its convenience to debate both Bills together, although, of course, separate votes would be taken.

The primary purpose of the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill is to make available a sum of $3,650,000 in the form of non-repayable grants to the various States. The proportions in which this is to be divided between the States are set out in the Schedule and are in proportion to the Aboriginal populations of the various States, insofar as they can be ascertained. The House will recall that in the Budget a sum of SI Om was set aside for an Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account, and it was stated that S5m of this would be allocated for capital assistance to viable Aboriginal enterprises, and that the remainder would be used for non-repayable grants for Aboriginal advancement, particularly in the fields of housing, education and health. The $3,650,000 to which I have referred is part of this second $5m. Of the remainder of that S5m. Sim is being held for expenditure in the Northern Territory and $350,000 has so far not been allocated.

The House will recall from my statement to Parliament of 22nd August that, of the amount allocated to the States under this Schedule, approximately $2,300,000 will be used for housing, approximately $850,000 for education and approximately $500,000 for health. My statement on 22nd August set this out in some detail, and I do not intend to take up the time of the House by repeating it now. The Attorney-General has advised that in order to pay the money over to the States it is desirable to make a grant formally under section 96 of the Constitution, and this Bill will enable disbursements to the States to commence forthwith. It is our intention to pay the grants to the States quarterly in advance, the amount of the instalments to be determined by agreement between themselves and ourselves.

Honourable members will notice that under clause 3 of the Bill the States are obligated to spend the whole of their grants in a manner and within a time approved by the Minister, for the advancement of Aboriginal people living in their State’. I should add that each Stale has agreed also to maintain at least its current level of expenditure from its own funds on Aboriginal advancement so that the grant by the Commonwealth Government will be in addition to, and not in substitution for, amounts spent from State funds.

Finally might 1 direct the attention of honourable members to clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for a repayable grant of S350.000 to the State of Queensland for the development of an irrigation project at Bamaga in the far north of Cape York. It was intended originally that this grant should come out of the $5m Capital Aid Fund, but since some procedural difficulties have arisen which could delay this, and since it was desirable that the project should proceed with the least possible delay, it has been decided to treat this as a special repayable grant. The money will, of course, under the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill, be repaid from Queensland into the Capital Aid Fund.

The Queensland Government is convinced of the soundness of the Cape York development, which is based on the remarkable flow in Jardine River. Even in the dry season this flow does not appear to drop below 50 cusecs. Adjacent to this river, there are Aboriginal reserves which are capable of development and there is still in the area a considerable Aboriginal population to take advantage of these opportunities. We shall be discussing with the Queensland Government the details of the way in which this project can be developed so as to give the maximum benefit and security to the Aboriginal people who will be engaged in it. Some of these details are not yet settled but I would not want the discussion of them to delay the prosecution of this very excellent scheme.

The second Bill deals with the Capital Aid Fund, and arranges for the payment into it of an amount of 54,650,000 which, together with the §350,000 for the Cape York venture, to which I have already referred, makes up the S5m which the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) originally allocated to this Fund. Honourable members will note that in terms of clause 7 of the Bill this $5m is to be included in a permanent revolving Fund, for the establishment and encouragement of Aboriginal enterprises. Clause 5 of the Bill stales:

The object for which the Fund is established is lo enable persons of the Aboriginal race of Australia to engage in business enterprises that have prospects of becoming or continuing to be successful and the Fund shall be administered for thai object.

Clause 8 deals with the mechanics of the process.

Honourable members will recall that in his statement to the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs in Melbourne on 12th July, which has subsequently been tabled in the House, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) announced the creation of this Capital Fund for special assistance for potentially viable enterprises by Aboriginals either individually or co-operatively. The Prime Minister stated that the Government regarded this scheme as an essential part of its policy for assisting Aboriginal Australians to become self-supporting and economically independent.

An encouraging number of application-;, spread over all mainland States, has already been received for assistance from tha Capital Fund. 1 am anxious to proceed as soon as possible with the task of assisting Aboriginal enterprises and hope to make announcements shortly relating to loans to such enterprises. 1 shall be setting up an advisory committee to help me in making the necessary decisions, and I shall be glad to be able to draw on the financial experience of Dr Coombs, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, as Chairman of this Committee.

The authorities in charge of Aboriginal welfare in a State will be consulted before any particular project in that State is approved. In fact we would hope that most applications would come to us through the States, but this does not preclude the possibility of an Aboriginal or an Aboriginal group making an application direct to the Fund at the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in Canberra.

I should make it clear that the enterprises which will be supported by loans, by guarantees or otherwise are those which, as stated in clause 5 of the Bill, ‘have prospects of becoming or continuing to be successful’. lt is my intention that loans from the Capital Fund will normally be made on terms appropriate to development type loans, moving towards normal commercial standards over a short period of years, and often through the normal banking institutions. In this regard, honourable members will note powers of the Minister under clause 9 to give guarantees, subject, of course, to the limitations set out in that clause.

In appropriate cases, a holiday from payments of interest and repayment of capital may be granted until the enterprise reaches a level of net profit which would enable it to support these payments while still providing a livelihood for the Aboriginal entrepreneurs.

The Bill provides also that moneys from the Capital Fund may be applied to acquire shares in the capital of a company. The thinking behind this is that in many cases it may be found desirable for the Capital Fund to support an enterprise by holding equity shares. Such equity capital would be held by the Capital Fund until such time as the enterprise was able to buy it back out of profits. The Bill provides for the audit of the Capital Fund operations, and for the submission of a report to Parliament each year.

These two Bills taken together express the two aspects of the Government’s policy in regard to Aboriginals, namely, to make available better housing, education and health facilities immediately and, at the same time, to provide an economic basis which will enable Aboriginals to reduce their dependence upon handouts and become more and more self reliant. 1 commend the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1968 to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2876

ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1968

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Min ister for Social Services and MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs · Mackellar · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In view of my remarks on the previous Bill 1 am content to commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2876

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October (vide page 2320), on motion by Mr Freeth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘this House is of opinion that the passage of this Bill should be delayed until the House reassembles next year to enable the Government to re-assess the capabilities of the Fill aircraft’.

When the Minister introduced this Bill he indicated that approval was sought for the Commonwealth to borrow $US75m, of which the Australian equivalent is $67m, from the Export-Import Bank to assist in financing the purchase of twenty-four F111C aircraft, spares, associated equipment and services. It was pointed out by the Minister that the borrowing was additional to an earlier loan of $US80m, or $A72m, arranged in 1966 for this purpose. The loan is to carry an interest rate of 6% and is to be issued at par. It has a commitment fee of i% of the amount undrawn at any time. The Minister said also that because the borrowing is for defence purposes the approval of the Australian Loan Council is not necessary for the transaction.

The Opposition has moved this amendment because of the difficulties associated with the Fill aircraft. Recently I read an article entitled ‘Reflections on Defence’ in an issue of the ‘Current Affairs Bulletin’ published on 7th October 1968. The following observation was made in that article about the Royal Australian Air Force: . . and soon to come into service a strike aircraft (the F111) possibly of incomparable performance, but whose incomparable cost must preclude the purchase or even construction of much more relevant equipment.

This ill fated aircraft, if one may so describe it, according to the blurb of the manufacturers - the document has been quoted in this House before - is stated in a reprint from ‘Nation’s Business’ of March 1968 to be: ‘Ready for any war. Our most fantastic flying machine.’

Mr James:

– The best thing since angels.

Mr CREAN:

-I do not know about its being the best thing since angels. That is a rather light comment for a proposition as serious as this. This aircraft was ordered as far back as 1963 and we are now almost at the end of 1968. There has not yet been any satisfactory delivery of this machine. I have noted in the Press recently a statement that the number of people who have been sent abroad to be trained in the use of this fantastic flying machine have now returned home because the aircraft will not be ready for delivery until at least 1969. In addition to that, apparently only one airstrip is to be converted for the use of this aeroplane. I understand that the estimated cost of alterations to the airstrip at Amberley is $2m and that that is additional to the sum for which Australia is already committed.

It is for those reasons that the Opposition suggests that the House should not sanction this loan.It appears that in many respects we have not yet any guarantee that the F111 will be a going concern when it is delivered. We have heard a lot about stop-go policies, but this aircraft seems to be a no-go proposition. The Opposition suggests that, as the F1 1 1 will not be delivered until 1969, it would be prudent for the House not to sanction this borrowing and that the Parliament should have an opportunity between now and the reassembling of the Parliament to re-assess the capabilities of the aircraft. That is why the Opposition has moved this amendment.

Let me say one or two things about Australia’s defence expenditure, particularly the increase incurred outside Australia. The majority of equipment for our defence purposes is not made in Australia. This country is becoming increasingly dependent upon overseas sources, in particular the United States of America, for what is somewhat rather slickly described as the hardware of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I instance again the remarks that appeared in the ‘Current Affairs Bulletin’ from which I quoted, not only about the incomparable performance but also about the incomparable cost of the F111. The fact that we are to pay so much for this aircraft precludes the purchase or construction of much more relevant equipment. I do not know who the anonymous author of the article in the ‘Current Affairs Bulletin’ is, but in his view there is great dissatisfaction with the present equipment of both the Navy and the Air Force and the adequacy of that equipment for what might be thought to be the defence strategy of Australia in the years ahead.

If honourable members look, as they should look, at the statement in the Budget documents entitled ‘The National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure’, which was issued in August 1968, they will find at table 2 particulars of the domestic and overseas outlay provided for in Commonwealth Budgets for the 3 financial years from 1965-66 to 1967- 68, and the projected outlay for 1968- 69, which is getting close to being half over. The statement shows that domestic outlay on war and defence this financial year is expected to be $805m. In 1965-66 it was $533m. The projected overseas outlay for war and defence this year is $336m, having risen from $151m in 1965-66. According to this document we expect to spend on defence a total of $1,141 m this year as against $684m in 1965-66. Not only has the absolute sum risen; proportionately our dependence on foreign sources of supply has risen also. As a rough guide, whereas in 1965-66, out of a total expenditure of $684m, $151 m was spent overseas - that is, less than onequarter - this year, out of a total of $l,141m, near enough to one-third, and certainly over 30%, is to be spent overseas. When one takes into account the breakdown of defence expenditure, and compares the mere manpower costs with what might be called the equipment costs of our forces, one sees that very little capital equipment. if we like to call it that, is bought in Australia today. The tendency is for the heavy equipment, particularly for both the Navy and the Air Force, to come from overseas.

We on this side of the House have long said that a nation’s defence potential ought to be closely linked with its own internal industrial structure. In this country we had a fine record in the construction of aircraft in the period beginning in World War II and continuing until recent times. My colleague, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), and I recently visited the Government Aircraft Factories establishment and the factory of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd which are situated in the area that I represent. Both are magnificent establishments. Unfortunately the Government Aircraft Factories plant is languishing at the moment.

I direct the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ this morning. It was written by Mr Peter Robinson, who, 1 take it, is the military correspondent for that journal. I always read with considerable interest Mr Robinson’s contributions. Sometimes I think it would be better if there were a little more detailed writing in our Press about our defence and our defence industry than is the case now. A large number of the major newspapers overseas have quite well known military correspondents who write about defence industrial capacity and the nature of the equipment of the forces and so on. There is not a great deal of that kind of writing in the Australian Press, and I think we are all the poorer for it. At least, Mr Robinson is an honourable exception in that field. A few weeks ago the ‘Australian Financial Review’ published an article by him dealing with the same subject as this morning’s article.

The article published today is headed Aircraft Industry Merger Plan’. Apparently there is talk that there should be a merger of the two aircraft factories I have referred to. The premises of the Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd at Fisherman’s Bend abut on each other. At the moment the two establishments even exchange work because they each concentrate on the manufacture of certain items. As Mr Robinson says, the GAF is the final remnant of the large aircraft industry that was built up by the Commonwealth Government during World War II. The day my colleague and I visited the GAF establishment it was rather tragic to see such a magnificent facility with scarcely any work in hand.

Mr Stokes:

– The honourable member is getting a bit wide of the Bill.

Mr CREAN:

– No. I am talking about the Government Aircraft Factories. Very little work is being done there. The magnificent potential there is largely going to waste. 1 think that something like 2,000 people are still employed there and 3,500 people are employed at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation’s plant alongside it. The two factories are quite important in Australia’s industrial structure. The Government has not given any clear indication of what the future of this area is to be. We have suggested for quite a long time now that Australia ought to be building more aircraft than it is. I do not think anybody would be so extravagant as to say that at this time Australia is capable of making all the aircraft for all’ requirements in Australia. It would be foolish to suggest that we should do all the work ourselves on some heavy aircraft such as the jumbo jets. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we could develop our potential to a greater extent than we are developing it.

One of the curious tilings about the Fil l project seems to be that the Government’s decision to purchase the aircraft was made in haste at the time of the 1963 general election. The ultimate expenditure then talked of for the aircraft and associated services was of the order of $112m. As we indicated in the debate on the Fill contract a month or two ago, the figure is now expected to be at least $300m. When one bears in mind the big difference between the original estimate of $11 2m and the final cost - if the aircraft ever flies successfully or satisfactorily - of $300m, it is obvious that there has been a fair margin of error. The argument advanced against establishing an aircraft industry in Australia seems to be contained in the words of the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) as they were quoted by Mr Robinson in this morning’s Australian Financial Review”. His article reads:

  1. . close co-operation has always existed between the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories . . . the demand in Australia for (non-military) aircraft is generally so small that it hardly seems likely that we will be able to keep the three units of the Australian aircraft industry in being.

Rationalisation between the Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation is a matter that we must consider.

Another matter which 1 suggest should be considered is the human question of what is to happen to those people employed in the industry. As I have said on other occasions in the House, for many years there has been a feeling amongst persons in the industry that the industry is suffering from creeping paralysis. These are wonderful craftsmen. They are proud of their record. When I. visited the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation’s undertaking at Fisherman’s Bend Sir Frederick Scherger gave me certain details of the record of the Corporation. I am sorry that I have not been furnished with the record of the Government Aircraft Factories. Since its inception the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation has achieved the following manufacturing record:

This is a magnificent record. I am sure that those who are concerned for the defence of this country will realise that Australia would have been in great difficulties during the last war if this aircraft industry had not been available. As a result of the Government’s treatment of the aircraft industry, if anything were to happen now - nobody wants anything to happen - Australia would be unable to do in 1968 what it was able to do in 1948. There is no doubt that the aircraft industry has the capacity to do more than it is called upon to do. In his article Mr Robinson said:

In many respects the CAC’s engine production plant is one of the most advanced industrial facilities in Australia.

The Government’s treatment of this industry is wasteful. The Government is acting with complete indifference. If the Government is prepared lo pay about $200m more for the FI 1 1 aircraft than was originally estimated surely there is nothing wrong with providing a subsidy to the aircraft industry in this country. Shipbuilding in Australia is already subsidised. Every ship constructed for a private company in Australia carries a subsidy of about 33£% of its total cost. Why is it that the aircraft industry does not receive the same treatment? This is an aspect of our defence policy that needs serious reappraisal.

There seems to be some reluctance on the part of some of our industrialists to stir themselves. Again I rely on the authority of Mr Peter Robinson and an article which be wrote for the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 7th November. The article was entitled Switch in Buying Policy. Government Bid for Offset Orders’. Mr Robinson points out that oilier countries which place a large order in a foreign country suggest that certain work should be handed back to them. Quite a number of countries have representatives located in Washington searching out - lobbying if von like - the possibilities of obtaining offset orders. In his article Mr Robinson states:

Australian industry will have lo display far more dash and far more willingness lo take risks in order 10 establish itself and its capabilities in the American mind than it has to date.

A lot of sentiment is expressed in this House about private enterprise but it sometimes seems to me that the operative word is private’; enterprise is very often lacking. Australian industry seems to display little enterprise in seeking overseas orders to be fulfilled in Australian factories. Difficulty is experienced also in getting separate industries in Australia to co-operate in a better pattern of rationalisation in industry. 1 think we should realise that although Australia has a small population, because of our high standard of living and our affluence we have a bigger domestic market than our numbers would suggest. Nevertheless, because our numbers are so small and the output of our industries for the domestic market so limited, it would be better in many cases if only one or two companies were engaged in certain fields rather than (he several companies now engaged. If all of these companies want to retain their separate identities there is no reason why occasionally they should not rationalise their production patterns in accordance with the defence needs of this country.

The electronics industry is a case in point. I noticed in the ‘Defence Report’ circulated lo honourable members during the debate on the Budget that the Department of Defence had placed an order in Australia for certain electronic equipment to cost $600,000. That is not a very large order, illustrating my point that the market in this country is stilt rather small, If industries do not rationalise the Government will increasingly take the steps that it is taking now; more and more it will go overseas for its needs rather than rely on Australian industries. I happened to come across an article the other day in a publication which 1 think all of us received, lt is the August 1968 issue of a monthly journal called Economic Partner’ which is published by the Australia-Japan Trade Committee. The article is headed ‘20th Century Phoenix: Rebirth of Japan’s Aircraft Industry’. The author makes some rather gratuitous comments about the situation in Australia, saying:

But Australia is overall desperately short of skilled manpower. Her individual resources have been heavily stretched for rapid growth in recent years, a growth which has not occurred in the construction of aircraft, as distinct from servicing, some assembly and general operational activities.

Aircraft research, design and development is enormously cosily and the Australian economy is hardly strong enough to add such an exercise to its currently full programme. lt has in the past been argued that the nucleus of the aircraft producing industry is essentia! as a defence factor regardless of the economic cost, but with the development of supersonic flight, missiles, unmanned craft - the extreme mobility in the air of men, equipment and machines - the concept is outmoded, provided there arc available, as we have of course-

That is, the Japanese - the skilled personnel and the facilities for servicing aircraft of any type that may be required lo use Australia as a base at any time.

That is the kind of writing one finds coming from people who realise what Australia is. In this context Australia represents in many ways the best market in the world for aircraft. One of my colleagues gave figures in this House last night showing that during the last 5 years orders to the value of about $450m have been placed with overseas countries for aircraft other than military aircraft. As Mr Peter Robinson said in the article from which I have already quoted, Australia is perhaps the world’s biggest ‘no strings attached’, purchaser of foreign aircraft and defence stores. What we are suggesting, and I think what he has suggested, is that we should start to become a ‘strings attached’ purchaser of these items. If we cannot ourselves manufacture all that we require, perhaps we can make a substantial proportion of it. This would seem to be a possibility that the gentleman from Japan has skated over. He has put as an unarguable proposition what is in fact quite arguable. There may be, and perhaps there ought to be, arguments as to how far we should subsidise our industry, but this is no reason for assuming that there ought not to be some element of subsidy in certain aspects of our industry if we feel, as we quite rightly do, that we are an isolated island continent. If, perhaps, we cannot be quite as sci freiliant as we would like to be, nevertheless we should be as selfreliant as we are able to make ourselves. Our suggestion is that we can become much more selfreliant if the Government gives a lead in this field in the first place, and if it endeavours to secure better co-operation from industry.

I would not wish in any way to underrate the industrial capacity of Australia, but I suggest that at times there could be a lot more enterprise shown than has been shown in the past. Industry ought to co-operate with the Government, and the various sections of industry should cooperate with one another, in making the best possible use of the limited markets that are available. (Quorum formed.)

Finally I would like to make a plea for the resuscitation of the aircraft industry in Australia. I have tried to outline its splendid record. There is still a pool of skilled manpower available - a pool of men who want to be manufacturers of aircraft because this is then- craft and their pride in life. Yet we face a situation of uncertainty as to the future. The answer may be to combine one factory, which was formerly a government factory with one which was a private enterprise factory. It may be that, having regard to the size of the potential market, there should be one factory where formerly there were two. I urge the Government to make a decision on the matter as soon as possible, because the longer a decision is deferred the more likely it is that the pool of skilled manpower will disperse into other industries, and it may not be at all easy to re-assemble those men and rebuild the necessary work force.

Finally I bring the House back to the amendment moved by the Opposition. Ostensibly the purpose of this measure is to obtain the Parliament’s approval for the borrowing of $US75m, or $A67m, to assist in financing the purchase of twenty-four Fill aircraft. Realising that the Fill is still unproven, the Opposition has moved its amendment in the terms I outlined at the beginning of my speech. I ask the House to give serious consideration to the amendment. Not only will it save the borrowing overseas of this sum of money but it may well be a prudent gesture in respect of this project. It is all right to say what a wonderful aircraft the

Fill is, but so far it has not been proved to be capable of delivery until 1969. The Parliament will re-assemble in February or March of 1969. So there would be time enough then for the House to give sanction to this measure.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Connor:

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

Mr GILES:
Angas

– The Bill authorises the Commonwealth Government to raise funds to purchase the Fill aircraft. The American version of this aircraft provides for two pilots; the Australian version is to have a pilot and an observer. In view of the presence in the gallery of entrants in the Seventh International Air Hostess Quest 1 am wondering which country will wake up first to the possibility of having someone else to service the requirements of this aircraft. 1 suggest, and J am sure that honourable members will agree with me, that we could have in our aircraft a more effective and more desirable equivalent to the observer.

The Opposition has moved an amendment. I have not yet seen a copy of the amendment but I gather that it aims to defer payments by this Government to the American Government until the next sitting of the Parliament. I do not know how serious the Opposition is in moving this amendment. Does it wish us, as a Government, to honour our financial obligations to the American Government or not? Is this the sort of amendment that an Opposition produces but which the party that has the responsibility of government does not produce? All I know is that the Australian Government al this time finds it necessary to secure finance to satisfy the requirements of the American contractors for work carried out and equipment provided. I should imagine that the rate of providing finance to the American Government would depend upon the requirements of the contractors. I expect that one could play with the notion that if deliveries of the aircraft to the United States Air Force and to the Royal1 Australian Air Force have been held up there may not be demands on the funds at this time. 1 do not know whether this is so, but I know that the financial agreement lays down strict conditions which apply equally to the Australian Government as to the American Government.

I do not believe there is any loophole whereby we can desist from meeting our financial obligations under that agreement. In fact, if I remember rightly, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) supplied an answer on these lines to Senator Cohen, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, a week or two ago. The Ministers statement cut right across the purpose of the amendment. All I can do, wilh the scant knowledge that 1 have, is to advise the House to vote against the amendment, lt is an amendment that the Government could not possibly support. We have our financial commitments and I trust that the Government will honour them.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) touched on one or two matters on which 1 should comment. He mentioned the return of the Australian training crew to Australia. If 1 remember the previous debate on the subject of the Fill correctly, the Opposition viewpoint advanced then would support this proposal. If the aircraft will not be available until the problem in relation to the box attachment towards the hinge of the wing - for want of a better technical description - has been solved, there is no reason whatever why we should leave the air crew in America. 1 do not know whether the Opposition was criticising the action of returning the air crew to Australia. To return those persons would seem the sensible thing to do, judged on (he economics and practicability of the situation.

