26th Parliament · 2nd Session
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 2053
Mr BRYANT presented from certain electors of the Commonwealth a petition showing that they are concerned that many electors in the Commonwealth are deprived of equal electoral effect when voting for or against the Government at a general election and in reality are denied the democratic right of suffrage: The electoral game is stacked in favour of the two parties which form the governing coalition.
The petitioners pray that the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled legislate for electoral system reforms - even beyond a more equitable redistribution of electorates - so that future general election results may be truly representative and satisfy the criterion of one man one vote, one vote one value.
Petition received and read.
Mr BRYANT presented from certain citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing:
The petitioners pray that the House will make legal provision for:
Petition received and read.
page 2053
– 1 ask the Prime Minister a question. It concerns not so much a political as a cultural matter because I want his last question time to start on a harmonious note. I ask: Why have not steps been taken to establish the Australian National Gallery Trust Fund which the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry recommended in March 1966? I also ask him: What is delaying the announcement of the appointment of a director of the gallery and related matters which for so many weeks have been awaiting Cabinet’s consideration and decision?
– I am not able to provide the Leader of the Opposition with a statement of the position in this matter, which has not been brought to our attention in any significant way. Since he did mention, kindly enough, that this was a cultural matter, he will no doubt recall, and I believe could scarcely but commend, the great increase in funds provided by this Government for cultural activities in Australia, so that this year they have gone up to very nearly $3m.
page 2053
– I ask the handsome, charming and efficient young Minister for Primary Industry whether in the terms of reference to the cheese committee of inquiry the Government could include sympathetic encouragement to the small factories that have spent years exploring home and export markets, thus eroding imports and assisting the balance of trade and marketing and disposal of dairy products. Will the Government carry on with more emphasis on marketing than productivity in the rural industries generally?
– Earlier this week, in answer to a question relating to the concern of the Australian dairy industry at the increasing amount of cheese being imported into the country, I mentioned that a committee or a joint panel of Government and industry representatives would be set up. This has been done. The Chairman is Mr J. Scully of the Office of Secondary Industry of the Department of Trade and Industry and the members are Mr A. P. Beatty of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, Mr
The honour-able member also mentioned concentrating more on marketing than production. This is an aspect that the committee will have to look at, but I am quite sure that there is a potential for greater market penetration and for getting a better consumer reaction in Australia. Our fancy cheeses are equal to, if not better than, any in the world and I am surprised that Australians buy a lot of these imported cheeses just for the snob value. In fact the quality of these cheeses is very low. People seem to buy them just because they carry a foreign label.
page 2054
– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that great hardship is being imposed on some migrants who are required to pay customs duty and sales tax on the family car that they bring to Australia, allegedly because the owner has not owned that particular vehicle for IS months, while the more affluent person owning a more highly priced car is now able to bring it here duty free and dispose of it almost immediately? Were the recent lifting of the 2-year security bond and the retention of the 15 months ownership provision decisions of Cabinet? If so, what principle was the Government trying to preserve when it lifted this security bond while retaining the 15 months ownership clause? Is this a case of impoverishing the poor and enriching the wealthy? Will the right honourable gentleman look further into this problem with a view to allowing migrants who have for more than 15 months continuously owned a motor car of a value of less than $2,000, although not the same car, and who enter into a guarantee to retain the car for at least 2 years, to bring it into the country duty free?
– There is a great deal of detail in the question asking me for an answer on specific lengths of time and amounts of money and the number of cars individuals own before they come here. All I can tell the honourable member is what he no doubt knows; that the object of the Government has been and is to prevent persons, whether rich or poor, from being able to buy cars abroad, bring them in free of sales tax, and then dispose of them at a profit. That is the objective of the exercise. I will examine the specific proposals put forward by the honourable member - I will get the Treasury to do so and let him have a reply in writing on them.
page 2054
– The Minister for Immigration will recall that a week or two ago I requested him to consider a plan for a tax free period of 1 or 2 years for new migrants on low incomes in order to give them a better chance to establish themselves in Australia. As a similar suggestion has been reported in today’s Melbourne Press I now ask whether the Minister has had an opportunity to confer with his colleague, the Treasurer, to see that this matter receives full consideration.
– The honourable gentleman did raise this matter a few weeks ago. I was opposed to the suggestion then, as I am now. There has been no change in my attitude. I am opposed to it essentially for the reason that the state of our economy - the way of our life - constitutes a very great attraction to people to come and live in Australia, as in shown by last year’s record intake. I believe that we will continue to attract migrants as we have in the past and as we are now. There is a lot to do in terms of making sure that a migrant coming here is not at a disadvantage compared with other “citizens, including those who a short time ago were themselves migrants. I am quite persuaded that one thing we will never be able to do is positively to advantage migrants compared with other persons in the community. The proposal referred to would positively advantage them and would be likely to lead to a reaction in the community’s not welcoming migrants because of their advantaged position. We certainly would not want to see this happen. It is essential that the community should support and participate in our immigration programme so that people may be integrated into our community successfully.
page 2055
– Will the Minister for National Development announce in detail before the House rises what stage has been reached in the benefit cost analysis of proposals for a major central Queensland power station? What are the main obstacles to an immediate decision? What factors will influence this decision other than the economic and communal interests of the Australian population in general?
– The matter raised by the honourable member is, of course, of considerable importance and 1 will let him have a reply in due course.
page 2055
– Is the Postmaster-General in a position to tell the House when the new booster station at Darwin will come into operation so that Radio Australia may once more provide its essential and excellent service to South East Asia, thereby providing the proper element of news and publicity to counter Radio Peking, which at the present time would seem to have the field of radio propaganda in this sensitive area of the world to itself?
– I cannot say when this station will come into full operation. There has been some difficulty with regard to the equipment which was installed there. Test announcements are made from time to time by this station. I am hoping that in the not too distant future we will have overcome the technical difficulties and that the station will be in full operation to achieve the result to which the honourable member has referred.
page 2055
– I want to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Have the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian
Government yet agreed on which consultants are to be appointed for the Adelaide to Port Pirie rail standardisation project, which was proposed as long as 20 years ago, in the light of the proposals which the interested consultant firms forwarded to the Government 2 weeks ago. What progress has the Government made in examining the final recommendations made by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner last January for the Whyalla railway line?
– I am glad to see honourable members opposite following the honourable member for Grey in taking an interest in these railway projects in South Australia. The consultants are at this stage preparing an assessment, in respect of the Adelaide to Port Pirie line, of the way in which they would undertake the task. I expect to receive by the end of this month the submissions from the seven consultants including at least two from South Australia whose names have been included on the short list. Thereafter the Governments of South Australia and the Commonwealth will determine one name and the report from the selected consultant is expected to be received and subjected to examination not later than 1970. I have referred in the last few weeks in this House to development in regard to the Whyalla to Port Augusta line. At that time I said that a decision of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to use rail instead of sea transport had changed substantially the economics of this line. There are still some details of planning to be finalised and it is expected that it will be possible to determine the route of the Whyalla to Port Augusta line fairly shortly.
page 2055
– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. In view of the importance to the Australian wheat industry and because of the considerable speculation, informed or otherwise, that is going on, can the Minister inform the House of the present position with regard .to the International Grains Arrangement?
– Despite allegations that the International Grains Arrangement is not operative or is a dead letter, I can say that it is effectively operating at present. There is orderly marketing in the international selling of wheat. The governments of the wheat exporting countries which are signatories to the Arrangement have recently reaffirmed their intention to sustain the Arrangement and they are operating accordingly. As might be expected because of the record world crop last year great strains have been placed on the Arrangement and there was for a period an intolerable situation in which Canada and the United States were selling quite inadequate quantities of wheat while Australia was selling more than its normal share. Following a series of meetings, the first between senior officials in London, followed by the ministerial meeting which I attended in Washington, it was agreed at the latter meeting that it was necessary to take corrective action to lower the price of some wheats, but only to the extent necessary to restore fair relative competition and to secure sales which might otherwise go to the non-member sellers of wheat. It was also agreed that prices lower than the minimum laid down in the Arrangement should not be continued for longer than necessary.
The agreed objective, which is being observed, is that the member exporters should each get a fair share of the market. This is being constantly watched. Sir Alan Westerman went to a meeting in London in August, and Mr Dorman, the General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board, went to Washington and Winnipeg and conferred on . prices for at least a fortnight. There is a prospect of further meetings. The senior Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry is to attend another senior level policy meeting in Brussels next week.