I sympathise with much of what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports had to say about the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd and the Government Aircraft Factories. I do not suppose he was suggesting that one or other or an agglomeration of these two bodies could economically build, say, the Fill aircraft. However, I can think of fields in which they could play a big part. I think of the production of defence hardware, not necessarily front line hardware, and training facilities. Indeed, trainer aircraft are being produced at present. I do not object to this line of action as long as we realise that, although we have a government undertaking, we can not always afford to produce hardware and equipment when we can buy it more competitively elsewhere. 1 do not believe that any responsible government should necessarily give a contract to either of the organisations I have mentioned if the commodity to be produced - whether it bc an aircraft, field gun, tank or anything else - would not have the same degree of quality in terms of modern technology as we could buy on the open market. The problem that is exercising the mind of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, and, undoubtedly, the Government itself, is that Australia is a small market for defence hardware and it is difficult to find a situation where such hardware could be produced economically in an Australian factory. These remarks do not apply to less sophisticated articles like shells, barbed wire for entanglements, and other mundane articles. 1 am pleased to realise that in the last 12 months the Government has made substantial progress in making Australia more self sufficient in the field of aircraft ammunition. The House will be aware, I think, that 12 months ago the position could have been extremely difficult in respect of munitions for the Mirage aircraft and one or two other items of which 1 can think, if the Government had not acted to bring about a situation in which these goods are produced within Australia, lt is very much lo the credit of the Government that it has been able to do this without any vast uneconomic expenditure in terms of capital plant and factory establishment.

I was pleased this afternoon to see that for the first time for 2( years the Opposition has not taken advantage of a debate - in this case the debate on the Loan (Defence) Bill 1968 - to launch an onslaught on an aircraft such as (he Fill. 1 hope this state of affairs continues. 1 suppose that in justice to the Opposition I should not produce a counter argument. In all fairness, I do not intend to do so, but I would like later on to produce one or two new facts that I have just discovered - I do not. know whether other honourable members also have discovered them - in relation to this aircraft. Frankly, from my point of view, the situation was becoming quite farcical. The whole of Australia must have been becoming intensely bored with the constant display of politics coming from one side and then the other side of the House in relation to an aircraft that nobody from either side of the House has ever really questioned. I recall that in 1963 the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that he would buy Vigilantes and, from memory, I think he said that he would buy the F4 - the Phantom - aircraft for a short period to fill in until the TSR2, the United Kingdom equivalent of the TFX, as the Fill was known then, was available. I suppose that there was some merit at that point in time in what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. In other words, he came to the conclusion that the British TSR2 was in his judgment the aircraft of the moment. The only catch was that, as it finally transpired, the TSR2, like a number of European built aircraft, did not have the range to cope with the defence situations that, for instance, we face in South East Asia.

Quite logically, it became a matter of selecting the TFX or, as it became known, the FU I. At that time the present Leader of the Opposition, I think quite rightly, saw no reason not to think in that way. Equally logically, the Government of that time after due consultation with Royal Australian Air Force technical missions, ordered the Fill. There is no conflict about this order at all. The more responsible members on both sides of the House appreciate the difficulties involved in an entirely new concept of aircraft design and construction. They appreciate that, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports said a month or so ago, bugs do appear in new inventions of this type. I think that all honourable members recognise this fact. The only point I make is that the Australian people in general and also the members of Parliament concerned realised some time ago that the Canberra was not the ultimate in bombers and would have to be replaced. I believed at that time, as I believe still, that there was no real alternative to the FI 1 1.

Mr Graham:

– lt is still a lot lighter than the Canberra.

Mr GILES:

– Slightly, yes. To compare contract procedures and contract prices, as I suppose we should in this debate, if my memory serves me aright the current cost of the Fill so far as one can see, looks like being $5 ,95m per aircraft. This represents, as honourable members know, some escalation in price due to factors that we will not go into now. Honourable members are well aware of them. By comparison, according to the price stated to the West German Government the other day, it seems that the F4 aircraft - the Phantom - in its latest form will cost $5.3m.

What are the values of the respective aircraft? The Phantom now has been around for 8 years or so. Its range is limited to the 2,000 mile mark as against the conservative estimate, made by ‘Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft’, of 3,800 miles for the Fill. The Phantom aircraft is almost outmoded at this time. Although it is a valuable aircraft today, understandably one would hardly look on it as being so by the end of the 1970s. The other aircraft is the most up to date technological avionic weapons system available in the world today and so far as one can see, will hold its own as the most up to date and magnificent aircraft concept well into the late 1970s. 1 repeat that the price for the Phantom as quoted to the West German Government is $5. 3m as against the $5.95m to the Australian Government for the Fill. This to me represents real value for the Australian Government. I think that the comparison is an extremely valid and important matter because in years gone by we became used to thinking of the Phantom as being an aircraft that sells to the world at a price away below the level of the quote lo the West German Government.

I think it is important that we should look at some of the performance objectives of the FI I I. It is as well to know what we are trying to do with it and what it will do. The aircraft was to have an intercontinental range and it has. lt flew the Atlantic, from New York to Paris, the other day and, from rumours that I have heard, it had an hour and a half’s flying time left in its internal tanks.

Mr Graham:

– Nearly 2 hours.

Mr GILES:

– Yes, but not f rom the wine tip tanks, from the internal tanks, lt was not refuelled in flight but the fuel aircraft was with it the whole way. One can say conservatively that it has indeed an intercontinental range. The aircraft was to have a supersonic low level penetration capacity. It certainly has. This has been more than proved both in training flights and over Vietnam, lt was to be capable of short field operation. It certainly is. There is no trouble whatsoever with the light load. Without full armaments it can land in an extremely short space indeed, in spite of its tremendous overall elasticity of performance.

In passing, perhaps I should mention that the Amberley airstrip is to be elongated by 2,000 feet. I think that perhaps the point with reference to training flights has not been fully made. In the Air Force, training flights involve a vast series of situations. They take in the category of conversion courses in particular. It is in the conversion course type of training that every possible safety factor obviously is necessary, whether people are flying a Phantom or an Fill between which there is such a small difference in cost. It is in this context of the safety factor that it has been quite properly deemed necessary that 2,000 feet should be added to the Amberley airstrip. I do not think that this matter should be confused with training flights that can and do take place now with other aircraft on airfields quite apart from Amberley. It is principally in the conversion type of training that the safety factor is necessary. So far as one can see, conversion training, as distinct from other types of training flights and exercises, will take place only at Amberley.

The Fill aircraft was to provide a highly accurate navigation and bombing system. It does that. It was to provide a nuclear capacity and an iron bomb capacity. It has those capacities. It was to provide unprecedented reliability and maintenance features, lt does provide them. The aircraft was designed to operate at 30 hours per month with a 35 man hour per flight maintenance requirement. In the current Harvest Repeater’ programme, aircraft were scheduled for 45 hours per month and have actually been averaging 65 hours per month, with some as high as 90 hours per month. So the start of the art is there, as the Americans would say. The Fill has this very high ratio of flying time to maintenance, which makes it a very valuable aircraft to any nation which is lucky enough to own it. It was proposed that the aircraft should be satisfactory for carrier operation. While individual characteristics such as low landing speed and good low speed handling characteristics have been demonstrated, the question of actual operation aboard a carrier is still somewhat in the limbo, as honourable members would no doubt know.

I think there is one other factor that is well to bear in mind when considering the Fill. This matter has been mentioned in the House previously, but I think it is so important that it should be repeated. Within the first 5,000 hours of flying, the F100 had 7 accidents, the F101 had 11 accidents, the FI 02 had 9 accidents, the FI 04 had 14 accidents, the F105 had 8 accidents, the F106 had 7 accidents and the F4, or Phantom, had 6 accidents. As at 5,000 hours, the Fill had 2 accidents. I think that this is a valid comparison up to the point of 5,000 flying hours. The situation, of course, has somewhat altered to the degree that at 10.000 flying hours the FI 1 1 I believe had 7 accidents. But still, only one of those F series of aircraft had an accident record superior to that of the Fill. So I think that in perspective we must not run away with the idea that because the FI 1 1 has become such an important political consideration it does not have a good performance as regards its developmental flying hours. On any normal comparison it has a good performance and, so far as I can see, it will continue to do extremely well.

I do not know whether it would be of any use to go into the question of fatigue towards the hinge of the box covering the aerofoil section. I do not know whether at this stage all honourable members are aware - I think they probably are - that this fatigue occurred under experimental conditions. Stresses and strains were applied to the particular part which would not be experienced in a short period of time under normal flying conditions. There was an induced test for metal fatigue. Under this induced test the aircraft showed a hairline fracture in one spot. Quite rightly, all the Fi l l aircraft that are flying at the present time are being returned to America while modifications are carried out to this particular section.

Mr Graham:

– lt was subjected to 10 Gs

Mr GILES:

– That is quite a bit of G. The aircraft is designed to reach mach 2.5, from memory, and 10 Gs is a tremendous pull of gravity to subject any structure to. I am grateful to the honourable member for North Sydney for that information. I think it puts this matter in perspective. A heavily induced test was made to try to find any possible weakness in the aircraft construction. Finally, the development of the Fill from the drawing board stage has been in a very minor way a joint project for this country. We have been allowed to come in on terms similar to those which the American Air Force enjoys.

The British Air Force came along a little later after many of the development costs had been incurred. It was given a set price. At that stage the Australian Government, thanks to the American Government, was also given a set price. From memory, I think the phrase used was that it was a set high price, or the high scale of the variation anyway, and it applied to both the United Kingdom and Australia. There was only one difference. The Australian Government’s high price quotation of approximately $300m, part of which is the subject of the Bill which we are discussing today, could be subject to a lowering of developmental costs. As I understand it, this did not apply to the price at which the British Government was to purchase the aircraft. 1 think it is important to remember also that when Australia has taken delivery of these aircraft, if faults occur within 12 months of the delivery date they will be rectified by the American Government or by the aircraft manufacturer at no cost to the Australian Government. So far as I can see, this places the Australian Government in an extremely favourable position, through the good will that has been extended by the American Government. The Australian Government and the Australian Air Force have received better treatment than that received by any other country and also by the American Air Force itself. I do not think that we can complain about the treatment we have received on financial matters.

The Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament for the Commonwealth to borrow $67m from the United States Export-Import Bank. In spite of the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports I expect that we will need more loans - regrettably - to overcome the deficiency caused by the withdrawal of British forces from east of Suez by 1971. It remains to be seen whether we will need other front line hardware or whether, as I personally suppose, we will need further consolidation behind our frontline forces in order to give Australia an even better self-sufficient defence base. But within this context, and within the planning for the future safety of this country, one would expect that more loans of the type envisaged in this Bill will be required.

In view of that situation, and in view of the demand for money that is quite apparent in the world today, which has ils effect, of course, on interest rates, the Government is to be congratulated on negotiating this loan at an interest rate of 6% and not 7%. Some time ago the honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred to the agreed minute of Sir Edwin Hicks, Secretary of the Department of Defence and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kuss of America on the purchase of the FI 11. The facts of the issue then were that Deputy Secretary Vance from America was attempting to get the Australian Government to agree to an interest rate of 5i% on the current loan, although agreement had been reached on an interest rate of 4%. So I do not think that even on those grounds there is any reason whatsoever for this House to take the view that there has been any looseness in contractual obligations or paper work, or that Australia has been disadvantaged in the financing of the FI 1 1 up to the present time. I support the Bill and will vote against the amendment.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– Listening to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) one would imagine that we have acquired the best aircraft of all time.

Mr Giles:

– We have.

Mr CONNOR:

– I suggest to him that he read this morning’s newspapers, if he has not done so, where it is reported that the last surviving five of these aircraft have been recalled to the United States of America from Vietnam. They are the surviving planes and do not include those that have crashed. The Opposition has been remarkably charitable to the Government in the terms of the amendment that has been moved. What this House ought to be discussing is whether we ought to be proceeding with the transaction any further because only a government as inept and as foolish as this one would have ever reached this stage. It is a matter of absurdity for legislation of this type to be introduced. Only a government with the crust’ of this one would attempt to do it.

The Fill aircraft today is a subject of household derision throughout Australia. This is the flying albatross; it is hanging around the neck of this Government and it will be there as a bird of ill omen until the next election is held. The plane was first ordered as an election gimmick. An election was won on it and the people of Australia were deceived. This Government rushed without proper consideration into a contract that it does not know how to get out of. This remains the position today and the Government is stuck with it.

Mr Giles:

– The Government does not want lo get out of it.

Mr CONNOR:

– You have had your say, Sir, and you listen to me. You try to play it in a pretty low key. It is a notable fact that you, as a backbencher, were put in the ring and no ministerial reputations are to be risked in if. lt is a further notable fact that no-one else will be coming into the debate to answer what 1 have to say because the quicker you people can have the passage of this Bill the better you will be pleased.

Mr Giles:

– How do you know?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Angas has already spoken.

Mr CONNOR:

– This Government has been played for suckers - there is no other word for it. lt has been played for suckers internationally. Australia’s interests have never been protected by the Government It has never got out of the economic kindergarten. The Government is just hell bent on a rake’s progress to destruction.

Mr Giles:

– Give us some facts rather than abuse.

Mr CONNOR:

– I will give facts if you will be polite enough to stop interjecting. You can get it and you can like it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks to the Chair. I remind the House that this is a fairly limited Bill for the express purpose of obtaining approval of the Parliament for the borrowing of $US75m.

Mr CONNOR:

– And for purposes connected therewith, Sir. You can gag me if you wish to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. He is not to reflect on the Chair.

Mr CONNOR:

– I am not reflecting on the Chair, Sir. 1 invited you to do it if you wished.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I will accept the honourable member’s assurance.

Mr Curtin:

– Now let them have it.

Mr CONNOR:

– Let me remind honourable members of the evidence given at a United States Congressional committee’s investigation of the contract. Senator Mundt asked this question of Mr Gilpatric of the Defence Department:

Just what kind of contract do you have with

Australia? Are they going lo buy the planes willy-nilly? If your figures are off Sim and the cost is $7.5in apiece, are they going to buy them for $10m?

This is a theoretical question, of course -

Have they any top limitation, or do they simply say: ‘We will take two dozen planes at whatever price they are?”

Mr Gilpatric ; That is the way the agreement reads, it is a government to government agreement and I do not know how you would enforce such an ‘.agreement other than by the goodwill and the comity of the two countries involved, but that is the agreement.

Senator Mundt ; I wanted to find out what it was but apparently we made the sale without finding out the price.

That was back in 1965. By 1967 the costs had soared to the point where Mr Sutherland, the First Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, said in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee:

We are completely in American hands on this. We have asked them for more than 3 months for accurate forecasts of the yearly payments, so far without response. The Americans were unable to give us any assurance thai further estimates would be better.

But what have we today? Can this machine fly?

Mr Cope:

– Sometimes.

Mr CONNOR:

– That is right, sometimes. Will it arrive here? I notice in the contract which is part of the Schedule to the Bill, that there is provision for any of the matters covered by the contract to be transported here by ships of the United States registry.

Mr Curtin:

– We have to get them here somehow.

Mr CONNOR:

– We have to get them here somehow, of course. What is the range of this machine? The honourable member for Angas stated that the machine had flown the Atlantic. What load did it have?

Mr Giles:

– What load would you expect it to have?

Mr CONNOR:

– I would expect it to have the full payload. All the matters that you have given us a vague assurance on have been treated as security matters. In a prior debate in relation to this aircraft the Government was not prepared to disclose anything. The hard fact is that the weight of the swing wing equipment that is built into this aircraft is a limiting factor. If range is required this aircraft will not have the load carrying capacity; if it is to carry the load the range will be limited.

There is no aircraft in history which has promoted more dissension and more discussion, lt was responsible, in fact, for the demise of former Secretary for Defense, Mr McNamara, from his position in the United States Government.

Mr Chaney:

– That is not right.

Mr CONNOR:

– It was; and he wrecked his career on it. A very good description was made by an American cynic that the Government sought in the Fill an aircraft of a Volkswagen type, with a Ferrari performance, with Rolls-Royce luxury and Mack Truck carrying capacity. In fact, what has been produced is utterly unsuited to our needs. Further than that - let me remind honourable members of this - already an Assistant Under Secretary for State in the United States has suggested that the number of these aircraft constructed should be limited to 450 which is less than 20% of the original planned project. How is the cost of construction to be divided on that basis? A further suggestion has been made by very responsible people highly placed in the United States defence hierarchy that alternative plan types should be developed in substitution for this one. They want to give it a decent burial, in other words. This Government is stuck with the cost of the machine because of its downright incompetence.

It was only last year, in 1967. that this Government was really getting cold feet and getting worried. We had a supersalesman out here, one Mr Henry Kuss. He did a terrific job of conning the Government. He not only satisfied the Government to carry on with the deal but he actually kidded them that it could participate to the tune of some hundreds of millions of dollars in defence supply contracts for the American forces on the mainland of Asia.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And he feted some of the backbenchers too-

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes, he told the people of Australia more about this aircraft in 3 days than they had learned from the Government in 3 years. He left the Government with some very red faces indeed. As a matter of fact, this aircraft was ordered for a specific purpose and its main function is to drop atomic bombs, lt was ordered for the purpose of dropping them on Indonesia.

Mr Chaney:

– What is your authority for that statement?

Mr Giles:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I object to that remark. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. lt is totally unfounded.

Mr Chaney:

– And it is totally untrue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CONNOR:

– The truth always hurts. The aircraft was ordered when Indonesian confrontation was at its height. It was designed to be used for purposes of nuclear destruction on a country in which we had a greater reservoir of goodwill than in any other country in Asia because we stood up for the liberation of its people after World War 11 and insisted that they have selfgovernment.

Mr Chaney:

– That is arrant nonsense.

Mr CONNOR:

– What about Great Britain? Did not the British Government cancel its order for 50 of these aircraft?

Mr Chaney:

– For purely financial reasons.

Mr CONNOR:

– I will give the financial reasons. I thought honourable members opposite would walk into the trap. The honourable member for Perth (Mr Chaney) invariably does. I shall quote from the

London ‘Times’, a rather reputable journal, of 4th January of this year. In an editorial headed ‘Still not Justified’, it had this to say:

The military arguments against acquiring the Fill aircraft have been well rehearsed here. . . However, this week we have published letters from British industrialists who argue the case against cancellation of the Fill, not in terms of its military importance, but from the economic point of view that a cancellation would indirectly damage British industry. There are other circles in Whitehall and Westminster who argue that, whether or not we need the Fi 11, we cannot afford to cancel it. How valid is this argument?

The editorial then deals with the aggregate cost of the Polaris, Phantom, Hercules and Fill programmes. They totalled about $2,500m, of which S825m was attributable to the Fill, lt said that the Fill was the only deal to have secured a specific American offset agreement in exchange.

Last Saturday we had wails of anguish from the Federal Treasurer (Mr McMahon) who, when addressing a luncheon given by the Australian-American Association in Sydney, said:

Australia does not look for a balancing of its trade with individual countries. But we do expect countries with which we have substantial trade deficits not to obstruct our export efforts.

In other words we expect a fair go for our exports. I am not sure that we have had a fair go from the United States.

Most of the items which we might expect lo sell in the US have been faced with actual or potential import barriers of one kind or another.

Even the Federal Treasurer is now waking up to the fact that he too has been played for a sucker.

The point that I make is that the British are hard headed and so are the Americans, but this Government is a collection of financial and economic incompetents. The editorial in the ‘Times’ continued:

The Americans have undertaken to see that Britain manages to balance the foreign exchange content of the Fill by herself selling armsf400m through joint arms sales to third countries, and the remainder in direct sales to America. As an extra stimulant the Americans waived the 62% restrictive tariff which normally applies to foreign firms tendering for American arms contracts.

Under the first part of the offset, to third countries, Britain has sold fighters and ground equipment to Saudi Arabia for a total export of about S350m. Direct American orders jo far received amount to $180m.

What order for Australian goods did this Government ever get as a quid pro quo.

It did not get any because it has done nothing but toady to the Americans instead of treating them as equals. The Austraiian Government would have received far more respect if it had insisted upon being treated as an equal. The editorial also said:

Cancellation of the Fill would involve cancellation charges, payable in dollars, of about $200m. lt would also mean that the Americans would re-erect their tariff, so that British industry would lose the opportunity of tendering for another $245m worth of business under the offset. ft added:

The order for the manufacture under licence of Rolls-Royce engines, for instance, which is worth SI 00m, could not be cancelled without damaging the American defence programme itself. . . . On the worst possible assessment of the situation, the question hinges on whether or not it is worth retaining the programme, at a cost of $425m in order not to lose future dollar exports worth about a quarter of that sum.

What Australian firm has ever benefited as a result of the Australian contract to purchase the Fill aircraft? Not one Australian firm has received any benefit and we will be paying for the aircraft in hard dollars. The situation is even worse than that. The Government already has in the hands of the Americans sufficient of its foreign exchange reserves for them to seize if we were to default. I am not. advocating that we should default, but we should have a very hard look at the whole situation. 1 have a number of quotations to make from the ‘Times’. An editorial in the Times’ on 5th January of this year stated:

The 29 British firms which have won American arms contracts under the Fill offset agreement would be able to claim cancellation charges of varying amounts if the Americans cancelled their orders in retaliation for a British decision to cancel the Fill order.

It referred to two main orders for RollsRoyce engines and electronic display equipment made by Elliot Automation and dealt with the importance of the Rolls-Royce order being carried out under licence by the Allison division of General Motors. On 18th January the ‘Times’ again referred to the loss of offset orders by the British electronics industry.

Has any comparable arrangement been made between Australia and the United States? Of course there has not. This Government would not know how to start. From the very commencement of its relationship with the United States it has put itself in an obsequious and servile position.

There is no respect for toadies or for people who crawl. There is no respect for a national government that does not recognise its responsibilities, that does not stand erect and in decency and with dignity say what it wants. The Government now faces foreign exchange problems of a magnitude never previously envisaged by it, although they were forecast by the Vernon Committee which said in its report that in 1974 the Government would face a situation in which the outgoings to service investments in Australia would be greater than the inflow of capital.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The ‘Daily Mirror’ commented today on the Fill aircraft.

Mr CONNOR:

– My friend, the honourable member for Hindmarsh has just reminded me that the ‘Daily Mirror’ today commented:

Three Fills have been lost in Vietnam and there are now doubts about the plane’s ability to stand the stresses of combat.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is the very point that we are making.

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes, that is exactly the point. What have we bought? I think we are being very tolerant when we suggest that this whole matter should be left until early next year before we make a decision. We want to see exactly what the position is. We want to know what the real worth of the aircraft is. We want something better than the vague assurance of the honourable member for Angas.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The aircraft will finish up as an exhibit in the Australian War Memorial with all its new paint still on it.