The effective purposes of the International Grains Arrangement are operating satisfactorily as far as Australia is concerned. Australia is getting a fair share of the market. Other countries are also getting their share of the market. Lest there be any doubt as to the degree that prices have had to be sacrificed in order that Australia could secure this result, I can say that since the Washington agreement the average price by which Australia wheat has been reduced is about 5c a bushel. I am informed that at the moment the average selling price of Australian wheat is a little less than 5c below the minimum. I regard this as quite a remarkable recovery in the international wheat market in view of the all-out cut-throat price war which threatened a couple of months ago.
page 2056
– 1 wish to ask a question of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. It is supplementary to the question asked of him by the honourable member for Hindmarsh concerning the railway line between Adelaide and Port Pirie which the Commonwealth and South Australian Parliaments authorised 20 years ago. The Minister will appreciate that a month ago he informed me that the agreed Arms of consultants had been requested to forward proposals by 12th September 1969 and that, after an evaluation of these proposals, an early appointment would be made. Are we to assume from the Minister’s earlier reply that the consultants did not forward their proposals by the due date, which was a fortnight ago? I again ask the Minister when he expects the chosen firm of consultants to be appointed?
– I commence my answer by correcting an inaccuracy in the Leader of the Opposition’s question. The Commonwealth and South Australian Parliaments did not in fact authorise 20 years ago the construction of a standard gauge railway line between Adelaide and Port Pirie. What happened was that the Commonwealth and the State entered into an agreement that railway lines in South Australia should be standardised, subject to a timetable being established by the Commonwealth. There is no obligation on the Commonwealth to standardise any railway line in South Australia other than at a time that it has determined. It is in accordance with that arrangement and the recent undertaking, which has been reaffirmed by the Government, that the railway line between Adelaide and Port Pirie, or a connecting point on the east-west standard gauge line, not necessarily joining at Port Pirie, should be built. It is not my recollection that the consultants were due to send their preliminary assessments by the date the Leader of the Opposition gave. I shall check on the date that he gave. If the assessments had to be forwarded by 12th September, I shall ascertain whether they have been received. It is my recollection that they were due this month. I have not seen a list of the preliminary reports of the consultants at this stage nor have I had an opportunity to consult finally with the South Australian government to determine which firm of consultants will undertake the survey.
page 2057
– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware of the requirements as to information to be supplied by persons tendering for the delivery of postal parcels in New South Wales? In particular, I ask whether he considers that some modernisation may be required for the current form TI 28 which recently was forwarded to one of my constituents and which seeks information such as:
A full description of vehicle and number of horses . . . and which also states that:
No person who may have been convicted of any offence … the punishment in respect of which offence is death . . . shall be employed.
How many executed criminals have plagued his officers with applications for employment?
– I appreciate the spirit of levity which perhaps inspires this question on the last day of a parliamentary sitting. Explanation makes the form appear not quite as stupid as the honourable member’s question might suggest. In regard to the first part of the question, some people in Australia have a remoteness in their thinking in relation to the remoteness of the outback areas of Australia. As part of the necessary routine in the Post Office, pack horses are still used to deliver mail. In fact until recently, if not currently, camels have been used to deliver mail in some areas. As to the first part of the question, I think there is justification for asking the questions set out on that form. In regard to the second part of the question, the House should be reminded that the death penalty is still the sentence applicable to some crimes in Australia, but if a layman may express a comment in relation to the processes of the law, I point out that the death penalty can be commuted to life imprisonment, that there is a parole system operating, and that such convicted persons can again be found in the community. We must have regard to the large number of exempt persons who cannot be employed in certain positions in the Post Office. We must consider seriously the type of people who are employed. Naturally the class of person mentioned in the form is excluded.
page 2057
– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen a reported statement by the Japanese Prime Minister that Japan would play a leading part in Asian security in the years ahead, with the United States performing a subsidiary role. If this is a correct assessment of future strategy in Asia how will Australia adjust its defence and foreign planning?
– I have seen a report in the Press of the statement, attributed to the leader of Japan, that Japan would be playing a greater role in the security of South East Asia or Asia generally, but I am afraid I do not see how I can even connect the second part of the question with the first part except to say this, Mr Speaker: Since the question was asked about our defences, Australia will, under this Government, after its return, build up and continue to build up and to strengthen our own defences. That is something that the country requires but which the Opposition would not do.
page 2057
– My question also is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to Labor’s election philosophy towards the voters which was summed up by the late J. B. Chifley as follows:
It is a mistake to show the rooster the axe when you are going to take his head off. You should show him a bit of corn first.
I ask the Prime Minister whether, during the coming election campaign, he will see that the voters are made aware of the axe which Labor is preparing for them while hoping to distract their attention with the corn.
– I am sure that the Australian people as a whole are quite sensible enough to have already noticed the axes which are poised or would be poised by the Opposition should it by any mischance ever be given the opportunity to use them. There are a great number of these, what might be called, axes. For example, pledges on unification and socialisation which are still an ineradicable part of the Labor Party’s platform; the control, in certain sections of the organisation, by Communist dominated unions, which will see-
-Order! There are far too many interjections from my left and from my right. Although this is the last day of the Parliament, 1 suggest that Standing Orders be adhered to.
– This control- or ‘influence’ rather is the word - this influence would undoubtedly see that at every opportunity these pledges of nationalisation are put into effect. I suppose that perhaps the biggest axe would be the inevitably huge increase in taxation which would be required in order to finance plans, if we get specific plans, on such things as a health scheme, which has not yet been described, or the proposal to abolish the means test - to be a sort of Robin Hood in reverse, to prevent money going to the needy in order to pay funds to the wealthy. But these are axes I am sure the people of Australia will be able to see and have been able to see for themselves.
page 2058
– Mr Speaker, I ask you a question. As you are responsible for members’ seating arrangements in this House I ask: What motivated you to seat the honourable member for Kingston between two bachelors?
-Order! In reply to the honourable member for Watson, it is always the wish of the staff of the House of Representatives and of the Speaker to provide members with all amenities. I would suggest that the honourable member for Kingston has endeared herself to members on both sides of the House and that when she is returned after 25th October she will again, of course, be sitting between the two bachelors. I would hope that they would make the most of their opportunities. I would remind the honourable member for Watson that we also have an excellent physician sitting in the same row.
- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. I should just like to say that it has been my pleasure and delight to sit next to Miss Brownbill, the honourable member for Kingston, for the last 3 years. I am sure that we will be together again. I thank the honourable member for Watson for his good wishes. Neither of us requires the services of the physician who sits on our bench. We are both in the best of health.
page 2058
– Will the Minister for Primary Industry state in precise terms the exact source of the funds to be used by the Australian Wheat Board to finance the erection of storages to receive nonquota wheat in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Further, can he give a firm assurance that none of these costs will be borne either directly or indirectly by the growers of Western Australia or Queensland, who are already in great financial difficulty as a result of seasonal conditions in those two States? Finally, is he satisfied that the Board possesses the requisite legal authority to use funds for the purposes proposed?
– I would have thought that it would be unnecessary for me to answer this question because 1 have already given information to the Press about where these funds are coming from. They are funds that are held by the Australian Wheat Board which have been borrowed from the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank and which are part of the funds from which the first advance of $1.10 a bushel on last season’s crop is paid. Out of that money that is advanced by the Reserve Bank a certain amount is taken for the storage, handling and disposal of wheat. This year, because of the very large crop that was harvested, the slow disposal of the crop and the scale of operation, greater efficiencies have been effected and the Board has funds on hand. It is these funds that will be used for the provision of additional storage that the industry has been seeking for over-quota wheat this year. This is not unusual. These moneys are used from time to time to provide additional temporary storages. The Board has done this over the years, and it is quite legal for it to do so. But the amount of storage required this year was of such dimensions that Government approval was needed to spend the amounts of money required. That is why, in making my announcement, I said that arrangements had been made with the Wheat Board to spend money to this extent. It was the wish of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation some weeks ago that no additional storages should be provided because it felt that such action would result in an impost on the Australian wheatgrower and that wheat growers in some States would have to pay the additional charge even though there was not any over-quota wheat in those States. The Federation considered that this would be an injustice to those farmers. But the Federation reconsidered the position at a meeting 3 weeks later, that is about a fortnight ago, and as a result said that it would support any request for additional finance from a State that had an over-quota problem.