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes. The harsh truth is that, in ordering this aircraft, Australia has been expected to conform to the thinking of the American defence military establishment. We have had to depend on the American umbrella and we have literally buttoned ourselves in’ to the Americans in terms of equipment, technology and logistics. Why is the Government so embarrassed today? We now have a President of the United States who says that we must stand up for ourselves, that we must work in concert with adjoining nations and that we must prepare our own defences. Then if necessary the United States will come in as the backstop. In future we are not to be a satellite; we must take primary risks and accept primary responsibilities. The harsh fact which is beginning to emerge from the war in Vietnam is that there is such a vast disparity between the economic and military power of Australia and the United States that we have not been capable of sharing a common military philosophy without the complete domination of one by the other. A devastating article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 17th July 1967 said:

This makes the United States a great and powerful ally to have in a major war, but a diffi cult ally for a small nation to have under other circumstances.

As Mr McNamara is now finding out, there are inherent contradictions in the applications of unlimited power to a limited war.

Australia will never possess overwhelming military power, but it cannot turn its back completely on the likelihood that in the uneasy region to its near north it may one day have to take limited military action independently from the United States. In this context, the gains in efficiency which might arise from the closer integration of Australia’s defence with the United States forces would almost certainly turn out to be an expensive illusion.

The economic implications of this arc bad enough, but the military and diplomatic repercussions could be of historical proportions.

This Government’s defence policy is in ruins. The Government is deliberately stalling because of acute differences of opinion between the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasl’uck) on what its future policy should be.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is getting a bit wide of the Bill.

Mr CONNOR:

– I am getting very close to the bone, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr CONNOR:

– What are the remedies? They are very simple and very obvious. In future when Australia is to enter into any contract of this nature it must not seek to continue to be the world’s biggest ‘nostringsattached’ purchaser of foreign aircraft and defence stores. Australia has the capacity and the ability to manufacture these goods itself, but the Government has not the will to do it. Whatever the merits and demerits of this aircraft we face an entirely new strategic situation, and this Government has not been, nor will it ever be able to provide, the answer to this situation. In the last 5 years alone the value of Australia’s purchases of civil airliners and major defence items has exceeded Si, 000m. That has been a heavy foreign exchange drain which has been in no way directly linked with the opportunity to obtain reciprocal orders. In the next few years Australia is committed to spending at least $132m on jumbo jets and another $)00m for additional aircraft to be used by internal air services. In terms of military procurement it is quite possible for Australia to do what Britain has done until such time as we have been able to build up our own defence technology.

Australia has the workmen and workshops capable of sub-contracting for much of this type of equipment, but the Government has done nothing about it. All that the Government has done has been to get, as it thought, total defence coverage by being obsequious lo the United States, by being prepared lo do precisely what it wanted, without counting the cost. Now it has to count the cost in every bitter detail. We are faced wilh a disgraceful situation today. This is a disgraceful piece of legislation we are considering. This Government should bc apologising to the people of Australia for the way in which it has failed to safeguard their interests. As an example of what can be done one only has lo look at Sweden. That country is producing aircraft which can practically equal the performance of the Fill, assuming the Fill lives up to its specifications. This country of 7i million people manufactures from within its own resources everything it needs in the way of aircraft, naval vessels and land force requirements. This Government will never be able to do that.

This legislation should be deferred and not considered further until next year when everybody will have seen what will happen. Why is the Government in such a hurry to pass this legislation? Even if the defects of the Fill are capable of correction, Australia will not receive delivery of it until May of next year at the earliest. Delivery of the Fill was to be made in September last, as an election gimmick. The Minister for Defence faced the brutal truth when he timidly suggested that perhaps it would be possible to get some offset contract or to have some of the United States bans on Australian exports lifted to offset the crushing cost of these aircraft. The Minister was told in no uncertain terms what could be done, that tenders had to be in within 10 days of being called for. Of course that was impossible. The Minister came back with his tail between his legs. 1 earnestly commend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports on the amendment which he has moved. I ask the House to vote for it in the best interests of Australia.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise to take part in this debate almost a3 a direct result of the extraordinary speech which the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) has just made. 1 invite the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who is a loading member of the executive of the Australian Labor Party and who led for the Opposition in the debate, to contrast his utterances with those of his colleague, the honourable member for Cunningham. I completely dissociate myself and my colleagues on this side of the House from what I regard as the most reprehensible, most unfortunate and most disgraceful statement that has been made in this Parliament in recent times. The honourable member for Cunningham referred to the use of the atomic bomb against Indonesia, and did so in a manner which I might add for his benefit was avoided even by the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) and other distinguished members of his Party when confrontation was taking place and when the honourable member for Melbourne, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, was urging the most stringent activity against the Government of President Sukarno.

It is singularly unfortunate and without any sense for the people of Australia and members of the Royal Australian Air Force to have their country and their Service described as being servile to the United States. 1 deplore this statement, lt is most unworthy of the honourable member for Cunningham, and is a clear indication to this House of the closeness of the measure to his own personal service during wartime.

Mr Connor:

– I said that the Government was. not members of the forces. What you are saying is untrue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Connor:

– Do not twist my words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Cunningham has already spoken on the Bill.

Mr GRAHAM:

– The honourable member for Cunningham made it very clear indeed that the Government of Australia was carrying out policies which made it servile to the United States. Will not the morale of the servicemen who represent Australia be lowered by such a contention by such people in the Parliament? Of course it will be. I well recall members of the Australian Labor Party, which was in office at the time, repeatedly call on the Opposition during the Second World War to support the morale and integrity of the men who were wearing the uniforms of Australia’s armed services. On this occasion they themselves have not done so.I deplore the statement made by the honourable member for Cunningham.

On 24th October last I had the privilege of flying in an F111 aircraft at speeds ranging from 450 knots at about 250 feet to mach 156 at 36,000 feet over Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. I admit that there was some difficulty in knowing from minute to minute over what State of the United States one was flying. Nevertheless it was a remarkable experience, and I personally say to the Parliament that I believe this aircraft to be the greatest flying machine of its type in the world today. If we are now to be told that it is utterly unsuited to our needs, and that the Government has had some confidence trick played on it or has been the object of some absolutely evil or sinister plot, I can only point out to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) and his colleagues that the Government of the United Kingdom came to the conclusion that it was financially - and only financially - incapable of following through the programme for the development of the smaller TSR2.

Acting upon the best advice they could get from the senior officers of the Royal Air Force, the colleagues of honourable members opposite in London, the Right Honourable Harold Wilson, Mr Callaghan and Mr Brown - all solid Labour men - made the decision to buy from the United States. They said to their own Air Force leaders: ‘What sort of aircraft will we need for the protection of the United Kingdom?’ They were told that the TSR2 would bc suitable and that, if they decided not to choose the aircraft built in Britain, without doubt the TFX (F111) should be chosen. They ordered fifty TFX (F111) aircraft from the United States. The Royal Air Force leaders today are crying because their Government lost the courage to try to find the money to buy this aeroplane. The Government of the United Kingdom came with great ease to the decision not to buy the TFX once it realised that it would no longer have a strategic need for the aircraft.The reason why the United Kingdom Government does not want an aircraft with tha range, bomb load and other capabilities of the F111 is that Britain is now withdrawing into Europe, where it can rely on the Luftwaffe, which is the most powerful air force in the whole of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Let us bc clear about the situation: The United Kingdom docs not need a strategic weapon of this sort. For this reason, added to the salient fact that it was short of money, it cancelled its order for the aeroplane.

The amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is absolutely absurd. It says that we should delay the passage of this Bill, which will authorise the making of certain financial arrangements - and will do nothing more nor less than that- until the House reassembles next year to enable the Government to reassess the capabilities of the F111 aircraft. I point out to the House that there is no relationship at all between the passage of this measure and what must be happening from time to time as the research, testing, development and evaluation programme for this aircraft goes on and its capabilities are assessed. If the House were to agree to the amendment, we would be acting in an irresponsible and childish manner. We would simply present our American friends, and especially the plane makers, with an absolutely impossible situation and we would demonstrate to the world that we were an irresponsible group of people whose word on international contracts meant nothing. People expect that governments, once they sign contracts, will adhere to them.

I would like to discuss capability briefly.

It will not benefit Australians generally or the people in this Parliament if we talk about the possibility of targets and look into a crystal ball in an attempt to find some strategic target that might be worthy of an atomic weapon. There is no merit in this. We seek to base our common defence on regional pacts in South East Asia. We seek to stand side by side with our friends in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore. We will co-operate with them in the future in the creation of the defence forces necessary to protect the area in which we live. We will be able to do this more effectively with a force of F111 aircraft under the control of Royal Australian Air Force pilots who have confidence and high morale and who have been trained to a high standard than we would be able to with any other aircraft that is operating in the world today. This aircraft is a figher bomber which will be able to carry out a multiplicity of operations.

At the time when the F111 was ordered, the alternatives to this aircraft that would have been available to the Labor Party had it been in office were stark and clear. The only two alternatives that could have been chosen were a highly developed system of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would have cost thousands of millions of dollars, or two wings of B58 Hustlers with an adequate number of aerial tankers, which would have cost a great deal more than the TFX, or the F111, as we now know it. It would be absurd to choose either of these alternatives to the F111.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 62

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 64

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 31

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 bo moved forthwith.

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

page 2893

PATENTS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 August (vide page 205), on motion by Mr Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– in reply - The second reading debate on this Bill was adjourned on 14th August 1968. In closing the debate I feel that I should refer to one or two matters raised by speakers in the course of the debate. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said that the Opposition does not object to the terms of the Bill. He said, as appears at page 193 of Hansard:

The proposed new procedure of lodging an application and not having it examined unless a request is made, and giving a period of 5 years for the applicant to decide whether he wishes to proceed, is to be welcomed.

I welcome the support of the Opposition in relation to the Bill and that aspect of it. The honourable member made another point which I think I should refer to. He mentioned the vast store of technical information which has accumulated in the Patent Office. He hoped that this could be classified and made available to a greater extent than it is at present. He said:

There is a very strong case, in my opinion, for the electronic storage and retrieval of that information.

This I believe to be a useful and constructive suggestion. The fact is that we hope there wilt be staff freed from the duties of examining, when we are able to overtake arrears by the use of the new procedure - assuming the Bill is passed - who can then be given the task of classifying this material. So far as electronic processing is concerned, this is under consideration by the Department. I think I should point out that our Patent Office in fact pioneered the use of the punched card system - this is not a computer system - for searching patent specifications. The work was done by the present Commissioner, Mr Petersson, in conjunction with others. Punched card systems have since been used in other patent offices, particularly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, but the fact is that the system was first used here. Some research on the use of computers such as was suggested by the honourable member for Cunningham has in fact been done in the

United States and elsewhere. But I do not think there has yet been a real1 breakthrough to make the use of computers practicable over a wide range of inventions. There is a conference of examining patents officers which over the last few years has been concerned with the problem of information retrieval. Australia has been a member of this conference from the beginning, and our Patent Office experts have been keeping closely in touch with their counterparts elsewhere so that we arc fully informed of what is going on in this field.

I should refer to some matters which were raised by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr St John). Let me assure him that all the matters he raised have been carefully considered. Some of these matters have no substance, but to demonstrate this would involve a technical discussion with which I consider I should not trouble the House. The other matters which he raised are matters of judgment. On these matters I find that the honourable member has presented an exaggerated case. It is believed that when all1 relevant factors are considered and given proper weight the decision must be in favour of adopting as the best course in the existing circumstances the scheme of deferred examination set forth in the Bill.

Perhaps I. should mention one matter of detail. In support of a contention that the system of deferred examination should not be adopted, the honourable member quoted at length from a report furnished by the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia Inc. to my predecessor. Part of the passage quoted referred to a proposal which was before the Institute. The honourable member’s remarks on this subject appear at page 200 of Hansard. He referred to the report presented by the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia and said:

The report went on lo say that if the proposal for deferred examination were adopted ‘it would have the effect of virtually destroying the present patent system and eventually reducing it to such a state of chaos that it would be impossible to restore the system if it were subsequently determined to make the attempt’.

Those are very strong words. The only trouble is that they do not refer to the scheme in the Bill. They refer to a different and earlier proposal. At the time of that earlier proposal I was chairman of a committee which included the President of the

Institute of Patent Attorneys, a representative of industry and other people. We considered the proposal to which the Institute was referring when it made the remarks quoted by the honourable member for Warringah, and we rejected that earlier proposal, as did my predecessor on our advice. Subsequently the committee, which, as I have said, included the President of the Institute, considered the matter further and recommended the adoption of the scheme contained in this Bill, lt is therefore entirely misleading to suggest that the report which was quoted at such length by the honourable member refers to the scheme in the Bill. As I say, the Government as well as the Opposition takes the view that this scheme in the existing circumstances is to be welcomed.

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 Bowen) read a third time.

page 2894

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June (vide page 2082), on motion by Mr Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The Opposition supports this measure and I have only a brief comment to make on it. As the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) said in his second reading speech, the amendments of the law to bc made by this Bill are consequent upon the preparation of the bankruptcy rules and the organisation of administrative machinery necessary for the operation of the new Act. The first amendment, relating to the deposit lodged by a creditor on the presentation of a bankruptcy petition and the uses to which such a deposit can be put, is quite acceptable. The second amendment relates to the consolidation of proceedings in cases of the bankruptcy of partners, and it would certainly be advantageous for that amendment to be accepted. On the amendments in clauses 5 and 6 relating to the public examination of a bankrupt, which is now required to be held before the Registrar in Bankruptcy, 1 have this comment to make: In 1924 the Commonwealth first came into the field of bankruptcy legislation. Prior to that each State had its separate Bankruptcy Act. In New South Wales it was the time honoured procedure for many years in relation to minor bankruptcies, which constitute the overwhelming majority, that a public examination of the bankrupt be made before a local magistrate. The Commonwealth Government is to be commended for reintroducing this procedure, which might well have been adopted long ago. 1 speak in terms of my representation of a working class district when I say that very great hardship can be caused in cases where a person who unfortunately is forced into bankruptcy has to travel to Sydney for the examination. He loses at least 1 day’s wages and has to pay all the incidental expenses. This measure is wholly acceptable to the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave grunted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2895

EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 May (vide page 1193), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The Opposition supports the Bill. We feel that the Government has only itself to blame for these alterations having to be made. The Government did not follow the terms of the scheme for the rendition of fugitive offenders that was formulated at the London conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers in April and May 1966. That scheme allowed, as an exception to the speciality rule, that a person surrendered may be tried for a lesser offence proved by the facts on which his surrender was based. Of course, a lesser offence would clearly mean a lesser offence, and the illustration that was given by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen), that is, that inflicting grievous bodily harm would be a lesser offence than murder, was quite apt. However we do criticise the Government for departing from the London scheme and providing instead that a person surrendered to Australia might be tried for any other offence which could be proved by the facts on which his return was based. We would like some explanation of this.

Under the comity of nations it is the accepted convention, as far as possible, to accept and respect the laws of other civilised and democratic countries. The right of political refuge is time honoured in English speaking countries. We feel that in this particular case the Government is having, to put it charitably, certain authoritarian tendencies and it could be a matter of sleight of hand or worse to ask another friendly country to surrender a man to Australia on the pretext of his being tried for one offence, and having got him within our jurisdiction to try him for another offence which was not a lesser offence. The Government got itself into an embarrassing position and this legislation seeks to extricate it from its difficulties. The best that I can say is that honourable amend? are being made. I should also like to hear from the Attorney-General in due course the reasons for the amendment which was circulated yesterday and which seems to exclude Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and other areas from the operation of the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative

Bill read a second time.

Mr Bowen:

– May I have leave to treat the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1968 as a cognate Bill?

Mr Adermann:

– I rise to a point of order. The second reading has been carried. It is normal procedure lo proceed to the third reading and to take the next Bill separately. Tt is too late for a cognate debate

Mr Bowen:

– I think that is right.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 understand that in any event there are soma amendments to be moved to this Bill.

Mr Bowen:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I foreshadow that when we get into Committee I will address some remarks concerning amendments that I have circulated to honourable members.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Bowen:

– I ask for leave to move together the amendments which have been circulated in my name.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bosman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Clause 2. (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2.) Section 8 of this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

Clause 3.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting from the definition of ‘Australia’ in sub-section (1.) the words ‘, including the Territory of Nauru’;
  2. by inserting in paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘extradition crime’ in sub-section (1.), after the words ‘constituting which’, the words ‘, or equivalent to which,’;
  3. by omitting the definition of ‘Magistrate’ in sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following definition: “Magistrate” means -
  4. a person who holds office as a Chief, Stipendiary, Police, Resident or Special Magistrate of a Territory; or
  5. a person who holds office as a Chief, Stipendiary, Police, Resident or Special Magistrate of a State and in respect of whom an arrangement in force under sub-section (1.) of section 31 of this Act is applicable;’;
  6. by omitting from the definition of ‘Territory’ in sub-section (1.) the words ‘and includes the Territory of Nauru’; and
  7. by omitting sub-section (4.).

Clause 9.

The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from Forms 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 the words ‘[or a Magistrate of the District Court of the Island of Nauru]’; and
  2. by omitting from Forms 3, 4, 7 and 8 the words ‘or, in the case of the Territory of Nauru, before a Magistrate of the District Court of the Island of Nauru’.

Mr BOWEN (Parramatta - Attorney-

General) [5.3] - by leave - I move:

In clause 2, omit sub-clause (2.), insert the following sub-clause: - (2.) Sections 8 and 8a of this Act shall come into operation on such date as is, or on such dates as respectively are, fixed by Proclamation.’.

After clause 2, insert the following clause: - 2a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words - “PartIII. - Extradition to and from certain Commonwealth Countries neighbouring Australia (Sections 23-30).” and inserting in their stead the words - “Part III. - Extradition to and from New Zealand (Sections 24-30).”.*.

In clause 3, paragraph (e), omit ‘and’ (last occurring). 4.In clause 3, at the end of paragraph (e), add ; and’.

In clause 3, at the end of the clause, add the following paragraph: -

by omitting from sub-section (6.) the words “or is a country in relation to which Part III. applies”.’.

After clause 5, insert the following clause: - 5a. Section 15 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph

of sub-section (6.) the words ‘committal for”.’.

After clause 7, insert the following clauses: - 7a. The heading to Part III. is repealed and the following heading inserted in its stead: - “Part III. - Extradition to and from New Zealand.”. 7b. Section 23 of the Principal Act is repealed. 7c. Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “a country in relation to which this Part applies” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”. 7d. Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting from sub-section (5.) the words “the country in which the warrant referred to in section 24 of this Act was issued” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”;

by omitting from sub-section (5.) the words “bringing that warrant” and inserting in their stead the words “bringing the warrant referred to in section 24 of this Act”; and

by omitting from sub-section (6.) the words “the country referred to in the last preceding sub-section” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”. 7e. Section 27 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “a countryin relation to which this Part applies” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”. 7f. Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) the words “a country in relation to which this Part applies” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”. 7g. Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “a country in relation to which this Part applies” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”. 7h. Section 30 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “a country in relation to which this Pan applies” and inserting in their stead the words “New Zealand”.’.

After clause 8, insert the following clause: - 8a. The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph 9 the followparagraph: - “9a. Any offence referred to in Article 1 or 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, being the Convention approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the second day of December 1949.”.’.

In clause 9, paragraph (a), omit ‘and’.

In clause 9, at the end of paragraph (b), add ‘; and ‘.

  1. In clause 9. at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: - “(c) by inserting in Form 9, after the words “the law of” (wherever occurring) and after the words “be surrendered to” (wherever occurring), the words “New Zealand”.’.

Before these Bills are dealt with in detail by the Committee I feel that it is necessary for me to outline the amendments. The first group of amendments, which is found in new clause 8a of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill, are necessary to enable Australia to accede to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. The Convention requires that the Convention offences be considered as extradition crimes and that they be deemed to be included in any extradition treaty in force to come into force between parties to the Convention. The new clauses 1 have mentioned will enable these requirements to be met.

These amendments by themselves will not be sufficient to enable Australia to accede to the Convention. Amendments to State and Territory law will be necessary to create some of the Convention offences. Further Commonwealth legislation to permit the trial in Australia of a person who commits a Convention offence in a country with which Australia has extradition arrangements but to which because of the terms of those arrangements that person cannot be surrendered will also be necessary.

The second group of amendments relates to another matter dealt with by the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill. This group is contained in amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 1 1 relating to that Bill. The purpose of these amendments is to restrict the application of Part111 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act to New Zealand. At the present time that part applies in addition to certain British colonies and protectorates in the Pacific. The part which provides a simplified procedure for extradition depends for its effectiveness on reciprocity. The United Kingdom Act corresponding to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act in its application in those colonics and protectorates does not contain a similar simplified procedure in respect of Australia. Ft is therefore necessary to restrict the application of Part111 to New Zealand. New clause 5A in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill is necessary because not all the extradition crimes are necessarily indictable offences.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The explanations given by the Attorney-General are acceptable to the Opposition and we do not oppose them.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2897

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 May (vida page 1 193), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 2. (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2.) Section 3 of this Act shall come Into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move:

  1. In clause 2, omit sub-clause (2.), insert the following sub-clause: (2.) Sections 5 and 5a of this Act shall coma into operation on such date as is, or on such dates as respectively are, fixed by Proclamation.’
  2. After clause 4, insert the following clauses: (4a.) Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(3.) Where, after the commencement of this sub-section, a treaty (other than an extradition treaty) that contains provisions relating to the surrender of fugitives comes into force between the Commonwealth and a foreign state in relation to which this Act applies, the last two preceding sub-sections apply for the purpose of giving effect to that treaty in so far as it relates to the surrender of fugitives in like manner as they apply for the purpose of giving effect to an extradition treaty.” 4b. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph

    1. of sub-section (6.) the words “committal for”.’
  3. After clause 5, insert the following clause: 5a. The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph 12 the following paragraph: “12a. Any offence referred to in Article 1 or 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, being the Convention approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the second day of December, 1949.”.