As a result of a change of attitude by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation arrangements were made with the Australian Wheat Board to use the Board’s funds for the provision of temporary storage, but in making the arrangements the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation asked that the States which received the benefit of the additional storage pay for the additional storage and that the cost should not be borne by wheatgrowers over the whole of the nation. What is happening at the moment is that the Wheat Board is consulting with the grain elevators boards in the States that need the extra storage, namely, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. A decision has already been made on how this money should be allocated. I think that storage will be provided for 20 million bushels in South Australia, 12 million bushels in Victoria and 32 million bushels in New South Wales. Those figures might not add up, but the actual figures are something like that. Financial arrangements are being worked out so that the additional storage will not penalise the States where no additional storage is being built. The parties are trying to work out a financial arrangement whereby the farmer who abides by the objectives of the scheme, that is the farmer who delivers only his quota, will also not be penalised. I believe that this can be achieved. The information that has come through to me informally from the Wheat Board is that a satisfactory arrangement has been worked out.
page 2059
– 1 ask the Minister for Defence a question. Is it a fact, as reported, that the Metropolitan Security Service has contracted to guard the Marrickville Military Depot at nights and weekends? If this is a fact, what other military establishments, if any, are guarded by private security services? Furthermore, if these are the facts, is it to be taken that we have reached the strange position that at a time when the Government boasts of the success of its defence programme no military personnel are available for guard duty and a private enterprise organisation has to be given the responsibility of guarding military establishments?
– I want to be precise about a question as deep as that. If the honourable member will place it on the notice paper I will obtain an answer for him.
page 2059
– I ask the Minister for Social Services a question. Does the Minister recall my determined efforts to obtain a measure of justice for the families in my electorate who have been blessed with twins and triplets yet do not receive a corresponding baby bonus payment because they have only one other child? Will the Minister place this matter high on his list of policy speech recommendations, and will he assure the many lovely ladies in my electorate that I am no longer fighting a lone battle on their behalf? Will the Minister convey to the small and ever dwindling percentage of Australian Labor Party supporters in my electorate, the commonly expressed sentiment that they have not been so well represented since the Liberal Party took back the seat of Griffith in 1966?
– I hope, during a visit to Brisbane in the near future, to be in a position to give to the electors of Griffith exactly that assurance. I know that the honourable member has made representations on this matter continuously and 1 assure him that as far as I am concerned they have not gone unheeded. I cannot, of course, give any policy commitment. But in view of the attitude that has been adopted by you, Mr Speaker, 1 am afraid that all 1 can do is to liken the honourable member to Mark Antony on that famous occasion and suggest that he should perhaps be doing more about it.
page 2060
– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, refers to a report which may be submitted at about Easter time next year by the Commonwealth and State officials committee on decentralisation. Is the right honourable gentleman aware that the recommendations in that report could vitally affect the five areas selected by the Victorian Government for accelerated development, namely, Bendigo, Ballarat, Portland, Wodonga and the La Trobe Valley? Is he aware of reports that there is some apprehension among Victorian State officials that the recommendations of that committee may by-pass these areas or urge the formation of new towns, or urge the building up of towns other than those selected by the Victorian Government? Can he say whether there are any grounds for such apprehension?
– To the best of my understanding the honourable member’s question can be rephrased in this way: Would I comment to him on recommendations which have not yet been made in a report which has not yet been presented. If that is so, I am afraid I cannot.
page 2060
– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Government made any decision on the possibility of providing concessions for pensioners who travel on the Commonwealth Railways, as consistently advocated by the honourable member for Grey?
– The answer is yes, the Commonwealth has decided to extend to pensioners the same kind of free travel facilities on the Commonwealth Railways as are extended to them by the States in such matters.
page 2060
– 1 ask the Treasurer a question. Due to the upsurge in violent crime in Australia and as an incentive to the decent sections of the community to endeavour to reduce crime, will the Treasurer grant freedom from payment of personal income tax for, say, a period of 3 years to any person responsible for the arrest and conviction of anyone committing a violent crime or an armed robbery for which the law prescribes a sentence of not less than 10 years penal servitude?
– I think it is true that since the honourable member has left the New South Wales Police Force the incidence of crime has increased enormously. If legislation along the lines that he suggests were passed, I fail to see what benefit he would get out of it. Nevertheless I think it is a valuable suggestion and 1 will have the taxation authorities look at it. I doubt whether it will appeal to them, but after I receive their reply I will communicate it to the honourable member.
page 2060
– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. The right honourable gentleman is well aware of the averaging system for taxation purposes as it applies to primary producers and he also has knowledge of the falling levels of primary producers’ incomes. In view of the present circumstances and the desire of the Government to foster primary production, will the Treasurer urgently consider allowing those who have withdrawn from this system of taxation to rejoin it if they so desire?
– This suggestion, like so many of the recommendations made to me by the honourable gentleman, reveals an area where consideration ought to be given to the requirements of the primary producers. In deference to him I will have the matter urgently looked at.
page 2060
– Pursuant to the provisions of the Services Trust Fund Act 1 947- 1950, 1 present the twenty-first annual report of the Trustees of the Royal Australian
Air Force Welfare Trust Fund for the year ended 30th June 1969, together with the report of the Auditor-General on the books and accounts of the Fund.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 2061
– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology for the year ended 30th June 1969.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 2061
– by leave - I promised honourable members that I would make a statement on Aboriginal housing before the end of the session. In speaking on this particular topic I know I may rely on honourable members not to suppose that I am unaware of the fact that housing, health, education and employment in a real sense go together and should be considered together, but this morning I want to speak only of housing.
Although there are some heartening exceptions, Aboriginal housing generally is sub-standard. In the less developed parts of the continent, many thousands of Aboriginals are still living in huts of traditional or neartraditional pattern. Some others are in traditional type houses, and although in some country towns distinct improvements are noticeable many fringe dwellers are still living in humpies without proper facilities. Even in cities, overcrowding and slum conditions are common for many Aboriginals. The Government is actively concerned about this and, in co-operation with the States, is moving as quickly as it can to meet the varying needs of these different groups. In some cases, we are intensifying past endeavours; in others we have already started new projects; in yet others we have new plans ready to go into operation.
Briefly, our activities and proposals are as follows: (1) In the Northern Territory, we are constructing houses for Aboriginals, and subsidising missions to construct them, at an increasing rate. (2) We are directing a large part of our grants to the States - S3. 65m last year and $5.4m this year - towards an enlarged Aboriginal housing programme. (3) The States have accelerated their own programme of constructing houses for Aboriginals. (4) We are this year subsidising the erection of several hostels for Aboriginals near centres where education or employment are available.
I now announce four new proposals which will break completely new ground. In the Northern Territory, whether on mission stations or Government settlements, where houses are needed and suitable sites are available, and where houses can be constructed by Aboriginal labour by the use of a large proportion of local materials, we will find the necessary finance. We will actively recruit Aboriginal building teams to this end. We already have a mobile building force, mainly Aboriginal, which will help in this training. We will also push on with our building trade school. We will encourage the States to develop similar proposals and we will work co-operatively with them in such projects. Some States - Queensland, for example - are already involved in this approach.
We are already arranging to acquire some portable but ready to live in houses from the Snowy construction townships. Where the New South Wales and local government authorities agree to provide suitable sites, we will erect these for Aboriginal occupancy. May I say in partial explanation that in visits to New South Wales reserves and settlements I talked personally to some Aboriginals still living in humpies. Many of them said they would prefer to move into towns, and of course we will endeavour to meet their wishes and to provide normal type houses. Others - particularly the elderly - said they prefer to remain where they are. For these, we will make available these portable houses to replace their present huts. Two places I have in mind are Brown’s Flat near Nowra and Brungle near Tumut, but these are only examples, and the proposal is not limited to them.
We will offer to guarantee advances to co-operative building societies in any State or the Northern Territory to finance Aboriginals into houses in the normal way. Frankly, I do not think that many Aboriginals will be in a position to take immediate advantage of this opportunity unless they receive special subventions from some other source. There are already provisions under State and Northern Territory administration under which limited finance for home purchase is available to Aboriginals upon terms more favourable than co-operative building societies normally provide. But I regard it as being of great importance that normal finance should be available to Aboriginals who wish to take advantage of it.
We propose to take special measures to extend to Aboriginals the provisions of our Aged Persons Homes Act. Under the Act the Commonwealth meets two thirds of the cost of capital outlay by charitable organisations for housing the elderly. The other one third must come from nongovernmental sources. The legislation is, of course, inherently available to Aboriginals on the same basts as it is to other Australians, but it is not easy for them to find the remaining one third, even though in some cases shires and other local government bodies, who are eligible to contribute towards this non-governmental one third, may come to their aid. We now propose to establish a non-governmental fund to receive donations from the public in order to provide this one third for the housing of elderly Aboriginals. The Government will provide the remaining two thirds. 1 am very happy to tell the House that His Grace the Primate of Australia, Archbishop Strong. His Eminence Cardinal Gilroy, and Mr B. Callaghan, the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, have agreed to be the three trustees of a fund to provide the nongovernmental component. The draft deed of the trust is at present being settled and will be submitted to them for approval before it becomes operative. lt is envisaged that the Office of Aboriginal Affairs will provide the continuing staff of the trust and that a Board of advice, consisting mainly of Aboriginals, will be constituted to advise on the use of its funds. Donations to the trust will be deductible for income tax purposes, lt is planned that they will be used either: (i) To contribute towards the one third contribution to a charitable body establishing an aged persons home, wholly or mainly for Aboriginals; or (ii) To provide the donation’ for an Aboriginal who has been accepted as a resident of an aged persons home by the committee running it.
Aboriginals have always had a high regard for their elders and special provision for them will accord well with the traditional Aboriginal outlook. Since the occupants of such homes will all be of pensionable age, they will be able to find the small amount necessary for their maintenance either from their pensions or from private resources. As soon as this trust is formally established it will provide an outlet for the charitable impulses of those “many Australians who wish Aboriginals well and are anxious to do something for them. The Government stands ready to contribute its two thirds of the cost and I am confident that the community will respond to the call for the remaining one third.
– by leave- I must say that the Minister for Social Services and Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) is now beginning to show some movement in his efforts to improve the lot of the Aboriginals of Australia. The Minister, in the statement he has just made, outlined four absolutely new proposals for the housing of Aboriginals. I want to make only a couple of comments on the statement. 1 feci that the Minister perhaps in some respects has not given as much information as I would like and which 1 believe a lot of honourable members would like. When talking about the new plans for housing of Aboriginals in mission stations the Minister gave no idea how many buildings have been constructed. He gave no idea of any success he may have had with encouraging the States to accelerate the construction of homes for Aboriginals. The Minister also said that this year the Government was subsidising the erection of several hostels for Aboriginals near centres where education or employment opportunities are available. However, the Minister gave no idea where these hostels will be constructed. 1 think the Minister will appreciate that I am still new in the shadow portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs and therefore I am looking for all the information that I can get. I suppose that after 25th October when I have the portfolio, the present Minister will be asking me to provide all this information for him, when he will be the shadow
Minister. The boot will be on the other foot. The first proposal announced by the Minister is to encourage Aboriginals to construct their own homes on mission stations or Government settlements. This proposal envisages that the construction of the homes will be undertaken by an Aboriginal building force and that local materials will be used. I think this is a step in the right direction, lt is certainly encouraging Aboriginals to help themselves and to provide better housing facilities than the ones they have had until now. The question that comes to me is how much demand is expected for the new housing? lt is perhaps easy for the Minister to say these words and to make these suggestions, but unless there is some hope that the efforts that are being put into this proposal will pay off and that the Aboriginal people themselves will take advantage of what is offered and try to help themselves then the Ministers statement is just so many words.
The second point made by the Minister related to ready-to-live in houses acquired from the Snowy construction townships. How much improvement will the provision of this type of accommodation make to the places that the Minister is thinking of at the moment? The Minister gave two examples of places where this portable accommodation could be used, although he said that these were not the only examples. But will this type of accommodation be much improvement on the present housing in the two places the Minister mentioned? Even when the proposed type of accommodation is provided will it still be a long way below the standard of accommodation that white Australians expect? How long does the Minister expect the houses from the Snowy construction towns to last and who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of these homes when they are moved to these areas?
In the same paragraph the Minister said:
Others - particularly the elderly - said they prefer to remain where they arc;
If the camp or township looks like being a continuing one, will services such as sewerage, water, gas, and electricity be supplied so that these people can improve the appearance of their houses and their standard of living? I cannot see that there is any great sense in just providing, for instance, a stronger type of home unless the
Aboriginals living in such homes are also encouraged to live at a higher standard than that at which they are living at present.
The Minister has pointed out that the Government will offer to guarantee advances to co-operative building societies in any State or the Northern Territory to finance Aboriginals wishing to build houses in the normal way. I think the Minister will agree that this is a bit of window dressing so that the Government can say that it docs not prevent Aboriginals from obtaining fiance through the normal lending institutions if they wish to build homes. The Government now guarantees the cooperative building societies that these loans will be repaid. I. am still inclined to think that it would be better to encourage the Aboriginals to use the special moneys which are available to them than to encourage them to obtain finance from the normal sources. Of course, the Opposition believes that money for housing - regardJess of whether it is sought by whites or Aboriginals - should be made available at a far lower rate of interest than it is at the moment. By offering to guarantee loans the Government is encouraging Aboriginals to borrow at a higher rate of interest.
According to the Minister, the Government proposes to take special1 measures to extend to Aboriginals the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act. The Minister referred to charitable bodies establishing aged persons homes wholly or mainly for Aboriginals. I am inclined to wonder whether this is a good idea. I think it is the Government’s intention generally to encourage the Aboriginals to mix in with the rest of the community and so to enjoy the higher standard of living, particularly in education and health, which the rest of the community enjoys; but in this instance the Government is inclined to put the Aboriginals aside in their own special1 homes for their aged. T think it would be better to allow any charitable organisation which is prepared to look after the elderly Aboriginals to derive benefit from the scheme. The Minister has pointed out that donations towards the one-third contribution by a charitable body establishing a home for the aged which is wholly or mainly for Aboriginals is deductible lor income tax purposes. The donation for an
Aboriginal who has been accepted as a resident of an aged persons home by the committee running it is also deductible. I repeat that I do not like the reference to the establishment of aged persons homes wholly or mainly for Aboriginals.
Another point I wish to make is that the Aboriginal eiders do not want to move away from the fringe towns in which they are living at the moment. Does the Minister think that the elders will be prepared to move into a home which has been specially built for aged people? 1 gather from the Minister’s earlier remarks that perhaps tradition will mitigate against the success of the plan. The Minister concluded by saying that he hopes that those Australians who have charitable impulses towards Aboriginals will contribute to this scheme so that the Aboriginals can be housed in better conditions. I hope they will, too. I believe that it would be to the benefit of the community as a whole if an election were held every 12 months. There have been more benefits, promises of legislation and assistance in the last 3 weeks than in the 3 years prior to that.
– by leave - I rise to commend the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) and the Government for this further step towards assisting the Aboriginals. The honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) appeared to be opposed to the continued effort by the Minister and the Government to improve the conditions of the Aboriginals. Since the Minister has held this portfolio he obviously has made great strides towards securing a better deal for the Aboriginals. This is apparent from the amount of assistance which has been given to Aboriginals in recent years. The Aboriginal enterprises legislation, the provision of $10m for housing, education and health and the plan which I personally presented at Goulburn Island to many of the village councils, which envisages assistance for many different forms of Aboriginal enterprise throughout Australia, are indications of what the Government is doing in this field. But the honourable member for Lang ignores this and says that the Government has shown interest only in the last few months. It is absolutely wrong to make that statement.
In a slighting manner the honourable member for Lang doubts whether Aboriginals will be able to build their own homes and whether they will live in them when they are completed. When 1 visited the Arnhem Land region recently I lived in a house which had been built by a team of Aboriginal builders. I saw this team at work. The house was a good one by anyone’s standards. I suggest to the honourable member that he visit some of these places and have a look around before he gets up in the House and talks about how the Aboriginals behave and where they want to live. As the Minister has pointed out, many of the older Aboriginals wish to remain in the bush. I have seen many houses which have not been occupied by Aboriginals when they could have been. At certain times of the year the Aboriginals prefer to live in their natural surroundings. I do not have any further comments to offer. All 1 want to say is that the Minister’s remarks are an indication of the steps that the Government is taking in an endeavour to improve the lot of the Aboriginals.