I feel that it is necessary again to give some outline of the amendments to this Bill during their consideration by the Committee. The amendments are to be found in clauses 4a and 5a of the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill. These amendments are necessary as in the case of the Bill with which we have dealt to enable Australia to accede to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. The Convention requires that the convention offences be considered as extradition crimes and that they be deemed to be included in any extradition treaty in force or to come into force between parties to the Convention. The new clauses that I have mentioned will enable these requirements to be met. These amendments alone will not be sufficient to enable Australia’s accession to the Convention. Amendments to State and Territory law will be necessary to create some of the Convention offences. Further Commonwealth legislation to permit the trial in Australia of a person who commits a convention offence in a country with which Australia has extradition arrangements but to which because of the terms of those arrangements that person cannot be surrendered will also be necessary. New clause 4b in the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill is necessary because not all the extradition crimes are necessarily indictable offences.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– The explanations given by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen) are acceptable to the Opposition. We raise no objection to them.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2898

JUDGES’ PENSIONS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May (vide page 1540), on motion by Mr Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Is it the wish of the House to debate together the subject matters of the two Bills as suggested by the Attorney-General? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition does not oppose either Bill. The only suggestion that I would make concerning the contents of the Bills relates to the definition of ‘salary’.It is unfortunate, we believe, that periodically there must be amendments to these Acts to provide an increase in pension to cover the depreciation in the value of the pension. The pensions are tied to the salary at the time of retirement or death. Such a pension can become very inadequate and unfair with the passage of time. My party would prefer a general provision for all retirement payments, whether they are those under the social services legislation, the parliamentary retiring allowances legislation or the judges pensions legislation to be automatically adjusted with changes in salaries or regularly adjusted with changes in the value of money. While we do not propose to move an amendment, this view has been communicated to the Government. If the Government chooses to adopt it we would support it. We believe that whenever there is an increase in judges’ salaries persons who have been judges should thereupon have their pensions increased proportionately.

None of us can be unaware that misgivings are frequently expressed in the Parliament, and certainly in the community, at the size of the pensions which judges, parliamentarians and statutory officer holders, and their widows and orphans, receive.

My Party introduced pensions for Federal judges, lt did so for two reasons. The first was that pensions are a necessary ingredient of that feeling of independence which all judges should feel. A judge should believe that when he ceases to be a judge he can still afford to be independent and be seen to be independent. The second reason why we introduced pensions for Federal judges was that because they are appointed for life - it is entirely optional for them to retire at all - they should not, nevertheless, be in the position in which they cannot afford to retire. A judge should be able to afford to retire if he feels that his faculties are in any way likely to decline; that he cannot do his job, which is an extraordinarily important job, at the peak of his powers. It is not given to all persons to know when to retire. Our Prime Minister in retirement, Sir Robert Menzies, knew when to retire. The last two Chief Justices of Australia knew when to retire.

Despite the reasons for instituting pensions for Federal judges many people still believe that the pensions are lavish, according to ordinary standards, for people who have retired from an active life. I therefore think it proper to say that while a judge in retirement might often enjoy a higher income than a barrister who has retired, nevertheless, a judge in service, in general, enjoys a lower income than a barrister in practice. Looking over the whole term in which a man serves - or a woman, one would hope - in South Australia there is a woman judge and the time may yet come when there are women Federal judges in Australia - during the whole period of service and retirement a judge would not enjoy a higher income than he or she would have enjoyed at the Bar.

I make one concluding remark, lt might not be a palatable remark. I know that when I made it on a previous occasion some people affected to resent it; but since it is not a matter of current controversy, 1 can repeat it. lt would be intolerable for a judge in Australia to take a company directorship. The position did arise in which a Federal judge on pension took a company directorship. I think it is fair enough to say that he was being used in an effort to obtain a television licence. The company did not get the licence. I presume the company dissolved and the directorate with it. Nevertheless, I hope that no honourable gentleman will resent my saying - and I think it is something that one could say in any professional circle or in any public circumstances - that pensions are paid to judges so that in retirement they may enjoy the same dignity and independence, and be known to enjoy them, as we would insist on them enjoying while they were in service.

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– In reply - I just wish to say that the force of the matter put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), when he suggests that provision should be made for an automatic adjustment of judicial pensions, is appreciated and it will certainly be taken under consideration to see whether, at the next time the opportunity occurs, action should be taken in that direction.

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 Bowen) read a third time.

page 2900

LAW OFFICERS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 16 May (vide page 1540), on motion by Mr Bowen:

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 Bowen) read a third time.

page 2900

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th September (vide page 1257), on motion by Mr Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition supports this Bill with alacrity. We learned earlier this week that one can never be too prompt in closing any loopholes in the jurisdiction of the courts in the Territories. I have been under constant apprehension, in the 8 weeks since this Bill was given its second reading, that an Australian naval vessel would intercept a Taiwan or Soviet or Japanese fishing vessel within 12 miles of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and purport to arrest it, and then that the Commonwealth would prosecute the skipper and counsel would successfully plead that there was no jurisdiction to try the skipper. Accordingly, the sooner we can put this Bill through both Houses the better. No malefactor should escape. Our consciences could not rest if there was no court which could try any person who had committed an offence against Commonwealth laws in or near Ashmore and Cartier Islands. We shall have done our duty once this Bill is passed for such malefactors can then be tried before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

I was never one to be enthusiastic about picking up various tropical atolls or cast-offs of the British Empire. We have many such formations in our jurisdiction and many different laws apply to them. In some of our tropical Territories the laws of Singapore still apply, in others the laws of Queensland or South Australia still apply.

The Opposition, as 1 say, supports this Bill. However important the Ashmore and Cartier Islands may be the fact is that we have purported to make laws applying to them and we should make certain that there are courts to administer and apply those laws.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I would like to make one comment about something that puzzles me. What concerns me to some extent is why the Bill is necessary. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has made it quite clear that, if there is any doubt about who owns the Ashmore and Cartier Islands in terms of legal jurisdiction, it is essential that this doubt should be cleared up. It was always my understanding that under the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act there was no doubt that the islands were for all purposes part of the Northern Territory and as such should have and would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. It seems, however, that as there is no specific provision in the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act explicitly mentioning the Cartier and Ashmore Islands, it can be argued whether the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory had jurisdiction over them. I ask: Are there any other islands or reefs in the definitions in the various fisheries Acts, particularly as one gets towards the boundary between Indonesia and Australia, that are in a similar position to these two islands? I am not conversant with the law as it extends to the boundary - if there is a boundary - between Indonesia and Australia, but If there is a doubt about these two islands, T should like to know whether there are any other islands or reefs in the area about which doubts can be expressed on the relevance of the Act?

For a long time Australian authorities have known that Indonesians - the peasant fishing class who use canoes and rafts rather than the sophisticated fishing class - have been landing on these islands. I ask the Attorney-General: If they have been landing on these islands, is this an infringement of our quarantine, customs, immigration and fisheries Act? It is my information, and it is well known in Darwin, that long before Australia had been settled by the while man, Indonesians were using these islands extensively. I am not suggesting that there is any risk of exotic diseases and so forth as 1 suggested yesterday was the case with large scale landings of fishermen on Cape York Peninsula. This is a different story altogether. But in principle is there any difference between fishermen landing on the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and fishermen landing on Cape York? It seems to me that if the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has complete jurisdiction over the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and that the Ashmore and Cartier Islands are part of Australia, those fishermen are in fact breaking Australian laws. If they are breaking Australian laws with respect to quarantine, immigration and customs, is it the intention of the Australian authorities to do anything about it, or is this under question?

I ask this question not professing to have any expert knowledge at all of the law; it is just a common sense question. If these islands are part of the Northern Territory, and if the Northern Territory Supreme Court has jurisdiction over them and they are part of Australia for administrative purposes, are those fishermen breaking the law and if so, are they subject then to the same types of fines, for example, as were announced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) in Parliament yesterday in regard to a ship that was apprehended off the coast of New Guinea? This is perhaps making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I think, in fairness to those who want to know, that the Minister should give me an answer. Can the Minister tell me whether there are any other islands or reefs in the area in respect of which there is some doubt as to who has jurisdiction over them?

The first point I raised was whether the Bill is really necessary because 1 do not think anyone disputes or has disputed the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act. If this is not in dispute it seems to me by deduction or logic that even if these provisions are not made specific in the Nothern Territory Supreme Court Act it follows that perhaps the Bill is not necessary at all. I do not know. But I am concerned as to whether these people are breaking the law by land ing on Cartier or Ashmore Islands in the same way as they would be breaking the law if they landed on Cape York Peninsula.

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– In view of the questions raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) I will make a number of replies. In regard to the honourable member’s suggestion that it was always his understanding that these islands were part of the Northern Territory, may I remind him of a speech he made on 30th May 1968 in which, referring to these islands, he said:

Are they owned by Australia or by Indonesia?

He was not then apparently of the view that they were owned by Australia. In that debate 1 took occasion to point to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act. But this is a small point.

The honourable member raised another question about Indonesian fishermen. I think it is true to say that at times there would be landings of what might be called a subsistence nature by Indonesian fishermen of the islands. The islands are of such a character that no-one would be likely to land on them unless he had to do so. They are inhabited chiefly by snakes and their structure is somewhat inhospitable. However. I suppose that technically people landing on the islands would be landing on Australian territory and therefore the Australian quarantine and other laws would apply. On the other hand, looking at this as a question of degree and putting the matter into perspective, I do not think we would be justified in instituting customs patrols and quarantine surveillance of these islands, situated as they are so far from the Australian mainland and inhabited as they are. Naturally, as time goes on the matter will be kept under observation by the Government.

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 Bowen) read a third time.

page 2902

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 September (vide page 1529). on motion by Mr Hulme:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill amends the Overseas Telecommunications Act. Its prime purpose is to make way for the introduction of new international telecommunications arrangements between various Commonwealth countries. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We think that the new arrangement will be very good and will improve communications generally between Australia and overseas countries.

One feature of the amendments made by the Bill is very pleasing. Migrants will be given an opportunity to obtain employment on the basis of their overseas qualifications. Previously employees of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission were required to have certain educational standards and only people with the educational standards laid down by the Public Service Act could be employed. My interpretation of the new provision is that it will give people coming to Australia the opportunity to obtain employment with the Commission. This is an important consideration when we are seeking migrants. Many migrants have received training for skilled occupations in their own country under their own system. All the major developed countries have their own systems of training employees. Frequently their systems are completely different from the Australian system and the standards in other countries seem to be different from Australian standards. However, when we see the achievements of other countries, perhaps we should examine our own system of training to see whether it is producing the people we need. In this Bill the Government has taken the initiative and has made employment with the Commission available to people with qualifications obtained in other countries, and we support this move.

We have seen what happens to doctors, to people with degrees obtained at universities in other countries and to skilled technicians. It is a tragedy that a country with a migration programme as substantial as ours cannot clear away the difficulties in the recognition of qualifications before people come to Australia. We should be able to establish standards that will enable qualifications obtained in other countries to be recognised here. Then people in other countries who want to come here will know what their position will be. They will know whether their qualifications will be recognised. The credentials they obtain in their own country should be sufficiently detailed so that they can be understood and accepted by various Australian organisations, whether they be trade unions or professional organisations. The Government has now, in this small way, made it much easier for migrants who are obviously skilled to obtain employment and, most important of all, to have their qualifications recognised. Therefore, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2902

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 196*

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th June (vide page 2277), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition supports the Bill, lt is purely a machinery measure to extend the power of the Public Service Board to give special leave to people who wish to serve outside Australia. Previously, such people could serve only in certain areas. Now they will be able to serve in Asia. This is becoming increasingly important to Australia as Australia’s ties with Asia become more important to us. We have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2903

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment -

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1968.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) 1968.

Without requests -

Sales Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 9) 1968.

Sitting suspended from 5.43 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

page 2903

SPIRITS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 16 May (vide page 1553), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

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 Freeth) read a third time.

page 2903

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 November (vide page 2524), on motion by Mr Anthony:

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 Freeth) read a third time.

page 2903

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 October (vide page 1860), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Freeth) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– I rise in the first place by way of protest at the manner in which these measures are being brought forward. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who had charge of this measure on behalf of the Opposition, indicated to me earlier tonight that the Bill would be brought on at 10 o’clock. It is quite obvious that these measures are being pushed through.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the honourable member that on the third reading of a Bill he is limited to the contents of the Bill or any schedule attached thereto.

Mr HANSEN:

– That is entirely correct, Mr Speaker. 1. wish to deal with that part of the Bill which seeks to enable the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to hold shares or stocks in an incorporated company. There is no indication in the Bill as to whether the interest in such a company has to be a minority or a majority interest. The purpose of allowing the Commission to acquire such a interest is to permit it to form part of a shipping conference and so have access to port facilities in other countries. It will also enable the Commission to obtain cargoes overseas.

The Opposition agrees in principle with the Bill. This is a matter which it has advocated on many occasions in this House. It is pleasing to note that the Government has seen fit to bring forward this measure. I trust that the venture will be successful. I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) whether it is proposed that the Commission shall obtain a minority interest in these overseas companies and thus have a say in the shipping conferences which for so long have controlled the freight rates on Australia’s exports and imports. As a member of the Opposition I welcome the measure. Though it does not go as far as we of the Opposition would like, we welcome the Government’s change of heart and wish the venture well. For these reasons we do not oppose the Bill.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– J thank the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Hansen) for having delayed the passage of this Bill long enough to enable me (o reach the chamber. Tonight the House has been in a state of confusion.

Mr Freeth:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have already ruled that comments such as these are irrelevant. If members of the Opposition want to proceed with this line of debate, I would like to make some remarks about their conduct in relation to the business of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member that his remarks on the motion for the third reading of a Bill must be confined to the Bill itself and the schedules thereto.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ruling on this matter. I did not hear your previous ruling that honourable members could not refer to the slipshod methods that are being adopted in the House.

Mr Freeth:

– If the honourable gentleman had been here-

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Are you here all day long?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Any remarks by the honourable member will be addressed to the Chair.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Air (Mt Freeth), like other honourable members, is not in the House all day. Where does one prepare one’s speeches?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already pointed out to the honourable member that his remarks must be confined to the Bill or the schedules to the Bill.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill before the House will amend the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act and extend the powers of the Australian Coastal

Shipping Commission, which operates as the Australian National Line. The Bill will permit the extension of the Commission’s activities into overseas trade and will authorise it to purchase shares in an overseas shipping line for this purpose. We on this side of the House are completely in the dark. Of course, we do not know whether the Government is in any better position. We on this side of the House are completely in the dark as to just what is the import of these amendments of the Act. Does the Government propose to acquire shares in an overseas snipping line as has been rumoured recently? Honourable members have directed questions on the matter to the responsible Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). I recall that some weeks ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) asked the Prime Minister whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) was going overseas to negotiate for the purchase of shares-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 think the honourable member is going beyond the bounds that are permissible at the third reading stage. I ask him to come back to the Bill.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am dealing with the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the honourable member’s reference to the visit overseas by the Deputy Prime Minister goes beyond the contents of the Bill.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– With all due respect to you, Mr Speaker, I point out that clause 3 contains the following words:

  1. . subject to the approval of the Minister -

    1. to participate with another person in the formation of an incorporated company:
    2. to take, or otherwise acquire, and hold shares or slock in the capital of an incorporated company: . . .
Mr SPEAKER:

– That is quite so.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– .1 am relating my remarks completely to this clause of the Bill, i am trying to point out that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister, during question time, whether it was true that the Deputy Prime Minister was going overseas and whether the business he would transact would include the opening of negotiations for the purchase of shares in an overseas shipping company.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will allow the honourable member to continue.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Prime Minister indicated that he understood that the Deputy Prime Minister would enter into negotiations and would discuss the possible purchase of shares in an overseas shipping line, which at that time was believed to be the Port Line, a completely owned subsidiary of the Cunard Line. I relate my remarks completely to this. I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, and ask you to allow me to point out that the Government has not clarified the position. Only last week the Deputy Prime Minister, replying to a question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, completely ignored the question that had been asked and said that he did not know anything about the matter. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) then directed a question to the Prime Minister, who also shelved the question and was not prepared to give a clear answer and state what was taking place.

The House is debating this Bill tonight without any indication as to the real import of the amendments of the principal Act for which it provides. What is the need for these amendments? The Government should give some clear indication that they are necessary, for example, to enable it to proceed with what appear to have been negotiations begun overseas by the Deputy Prime Minister. If we know what the Bill is all about, we will know where we are going. Regrettably, the Government has withheld this information. The Deputy Prime Minister has been back in Australia several weeks and we still have no information about what is happening. Is the Cabinet locked in a struggle over the issue and unable to make a decision on it? Can it not give any clear undertaking about what is intended? Is it or is it not intended to buy shares in an overseas shipping line. I think this is just another of the matters which lie in the Cabinet room undetermined and on which important decisions have to be made. They are left to await decision while the fight goes on between the leaders in the Cabinet.

We find ourselves in great difficulty in debating the relative merits of the proposals in this Bill. Let us assume that the Port Line is the line that the Australian National Line will acquire an interest in as a result of these amendments of the Act. We on this side do not oppose the Bill, because we believe that Australia’s entry into overseas shipping is long overdue. One would have preferred very much an extension of the activities of the Australian National Line to allow it to cater directly for overseas trade. If one reads the annual reports of the Line one will see that the Chairman has been advocating for some considerable time that he should be given authority to extend the Commission’s activities into overseas trade. This country has been taken for a ride on freights for far too Jong. It is time that the Government did something about the situation. One of the things that astound me is that members of the Australian Country Party have tolerated this state of affairs for so long and have allowed our primary products on numerous occasions to be priced out of the world’s markets.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is now getting wide of the contents of the Bill. I suggest that he come back to the measure.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We are dealing with a Bill which-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is a third reading debate, not a second reading debate. A speech appropriate to the second reading will not be permitted. I think the Chair has been lenient with the honourable member for Newcastle. I suggest that he confine his remarks to matters that come within the provisions of the Bill itself.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As I cannot make reference to the exploitation of Australia’s primary production by overseas interests, I wish to refer to that part of the Bill which proposes an amendment to section 16 of the principal Act, particularly that part which reads:

  1. to take, or otherwise acquire, and hold shares or stock in the capital of an incorporated company; . . .

I would like to receive an assurance from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) that the Government will not be satisfied to accept a minority shareholding in a company. If we are lo acquire an interest in an overseas company, we should at least acquire a majority shareholding in that company. It is no good saying that the main thing is to get into it. 1 agree that the main thing is to get into it, but at the same time this Government should be able to control the activities of the company in which it acquires an interest. The only way to do this is to acquire a majority shareholding in the company. If we do not do this we will be in the invidious position of having no say about where new ships will be built. The Australian shipbuilding industry could well find itself short of orders. This would lead lo unemployment in the industry while a shipping line in which the Australian Government was a shareholder would be able to place orders in shipyards outside this country. This is one reason why we should have a majority holding in the company. If we acquired only a minority shareholding we would be in the position of a junior partner. Shipping freights charged by the company could be increased to the detriment of the Australian primary producer and the economy as a whole. These are just some of the aspects with which 1 would like the Minister to deal.

The worst feature of the legislation is thai the shipping line in which it is said wc would probably acquire an interest trades through the United States with South America, Canada and South Africa. By virtue of its shareholding in the company the Australian Government could find itself in the American courts because the company had breached the restrictive trade practices legislation of the United Stales. To acquire a minority shareholding would be detrimental to the welfare of this country. The Opposition does not propose to move an amendment to this legislation seeking that a majority shareholding be acquired, but we point out that the acquisition of a minority shareholding will not do justice to Australia. Any Minister who recommended to the Government that we acquire a minority shareholding would be recreant to his trust. So 1 hope that if we acquire an interest in an overseas company it will be at least a majority interest.

The Bill states that the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will be able to act as the agent for the overseas line in which we acquire an interest. I hope that the Commission will not carry out only the clerical side of the agency work but will move into the practical side and will become the stevedoring agent for the overseas company. We know that at present the Australian National Line does not carry out its own stevedoring work except in those ports catering for roll-on-roll-off ships, such as Launceston, Hobart and parts of the port of Melbourne. We would like to see the Commission carry out its own stevedoring operations in every port in the Commonwealth instead of following the present practice whereby most of the Commission’s stevedoring operations arc carried out by the Patrick Stevedoring Co. Pty Ltd. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission should have its own stevedoring section which could do the stevedoring work for the Port Line, if it is the Port Line in which we are to acquire an interest.

The Opposition would have welcomed the opportunity to debate this legislation more fully. We emphasise once more the urgent necessity for the Australian Government to extend its operations into overseas trade in order to counter the monopolies that are at work in shipping. Most importantly, we urge the Government to acquire a majority shareholding in an overseas shipping line. It is all right to say that by acquiring an interest in the line the Government will have access to the accounts of a shipping conference line. If you have only a minority shareholding in a company do you have any guarantee that you will obtain access to the company’s accounts? Do you think the enemy is prepared to allow you to discover what is going on if you arc only a minority shareholder? I urge the Government to obtain a majority interest in the company.

Mr BRYANT (Wills) [8.24J- This legislation represents an interesting departure from the philosophy which has been the cornerstone of the Government’s policy over so many years. Ever since 1948 or 1949 the parties which now comprise the Government have denounced the principle of government participation in commercial operations. This Bill seems to indicate that at last the Government has bowed to the inevitable and accepted the fact that in some areas at least the Government should take the initiative in commercial and industrial operations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I drew the attention of the honourable member for Newcastle to the limits of a debate on the third reading. The honourable member’s remarks must be limited to the Bill or schedules to the Bill. I was rather lenient towards the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr BRYANT:

– Thank you for your guidance Mr Speaker. Clause 3 of the Bill reads: (aa) subject to the approval of the Minister:

  1. to participate with another person in the formation of an incorporated company;

This represents a considerable departure from the philosophy which honourable members opposite have for so long espoused. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) spelt out clearly the way in which the Government should operate in this field. Clause 3 of the Bill continues:

  1. to take, or otherwise acquire, and hold shares or stock in the capital of an incorporated company;

Since I entered the Parliament the Government has disposed of a large number of government enterprises. Now, many years later, we find that we are inevitably compelled by the pattern of overseas events to participate more thoroughly as a government and as a people in a commercial and industrial operation. Clause 3 further reads:

  1. to enter into a partnership; and
  2. to enter into an arrangement for the sharing of receipts;
Dr Mackay:

– I rise to order. The honourable member is addressing his remarks to a clause of a Bill which has passed its second reading and which is now at the third reading stage. I submit that the Standing Orders require that speeches on the third reading be directed to the Bill as a whole and that it is not proper to debate particular clauses of the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Bill as a whole is before the House, The honourable member for Wills is entitled to debate any clause of the Bill. I want to make it clear that the debate on the third reading is limited to the clauses of the Bill and matters contained within the Bill or the schedules thereto. In future I will see that honourable members do not range outside those limitations.

Mr BRYANT:

– I was simply making a point. Perhaps the honourable member for Evans was afraid that we would soon be into the question of oil. The point I make is that clause 3 of the Bill makes the Government appear to be the initiator, the watchdog and the guide in this whole field. The action taken by the Government in this legislation may be the only way we can compete with Russia’s entry into overseas shipping. To that extent the Opposition congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken. This legislation represents a muted move towards Government acceptance of initiative and responsibility in these fields. I hope that the Government accepts the guidance offered tonight by the honourable member for Newcastle and engages in overseas shipping in a thorough manner.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2907

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October (vide page 1756), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to debate the four Bills together?