– by leave- The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) said that the Opposition is critical of the actions of the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). I do not think that the Opposition is opposed to the things that the Minister and the Government are doing, but it has different ideas about the way in which the problem should be attacked. The Opposition believes that the Minister should show a lot more vigour in the way in which he goes about the matter. The honourable member for the Northern Territory made one or two remarks about the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) which I think indicate that he misinterpreted the remarks of the honourable member for Lang. I cannot imagine the honourable member for Lang having anything but most friendly feelings towards Aboriginals. As a matter of fact, I seemed to sense in the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory that he too treats the Aboriginals as equals.
The point I wish to make is that I do not think that there is any real future in dealing through the State authorities. I sympathise with the Minister. I appreciate the inhibitions imposed upon him by the State rights attitude of his own Party and the conservatism of the Australian Country Party as well as the fact that there are five State organisations at present. I appreciate that one cannot trample upon them. I believe that we will have to approach this matter in a direct manner. The Commonwealth will have to step into the field in the States in much the same way as it does in the Northern Territory. We should establish an institution along the lines of the War Service Homes Commission which could provide finance at a low rate of interest. I would rather see no interest, but that is perhaps a Utopian attitude in our present form of society. The Aboriginals should be allowed to build their homes where they wish and of the type they wish. I would regard housing as the most important social need. 1 know that there are more important psychological ones, such as land rights, but the housing of the Aboriginal in Australia is a continuing cause. As far as I can tell from the figures I have seen, it is doubtful whether any State has done much about this. In fact the Commonwealth funds that go to State authorities for housing are not passed on to the Aboriginal people in proportion to their population in the State. It is some time since I looked up the figures but 1 recall doing some percentage arithmetic on those for Western Australia. It was apparent that the Western Australian Government was not spending on Aboriginals the proportion of funds from the Commonwealth that they deserved or in accordance with their population.
There is another point I would like to raise which the Minister might answer when he speaks again, as I think he will. What is to be the status of ownership of such housing in, for example, the Northern Territory? The Commonwealth has not got round to throwing its weight around constitutionally so far as the States are concerned, but I believe there is opportunity for a completely new approach in this area. Of course somewhere along the line we will have to do something through our other social organisations to see that Aboriginal people receive proper social or neighbourly assistance when they move into a new home. To move into a new home is to move into a complicated living machine. It is difficult enough for us and would be even more so for those living close enough to our side of society but who are now living in humpies. From my experience of this aspect of Aboriginal welfare, this point is confined to folk who end up in Melbourne, for example. They need friendly and neighbourly support and assistance about the place and this should be given in an unobtrusive way. They should be given to understand that if they are in trouble and can find the coinage to use a telephone there is somebody that they can ring who can attend to their problems. Moving people into a new home is a delicate social undertaking but it is a most important social undertaking and we should see that they do it successfully. I believe that constitutionally, politically and in every other way there will not be a great deal of future nor adequate progress made until we do this correctly by means of some institution under the control of a Minister of this Parliament.
– by leave- I too would like to commend the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) for bringing forward this measure this morning. I do not doubt the sincerity of the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) but I do not think he should have spoken in such a grudging manner. Surely no Minister has done more in a very short time, has tried harder, is more sincere or understands the position better than the Minister. I think the honourable member for Lang would have done much better if he had forgotten his politics and had supported the Minister for what he has done.
– Who brought politics into it?
– The honourable member for Lang brought politics into it by unfairly criticising a Minister who has done a tremendous job in a short time. I think all honourable members concede that the Minister has made a tremendous effort. I am particularly pleased about the statement regarding the Brungle Aboriginal reserve in my electorate of Hume. Some months ago the Minister visited Brungle with mc and we made a thorough investigation of the whole area. I showed him the conditions under which many Aboriginal people were living. Some of them were living in mere humpies. The majority of them were very well kept and the people there have done the very best under the circumstances. We visited the school where some 50% of the children are Aboriginals. I believe that the Brungle settlement provides an opportunity to do something very worthwhile. There is a rather unusual acceptance by the people of Brungle of the Aboriginals in that area. There is not the segregation that exists in many other areas.
I do not think it is wise to seek special rates for Aboriginals building these homes. The very thing we are trying to do is to bring these people into the community and make them part of the Australian social community. Many of the Aboriginals at Brungle have first class jobs. One man is a forest foreman and has five or six white Australians under his charge. Another man is a foreman at the pine board factory in Tumut. Yet these people so far have not been able to borrow money to build their homes. They need assistance but I do not think we should make a special rate for Aboriginals. Given the opportunity they are capable of putting down a deposit and paying off their homes. I would like to see Aboriginals brought into the community as we are trying to do it at Brungle. Some of the older people want to stay there. They have power, water and all the amenities and prefer to remain. But many of the younger people travel to Batlow and to the forestry areas to work. Others work in the factories at Tumut. Those people need assistance to build homes in Tumut. What has been done in Tumut so far has been a success. What the Minister has proposed in his statement this morning will help tremendously. I commend and congratulate him. I express my appreciation for what he has done to improve the housing situation at the Brungle reserve and for what he plans to do throughout the Australian continent.
– by leave - Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) recently had the opportunity at Nowra, I understand, to meet some representatives of the Wreck Bay Progress Association. Wreck Bay is a settlement, formerly regarded as a native settlement, within the Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay. The area has particular problems. I am not sure at this stage whether responsibility for housing the people at Wreck Bay is still in the hands of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) or whether it is now the responsibility of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs. However I want to point out that certain improvements are necessary in this settlement. Certainly the standard of housing there is vastly above what has been provided in so many other Aboriginal settlement areas throughout New South Wales. This is because it was the Commonwealth which originally built these houses - they were erected in the late 1940 - and which has had responsibility for the management of the area. The Commonwealth has carried out improvements to the housing. The provision of reticulated water, a sewerage system and so on have lifted the standards that previously applied. There has been a vast improvement in the standards.
However, I want to point to one facet of the design of the houses which seems to indicate an attitude of mind in the part of the white man dealing with the black man. In those houses one room at the back contains the lavatory, the laundry and the shower recess. Consider a family of a man, his wife and 5 or 6 children. Someone wants to use the shower recess, someone wants to use the laundry facilities and someone wants to use the toilet facilities. If all want to use the facilities at the same time they can do so only in the same room. It seems to me fundamental that this room should be partitioned to provide the degree of privacy to which these people are entitled.
The children from this area are attending a school at Jervis Bay. It is now an integrated school. Previously there was one school for white children and another for Aboriginal children. The older children now go to the secondary school at Nowra and are doing well at their studies. They get together at the settlement and do their homework together under supervision. Through the New South Wales education system and the assistance of the Commonwealth these boys and girls are being given a chance to attain something better. But then we say to them that if they want to use the lavatory they have to use the facilities in this room where there is also the laundry tubs and the shower recess. I think this is the situation in the majority of the houses at Wreck Bay. Action should be taken to provide a partition in the rooms concerned.
I want to mention one other matter for consideration by the Minister. Recently there has been talk about the establishment of a nuclear power station on Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay. Obviously, if this project is put in hand there will be a considerable work force engaged and housing will have to be provided for it. The residents at the Wreck Bay settlement have a very real fear that their area will be open to general settlement. They do not want this. They want to retain the present natural setting of the settlement with the houses se!, as they are, amongst the trees and on fairly wide blocks.
– Order! I presume that the honourable member’s remarks are associated with the subject matter under discussion, which is Aboriginal affairs.
– 1 should think so - at least 1 would hope so. These are what the Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay want. I will certainly write to the Minister in more detail on these matters. I visited the area recently and this is what the people put to me at a meeting of the progress association. But the specific matter of housing to which 1 have referred is, I think, a rel’ic of the days when the white man thought that something inferior was good enough for the black man. These days, under the Minister’s guidance, I hope are passing. I. should like to see the Commonwealth take the lead to ensure that they do pass.
– If there has been any political element in this discussion I, at any rate, am prepared to ignore it. I would hope that members on both sides of the House would approach this problem in a nonpolitical manner. Various matters have been raised. My statement was brief and it did not have as many figures in it as would cover the subject fully, but if honourable members will look at the speech 1 made a few weeks ago on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1969 they will see that some of the figures they have asked for were incorporated in that speech and are available.
I should like to deal, first, with the four points raised in my memorandum and discussed by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart). Regarding the houses that are to be built in the Northern Territory he asked me about the numbers proposed. This varies from place to place. I went to most of the Arnhem Land missions recently and I inquired about possibilities there. On the average J should think that under this policy there would be 6 or 7 more houses a year built in each of the missions. This might mean 50 or 60 houses in the first year, but the number would be accelerated as the teams became trained and the Aboriginal builders became more competent to produce houses. The need is different in different places. In some places the need may have been reasonably satisfied but in others it has not. I would hope that in the first year’s operation we might be able to get 50 or 60 extra houses under this programme in Arnhem Land and perhaps another 50 or 60 in other parts of the Territory. In the following year I would hope that the number would be greater than that.
These programmes have to start somewhere and they have to be built up. The number will depend, very largely, on the supplies of timber that are available. I inspected the local timber mills which will be supplying the materials. A mill’ is just coming on stream at Lake Evella. Yesterday I was speaking on the telephone to the Reverend Shepherdson who has just come down from that area. He told me that logs are being piled at the Lake Evella mill now and he hopes that production will start within the next week - at any rate before the wet season starts. There is a big Government mill at Maningrida which wm come on stream, I think this month, or at any rate in October. When 1 was there recently I saw the construction of the big vertical saw bench and other facilities that are being provided. We are hoping that at Murganella another mill will come on stream next year. This whole programme has to be co-ordinated ami we must ensure a supply of materials. 1 have gone through the figuring and it seems to me that by the end of this year we should have the timber supply position well under control, and from thenceforth, even though an increasing number of houses will be built, there will be plenty of timber available in that northern area. lt is not possible, of course, for a Minister to go personally to every place. As honourable members know, a Minister has only a limited amount of time, but 1 look on this scheme and the South Australian scheme that 1 discussed in the House only last night as pilot projects which may be applied in other areas once we establish the general principles. I am endeavouring to take a personal interest in and to see as many of these projects as I can. When I go to an area I endeavour, in concert with the Aboriginals, because this is important, to work out plans which may be implemented for the advancement of that area. That answers, I think, the first point that the honourable member for Lang raised about proposal A.
Proposal B related to the Snowy Mountain houses. These are good houses. I have lived in them as, I dare say, have most honourable members who have visited the Snowy Mountains construction scheme. The houses are said to have a residual life of 45 years. This is the general view. There are mainly two types of houses, one for the larger family and one for the couple or single person. Both types will be used. In every case they will be connected to water and electricity and in most, if not all, cases they will be connected to sewerage. We will endeavour to provide as many of these amenities as possible.
The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser) brought up a real point about house design. This is an aspect that I have raised, having visited many of these New South Wales houses. About a fortnight or 3 weeks ago I was in Nowra and I had the opportunity of meeting Mr Brown, who is an Aboriginal and chairman of the council at Wreck Bay. I discussed with him the points that the honourable member has raised with me. I think we can say that the people at Wreck Bay generally would prefer to remain where they are. They are a little isolated. One of the proposals that we put up to them for their consideration was that we might finance one of them in the purchase of a mini-bus to provide a service from Wreck Bay to Nowra both for the school children and for women who are taking employment in Nowra. Whether this will come to anything or not, 1 do not know, because it is up to the people. If they regard the proposal favourably and if there is an Aboriginal at Wreck Bay who could provide this service I think it would be reasonable for us to finance it. This is one of the ways by which we could improve standards at Wreck Bay. Although this area is the direct responsibility of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) rather than myself, and although, as the honourable member said quite correctly, the standard there is by no means at the bottom of the scale, I think that something further can be done there. If a nuclear power station is established in the area I am quite confident, first, that their amenities would not be interfered with and, secondly, that employment would be available for them. These are both desirable things.
The honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) referred to Brungle. I was gratetfufor his guidance when we went there some months ago. The position is quite clear. Some of the elderly people would prefer to remain on the reserve but some, as the honourable member said, are capable of undertaking finance in the normal way and would be better placed in Tumut. I would not try to exert pressure in either direction, but would leave them .a free choice in this matter. There is too much of a tendency on the part of some do-gooders to try to uproot these people and tell them that they must live as other Australians do. The elderly Aboriginals sometimes find that living as other Australians do is not consonant with the habits they have accumulated over 50, 60 or 70 years of life. These people have to be given a degree of choice about what their own future is to be.
These houses in the Snowy Mountains area will have a long life and will have amenities. They are Perfectly comfortable to live in, as honourable members will know, and they will provide standards of accommodation very much higher than those which the Aboriginals at present enjoy. At Browns Flat near Nowra, for example, the people are living in humpies under quite sub-standard conditions. When one speaks to them they say: ‘We do not want to move from this area which we know.’ I am in consultation with the local council in this area. I believe that the
Shoalhaven Shire Council intends to endeavour to put the management of Aboriginal housing in the bands of the Aboriginals themselves. The local Aboriginal council, which is chaired by Mr Brown, will be taking over responsibility and management. It may be that the new homes will even be bought individually by the Aboriginals. This will be. as far as we can make it, an Aboriginal venture.
I agree with the points raised by honourable members that at the present time many Aboriginals will not be able to take advantage of this new housing but, as the honourable member for Hume rightly said, some Aboriginals are already part of our normal community. They are using the facilities available to other Australians and should not be requiring the special help which we give as a transition mechanism to those Aboriginals who cannot be entirely part of our community immediately. We want to help the disadvantaged Aboriginal with special privileges, but when they are ready to be part of our normal community they should accept the norma] responsibilities that every other Australian accepts. We are providing these special privileges, but they should be looked on as a temporary phase.
In regard to the aged persons’ homes, I must stress that there are two objectives here. I must be fair and say that the honourable member for Lang recognised this himself. Our first objective is to help older Aboriginals to move into the normal type of home in the normal community, and our second objective is to help in the provision of homes which are wholly or mainly for Aboriginals. The honourable member for Lang expressed some doubts about this matter, but I think those doubts may have been due to inexperience and not to lack of real knowledge of the situation. The position is that elderly Aboriginals have grown up in the old ways and all of them do not want to change. It is cruel to try to change them. Not all of them, but some of them want to live in a group. I would not try to put pressure on them to break that group. I am more concerned with the Aboriginal family, which is a very integrated unit.
The thing that worries me is not the possibility of separating Aboriginals from Europeans but the possibility of separating elderly Aboriginals from their own families and descendants. This is something for which we should have a special concern. 1 do not want a situation in which an elderly Aboriginal is divorced from his own people and placed in a different age group. That is a very important consideration. In view of the fact that many Aboriginals live in groups, particularly in the north of Australia, the provision of aged persons’ homes wholly or mainly for Aboriginals is the right approach. We do not want to be dogmatic about our objectives. We have to let the Aboriginal people have some choice themselves in what they do. T am sure that our committee of advice, which will consist mainly of Aboriginals, will have this kind of consideration in its sights.
I want to express again my thanks to the three very distinguished gentlemen who have agreed to act as trustees in this venture that will help quite considerably the elderly section of our Aboriginals who are more set in the old ways and who as individuals will never really live to adapt themselves fully into the normal Australian way of life. We will help them and give them every opportunity, but we should not endeavour to coerce them. As I have said. I regard this as a non-political venture. I hope devoutly that I shall continue to administer this portfolio of Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs in the new Parliament. If so, I shall continue to do my best. At all events, I shall welcome the help and assistance and, indeed, the advice of honourable members who have Aboriginals living within their own constituencies. All men of goodwill, I hope, will come to this party.
page 2069
The following Bills were returned from the Senate:
Without amendment -
Loan (Drought Bonds) Bill 1969. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1969. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1969. Tasmania Grant Bill 1969.
Without requests -
Income Tax (Drought Bonds) Bill 1969.
page 2070
– For the information of honourable members I table the report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission on infancy in relation to contracts and property which was presented to the New South Wales Parliament. I undertook to make this Commission’s report available to the House. A limited number of copies of the report will be available in the Bills and Papers Office and copies will be provided to the Parliamentary Library.
page 2070
Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 1956), on the following paper presented by Mr Swartz:
Accident Investigation Report - Viscount 720C Aircraft VH-RMQ, near Port Hedland, Western Australia, 31st December 1968 - Ministerial Statement, 25 September 1969- and on motion by Mr Erwin:
That the House take note of the paper.