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– No, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that this is an improper procedure to adopt-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is not open to debate. The Opposition refuses to allow this course to be followed, and so the debate will be confined to the Bill at present before the House.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– The main purpose of the Bill is to obtain more finance for investigation activities of direct interest to the meat processing industry. How this is to be done is set out in the Minister’s second reading speech, a copy of which I have before me.

Mr Arthur:

– The honourable member is reading his speech.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I have to read from this in order to give the House exactly what the Minister said. Some honourable members are grinning and laughing and thinking that they will catch me reading a speech. Some of those members read every word of the speeches that they make, and I think their conduct now is past a joke. In any case I am reading what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) said, because I cannot, after all, be expected to commit to memory everything that he said about this levy. The Minister said:

The rate of the additional levy is specified in the legislation at lc per head on cattle of more than 200 lb dressed weight . . .

First, I find that many people who are not acquainted with the meat trade and with cattle generally think in terms of 2 cwt, but of course when dealing with cattle one thinks in terms of units of 100 lb; so this Bill speaks of cattle of more than 200 lb dressed weight, rather than 2 cwt. I wanted to clear up that point. The reference in the Bill is to cattle of more than 200 lb dressed weight, which would be just about the weight of a fairly good vealer. But, of course, the levy applies to all grown cattle. The Minister went on:

  1. . and one-tenth of a cent on sheep and lamb slaughterings. At the expressed wish of the industry, there is no provision for the levy to be varied during the 3-year period.

All trades and all primary industries can benefit from research, but one trade which we can say with certainty would welcome more expenditure on research is the cattle trade. It is facing very strong competition overseas, particularly in America. The people in the cattle trade have to comply with the highest possible standards of hygiene in their processing procedures. For these reasons a Bill like this will meet with the approval of all cattlemen throughout the country. Having seen how the levy procedures have worked up to date, I certainly am in full accord with this measure and will support it tonight. As the Minister said, the expressed wish of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council is that the levy shall apply for 3 years. It will commence on 1st January 1969. The proposed increase in the maximum rate of the research component of the levy on cattle slaughterings is from 20c to 25c.

Judged by the way cattle are selling, generally speaking the market is not as good as it was some time ago, but I was in the cattle trade and the livestock business generally for a long time and I can say that at present one bullock sold at the Newmarket saleyards in Melbourne will bring more than a truckload brought just before the Second World War. If a person has bullocks weighing about 800 lb each, he can put about eight of them into a Victorian cattle truck. If they are down to 700 lb or 650 lb he can get ten in fairly comfortably. A simple calculation shows that one bullock sold now will make more than a truckload would have made just before the war. This is something that people should know. Having this in mind, the rate of levy, when considered in conjunction with the higher prices that cattle now bring, is not excessive or unreasonable. The Minister said later in his speech:

Despite the changes mentioned above the maximum rate of cattle levy will not be permitted lo exceed the 75c currently specified in the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964-1966.

This is a very simple Bill and it does not call for a lot of discussion. I notice that one part of it provides for a certain amount of money to be made available each year to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for special meat research in Queensland. My colleague, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), who is very interested in the cattle trade, will be able to say more about this than I can. I support the Bill. I believe it is in the best interests of one of our greatest trades, the cattle trade. We must, by means of research, raise our standards of slaughtering and processing to the highest possible level, not only to ensure us the best of meat in Australia but also to enable us to build up the great export markets which will be necessary for the satisfactory running of the cattle industry and the economic stability of the Australian nation.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I rise to support the Bill, which imposes an additional levy on slaughtered livestock. One purpose of the Bill is to obtain finance for service and investigation activities of direct interest to the processing industry. These activities will be conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Another purpose of the Bill is to increase the maximum rate of the existing research levy on cattle slaughterings, which is used to finance research into the cattle industry. This is a very desirable measure. The value of the cattle industry has already been pointed out and I would like to emphasise it. The fact that the industry has been as prosperous and as buoyant as it has been in recent years is one of the reasons why we have had a reasonable degree of prosperity in areas where cattle grazing can be conducted not only as a single venture but also, perhaps, in conjunction with other farm activities.

The need for research to promote the more efficient operation of this industry hardly needs emphasis. It is true, as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has said, that research work is being carried on at Cannon Hill, in my own State, where the levy is being supplemented $1 for $1 up to a limit of $405,000, on the understanding that a service and investigation section will be established. This research work has received the support of many organisations. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, fully supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, submitted proposals to the Government for the financing of the operational cost of the service and investigation section. From every angle it is a desirable move. It is interesting to note, and it probably emphasises the problems that confront our primary industries. There was a fall in receipts from $954,000 in 1964-65 to $854,000 in 1966-67. This was due mainly to drought conditions. It is pleasing to note that receipts in 1967-68 increased to $859,000.

The maximum rate of the cattle levy will not be permitted to exceed the 75c currently specified in the principal Act.

The additional levy, while providing finance for very necessary and almost essential research investigation work, will not put an undue burden on an industry which is enjoying a reasonable degree of prosperity at present. The benefits of research and investigation are not momentary; when results are achieved and benefits are obtained in any field, there is a continuing benefit. So those who have to find the money for this work are making a worthwhile investment. I point out that the levyproposed is unlike the existing levy in that no provision is made for it to be passed back to the producers. So it will not fall as heavily on the producers as it might have if that provision were not made. Even if the levy did have this application, I still think that it would be a sound approach. The Bill deserves the full support of the House, and I am sure it will get it. 1 should like to comment on the grand and dedicated work that is being done by officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in many fields. The subject we are now discussing affords another good example of the value of having such an organisation to undertake research work. The value of this research work is a continuing process. There is no doubt that research will be of value, and that value will carry on down the years to the benefit of the cattle industry and through the cattle industry to the people of Australia.

Another good feature of the Bill is that the levy will be limited to the period in which it can be applied. It will not be imposed for all time. Too often when the Government provides for the imposition of a levy, there is no end to that levy. The Parliament should consider this aspect. I am pleased that the levy in question will be applicable for only 3 years commencing from 1st January 1969. This principle is good. For my part I hope that the levy will be continued while there is need for funds for research purposes. As a meat producer I will be happy to make my contribution, because I believe it is a sound business investment for all those who are engaged in the cattle industry. We should endeavour to help ourselves and when a proposition such as this presents itself and we know that the work will be undertaken efficiently we should be glad to take advantage of it.

In raising the maximum rate, the way will be clear for the Australian Meat Board to consult with the industry on the operative rate of levy that will enable the research that is currently being undertaken to be maintained at a satisfactory level. This is important. Nothing is more unsatisfactory to people who are undertaking research work than to find their funds cut off and that they are obliged to discontinue their work. This is frustrating. I hope that the implementation of this legislation will enable the work that is being undertaken by CSIRO to be continued. I congratulate the O’rganisattion on its work and I am sure that this will be another example of its value to Australia and, in this instance, to the cattle industry. I support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2910

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October (vide page 1756), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) said:

The purpose ol this Bill, which is complementary to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968-

Which we have just debated - is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the special levy imposed by the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968.

The matter to which I want to draw attention was raised by me when similar legislation was before the House in the early 1960s. The proposal before us requires recognised slaughtermen to refund the equivalent of the levy to the vendor if the livestock are not slaughtered within 30 days of purchase. Often persons attend a private sale or an auction and buy cattle in what are called the fat pens. These cattle are in better than store condition and may be fat enough for slaughtering but they can be made better on pastures. If a man buys them in the fat section it is generally accepted that they will eventually be slaughtered, but if they are not slaughtered within 30 days the levy must be refunded to the vendor. This is a good provision.

Sometimes sheep and cattle can be bought in the fat pens just as cheaply as or more cheaply than stock in the store pens depending on the market. It is often a good business proposition for a man to buy threequarter fat beasts, which are good enough for killing, and to hold them for a few months until the winter. I have found that generally speaking in Melbourne the best market for beef is during the week before the Melbourne Show. I do not want anybody to say that I advocate marketing then because the keen cattleman watches the market and the conditions and he knows when to act.

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 Anthony) read a third time.

page 2910

MEAT RESEARCH BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October (vide page 1757), on the motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

- Mr Speaker, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) presented his second reading speech some little time ago, it is as well to remind honourable members what the purpose of this Bill is. The Minister said:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Meat Research Act 1960-1965 to provide for the payment of the additional levy-

That is the levy with which we have just dealt in passing the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968:

  1. . into the Meat Research Trust Account and to provide for the funds derived from the levy plus matching Commonwealth contributions for approved expenditure, to be used for financing service and investigation activities of direct interest to the meat processing industry.

I approve of this proposal. My colleague, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), has been loud in his praise of it. The moneys will be made available to the Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research Organisation - that is, at Cannon Hill- - to finance work in this field approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the Australian Meat Research Committee. We must congratulate the Minister for bringing this legislation forward. 1 do not think that any cattlemen will be in doubt as to the way in which the money that they have put into this proposal is invested. Directly or indirectly, the money comes from the nian who sells the cattle. I do not think that he will be concerned with the money that he pays by way of levy when he compares it with the benefits derived by the industry from the levy.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– We on this side of the House accept and approve of this measure and the three related measures which are being considered by the House. But we completely condemn the Government for the way that it has introduced these matters for discussion tonight without duc regard to our views on that matter. I will not tell you Sir, what we arranged about these Bills before the sitting was suspended. If I did, you would be just as disgusted as we are at this moment. We are always pleased to see money made available for research into primary industry and primary products. The reason that more must be done for the meat industry is that we find that a lot of our processed meat is going overseas to America. Our quota has been suspended for the time being until the Americans dispose of the Australian processed meat products already in their country. This is a very serious time for our producers. We know that the Americans have imposed rigid standards on the processing factories throughout Australia. Many of our factories have gone out of business because the standards set were so high. These standards are set high deliberately because no doubt exists that the Americans are not happy about getting meat from Australia. We will be less happy with the decisions made in America when the Nixon Administration gets under way. Therefore, we appreciate the concern of the Government to improve the quality of our meat products, not only for home consumption but also for export.

The money collected by way of this levy will go to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to help in financing special projects within the meat industry. This is an excellent scheme and we approve of it. Clause 4 amends section 6 of the principal Act. Proposed new section 6a (3.) reads:

Subject to the last preceding section, moneys standing to the credit of the special account shall not be expended otherwise than in making payments to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for or in relation to scientific research in connection with the processing of meat or of other products for the slaughter of cattle, sheep or lambs.

Meat processing factories arc located in each of our Stales. They process for home and overseas markets. We realise that they must work to a very high standard indeed, in some cases the factories either have had to go out of production or spend a lot of money in lifting the standards within their meatworks. Australia is fighting to maintain a certain level of processed meat production. Our own consumption of processed meat is rising each year. The Opposition appreciates that the CSIRO, with its vast ramifications in the matter of research, is the best organisation that can be brought into this field. It covers a wider field probably than any other organisation of its kind in the world. We are proud of the CSIRO and of its tremendous work in research. It has improved the quality of almost every range of production that honourable members could name, not only in the primary industries but also in the secondary industries. Therefore, we on this side of the House agree with the purpose of this Bill. We know that the proceeds of the levy will be put to very good use by the CSIRO.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I support this Bill with a great deal of enthusiasm. I spent last weekend wandering over an area which greatly demands the benefits of any sort of research which will improve our most important primary industry, cattle raising. There are many research projects being carried out in our nation. In the great northern part of the country, we see agronomists and agrostologists working. In the brigalow country we see a research station carrying out most valuable work. But there is an aspect of this brigalow development that I think we sometimes overlook. It is that the quicker a new settler gets on his feet so much more quickly will he be able to contribute in no uncertain manner to the Treasury funds of the nation. Very briefly I take this opportunity to put the spotlight for a moment on what I consider to be the last remnants of the genuine pioneers of this country. I refer to those people who have settled in brigalow areas.

Last weekend I had the opportunity to come into rather intimate contact with some of their problems and with some of the methods they are using to solve or partly solve these problems. For the benefit of some honourable members who would not have a clue about brigalow areas and so on - I heard a few ‘Hear, hears!’ to some of the earlier remarks in this debate - I feel that I should add to the knowledge of those honourable members if I can. The technique whereby brigalow areas are cleared is very simple, or at least appears to be very simple. An area is cleared. Uncertainty exists as to how it will react to that clearing. The great problem that settlers face in brigalow areas after clearing is sucker regrowth. We see this in various phases in the brigalow areas. Sometimes this regrowth can be cleared by burning off. Sometimes it can be cleared by stick raking. Sometimes it can be cleared only by deep ploughing. But here is the rub. This final process requires equipment which is quite beyond the resources of the settlers. Hence the great necessity for additional funds for research.

In the area that I visited last weekend is a brigalow research station which is doing extremely valuable work. I do not think that the difficulties that beset the meat industry are fully appreciated. I. refer particularly to difficulties that are experienced when development is in the infant stage such as it is in the brigalow country. That is the reason for this Bill. If it means that greater funds will be made available for accelerated research into sucker regrowth in the brigalow country, leading eventually not only to greater numbers of stock in those areas but also to the production of finer quality beef, I give the Bill my complete support.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– I do not wish to talk about brigalow suckers or any other suckers. This measure deals with meat research. Much has been said about the amount of money that has been made available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation from the levies which are raised under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill which we discussed earlier, lt amazes me to think that the CSIRO meat research laboratory at Cannon Hill, which has been referred to by two members of the Australian Country Party, is practically alongside the Brisbane abattoir. This abattoir recently had its export licence taken away because of unhygienic conditions at the abattoir and because it did not comply with the requirements for the American meat trade. It seems to me that someone is very much at fault.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) in answer to a question last week indicated that notice was served on the Brisbane abattoir last March that it would lose its licence if it did not take steps to meet American requirements. Research has been proceeding at the CSIRO meat research laboratory alongside the abattoir which has been the subject of a great deal of attention by vested meat interests from overseas, which have been trying to break into the Brisbane metropolitan meat market and which, with the support of the LiberalCountry Party Government in Queensland, have eventually broken through. 1 believe that there is something very’ much amiss in the administration of the Brisbane abattoir when this situation arises. The abattoir has research facilities available alongside of it.

The Minister for Primary Industry said that in March of this year notice was served on the abattoir that it would have to carry out certain repairs to the works. What happened is not the Minister’s fault. I believe there is something amiss in the administration of the abattoir when such conditions were allowed to continue for so long. As I have said, this abattoir was selected for attention by the overseas meat interests in order to obtain a breakthrough into the Brisbane metropolitan meat market. Now they have obtained a breakthrough. They have also obtained a great advantage because meat for export cannot be slaughtered at the Brisbane abattoir. I lay the blame fairly and squarely upon the Queensland Government for not attending to these matters.

As I said the CSIRO meat research laboratory, which is financed by the producers of cattle and by the Commonwealth Government in equal proportion, is alongside the Brisbane abattoir, yet the Queensland Government has not taken advantage of the facilities available at the laboratory.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It is not my intention to take up the time of the House for very long in this debate. The Australian Labor Party supports the Bill. But it is apparent to me, if it is not apparent to every other honourable member, that every man is entitled to be paid for his labour. I think it is agreed that for many years the grazier has been enjoying very high prices for his stock, particularly for lambs. In the electorate of Hunter, until recently people had to pay ls 6d for a small lamb chop. Admittedly the producer is not receiving the full benefit of the high prices. What amazed me most in this debate were the remarks of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), the spokesman for the Australian Country Party. He is a man who enjoys the respect of most members of the Opposition.

Mr Turnbull:

– What is coming next?

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member should listen to what is coming next. He said that the best time to market lambs in Victoria is just before the Melbourne Show.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not say that. I referred to beef.

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member has corrected me. He said that the best time to market beef is just before the Melbourne Show, lt means the same thing. In other words, he says: ‘I believe in the manipulation of the market so that we get the highest price’. The point I make is that when the postal workers withdraw their labour they are called traitors and Communists.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member is getting a little wide of the Bill. The Bill deals with meat research and the moneys allocated for this purpose. It has nothing to do with the marketing of meat, whether beef or lamb. It refers to the application of the moneys, and I ask the honourable member to confine himself to that sphere.

Mr JAMES:

– I am sorry. The wideness of my remarks indicates the wideness of my mind. I find it difficult to make my point in such a narrow sphere. The Labor Party supports the Bill and hopes that in the future farmers will try to ensure that housewives are not charged the exorbitant prices for lamb and beef which they have been charged through the years.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I want to comment briefly on the fact that the funds are derived mainly from producers in the meat industry. The decision about where the money will go depends upon the recommendations of the Australian Meat Research Committee. 1 point out that there are other people concerned with the meat industry. I refer to the consumers. It is also worthwhile pointing out that there is a very great disparity in the scale of production of different producers in the beef industry. Some people are working hard, they are making money and they are contributing funds which are used for research. Other people are minding the northern half of this country. They have hundreds of thousands of square miles of property which they are neglecting, which they are allowing to become eroded and which, only in recent years, have been brought into production by the action mainly of the State governments. I make a plea that the Government should make some effort to direct these funds and this research not only in the direction indicated by the Australian Meat Research Committee but also in the direction which is in the interests of this country, in the interests of the conservation of our land, in the interests of the smaller producers who have a small voice in the matter and in the interests of the consumers. At this stage I do not propose to say how this could be done.

There has been very little opportunity for us to prepare ourselves for this debate. I speak for honourable members on both sides of the House. Evidently honourable members opposite are not willing to speak at this stage. The reasons why we have not been given time to prepare for this debate is failure of liaison between the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) and the Opposition Whip in the conduct of the business this evening.

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 Anthony) read a third time.

page 2914

MEAT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October (vide page 1757), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Clerk has read order of the day No. 16; the Meat Legislation Repeal Bill 1968, which has been called on.

Mr Barnard:

– ThenI give notice that I will move this motion after the Bill now under discussion is dealt with.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I doubt whether that will be in order.If I may say so at this stage, without giving a definite ruling, I would think that if this is a motion to take the business out of the Government’s hands it may not be in order.

Mr Barnard:

– It is a question of cooperation. Mr Speaker.

Mr TURNBLiLL (Mallee) [9.12]- There is a very old saying, and a very true one, too, that it is best to be off with the old love before you are on with the new. The object of this Bill is along those lines. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has said that the purpose of the Bill is to repeal several Acts which have lapsed due to the expiration on 30th September 1967 of the 15-year meat agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. It is just a machinery Bill and of course it will have the support of the House.

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 Anthony) read a third time.

page 2914

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

-I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that the motion is not in order. It is tantamount to taking the business of the House out of the Government’s hands. I remind the honourable member of standing order 105 which says that the Ministers have the right to arrange the order of their notices and orders of the day on the notice paper as they think fit, subject to arrangements. Therefore, the motion is not in order.

Mr Barnard:

– If this is your ruling, Mr Speaker,I want, to make it perfectly clear at this stage that I, as the leader and responsible person in the Opposition, consulted with the Government leader prior to the dinner adjournment on the arrangement of the business of the House and made certain arrangements.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I understandthe honourable member’s situation, but it is my duty to uphold the standing orders and interpret them. There is no provision in the standing orders whereby a private member can take the business of the House or move a motion to take the business out of the Government’s hands.

Debate interrupted.

page 2914

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honourable member submit his motion in writing?

Mr BARNARD:

– Yes, 1 now do so.

Mr Lucock:

– On a point of order, I wish to ask something for the guidance of the House. This matter has been decided by the House on previous occasions, and the House has sustained a Speaker’s ruling to uphold a standing order. Therefore, 1 am wondering whether it is in order in these circumstances to move a motion of dissent from Mr Speaker’s ruling because such a ruling has already been upheld by the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Standing order 105 states:

Ministers may arrange the order of their notices and orders of the day on the Notice Paper as they think fit.

It is the established procedure that the order of business in this place shall be arranged by Ministers, but it then becomes the property of this House. It is surely within the competence of any member to move that a different order of business be adopted unless the standing orders expressly prohibit this. As far as I. can tell, it is not expressly prohibited in the standing orders. While standing order 105 allows the initiative to lie with Ministers, and this is traditional in the way our parliamentary system works, no system of standing orders can prevent the Parliament itself from controlling its own affairs. Insofar as the interpretation of standing order 105 inhibits or transcends this power of the Parliament, the Speaker’s ruling must be disagreed with.

I believe it is important that we place the actual competence to decide the order of business in the hands of the assembled majority of this Parliament. This is the principle that is at stake in this affair. It is not a question of whether we want to take the business over from the Government. We must allow, in any procedure in which we are paying full respect to the parliamentary system of majority rule, for the majority of members to say what the order of business shall be. As far as I can see, standing order 105 applies in particular to the printed orders that come before the House each day. The notice paper sets out the order of business. In any formed group of people there are rules of procedure and an agenda and the order in which the items on the agenda are to be taken. In any other body of people it is competent for the majority to say that order of the day X, for example, shall be called on before order of the day N.

I believe it is important for the Parliament to decide that it shall control the order in which it considers items of business. To that extent we must vote against the strict interpretation of standing order 105 which says, in effect, that not only shall Ministers be able to arrange the orders of the day but that other members and indeed the majority of members shall be prohibited from changing the order. I believe that this is against the general principles of parliamentary practice and majority rule.

Dr MACKAY:
Evans

– We have listened to a most astonishing speech from the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). Standing order 105 is absolutely explicit. It states that Ministers may arrange the order of their notices and orders of the day on the notice paper as they think fit. It does not say that Ministers shall propose to the House: it does not say that Ministers shall suggest; it does not say that the House shall be demagogic; it does not say that there shall be a popular vote taken in the House as to the order of business. It says that the order shall be in the hands of the Government and that the Ministers shall arrange the order. It does not propose that the House should arrange the order. There is no doubt about, or questioning of, the Speaker’s ruling on this particular standing order. I maintain that the objection is absolutely flimsy and indeed frivolous. There is no possibility of honest doubt or indeed of the slightest shadow of doubt about the meaning of standing order 105. I maintain therefore that what has been done at present is most frivolous and is simply to delay the consideration of measures that are to come before the House. The business must remain in the hands of the Government if it is to be the responsible government of the country.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This is a motion which expresses dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I think it is necessary for me to tell the House and you, Sir, just what happened and the reason for the submission of the motion. At 5.40 o’clock this afternoon the Government Whip came to me in this House - and I hope he stays here and listensto this-

Mr Erwin:

– I will. I move -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 57

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the ruling be dissented from.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 30

NOES: 61

Majority . . ..31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2916

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August (vide page 462), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) indicated when he introduced this measure, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962-1967 to permit the payment of this bounty on specified processed milk products that have been manufactured from products that have already attracted the production bounty under the Dairying Industry Act. I point out that the 1962 legislation was introduced by the Government because companies engaged in this section of the industry, such as Tongala Milk Products Pty Ltd and Nestle Co. (Australia) Ltd, found that for the raw materials for their products they had to compete with other manufacturing sections of the dairy industry. As a result of the introduction of this legislation those companies were able to qualify for the bounty and thus were able to obtain their raw materials on a more equitable basis.