– In rising to speak to the report of the Safety Investigation Branch of the Department of Civil Aviation on the unfortunate accident to a Viscount aircraft at Port Hedland on 31st December 1968, on behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment:
That the following words be added to the motion: but the House is of opinion that, as has been done in the case of previous aircraft accidents at Mackay, Botany Bay and Winton, this aircraft accident should be the subject of investigation by a board of accident inquiry to be appointed for that purpose’.
I understand that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) will second that amendment. In speaking to the motion 1 want to say that I express regret that the Government has not seen fit to bring this report in a little earlier. I know that it will be said by members on the Government side that the investigating committee could not complete its inquiries and conclude its report any earlier, but members of the Opposition should not be expected at this late stage of the parliamentary session, a’ matter of 48 hours before the end of the Parliament, to peruse the report, acquaint themselves with the highly technical information contained therein and debate the matter. The Minister for Civil Aviation has in his Department officers to advise him on matters of a technical nature and I likewise have people to whom I can turn to seek technical advice and opinions on the technical matters contained in this report. However, it is absolutely impossible to obtain such technical information at this late stage. Originally this debate was to have taken place at 9.15 last night, but because of electioneering statements by Ministers the debate was deferred. It was pushed further down the line and now it has come on for debate today, almost an hour after the latest time it was supposed to have come on. I express my dissatisfaction with the way in which this report has been presented to the Parliament and the way in which the Opposition is expected to present its views
I am concerned about the fact that there has been no decision by the Government to refer this accident at Port Hedland to a board of accident inquiry. It appears to me that this report contains any amount of evidence showing that the accident is the result of faulty workmanship and inadequate supervision. To me, there is a clear case of negligence on the part of someone. I will not say it was on the part of the manufacturer, and I will not say it was on the part of the operator. This is a question which should be determined by an appropriate authority, namely, an impartial judicial inquiry, as was the case with the accidents at Botany Bay, Mackay and Winton. It is beyond my comprehension why the bush referred to in the report was forced into position. I am not an engineer or a fitter and turner, but at least I spent a large part of my life working with engineers, fitters and turners, and as a tradesman I have some knowledge of what is required in the placement of a machine fitting. I was accustomed to working with clearance holes. I know that in machine fitting under no circumstances is a tool applied, such as a hammer, or a bush forced into position, other than in accordance with the maintenance manual supplied by the manufacturer and the method laid down whereby tools are to be inserted in the hole. If a bush is forced into a hole it is then further machined.
As I have said, it is beyond my comprehension why the bush should have been inserted in the spar boom in the manner in which obviously it was. There is something wrong somewhere in the section of the Department responsible for carrying out this type of maintenance. The man who inserted the bush in the spar boom in the manner described must have been mentally deranged to think that he could carry out such work in this way. He could not have had any real awareness of what was involved in this maintenance. This is bad workmanship, not poor workmanship. The report sets out the following things which occurred as a direct result of this bad workmanship.
To the average tradesman, after reading the information contained in those points, the manner in which this work was carried out is unforgivable. The report goes on to say:
The report states that there is evidence that after the bush had been placed in position in this manner, some tool had been put through and the hole had again been reamed or drilled, which is something not required under the specifications set out in the maintenance manual.
The report went on to say that even in the same spar boom from which the fatigue cracking commenced there were three other holes with cracks commencing from the holes. This was the result of excessive strain and stress obviously brought about because of the bad workmanship in placing the bush into position, or structural weakness. I wonder whether there was some form of structural weakness in the spar boom. I also wonder why the manufacturer had not subjected previous spar booms that had completed their operational life to fatigue testing. After all, the manufacturer set down 11,400 flights as the life of a spar boom. When one of the spar booms had been removed why was not fatigue testing carried out on it? The report went on to say that after the decision was made to investigate this unfortunate crash the manufacturer agreed to issue a directive to all operators of this series of Viscount aircraft that these spar booms were to be removed after 7,000 flights. On examination it was found that quite a considerable number of them had fatigue cracks in them. The report had this to say:
A significantly large number of fatigue cracks was found and, although for the most part they were quite small, some 90% having a maximum crack depth of less than 0.010 inches, some larger cracks up to 0.054 inches in depth were also found and the manufacturer, in conjunction with the Air Registration Board, decided to confirm the new safe life of these booms at 7.000 flights. It is also of interest that none of the holes inspected in this programme was irregular or contained a flared bush such as had been discovered in VH.-RMQ.
For 16 years since this aircraft series was first manufactured in 1953 the accepted fatigue life of the spar boom was 11,400 flights, and this has now been reduced to 7,000 flights.
I cannot understand why some form of impartial judicial inquiry is not held and I would like to hear the Minister’s explanation. Undoubtedly he will say that there is no need for such an inquiry because the Air Safety Investigation Branch of the Department of Civil Aviation has conducted a comprehensive inquiry. The Minister said that in February when he first reported that there would be no judicial inquiry. He made a similar statement on 18th March of this year when he presented an interim report to the Parliament. On that occasion, on behalf of the Opposition, I moved an amendment calling for a full judicial inquiry. So what I am doing today is not new.
The cause of the crash is obvious from the report, but the report has not laid the blame on anyone’s doorstep. When twentytwo people lose their lives someone should be held responsible and someone should be blamed. There is a clear case of negligence here. The whole crux of the matter appears in the last paragraph on page 24. It reads:
The investigating officers made some considerable, although unsuccessful, efforts to discover when, why and by whom the Station 143 bush was flared and inserted in this spar boom. These efforts were hampered first of all by the fact that the boom was manufactured in 1963 in the United Kingdom and installed in Viscount VHRMQ by Ansett-ANA in 1964. Neither the records of the organisations involved nor the recollection of their personnel were of assistance in defining the details of the work done on these occasions or by whom the work was carried out. The second difficulty was to imagine a situation, arising either in manufacture or in the installation of the boom, which would induce any responsible tradesman to use the type of tools or to follow the practices that the physical evidence reflects. Although some important facts about the flaring of this bush have been established, after an elapse of 4 or S years there does not seem to be any strong prospect of establishing responsibility for this action.
That is the opinion of the Air Safety Investigation Branch. Were the people it interviewed placed on oath? Were they sub.poeanaed or otherwise required to bring all papers and documents that would be of assistance and value in determining responsibility and laying the blame at someone’s door? It is obvious to me that the Air Safety Investigation Branch has not done this, and it should be done. In my opinion it can be done only by a judicial body, which should, in the words of the report, inquire into when, why and by whom this flared bush was inserted in the hole. Who was responsible for this? As I said earlier, I do not care whether the manufacturer or the operator was responsible. Someone should accept the blame for this most unfortunate fatal accident.
Some of the facts are obvious. With the turbulence that this aircraft went through from 2,000 to 8,000 feet, the wing could well have come off at that point. Probably if the aircraft had had to climb through another 2,000 feet of turbulence, the wing could then have buckled and the crash could have happened over or close to Perth. lt is obvious that when the aircraft came down from its flight level of 19,000 feet to 7,000 feet the stresses and strains then imposed on the wing were too great, especially as they followed the earlier turbulence, and this brought about the accident. The aircraft was probably lucky to reach its cruising height. If the turbulence had been a little more severe the wing could have snapped off on its take-off from Perth.
I do not want to labour the point. I have put the views of the Opposition. In my opinion the evidence would justify the Government appointing a judicial inquiry to examine all aspects of this accident. The relatives of the men and women who lost their lives would then be able to go before the tribunal and question everyone involved. I have received a number of letters from the relatives of some of the people who lost their lives. They have asked me questions and they have asked me to obtain information for them so that they will know where they are going. I know they have also written to other members of the Parliament, on the Opposition side at least, because they have asked me questions about the accident. If the relatives are so concerned and so interested in what is happening, surely the Minister and the Government should not deny them the right to be represented before a judicial inquiry. Their questions should be answered and they should have the satisfaction of a decision being reached by a responsible inquiry.
Surely this is not asking too much. The Minister may reply that such an inquiry would cost $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000. But must the relatives be denied the satisfaction of knowing that everything has been done to establish who was to blame and to ensure that other people will not be placed in the same position of mourning the loss of their sons, daughters or parents in an aircraft accident? The Minister should discharge his responsibility to appoint a judicial inquiry. If time had permitted or if I had thought that any good purpose would have been served, I would have moved that this debate be stood over until the next Parliament assembles. However, at this stage the Minister and the Government should accept the responsibility for setting up an inquiry and should not brush it off. I have already cited the three accidents that have occurred. I am concerned at the number of accidents occurring in general aviation, though not with public transport. Hardly a week goes by without a newspaper reporting that a number of people have been killed in an air crash. Statements have been made by responsible officers of the Department of Civil Aviation that alcohol is playing a major role in the crashes that are occurring in general aviation today.