Under the original Act an amount of $800,000 was to be set aside each year for payment as export bounty on processed milk products. Each year the Minister determines an interim bounty rate, and the rate for this year has been determined at 5c per lb of butterfat contained in processed milk products. We have been given to understand from the Australian Dairy Industry Council that this legislation will allow the maximum use to be made of the amount of $800,000 already provided for. The Government will not be involved in any further expenditure. Because it will prove to be of very great benefit to certain sections of the dairy industry, the Opposition supports the measure. The measure will have effect for the next 5 years and will be incorporated in the current 5-year stabilisation plan which ends on 30th June 1972.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council submitted a proposal in an endeavour to assist this section of the industry. The Council requested the exemption of specified processed milk products from the restrictive provision contained in section 4(3.) of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act. That section reads:

The bounty is nol payable in respect of processed milk products produced from goods in respect of which bounty has been paid or is payable under the Dairying Industry Act 1957 or under the Dairying Industry Act 1962.

This means that the export bounty will be payable on products manufactured from butterfat which has already attracted a bounty under the Dairying Industry Act.

At the commencement of my speech I indicated that these manufacturers were permitted originally to buy for their products raw materials which had already attracted a bounty. Under this legislation when the raw materials come into the Tongala and Nestle factories for processing they will be able to attract the bounty a second time. The reason for this is obvious. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the Australian dairy industry over the years can understand what has occurred. The processed milk products section of the industry has suffered from subsidised competition on export markets, as has practically every other section of the dairy industry.

As the Minister pointed out, and according to the figures made available, this competition was so strong that the butterfat in processed milk product exports was 18% lower in 1967-68 than in 1966-67. Such a decrease is serious, lt is no good pouring the butterfat down the drain. It has to come back into the industry and be used in other products within the industry. This butterfat that would normally be exported is being channelled back into butter production. As I will indicate in a few moments, butter producers in this country are in trouble because of competition from other countries. We commend the Government for introducing this Bill, which provides for the payment of a bounty on butterfat, for a second time, to the manufacturers of processed milk products who use butterfat in their products. This will give them a little cream on the skim milk, as it were, while they attempt to hold their export markets overseas.

As I indicated, there is already a great problem with butter surpluses. When the United Kingdom was seeking to become a member of the European Common Market in 1962, I visited the Common Market countries to study this problem. At that time, about 100,000 tons of butter were being held in cold storage each year in those countries. The governments of those countries were spending $A300m a year on price support programmes. This was lower than the amount that was being spent at the height of the price support scheme in the United States. The United States Government was spending $A350m in building up the price to the consumer by paying so much an acre to farmers for paddocks not being used. While it was doing this it was keeping up the price of milk and allowing the surplus to be poured down the drain, as it were. When I went back to the Common Market countries again in 1967 I found that their expenditure on price support schemes had risen to something like $A700m a year. Of course, this has had a tremendous effect on the Common Market countries; it has led to increased production. I found that the amount of butter held in cold storage represented more than 250% of the figure in 1962. Whereas 5 years previously 100,000 tons was being held, in 1967 some 275,000 tons was being held.

On top of that statisticians from the Common Market countries have astounded us by telling us that by 1972 the rate of production will have increased to such an extent under the price support scheme that these countries will be holding in cold storage some three-quarters of a million tons of butter. They can get rid of it. But a fortnight ago> on the figures I have, butter in France was selling at 76c Australian per lb. The French are prepared to dump butter anywhere in the world at 26c Australian per lb. The Dutch are prepared, even today, to dump butter anywhere in the world at 22c Australian per l’b. This is a very serious situation. If one of the member countries incurs a loss, that member applies to the European Economic Community Commission for an amount equal to its loss. I well remember on one occasion that the price of butter was reduced by 10c per lb overnight in West Germany to increase home consumption and to enable some of the stored butter to be taken out of cold storage. The West German producers incurred substantial losses, but their Government applied to the Commission for the amount they had lost, and this was forthcoming.

The situation is becoming increasingly serious for us. because our traditional market is the United Kingdom, which takes some 70.000 tons of our production each year. If and when the United Kingdom enters the European Common Market, the price of butter per lb, which is about 40c

Australian per lb in the United Kingdom now, will eventually go up to the price ruling in the Common Market countries, which is some 70c to 80c Australian per lb. Australia will then find it very difficult to maintain its annual exports of 70,000 tons of butter to the United Kingdom. We will be in trouble. We have tried to find markets in South East Asia. We have gone into the Philippines where we have developed a good market, and into Peru and other countries. The Australian Dairy Produce Board has negotiated contracts for the sale of butter overseas. But because of the competition from this highly subsidised export production of the European Common Market countries, we are finding it increasingly difficult to hold out.

The price for Australian butter on the United Kingdom market is still running at about 300s per cwt. We have experienced troubles as a result of the devaluation of sterling. I have mentioned those troubles, but I will not discuss them in detail now, as it is not the purpose of this Bill to provide compensation for losses suffered as a result of devaluation. Everybody is anxiously waiting to hear from the Minister what compensation is to be given and to what degree it will carry over into the next season. There is no doubt that we are in trouble in relation to markets for butter. We do not need to go into this question of devaluation again tonight to see that.

We have been building up markets overseas particularly in the Philippines. There is no doubt that we can get between 370s and 380s a cwt for butter in some countries. The Australian Dairy Produce Board has found some new markets for us. These are very good markets. The price obtained for butter sold on these markets is higher than the price obtained on the traditional United Kingdom market. The returns from these new markets are coming back to the butter factories and enabling them to increase the returns to the farmers during the season, though it does not look as though the farmers will get any increase in their return this year. We began the season with a return to the farmer of 41c per lb for butter fat. I might point out that this is the lowest return for 17 years. One can imagine the tremendous increases in costs that have occurred over that period. Despite the cost increases, the producers of this product from which butter is manufactured in the factories are receiving the lowest price they have received for their product in 17 years.

As I have indicated, the butter manufacturers cannot do much about the return on butter exports because the world price of butter is affected by surplus production and by the intolerable and chaotic marketing conditions resulting from the subsidy paid on butter production in other countries and the dumping operations of the European Economic Community countries. All this imposes great strain on the managers of butter factories. They are practically certain, as one finds when one speaks to them, that they will not get a good return and consequently will not be able to increase the return to the farmers during this season, as they have done in the past. It is a good thing that the Government has guaranteed the farmer a minimum return of 34c per lb for commercial butter fat. It is felt that the price might fall below this level for the first time. If it does, the Government will be called on to honour its undertaking. I am not a pessimist. I still hold out hopes for the industry. I think we can find more new markets. I have simply pointed out the facts as they are. The industry is faced with a tremendous problem, and it is to be hoped that it will be able to get over this problem. We must face facts. In 1962 when it seemed likely that the United Kingdom would enter the European Common Market and we would lose our traditional market for 70,000 tons of butter the appeal went out to the industry to diversify. Between 1962 and 1965 factories which had formerly concentrated on the production of butter turned to the manufacture of such things as milk powder and casein. Quite a change came over the industry.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation came to the industry’s aid by developing a process for making reconstituted milk. The Australian Dairy Produce Board, using some of the funds available from the equalisation scheme introduced after the Second World War, went into South East Asia and established factories for the manufacture of reconstituted milk in places like Manila, Singapore and Bangkok. We sent our milk powder and our butter oil to these places and, using Australian knowhow and funds and local sugar and labour, we produced sweetened condensed milk, which was a very profitable line. We had considerable encouragement from the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Philippines where the Marikina Dairy Company was established. The Socialist Government of Singapore helped us a great deal. When the European Economic Community saw that this venture was proving successful it attempted to dump its products in the area, but the Government of Singapore applied a complete embargo on all such imports. The product had to be produced in the projects to which I have referred.

The venture operated successfully for a while. Its success meant that the people producing whole milk powder were not keen to participate in the stabilisation plan; they were getting high prices for their milk powder - up to $280 a ton. But things are different now that there is a world surplus of milk powder. The price dropped to $170 a ton at the beginning of this season and is now $100 a ton. I would like the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) to tell us the outcome of moves by manufacturers of milk powder to participate in the stabilisation scheme. When prices were high these people were not interested in the scheme but now that the bottom has dropped out of the market they want to participate. For a while the manufacture of milk powder was a success story.

A few weeks ago an export award was made to the Australian Dairy Produce Board. In a Press statement issued at the time of the making of the award the Minister for Primary Industry said that the Board’s success arose from its initiative in establishing milk recombining plants in Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore. The Press statement reads:

Mr Anthony said the Board was well advanced in the development of a plant in Indonesia and was looking into the possibility of opening a plant in Cambodia.

He said: ‘The existing plants are profitable business ventures but more, importantly they have vindicated the Board’s judgement in proving collectively to be a major and expanding outlet for Australian skim milk powder and butter oil. In 1967 the plants took 10,000 tons of skim milk powder and 2,600 tons of butter oil for a total value of $5.2m. In the first half of 1968 nearly 6,000 tons of skim milk powder and 1,400 tons of butter oil were shipped to the plants. From the time the Board entered this field in 1962 until last June the total value of raw materials supplied was SI 6.6m.

This is a very exciting story. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to sell our milk powder.’ Recently a South American country- I think it was Argentina - suffered from a drought. Tenders were called for the supply of 4,000 tons of milk powder and a tender of $60 a ton was received from the United States. We have no hope of competing with a price like that. I know from authoritative figures given to me recently that in Victoria 26,000 tons of milk powder are’ held in storage. The Victorians were peddling this milk powder in the northern States of the Commonwealth at any price. They were accepting as much as $.10 a ton below what had earlier been offered in New South Wales and Queensland. This situation indicates the magnitude of the problem confronting exporters of milk powder.

The same situation applies to casein. We found a very good market for casein in Japan but the price has dropped from $2,500 a ton to $400 a ton. The problem is not one confined to the production of butter, milk powder and casein; it applies also to the processed milk section of the dairying industry. Companies such as Tongala and Nestles which manufacture products like Milo, Lactogen and full milk powder have done a wonderful job for Australia in searching for new markets. They have built up markets in practically every part of the world, including Africa and Burma. The companies face very strong competition in Burma. Competition is strong also in Malaysia and Singapore.

We must remember always that these are Australian companies using Australian primary products. These are important factors. Sometimes honourable members representing city electorates complain about the subsidies that are paid to the dairying industry. This is a stupid attitude to adopt, because companies engaged in the dairying industry must use cartons, tin foil and other packaging materials for their products and in this way they generate work for the Australian work force. They keep people in employment. So the subsidy does not benefit only the dairy farmers and companies such as Tongala and Nestles but the Australian work force generally. It is important not to overlook this fact.

The companies to which I have referred have gone out into the world and built up export markets. They now find that they are in trouble from subsidised competition in export markets to such an extent that butter fat in exports of processed milk products was 18% lower in 1967-68 than in 1966-67. The Labor Party welcomes the Government’s decision to permit the pay-, ment of a bounty on products made from butter fat which has already attracted bounty under the Dairying industry Act. This measure will not be a big help to those experiencing difficulties, but it will assist them to maintain their export markets and to cope with competition from other countries.

As I. have said, this proposal will not cost the Australian taxpayers any more money. An amount of $800,000 has already been appropriated by the Parliament for export bounty in the current year, and this measure will allow that $800,000 to be used to maximum effect. In other words, it will enable the whole of the money to be used, so that portion of it will not go back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund or wherever unexpended funds of this kind finish up. lt will all be used for a very good purpose. It will help to keep people employed in processes that will use up a good deal of the butter fat that might otherwise be channelled back into local butter production. As I have already indicated, there are enough problems already associated with that section of the industry. This is only a small measure but it is a very valuable one, and for this reason the Opposition supports it.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I pick up where the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) left off. I say that this Bill represents an intelligent step for the Government to take at this time. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) explained in his second reading speech, and as the honourable member for Braddon has properly pointed out, this measure has been introduced in an attempt to solve the problems of a section of the dairy industry that is now in a state of glut or surplus. It will be apparent, I think, to all honourable members that the products of the dairy industry are made up fundamentally of water, of fat, and of what are called solids not fat, which are proteins. In general terms those are the three components. One could qualify that statement by considering the by-products of milk that are sold and say that one does not sell water, one sells milk. But in some States the producer is paid according to the amount of water in the milk. If my memory serves me correctly, the New South Wales Milk Board pays dairy farmers virtually on the basis of the number of gallons of water in the milk. Water is not a very expensive commodity here, although in some countries it can be.

Mr Bosman:

– Some vendors run the hose into the milk.

Mr GILES:

– Speaking as an experienced dairy farmer I can say that any such activity can be readily spotted. A vendor could not run the hose into his milk without taking a very big risk of being caught. But the fact is that milk is made up largely of water, which is not a very expensive commodity in most countries throughout the world. Likewise, fat is not a very expensive commodity on world markets if one does not differentiate between animal fats and vegetable fats. The fat which becomes butter is the component that is causing most concern in the dairy industry today.

As the honourable member for Braddon has pointed out, this Bill has resulted from a proposal submitted by the Australian Dairy Industry Council, on which the Government has acted, and acted properly. The Government has agreed to the Council’s proposal for the exemption of specified processed milk products from the restrictive provision contained in section 4 of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act, so that the export bounty will be payable on products made from butter fat. Here we come to the crux of the problem. Not only is there a well known and well recognised surplus of butter, including Australian butter, on the world’s markets, but at present there is also a very serious surplus of processed milk products. This measure seeks to take some of the surplus butter fat from the butter section of the industry and encourage its use in the production of processed milk products by the extension of the bounty provisions to include butter fat which is so used and which has already attracted bounty under the Dairying Industry Act.

I would like to return to the subject of the various methods of paying for dairy products. I think all honourable members know that the New South Wales Milk Board pays for milk that it sells to consumers not on the basis of quality but on the basis of the total weight. I suggest that this is equivalent to paying on the basis of the water content. In South Australia, however, milk is sold to the consumers through the city milk market and is paid for at producer level on the basis of butter fat content. This means that if I milk Jersey cows I will be paid only on the butter fat content of the milk, and although, there may be less milk than 1 would get from other breeds of cows it may contain just as much butter fat as would be found in a larger sample of milk given by Friesians or Shorthorns. Some people in South Australia feel that this levels out the competition between breeds. It provides a chance for all breeds to be used for production and for payment to be made according to the amount of butter fat in the milk rather than the amount of water in it. I suggest that this is probably just as asinine a method of paying for dairy products as is the New South Wales Milk Board method of paying on the basis of water content. Both methods are patently ridiculous in this day and age. Water is not valuable and fat is not valuable.

That brings us to the question: What is the valuable component of dairy products today and how can we most effectively make payment to the producer? I think it is beyond question that we should be paying on the food value of the milk. This is not in the water and it is not in the fat. lt is in the solids not fat, in which are included the carbohydrates, the sugars and the proteins. This is where the food value of dairy products is to be found. I suggest with great respect that the Minister one of these days should get around to reorganising the dairy industry along these lines of payment. I. can appreciate, from my knowledge of many influential people in the industry, what troubles he will have on his hands when he does so, and how difficult it will be to achieve complementary legislation, if this is found to be necessary. But the fact is that we are past the day when we can tolerate the practice of paying dairy farmers for two components of their product that have no value on today’s world markets.

We must get around to effecting payment on the food value of milk.

The honourable member for Braddon made a most comprehensive speech and I have no intention of going over all the ground that he covered. He mentioned the Australian dairy produce factories established in South East Asia under either bipartite financial arrangements, such as in Singapore, or tripartite arrangements as were originally negotiated in Thailand. L do not know whether the honourable member really meant to convey that the establishment of these factories was possible only because there was a Socialist government in Singapore. However, we will let that pass. From what I have heard, the Singapore plant has fallen almost info disrepair. 1 am nol quite certain whether some of its assets have been realised. Perhaps the Minister will tell us this later on. This factory in Singapore was established before the days of confrontation with Indonesia, lt had pioneer industry status, as the honourable member for Braddon said. The agreement under which it operated tied in by-products of the Australian dairy industry with locally produced sugar, and it turned out five or six different grades and categories of condensed milk. But my point is that it was sci up to supply a much bigger market than Singapore alone. Confrontation unfortunately limited the field of sales of its products. The problem was aggravated by the very real dumping practices that were indulged in around Singapore and similar areas. The main difficulty of that factory, however, was that it was geared to supply a much bigger market than the Singapore market alone. This factory, therefore, has not been able to achieve the economy of scale that such factories must depend on for their viability, and for this reason it has fallen on had days.

The honourable member for Braddon said that he thought that there was a need for equalisation in respect of dried milk products. .1 hope I am quoting him properly. 1 do nol quite know what he means by the need for equalisation in respect of these products. I have heard on the bush wireless that there is a move afoot to produce a compulsory equalisation scheme for dried milk products in Australia. If this is so. I point out that there arc many people in States other than Victoria who would not go along with a compulsory equalisation scheme in order to save a State that has gone in for dairying to a ridiculous extent. I hope no move will be made that will drag the industry down. I think the surplus is temporary and that it is peculiar to the Victorian industry. The historical attitude of the dairy industry has been to wait until a surplus becomes more or less permanent before taking panic action. I hope that this will be the attitude of the industry and of the Government on this occasion. The course J am suggesting is that we take a good look at the problem and make sure it is noi a temporary problem before we act. If we do act, 1 would be in favour of a voluntary equalisation scheme for dried milk products. I am sure that I would be supported heartily by many people, cooperatives and proprietary firms in South Australia. There is not a great deal more that I have to say tonight.

Mr Bryant:

– Do not stop now.

Mr GILES:

– I will continue and will refer to something that would probably do the honourable member for Wills some good - Australian milk wafers. They are the best gob stoppers 1 have encountered yet. The New Zealand equivalent is not as good as the Australian product, which I think is much more edible. I do not believe that either the dairy industry or the Government has taken sufficient interest in the production of milk wafers as a means of helping the starving people of South East Asia and elsewhere. This is a good article which is produced under a patent that I think is owned by the industry itself. The product uses surplus processed milk powder in a form which is readily assimilated by the digestive tracts of people who are not used to our high protein standard of living. I should like to sec the Government try lo promote the sale of milk wafers in new markets, especially in areas of Asia. There may also be a market for them in Africa. I know, for instance, that we have a good trade commissioner in Nairobi. In places like Nairobi there could be a market for these wafers, and these markets could make good inroads into our surplus processed milk.

Mr Duthie:

– -Who is making the wafers?

Mr GILES:

– I think that so far only the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is making them, but in New Zealand private firms have commenced their manufacture. This matter needs to be followed up both as a means of overcoming a glut in this section of the industry and also on humanitarian grounds, which is, I am sure, why the honourable member for Wilmot is exhibiting such an interest in the matter.

Tonight I have suggested a change that I believe must occur in the dairy industry in regard to the payment to primary producers. I will mention one more change before I conclude. I am not sure that I am right, but I believe that traditional, and sometimes conservative, elements within the dairy industry must be prepared to accept change in order to put the industry on a proper footing. I realise that I am getting on to slightly more dangerous ground. I believe that as long as we have a surplus of butterfat in the dairy industry and as long as there is a sale - this is somewhat problematical at present - for protein and carbohydrates in the form of processed foods, it is quite ridiculous to go around the country letting farmers take out the very products that are good and feed them to pigs. The farmer is getting the same price for the fat as he would if he were selling the whole milk equivalent. What could be more stupid than this? We are trying to encourage a smaller production of butter, and therefore fat, and a greater production of the food value of dairy produce. I believe that the time must come when payments are split to achieve a payment for butter and a method whereby the 50% content of protein, carbohydrates and sugar, is paid for and not necessarily shoved down the neck of a pig, which is not to the benefit of the dairy industry itself, lt suits the farmer very well, because he is getting full value for the fat component of the milk that nobody particularly wants. However, it does not suit the dairy industry as a whole. The industry should be looking beyond this parochial method of payment within the industry.

I have made two fairly provocative suggestions tonight. I believe they are basic to the problem that this Bill attempts to tackle. ] do not know whether they could be implemented tomorrow, or indeed in 5 years time, but I make the point that within the co-operative movement particularly there are rather conservative elements that are very much against any change. I suggest that over the years there must be change in the structure of the dairy industry if it is to exist as a viable proposition. I support the Bill.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– 1 have much pleasure in supporting this Bill, which was introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony). If we examine the Minister’s second reading speech we can appreciate some of the problems and difficulties that are confronting the dairy industry at present. The Minister said:

The processed milk products section of the dairy industry has suffered from subsidised competition in export markets to such an extent that butter fat in processed milk products exports was 18% lower in 1967-68 than in 1966-67.

This indicates some of the problems and complexities that confront this industry. This is particularly important because one of our export products is involved. Recently we were discussing exports and the need for exports to sustain our financial progress and development. If we take into account the contribution that is made by primary industry in the export field, we get a picture of the contribution that this industry makes to the financial stability of Australia.

Because of what is happening in Europe at the present time in regard to the European Economic Community, the competition, particularly in the Asian area, has been highlighted. I was interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) when he spoke of the criticism that had come from certain quarters in metropolitan areas about the assistance being given to primary industry. This criticism comes from people without an understanding or an appreciation of the contribution that primary industry has made to the financial stability of this country. This criticism to my mind shows a complete lack of understanding and a complete lack of appreciation of what assistance to primary industry really means and really does.

We should look also at the continuing factor in relation to employment. The employment situation in the primary industries is related not only to those who are directly concerned with primary production; it also spills over into many other industries. As has been pointed out, there are containers into which the various products of the industry are put. The production of these and of the other things required by the industry provides continuing employment.

One of the advantages of the policy of this Government lies in the discussions with the industry in regard to the assistance to be given to it. I think that we should take note of the words of the Minister who said in his second reading speech:

The Australian Dairy Industry Council has submilted a proposal, which has the support of manufacturers of processed milk products, to help the latter compete in the export field. The Government has agreed to the Council’s proposal for the exemption of specified processed milk products from the restrictive provision contained in section 4(3.) of the Processed Milk Products BountyAct, so that the export ‘ bounty will be payable on products made from butterfat which has already attracted bounty under the Dairying Industry Act.

This is of tremendous importance and value in these days when our co-operative societies are facing many problems and difficulties. This is a step in the right direction, towards giving assistance to the co-operative societies. The maximum usage of this S800.000 which is to be made available will give to the industry a stability which will allow it to plan ahead. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on a previous occasion I said that the plan to help primary industry is of tremendous value in that it gives stability to industry planning. That is a very important factor in regard to this matter.

I had the privilege not so very long ago of visiting one of our reconstituted milk plants in Manila. A young man from my electorate was over there managing the plant. As I went through the factory and saw what was being done and the progress that had been made in the factory in a period of only 6 months, 1 realised and appreciated to a greater degree the contribution that we were able to make in this area, firstly by giving a market for the product produced in Australia and secondly, by assisting the Philippines Government to establish in Manila a secondary industry which would be of value to that country.

A great deal has been said in regard to this legislation and much has been said in regard to the primary products which were the subjects of the other measures that have been discussed tonight. I do not want, particularly at this hour, to labour the point, but 1 congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government on again extending this assistance and in giving this further stability to the dairy industry. 1 have always said that our primary industries have a future. Having regard to the part that Australia is to play in providing food in this area of the world and with the continuing increase in our population, more food and primary products will need to be produced here. Therefore a future exists for our primary industries. The most important factor today is to see that we give assistance to the primary industries so that they are able to take advantage of the prospects ahead of them. In this Bill we have a further indication that the Government is conscious of this fact. It is always ready to help an industry which is prepared to help itself. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– in reply - A few questions were raised during the course of the debate on the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill which seeks to overcome an anomaly in that processors did not receive any portion of the bounty if their products contained a quantity of butterfat which already had attracted a bounty under the Dairying Industry Act. The questions were not related directly to this Bill but, for the benefit of those honourable members who raised them, I should like to say a word or two about them.

The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) inquired about the progress that had been made in bringing about some form of equalisation for skim milk powder. There have been discussions this year between manufacturers of skim milk powder to try to bring about a voluntary scheme with the purpose of establishing a home consumption price, the surplus to be exported to the very depressed world market. At the moment, with no scheme operating, the ruling world price determines what the domestic price will be. As a result, producers of skim milk powder suffer seriously because of low world prices. Unfortunately, no agreement could be achieved between the manufacturers and now that there has been a complete breakdown in discussions to establish a voluntary scheme, the Australian Dairy Produce Board, a group of the- manufacturers and officers of my

Department are examining the possibility of a compulsory equalisation scheme. The establishment of this scheme may not be possible under the constitution of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. However, we are examining the situation to see whether a scheme of some sort can be implemented.

The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) made, I thought, a very worthwhile contribution lo the debate. He raised some rather pertinent questions. He referred to the method of payment for dairy products in Australia. Some of his remarks were akin to remarks that I remember making in this House a few years ago, before I became Minister for Primary Industry. He said that it was anomalous and almost stupid to have a system of- payment for dairy products that incorporated a payment for the wafer content of those products. The anomaly arises where milk boards pay on a gallonage, basis. As the honourable member for Angas pointed out, milk is made up of three ingredients. These are water, solids not fat, and fat. The water is not really worth anything, but some people seem to be prepared to pay a lot for it. To overcome this anomaly a scheme of payment would need to be devised which would take into account not only the fat but also the solids not fat. At this point in time there is no system which can readily, quickly and efficiently determine the solids not fat in milk on which a suitable payment might be made. The honourable member will be interested to know that a committee of the Australian Agricultural Council has been set up to look into the method of payment for dairy products, to see whether advances in technology that have been made in other countries whereby the solids not fat content of milk can be quickly assessed could be adopted here, and to see whether a system of payment could be established which incorporated a balance between the fat and the solids not fat content. I think that in time this will have to be done, but unfortunately we have not got the technical skill to enable us to do it yet.

The honourable member for Angas also referred to the reconstitution plant operating in Singapore. He pointed out that there had been a heavy capital expenditure on the plant which now was not being utilised to its fullest extent. I am not sure whether the honourable member is aware - perhaps he is - that the Australian Dairy Produce Board has relinquished its financial interest in the plant in Singapore, lt has recouped its investment without loss, and it has arranged for the supply of ingredients to this plant. Products are being processed and are being sold at whatever the ruling prices are for skimmed milk powder and butter oil. However, we have access to this plant. At the present time, with difficult marketing circumstances overseas it is important that we should have access to the plant, although the prices being obtained for products might not be as high as we would wish.

The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) also made a very worthwhile contribution to the debate. Apart from referring to the importance of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act in helping to overcome certain anomalies in the dairying industry he drew the attention of the House to the important role that the dairying industry plays in the economic makeup of this country. It plays a very worthwhile role in earning foreign exchange which keeps this country progressing and which helps with our national development. The important role which the Australian dairying industry plays can never be overstressed In fact, in the year just ended the industry earned approximately $93m in foreign exchange. That is a very worthwhile contribution when we consider the problems in our foreign exchange situation.

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 Anthony) read a third time.

page 2925

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

National Health Bill 1968.

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1968.

page 2926

ADJOURNMENT

Drought Relief - Business of the House

Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MUNRO:
Monaro · Eden

– I want to draw the attention of the House to the continuing drought in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. In spite of some recent showers the drought is continuing in a large area of the tablelands, particularly in the real Monaro, the southern end.It is continuing in virtually the whole of the south coast.It is the worst drought in the history of the south coast and parts of EdenMonaro. One of the outstanding features of the battle against the drought has been the difficulty in getting accurate figures about anything and the ease with which it has been possible for a distorted view to be publicised from time to time. This has been especially apparent in the last couple of weeks. Newspaper stories have come out stating that approaches for special’ drought assistance have been made in vain to the Commonwealth. This is certainly untrue. Other stories and editorials have stated that fodder has been building up at railway sidings while the stock starved. This is completely untrue and without any basis of evidence whatsoever.

In this unprecedented drought both Commonwealth and State Governments have given unprecedented help, and in every area farmers have been fighting with the problems of drought as effectively as they can with whatever resources are available. However, there have been some problems, as well as some successes, in the efforts made by one particular group in the Bega Valley. This in the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee and I will come back to its problems and successes in a moment. First, 1 should like to give as good a picture as possible of the overall situation in that hard hit dairying area of the Eden Pastures Protection Board, from Moruya to Eden on the south coast.

The best estimate of figures from the local branch of the Department of Agriculture and the Eden Pastures Protection Board is that we are concerned with approximately 100,000 head of cattle, including calves, beef and dairy cattle, and about 71,000 sheep. The latest estimate of deaths in cattle arrived at today is about 4,000 head. Surprisingly enough, it has not been found possible to arrive at an estimate of the number of cattle that have been sold out of the area, but it is probably safe to say that this would be well in excess of 10,000 head. The number of cattle that have gone out to agistment was estimated at 8,000 head some 10 days ago, and later figures are not available today. The local branch of the Department of Agriculture estimates that 40,000 of these cattle are of milking dairy stock, and that on the approximately 600 dairies in the area, supporting stock, heifers and milch cows usually account for about 25% of the number. So it would be safe to say that there are some 25,000 actual milking cows, which naturally do not lend themselves to agistment. The nearest estimate I have been able to get as to the proportion of cows that would be feeding off irrigated pastures is between 8% and 10%. So this still leaves a very large number of milking cows in the continuing problem area requiring imported feed. However, it does show that a very large number of cattle could be moved out to agistment.

Apart from very substantial offers for free agistment - and a fresh offer was received this morning for free agistment for 3,000 head of cattle - there is a very great deal of agistment ‘available at from 50c to 70c per beast per week. Hay that has been bought just to keep starving stock alive - this is apart from the free hay - is costing $1 to$1. 40 a head a week. It is very obvious that it is a far better proposition to put cattle where they can fatten for half the cost of barely keeping them alive. If there is not substantial rain in the immediate future there will have to be a very great movement of cattle out to agistment. Water is often a more drastic decision maker than feed. The recent showers have decreased the flow of cattle to agistment, but this can be expected to resume on a very large scale unless there is follow-up rain immediately.

All the stories about hay being held up at Nimmitabel have been completely false. There has been no hold-up and none is presently expected. Hay has been arriving at Nimmitabel in the last few days in greater quantities than before. Indications are that it can be handled. Yesterday 22 trucks of hay and 1 truck of wheat arrived at

Nimmitabel, while a further 19 trucks were on their way towards Nimmitabel. A special train from Goulburn to Nimmitabel took down 13 trucks for the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee, 5 trucks of gift fodder and 2 trucks of privately owned fodder. This train arrived at 8.30 a.m. today. Another train will arrive at Nimmitabel tomorrow at 9 a.m. It is expected that tomorrow morning there will be 4 large trucks of hay for the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee and 2 smaller trucks for private owners. It is also expected that there will be a carry-over of 17 trucks at Nimmitabel from today. Both the Secretary of the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee and the local officer from the New South Wales Department of Agriculture have advised me that fodder is flowing fairly well and that they seem to have sufficient road transport to handle the situation.

One very encouraging aspect of this drought has been the response of farmers in the more favoured areas who have now offered about 95,000 bales of hay, which would be a quantity approaching some 2,000 tons. To date about 2,000 bales of this free fodder has arrived. There is an article in this morning’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ indicating an offer from Narrabri of some S28.000 worth of cotton seed hulls. This offer apparently has not been taken up yet but the officers of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture know about it and T think we will hear more about it in the very near future. 1 would now like to briefly mention the activities of the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee. This Committee was formed when the Mumbulla Shire Council decided to call a meeting of local organisations and bodies concerned with the welfare of the farmers on Monday, 23rd September. The Committee is made up of one representative from the Imlay, Mumbulla and Eurobodalla Shires, the Bega Municipal Council, the Eden Pastures Protection Board, the Factories Association, the Primary Producers Union, and the Australian Primary Producers Union. In addition to these, other people were co-opted, including the Reverend Frank Woodwell, who has been extremely good in getting us free hay and agistment. The Committee set out lo purchase hay which, in the event, did not turn out lo bc particularly cheap and some of it was rejected by farmers. There was a shortage of railway trucks in October, occasioned partially by the 2 weeks strike by storemen and packers in Sydney, but other organisations and individuals managed to get their hay through and the Committee did not get as much as it wanted and did not advise the State or Commonwealth Governments until the shortage was virtually over. This led to the confusion about the demand for Army transport but, apart from the public confusion, the Premier’s assurance that adequate rail and road transport was available has turned out to be true.

Loose statements about any conflicts between the State and Federal Governments over drought aid having created delays have all been quite false. The involvement of the ALP, particularly through the President of the Eden-Monaro Council of the ALP, has been particularly clumsy in trying to make political capital out of this desperate struggle against a natural disaster. Statements from ALP sources have become mixed up in the public mind with statements from the Committee and this has led to charges that some members of the Committee have been politically motivated, rather than motivated by a desire to help the farmers. Spokesmen for the Committee have denied party political affiliation as a committee, and I believe them. But in addition to this, the Premier of New South Wales has quoted Committee sources as making misleading and untrue statements about the request for Army transport. The great pity of this cloud of confusion is that it has reduced the farmers’ confidence in government assistance available to them and has even apparently blindfolded some farmers so that they did not take advantage of the assistance that was and is available.

On the other hand, the Committee has done a splendid job in obtaining offers of free hay and free agistment, and particular credit for this must go to the Reverend Frank Woodwell. Whatever happens in the immediate or long term future there is something to be learned from this battle. In Eden-Monaro we have broken new ground in achieving Commonwealth aid in a broad range of drought assistance in a regional drought for the first time in Commonwealth history. In spite of occasional healthy disputes between representatives of the two Parliaments there has been effective co-operation where it counts, in practical measures. I hope we can go on from there to establish a better basis for analysing measures to control and mitigate drought. It is fairly true to say that just as Commonwealth involvement in these matters is only recent, so too it is only recently that we are beginning to acquire the men and materials, the methods and techniques, and the machinery of analysis needed to tackle this great task. As an initial step I am approaching the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) to ask him to make an analysis of taxation provisions so as to determine what further measures might be taken to encourage people to spend on conservation while they have an income from good seasons, so as to provide against bad ones.

I have been supporting measures which have been successful and I certainly will give my wholehearted support to any future practical measures. I would like to appeal to some of those people who have been directly concerned with the drought and who have been indulging in a little infighting to knock it off and get on with the real business of fighting the drought.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I want to deal with the farce that took place here tonight regarding the swift movement through the Parliament of a large number of important Bills and on which practically no debate of substance took place. There were reasons for this which I shall outline. The position will have to be looked at very closely so that it will not arise again. Tt is obvious that the Government Whip panicked in bringing on some of these bills. I think that he was trying to do the best job that he could in the circumstances. Nevertheless there was no reason or justification for him to take the action he did for the reasons I will outline.

At 4.20 o’clock this afternoon the Government Whip contacted me and indicated that the business of the House was moving faster than he had anticipated. He wanted to know whether I could help him out by resuming the debate on some of the Bills that were not listed on the blue paper. I said I would try to help him and asked him to tell me the Bills he wanted. He said: We would like to take the meat Bills listed on the notice paper as orders of the day

Nos 13, 14, 15 and 16.” 1 replied that I would let him know if it were possible to do so. I came into the House then to resume the debate on the Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill.

At 5.40 o’clock the Government Whip approached me again with respect to Bills that were not listed for today. We then had a discussion in the Labor Whips room. I told him that as the beef Bills were very important and as it had not been thought at any stage that they would be discussed today I did not think it was a fair thing to be asked at this short notice to take them. I said, however, that I would try to help him out. I said that I could take order of the day No. .1.2, which was the Quarantine Bill 1968. The Government Whip then said that I could not take the Quarantine Bill. This is (he Bill listed on the notice paper above the livestock Bills. He said that I could not debate this Bill because it had been taken off the list and would not be debated until next session. It would not be debated tomorrow, or next week but would come before the House for discussion next session. I then said: ‘All right, I will take the Bill coming after the meat Bills’. This is order of the day No. 17, the Wine Grapes Charges Bill 1968. I suggested this Bill because it was fresh in our minds. I said that I. could take that Bill and he informed me that I could not do ‘so because it had also been taken off the list and would not appear until next session. So, another Bill would appear not tomorrow or next week but during the next session.

I then said that I would try to help the Whip by taking the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill 1968. I thought we could line up some speakers such as the honourable members for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), Braddon (Mr Davies) and Franklin (Mr Pearsall). It was decided in the honourable member for Wilmot’s room that this Bill would come on at about 8.20 o’clock. It was also decided in that room that because we would take the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill the meat Bills would not come on.

Mr Anthony:

– With whom did you decide it?

Dr PATTERSON:

– With the Government and Labor Whips. Is not that what one is supposed to do?

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Would the honourable gentleman make his interjections more audible?

Dr PATTERSON:

– He is incapable of doing that. Between 7.50 and 7.55 p.m. we saw the Government Whip in the corridor who again confirmed that the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill would be coming on at approximately 8.20 o’clock. The Government Whip says that he informed me that the meat Bills would also come on, despite the fact that 2 hours previously he said that they would not come on. If he said this I did not hear him. Certainly our own Whip knew nothing of it. When 1 got back from my room at 8.5 o’clock I found that the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill was finished. The next thing that happened was that the four meat Bills were called on. We had the farce of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) getting up and, like a parrot, reading the Minister’s second reading speech.

Mr Hulme:

– That is not right.

Dr PATTERSON:

– You can have your say, too.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W J Aston:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! There are too many interjections coming from my right.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not read it; I said I was quoting from it.

Mr SPEAKER:
Dr PATTERSON:

– This is the truth, as I understand it. We had the farce tonight of very important Bills being rushed through despite undertakings given to us by the Government.

Mr Hulme:

– Could the Labor Party not get anyone to speak?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The PostmasterGeneral comes into the House only late at night, like an owl. That is all we see of him.

Mr Hulme:

– I happened to be in the House when you were not here at 5 minutes past S.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Far too many interjections are coming from my right.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That is the basis of the complaint. I repeat that I believe the Government Whip is doing the best he can in the circumstances, but he panicked. Arrangements in the House were out of control and Bills were brought on without the Opposition being given any notice that they were being brought on. Certainly we should not have a repetition of this situation.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Air · Forrest · LP

– I am sorry that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) feels so deeply disturbed about what after all is only the normal arrangement of the business when the House is nearing the end of a session. It is well known that the blue paper that is issued each day is intended only as a guide and that the official Notice Paper is the white Notice Paper which is printed each day. It contains the complete list of outstanding Government business. The blue paper is a general guide showing the business that the Government hopes to get through during the course of each day. A note at the foot of the blue paper today reads:

Other orders of the day may be taken as time permits.

Clearly the House was on notice that the blue paper was not the only paper to be looked at for the business of the House.

Dr Patterson:

– We know all that.

Mr FREETH:

– The honourable member for Dawson ventilated his grievances at some length. He freely invited us to take part in the little debate he has started and I suggest that he allow me to develop my theme in my own way. If we look at the white Notice Paper we see that the Bills that were debated have been before the House for some time. The earliest, the Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill, was introduced on 22nd August.

Dr Patterson:

– What about the others?

Mr FREETH:

– I am dealing with the Bills that were debated tonight. There were a number of other Bills, the latest of which was introduced on 22nd October. No-one on the Opposition side can claim that he was caught by surprise as to the contents of the Bills or the Government’s views on the Bills.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes we can.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Yarra will cease interjecting.

Mr FREETH:

– The plain truth of the matter is that when the bells ceased ringing at 8 o’clock tonight, the Opposition called a quorum. We have had some excellent cooperation from the Opposition, let it be acknowledged, but calling a quorum is not the kind of tactic that endears the Opposition to the Government.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Is that why you were-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Despite my warning, the honourable member for Yarra is still interjecting. I ask him to restrain himself.

Mr FREETH:

– The Government then went on with the Bills as it had determined to do. The honourable member for Dawson seems to think that he is the only person aggrieved, but other honourable members on the Opposition front bench were in the same situation. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) was not here for the resumption of the debate on a Bill on which he had taken the adjournment. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was not here for a Bill on which he had taken the adjournment. The honourable member for Dawson now complains about the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Collection Bill having been brought on. The honourable member, as we all know, sets great store on his own importance in this place, but to expect the House to arrange the order of its business to suit one Opposition member is asking a little much of the Government, hard pressed as it is in the interests of all honourable members to get through a pretty tight timetable before the House is due to rise. The honourable member was in the House during the debate. He could have spoken at any time on Bills about which he has known since 9th October, when they were introduced in the House. One imagines he would have had some material prepared. But he sat and sulked like a child, a performance that would not rate him very highly with anyone.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– It is obvious that the Minister for Air (Mr Freeth) knows nothing about the arrangements that were made earlier tonight. He makes that point that the arrangement of the business is a matter for the Government, and he may be correct. The Opposition acknowledges that this is so. However, the Minister has been a member of the House long enough to realise that an arrangement is always made firstly between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House and secondly between the two Whips. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden), who is the Leader of the House, is not here tonight. If he had been here I doubt very much whether the performance tonight, for which the Government is responsible, would have happened. Indeed I believe it would not have happened. The Leader of the House and I have always worked very closely together and I think he would be the first to concede this point. I believe it may be said, too, that the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip have always worked well together.

The Minister for Air, knowing nothing about the circumstances, endeavoured tonight to refute what was said by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), but the blunt fact is that 1 was present when the discussions took place. The discussions took place not only between the honourable member for Dawson, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), who is the Opposition Whip, and the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin), who is the Government Whip, but I was also present. Certain arrangements were made. They were not made to assist the Opposition. On the contrary, it was made perfectly clear that the Government wanted the House to sit tonight until at least’ 10.30 p.m. and the Opposition conceded that this was a reasonable proposition. Because the business on the Notice Paper had been completed earlier than anticipated by the Opposition and the Government, we made certain arrangements with the Whip. What were these arrangements? They were substantially as the honourable member for Dawson has outlined them to the House. lt was agreed that the Opposition should deal first with the Spirits Bill and when that was completed that the honourable member for Dawson, who had no prior notice of this legislation, would deal with the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill. Since it was recognised that the debate on these two Bills would not occupy the House until 10.30 p.m., it was agreed that the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission

Bill would be brought on. Although the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) had no opportunity to prepare for a debate on the Bill and had not expected it to be brought on tonight, he agreed to deal with it if it was not brought on before 9.30 p.m. What happened? Although these arrangements had been made with the Whips, with me and with the honourable members who were to take part in the debates, as the honourable member for Dawson said earlier, the Government, having dealt with the Spirits Bill, moved on to the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill although the honourable member for Dawson was not present in the House. Surely the decent thing for the Government Whip to have done, knowing of the arrangements which were made earlier this evening, would have been to hold this Bill over temporarily so that arrangements could be made for the honourable member for Dawson to be present in the House and deal with it. What happened? The Government allowed the Bill to go through. The honourable member for Dawson was not here. There have been occasions when the Government Whip has co-operated with the Opposition Whip and myself to ensure that a speaker was available in the House when a Bill he was interested in was coming forward. As I said, that did not happen on this occasion and the Bill was dealt with before the honourable member for Dawson came into the chamber.

Despite the fact that there had been an agreement between those concerned that the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill would not be brought on before 9.30 p.m., the Bill was brought on immediately the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill had been dealt with. The honourable member for Newcastle was not in the House at that time. Surely the Government Whip could have had sufficient courtesy to honour the earlier arrangements. He knows that an arrangement was made for the honourable member for Newcastle to deal with this Bill not earlier than 9 o’clock and preferably not before 9.30 p.m. The Government Whip had the Bill introduced and it was dealt with at the second reading stage. The honourable member for Newcastle then spoke on it at the third reading stage. I think the Government Whip will recall - he will have an opportunity to refute what

I have to say on this matter if he wishes to - that we had a discussion in the Opposition Whip’s room and it was decided to keep the House going until 9.30 p.m. The four Bills in relation to which the honourable member for Dawson objected earlier tonight were not to be brought on this evening. Those four Bills were the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1968, the Meat Research Bill 1968 and the Meat Legislation Repeal Bill 1968. The Minister for Primary Industry may raise some objection to this arrangement, but that was the arrangement. The Government has dealt with three Bills which the Opposition had agreed to debate, and these were not on the blue business sheet.

Mr Anthony:

– They were on the white sheet - the notice paper.

Mr BARNARD:

– They were on the white sheet, but they were not on the blue sheet. The Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government in this respect and, as I said, part of the arrangement was that the four Bills to which 1 just referred would not be dealt with tonight. I repeat that if the Minister for Immigration, who is the Leader of the House, had been here tonight this unfortunate situation would not have arisen. I do not hold the Government Whip entirely responsible for this situation; I think that probably he does the best that he can. Since I have been accepting the responsibility on behalf of the Opposition to make arrangements to co-operate with the Government, the Minister for Immigration - if he were here tonight he would be the first to concede this - has had the complete co-operation of the Opposition on all occasions. I refer to a Bill which was passed by this House only 2 days ago and in relation to which the Government urgently needed the complete co-operation of the Opposition. I made arrangements with the Minister for Immigration for this Bill to be dealt with. He has had the complete cooperation of the Opposition on all such occasions.

Whenever I have given my word to the Minister as to what should be the programme in the House, it has always been adhered to. It is clear that on this occasion the Government Whip, and probably the Minister for Primary Industry, rejected the earlier arrangements agreed to by the parties concerned.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I do not want to enter the argument about the Bills that have been passed tonight, but I want to say one or two things about the remarks made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). When I spoke on the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill and the Meat Revenue Bill I said that I was quoting from the Minister’s second reading speech. I did look at the speech to remind myself of the exact figures.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member should not refer to a debate that occurred in the House earlier this evening. If he does so he will be out of order.

Mr TURNBULL:

– When the honourable member for Dawson came into the House just now he made a special feature of insulting me. I make it clear to the House that if I read something I always say that I am quoting. No-one in this House can say that I read my speeches. The honourable member for Dawson said: ‘There was the honourable member for Mallee reading away like a parrot’. If that is not insulting I would like to know what is. I want the honourable member to understand that that sort of talk does not go over here, even with his own colleagues. I was not impressed when he spoke tonight. Everything which he said commenced with T. I think he must have some inflated idea of his powers. He was here when I was speaking, because he said that he saw me reading. Therefore he could have entered the debate. Why did he not enter the debate? All he had to say was: T thought this’, T did this’, T did that’. I am not one who talks in that kind of language; it is foreign to me. I thought when he said T he was referring to the Opposition. I have never approached or spoken to the honourable member for Dawson in other than a courteous way. I think that applies to my aproach to all members in this House.

The honourable member for Dawson is a relatively new member in this House, and it is remarkable how much of his speeches he reads. If he did not read his speeches he could not make one at all. He reads his speeches all the time. It is not in the best interests to come along here and try to insult a member who has been here for a long time. The best thing he can do is to try to put things on a better basis, or goodness knows how he will get on. I do not insult people. I am here to protect myself against this sort of attack. I believe I have a right to rise and speak in my defence. I am not a speech reader and I resent that accusation more than anything else. If the honourable member for Dawson gels any satisfaction from insulting me, then he can wallow in it.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– The Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee is not officially affiliated with any political party, but I believe that it has been used in a political sense by the Australian Labor Party. We are aware of the way in which this Committee has been used in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Bega Valley farmers. How has this happened? The New South Wales Government formed a drought sub-committee of Cabinet which has been working since February of this year on providing assistance for those affected by the drought on the south coast of New South Wales. A very severe drought was followed by a very severe winter. The New South Wales Government has been providing extremely generous subsidies on rail freight at the rate of 75%, which compares with the 50% that was paid by a previous government of which Mr Hills was a member. Farmers in the Bega Valley have been paying only half of the road freight and have been able to obtain unlimited funds at 3% interest. All the cooperatives have been making sure that outside fodder was flowing into the area quite freely. This was the situation through March, April. May, June, July, August and September.

Then, when it was thought that there might be. a Federal general election this year the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee suddenly appeared. The man who chaired the meeting at which the Committee was formed was heard over the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio station 2BA in Bega exhorting farmers to attend the meeting at the hotel. Mr Hills, the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Eden-Monaro and the former President of the Federal and New South Wales organisations of the Australian Labor Party were present. This Committee is supposed to be non-political. The chairman of the meeting which formed the Committee exhorted the people over the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio programme to attend the meeting. Of course, the ABC is one of the Labor Party organs in this country. Some of the farmers attended the meeting. The person who moved the resolution on the basis of which the Committee was formed is a strong supporter of the ALP in Bega. A few days later he was seen talking not to members of the Government Parties but to Labor members of the New South Wales Legislative Council at Parliament House in Macquarie Street, Sydney. We all know what has happened in the Legislative Council recently.

The man who made the most noise at the meeting in Bega is a strong Labor Supporater. When I was game enough to outline the Government’s proposals he said: The same old stuff. We want free grants, not loans.’ I said very timidly, as is my habit, as honourable members know: ‘The Bega farmers are very relucant to borrowWhen I was here in 1952 after the big fire, I offered them £500 each free, provided they borrowed £500 from the Rural Bank at 3% interest. They said: “No. Our fathers borrowed from the banks at 12%. We will never borrow again.” That shows the reluctance of the Bega farmers to borrow.’ What happened? This Labor supporter, this Socialist who believed the Government should do everything, said: ‘No. We do not want loans; we want free grants.’ The cows were not fed because the farmers were waiting for the free grants. Because of the publicity about the drought, plenty of fodder is going into the Bega Valley area, and the State Government is paying for this fodder under arrangements made by the Cabinet sub-committee.

Members of the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee say that it is not political. They forget that at every opportunity they attack the Liberal-Australian Country Party coalition in the Federal and State spheres. When the Dungog and Gloucester areas were affected by a most terrifying drought, the co-operatives arranged for fodder to be taken into those areas. No drought relief committee was formed, because no Federal election was pending. The co-operatives handled the situation with great skill, because they knew how to buy fodder and get the best quality, and how to handle transport. They knew that the railways could not carry the fodder at that stage, and they even got the State Government to pay for the transport of Victorian fodder to Dungog and Gloucester. My friend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) and the member for Gloucester in the State Parliament will recall this because they were with me for some of the time. The honourable member for Lyne, one of the most esteemed members of this House, is nodding his head because this is accurate.

In other words, for 4 years we have been administering relief from these terrible droughts with some success because we have pulled these farmers through. No-one would believe that the once great Australian Labor Party would stoop to this miserable business of trying to use the anguish, the bitterness and the agony of the farmers of this district for political advantage. Mr Speaker, would you believe that people could do this? I do not believe it. I think it was probably only a coincidence that the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro happened along at this moment, that Mr Hills came along at this moment and that the ex-Federal and State President of the Australian Labor Party also happened to be there with these noisy men. Oh, this was not political at all, it was just a coincidence that they became disgusted with what was happening and decided that not enough fodder was flowing. What did the co-operatives think about this? Does anyone think that the Nowra Cooperative Dairy Company with $240,000 bothered about who was the candidate for Eden-Monaro? Does anyone think that Horlicks with S 100,000 bothered, or the Moruya co-operative with its money, or the Central Tilba, Tilba Tilba, Cobargo or Pambula organisations? All of these were supplying farmers with good quality fodder. They were not worried about the fact that there was a federal election coming up. But at Bega were these characters, including the one who chaired the meeting. I am afraid I was invited by some innocent farmers t< come along and I think I rather spoilt the show because they moved a vote of thanks and said that I had the courage to go. I said: ‘Courage? Who do you think 1 would be frightened of around this place? They then went ahead with the meeting and formed the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee and from that moment they began attacking Liberal-Country Party coalitions in the federal and State arenas. By so doing they eroded the willingness, the resolution and the determination of farmers to go on with the ordinary methods which had been provided with the utmost generosity. The money was there.

Mr Hills went down. He was the Minister in the Renshaw Government who refused the 75% rail subsidy. It was only 50% under Labor but it was 75% under this Government, with payment for all of the transport of the gift fodder. Once again 1 would hope that it was merely a coincidence that this galaxy of Labor talent appeared just as the Bega Valley Drought Relief Committee was formed and that these well meaning and patriotic district residents were sucked into this Committee by this kind of plot. Really, it is so barefaced. But these chaps feel hurt to be lined up with these characters who appeared just before a Federal election. An election was on. There was a frantic run for the Labor preselection. The honourable member for Watson (Mr Cope) was very interested. He was naturally in on what was happening and so we had this terrific rush for the preselection by the Labor interests in EdenMonaro.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– 1 only wish to take a few minutes because the matter that was raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and (he honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has been covered, not in complete fullness but very widely, and I would just like to fill in a few of the paris that have been omitted. As a result of an excellent afternoon’s work we got through nine Bills and the House ran out of business at 5.45 p.m. It was then that the Government came to us for help, lt could not call other Bills on for debate without being completely ruthless and breaking all the rules of parliamentary conduct. The Government could not debate a further seven or eight Bills without first consulting the Opposition. The consultation took place in my office. Present were the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Government Whip (Mr Erwin). At one stage the honourable member for Dawson was present and at another the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). Later another very important person was present - the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Mr Ian Grigg. We worked out a programme for the night.

I want it to be understood that at that stage the House had run out of the business which it expected to deal with today. A Bill involving substantia] discussion could not have been debated after 8 o’clock without causing a good deal of inconvenience. So the Opposition said that it would agree to debate the Spirits Bill and the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill, which we had not expected to debate today. Then out of the blue the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill was called on. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Dawson were prepared to debate these Bills and we thought that the debates would ensue for the remainder of the night. I was prepared to speak for about 20 minutes on the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) was prepared to speak on the Bill for 10 or 15 minutes. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Pearsall) was to be asked to speak on the Bill because his electorate is probably one of the biggest apple growing areas in Australia. I have before me the list of speakers which was prepared in my office. It is not in my writing but in the writing of Mr Ian Grigg. The names are Patterson, Pearsall, Duthie, Pettitt. Davies. We thought that the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill would be disposed of by 9.30 or 9.45 and that wa would spend the remainder of the night debating the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill. That would have been the day’s work.

But things went haywire at 8 o’clock. The honourable member for Franklin rose to speak when the Spirits Bill was called on. Somebody pointed out that he was speaking on the wrong Bill, so he sat down. The Government seized the opportunity to put the Bill through the House quickly before the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) could get into the chamber to speak. He arrived in the chamber seconds after the Bill had been passed. The next Bill was called on. At that time I was in my office speaking on the telephone to somebody in Launceston. 1 was getting information for my speech on the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill. I had not had any dinner. I have not had anything to eat today since 1 o’clock. I spent 2 solid hours preparing my speech in order to help out the Government. Please understand that:I had not intended to speak on the Bill. I spent 2 hours making telephone calls to Hobart and Launceston seeking information for my speech. 1 was on the telephone when the Government Whip passed through my office into the corridor outside. In the corridor he saw the honourable member for Dawson and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He did not bother to interrupt my telephone conversation, as so often happens, to tell me that the Bills would be called on earlier than had been arranged. I did not know that the honourable member for Dawson was not in the House when the legislation was called on. The arrangement was that the honourable member for Dawson should speak at about 8.15.

Mr Erwin:

– What about the honourable member for Yarra? He was supposed to speak on the Spirits Bill.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I am crooked on the whole business and L want an explanation. When the honourable member for Dawson was not present to resume the debate on the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill, there was nothing in the world to stop a member of the Government parties resuming the debate and speaking on the Bill. The hon ourable member for Franklin rose to do so, but was waved down and sat down. That was why that debate collapsed. He told us afterwards that that was what happened - that he was waved down. He could have saved the whole situation and given me time to get back into the chamber. I arrived back in the chamber just as the motion for the third reading of the Bill was being passed. I would have debated the Bill had I arrived back in the chamber a few seconds earlier or had the honourable member for Franklin spoken even for only 5 minutes. The honourable member for Dawson arrived back in the chamber just before 10 minutes past 8. That is the unfortunate story of what happened tonight. I do not know whether it was the deliberate intention of the Government to try to take us unawares and to rush all these Bills through without any speeches at all being made on them. I hope it was not. The upshot of it all is that we finished seventeen Bills today.

Mr Erwin:

– We finished nineteen.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That means that two Bills were passed without my knowing about them. I thought that an explanation was necessary to clear the air from our point of view.

Motion (by Mr Fairbairn) agreed to.

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

page 2936

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Helicopters: Antarctica: Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 596)

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. After the accident the Certificate of Approval granted to Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd to maintain aircraft, overhaul aircraft components and distribute aircraft goods was suspended pending investigation under Air Navigation Regulation 257. The possible suspension of the Certificate was, at the time of the accident, being investigated as a result of other indications of deficiencies in the company’s airworthiness control system so that the suspension was by no means wholly due to inadequate maintenance procedures revealed by the accident. The accident merely provided the further evidence needed to impose the suspension. The investigation following the suspension revealed that the overhaul and distribution activities were satisfactory and the relative approvals were reinstated. Requirements necessary to be met for the Company to have its aircraft maintenance approval reinstated were specified by the Department and have been now met by the Company. I should mention that the accident report makes it clear that the accident did not arise from activities performed under the aircraft maintenance approval.
  2. In 1961 tenders were invited for the hire of two helicopters and crews to accompany the Antarctic voyages in 1961-62. TAA and Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd. submitted tenders and a contract was arranged with TAA. Subsequently, Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd took action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to restrain the Australian National Airlines Commission from carrying out the contract on the grounds that the Commission had no power to make such a contract. The Company’s submissions were upheld by the Court and an injunction was granted by Mr Justice Taylor. At the request of the Australian National Airlines Commission, TAA was released from the contract and a new contract was arranged with Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd.
  3. Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd has been awarded the contract for the supply of helicopter services to Antarctic expeditions every year since 1961 and has been awarded a number of other Government contracts. The details are as follows:

Helicopter Utilities Pty Ltd will also be engaged for the supply of helicopter and crews for the 1968-69 Antarctic expeditions as the tenders invited in 1966 encompassed the voyages in 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.

Housing Agreement: Civic Costs (Question No. 755)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. In what circumstances and to what extent do housing authorities and building societies which receive grants under the Housing Agreement meet or share the capital cost of (a) roads, (b) water, (c) sewerage, (d) drainage, (e) community centres, (f) youth clubs, (g) children’s playgrounds, (h) sportsgrounds and (i) pre-school centres?
  2. In what circumstances and to what extent do the authorities and societies pay local government and semi-government rates and charges?
Mr Bury:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Perhaps I should first explain that grants, as such, are not made under the 1956-1966 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. All moneys made available to the Slates are in the nature of advances repayable with interest over a period of 53 years. Insofar as the question relates to State housing authorities, the answer can be presented most conveniently under the following headings:

    1. Roads and (d) Drainage - Tn accordance with clause 1 1 (3) (b) of the Housing Agreement, State housing authorities use advances received under the Agreement to meet the costs of providing roads and drainage within new subdivisions they have created. Where land for building projects is acquired within existing subdivisions the purchase price paid with Housing Agreement advances has regard to the existence of roads and such services as are available. The creation of new subdivisions is the more common practice among the State housing authorities.
    2. Water and (c) Sewerage - Clause 12 of the Housing Agreement provides that, except as otherwise agreed between the Commonwealth Minister for Housing and the appropriate State Minister, advances may not be used for works, including water and sewerage mains, which are normally the financial responsibility of Local Government or public utility authorities. There have been very few instances over the years where State housing authorities have sought and obtained the agreement of the Minister to use advances under the Housing Agreement for such works. In each case, special circumstances warranted the exception being made.
    3. Children’s Playgrounds and (h) Sportsgrounds - Housing authorities recognise the need for land lo be set aside for these facilities within subdivisions that they create. In some States, local government or planning legislation requires that a certain minimum percentage of land be set aside within subdivisions for reserves or public space. In most States, land is dedicated free of cost lo the Local Government authority concerned, sometimes after minor grading of the areas has been carried out to place them in reasonably usable condition before dedication. While the cost of the laud is met from Housing Agreement advances, the improvement, planting, and provision of equipment in these areas is the responsibility of Local Government, and the housing authority incurs no expense in this regard.
    4. Community Centres, (f) Youth Clubs, (i) Pre-school Centres- In some States, housing authorities make grants of land to Local Government authorities or sell land to various community and welfare organisations undertaking the provision of these facilities.

In regard to building and housing societies, Housing Agreement advances channelled through the Home Builders’ Account are made available only for the purposes stipulated in the Housing Agreement, that is, for loans to persons who require finance for the erection or purchase of their own homes. Once the borrower assumes ownership of the land he is in the same’ position aS all other private landowners in respect of liability for meeting or sharing the cost of municipal and community facilities. In ordinary circumstances, a society would not obtain title to a dwelling in respect of which it has made a loan and therefore would have no liability to contribute to these costs.

  1. State housing authorities pay normal rates and taxes on the properties they own, and recover the amounts paid as a component of the economic rentals charged to tenants. In some States, rates are not payable by the housing authorities on vacant land or vacant dwellings.

Building and housing societies are not ordinarily the owners of properties in respect of which they have made loans to members, and consequently have no responsibility to pay rates and similar charges.

Cost of Radio and Television Communications (Question No. 878)

Dr Everingham:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What are the estimated costs of (a) existing and (b) projected telephone, radio and television connections by (i) satellite and (ii) landline and ground station relays (A) within his Department and (B) for private broadcasters?
  2. Can he say what percentage of this cost Australia would bear if the launching of a satellite were a joint project with New Zealand, Indonesia, Polynesia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Southern Asia, excluding Vietnam, assuming each contributed to the cost in proportion to gross national product per head of population?
  3. Is he able lo say whether the Soviet Union recently reported a decision to provide all of its territory with satellite-relayed television; if so, will he investigate the possibility of an exchange of television and radio lime by satellite between Communist and non-Communist countries as ;i means of diminishing international political censorship and misunderstanding which lead to the human :ind economic wastage of cold and hot wars?
Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1. (A) (i) (a) The Department commenced installing broadband bearer systems during 1958 and today some 8,000 route miles of broadband systems arc in service. The network provides large blocks of trunk telephone and telegraph circuits lo more than eighty important centres and also provides a large number of television relay facilities. The cost of providing this network by satellite cannot be estimated because it would not have been technically feasible to provide sill of these facilities by the use of communication satellite systems.

  1. The cost of television relay facilities provided by private broadcasters connot be accurately estimated but it would be insignificant compared wilh the departmental investment in such facilities.
  2. (a) The total cost to June 1968 of the Department’s network of broadband bearers, which comprise coaxial cable and microwave relay systems, has been approximately $70m.

    1. See 1. (A) (i) (b) above.

I- (B) 0) (a) The Department plans to extend its broadband bearer network considerably over the next 5 years. As might be expected, the Department has investigated the technical and economic feasibility of providing some of these future facilities by a satellite communications system rather than by extension of the terrestrial broadband network. Based on the unit costs which ate current for international satellite systems, a domestic satellite communications system providing television relays and telephone trunk circuits to a limited number of centres would involve annual costs several times greater than those which would arise from comparable land based systems. An important factor is the life of a commercial telecommunications satellite which is now estimated at about 5 years, and costs must therefore be written off over a comparatively brief period. In addition, the failure of a launching, the probability of which is currently estimated at 15%. can add significantly to the cost. If favourable assumptions are made concerning future unit costs for a domestic satellite system, and the number of earth stations connected to such a system were severely limited, it is estimated that the total capital cost of such a sysem would lie in the range from 530m to S70m. Such a system would not serve all of the centre-, which the extension of the land based broadband network will serve and, furthermore, the fact that much of the cost must be written off over a short period would bc a financial limitation. For example, our studies, which are confirmed by similar studies carried out by other countries, show that it is unlikely that satellite techniques will prove economically competitive with land based circuits for distances of less than about 1,000 miles for some years to come. Satellites also have technical limitations when used for telephony which are not possessed by the land based broadband bearer network. The situation is being closely studied within the Department because of the possibility that a domestic satellite communication system could, in lime, provide some facilities which arc not practicable to provide by land based systems, lt should be added, however, that the transmission of television programmes from satellites direct into individual homes is nol. yet technically practicable and the immediate proposals which have been studied involve only the relaying of television programmes between satellite earth stations for retransmission by regional television transmitters.

  1. See 1 . (A) (i) (b) above.

    1. (a) The Departmental investment in the broadband bearer network will at least double over me next 5 years. As indicated in the earlier pari of the reply, it would not be economically or technically feasible to provide by satellite all of the facilities which the extension of the broadband network will provide.
  2. Sec 1. (A) (i) (b) above.

    1. Although, in certain circumstances, there may be economics from joint use, the capacities needed for the domestic requirements of the countries listed by the honourable member would call for considerably greater investment than for Australia’s requirements alone and would probably require a number of satellites, lt is not possible to estimate the total cost of a satellite communications system serving all these countries. Furthermore, a regional grouping of such a nature to provide international circuits between the countries suggested would be a direct competitor for traffic to the Pacific Intelsat satellite system which is being established by the International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium, of which Australia and some of the other countries mentioned are members. The attitude of the Consortium under the international agreement, which is to be re-negotiated in 1969, towards regional satellite projects has still to be established. Nevertheless, the Australian Post Office has made some approaches to other countries in the region with a view to studying joint action.
    2. The Soviet Uninon has in operation a satellite system known as Molnya. This consists of some six satellites which are used for relaying domestic television programmes to special earth stations for retransmission by regional transmitters. The Soviet has commenced the construction of twenty-four earth stations for this purpose. These satellites follow an orbit designed to suit the northern hemisphere, and are in view of Australia for only a very short period, traversing the southern sky at very high speed. Earth stations receiving from these satellites would require extremely expensive tracking equipment and, in addition, would be in sight of the satellites for very short limes. Reception in Australia from the Soviet Union’s Molnya system is considered to be impracticable.

Workers’ Compensation Legislation (Question No. 886)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Has the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General considered uniform workers’ compensation legislation?

Mr Bowen:
LP

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

No. The administrative responsibility for workers’ compensation legislation rests with other Ministers.

Commonwealth Revenue from Taxation (Question No. 896)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What revenue and what percentage of its revenue did the Commonwealth derive in each of the last twenty years from (a) income tax on persons, (b) income tax on companies, (c) payroll tax, (d) customs duty, (e) excise dirty, (f) sales tax, (g) estate duty, (h) gift duty (i) interest, rent and dividends and (j) public enterprises?

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is set out in the table below. The figures arc drawn mainly from the publications ‘Australian National Accounts - National Income and Expenditure 1948-49 to 1964-65’, ‘Austraiian National Accounts, National Income and Expenditure 1953-54 to 1966-67’, and ‘National income and Expenditure 1967-68’, prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. They relate to current account receipts of the Commonwealth sector as a whole and therefore include transactions of the various Commonwealth semigovernment authorities, e.g., Australian National Airlines Commission, Qantas, Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, etc. The figures of total Commonwealth receipts used in the percentage calculations are as shown in the table ‘Current Account, Commonwealth Authorities’ in Australian National Accounts.

Ratio of Hospital Beds to Population (Question No. 920)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the ratio of hospital beds per thousand of population in each State and Territory?

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The ratios of hospital beds approved under the National Health Act per thousand of population for each State and Territory as at 30th June 1968 are set out in the following table:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1968/19681114_reps_26_hor61/>.