If public confidence is to be retained in aviation, no effort should be spared to ensure that the airline operators, not only Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd but also the commuter operators, know that they are under proper surveillance at all times and that they must carry out their work properly. Negligence of the type revealed in this accident should not be permitted to creep into the industry. Neither the Air Safety Investigation Branch nor the Minister has denied that there was negligence on this occasion. The facts are there, and because of those facts the Minister and the Government should accept the amendment I have moved.
-Is the amendment seconded.
– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
– I have no doubt about the sincerity of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who has taken a very special interest in this air accident inquiry, as he has in the past in other matters relating to air safety. The honourable member for Perth (Mr Chaney), the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and other honourable members from both sides of the House have raised matters pertaining to this inquiry. The manner in which these matters have been raised is indicative of the impartial attitude adopted in relation to them by honourable members on both sides. This is as it should be in matters of such gravity and importance.
The report that has been presented to the House is up to the standard of the normal technical investigation by experts of the
Air Safety Investigation Branch of the Department of Civil Aviation. I should make it clear at the outset that members of the Branch have autonomy in their operations. They are answerable only to the Director-General of Civil Aviation and, through him, to the Minister. They are not inhibited in any way in their impartial and technical approach to the matters before them. I stress this again because to my knowledge on previous occasions they have been, where necessary, critical of actions within the Department. This is the only way in which such important investigations can be conducted. In my experience with the Department of Civil Aviation extending over 2 or 3 years I can recall only one major disaster of this type. That was the one at Winton. On that occasion I departed from Canberra as soon as I heard of the accident to make an on the spot evaluation of the work being undertaken by our experts. I did the same thing last New Year’s Day when this unfortunate accident occurred at Port Hedland. I did this to assess the situation quickly on the spot because it is my responsibility to make a decision whether a Board of Accident Inquiry should be established to supplement the work of the Air Safety Investigation Branch or to inquire further into its report. In the case of the Winton disaster it was immediately clear that it would be some time before any cause of a technical nature could be established. Having received on the spot advice from our experts I decided within a relatively short time that a Board of Accident Inquiry should be established. The Board was established under Sir John Spicer. The report ultimately submitted by the Board, after considering the matter, coincided exactly with the findings of the Air Safety Investigation Branch. This has happened on other occasions. The Air Safety Investigation Branch did not find the cause of the accident for some time and before the cause was announced I had stated that a Board of Accident Inquiry would be set up.
In the case of the Port Hedland accident the cause of the accident became very evident within about 24 hours of finding the broken spar boom. Even so I did not make a decision on the spot. I waited until we were certain of the cause and so it was not until March that I stated in the House that a Board of Accident Inquiry would not be established on this occasion. It can be established only under terms of reference requiring it to determine the cause of an accident. lt is not a judicial inquiry in the sense of being a court. The facilities and procedures of a court are available if anyone so desires them, but a Board could only have reported on the cause of the accident, which has already been established. So a Board, after devoting considerable time to the matter and perhaps calling the same witnesses as were examined by the Air Safety Investigation Branch, and perhaps examining some other evidence, could only have established the cause of the accident, which was already known. For these reasons I did not believe that we should proceed on a basis of tradition in a serious matter of this nature. So I decided that a Board of Accident Inquiry would not be established. In tabling the report a couple of days ago I referred to this matter and indicated why the Board was not established.
– Is this the first time a Board has not been established?
– No, it is not the first time a Board has not been established when a accident has occurred. It is the first time in recent years that a Board has not been established in the case of a major disaster. But in other instances the cause of the accident has not been established at an early date. In other cases the cause was not known for some time. The expert investigation took many months, as did the inquiry, and in some cases it did not come up with a cause of the accident. In the case of the Winton disaster the cause was established after considerable time and effort by the expert investigators, and it was confirmed by the Board. In the case of Port Hedland we established the cause of the accident. This was confirmed within a couple of months. On those grounds there was no need to establish a Board of Accident Inquiry merely to establish the cause which was already known. The decision has been made. I appreciate the sincerity in this matter of the honourable member for Newcastle and other honourable members but I am sure that they will appreciate the background reasons for the decision that was taken. The honourable member referred to the timing of the tabling of the report. In answer to a question asked by the honourable member for East Sydney (Mr Devine) a few weeks ago I referred to the problem of metallurgical tests being undertaken in the United Kingdom. This took a considerable amount of time. A large number of samples had to be sent to the United Kingdom. We received the greatest co-operation from the United Kingdom Government and the British Aircraft Corporation. The results of these tests were received only in the last couple of weeks. It was then necessary to make a proper evaluation and finally to compile the report. The fact that the senior officers and other staff of the Air Safety Investigation Branch were able within those few weeks to produce a report which is up to the standard that we always expect in this country and which is a copy book example of this type of investigation for any country to note is a tribute to their skill and devotion to the job. I pay a special tribute to them. They worked day and night to get this report ready so that I might honour a promise I made to the House to make it available before the end of September. In fact, due to the early rising of the House the report has been presented a few days earlier than would otherwise have been the case. So far from being critical of the fact that the report has been presented at this stage I think we should pay a tribute to the officers of the Branch for the work they have done in getting it ready so soon.
The honourable member for Newcastle quite rightly referred to one of the basic matters raised in the report, namely the identification of the tradesman or person who caused the initial damage to the bush which caused the propagation of this fatigue crack. The investigations of the various aspects of the case were extremely thorough and most detailed, as the report indicates. But, of course, they did not produce evidence on which a positive conclusion could be reached. None of the numerous persons questioned in Australia and in the United Kingdom had any recollection of the circumstances or actions which could have produced the defect. This is understandable when we realise that the event must have occurred over 5 years ago and any one or more of many hundreds of people could have been involved. It could have occurred in the United Kingdom or in Australia. It could have been during the process either of manufacture or of the installation of the spar boom. Some of the people concerned in the manufacture or installation work could have been involved.
When we refer to gross defects and deformation in the report those terms are used in the context of their technical significance. They are technical terms used in the context of the report itself. But what we are really talking about in referring to deformation is an irregularity of about onefourthousandth of an inch. This would not be visible to the naked eye but would have to be picked up by some other method of evaluation. Therefore, the effects of the flared bush on the bore of the hole would not be visible unless the bush was subsequently removed, and of course this did not occur, as we know. There are many reasons why it is impossible to identify the individual person concerned. There is the lapse of time and also the hundreds of people and various organisations and governments involved. But while the individual who caused this problem in the first place cannot be identified this does not detract from the effectiveness of the action which has been taken in the interests of future safety in the air.
The final point I want to stress is in relation to the action that has been taken. While the company associated with the Viscount airliner, the British Aircraft Corporation, took some action on our advice immediately after the accident to reduce by 40% the expected life of the aircraft spar, and applied that action in all other countries throughout the world, we went one stage further. My Director-General issued an order to withdraw the licences of all the early 700 series aircraft in Australia. They were grounded and at present they are still grounded. We will licence no more of these aircraft in Australia. Indeed, there was only one still remaining in Australia that could have been in operation, and that was being phased out at the time. We will not licence any more of these aircraft in Australia although they can in fact operate in most other countries.
For the various reasons I have indicated, I recommend that this report be accepted by the House as an indication of the basic cause of the accident. It provides all the technical information that is required if someone at some time in the future wants to go through the procedures of a court. At the same time, I would like to pay a tribute to officers of the Accident Investigation Branch for the splendid job they have done.
Debate (on motion by Mr Chaney) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m.
page 2075
– by leave - In September 1968 the Premier of Queensland wrote to me concerning negotiations between the Queensland Treasurer and industrialists interested in major development in Queensland. The Queensland Government intended to build a power house in central Queensland to feed electricity into the Queensland grid, and proposed that the Commonwealth might provide capital so that the power house would be larger than one required solely for this purpose, and so that the additional capacity could be used to attract industries to central Queensland. The basic requirement for such industries, if they are to be so attracted, is the provision of large blocks of power on a continuous load basts, at tariffs comparable with those offering in major industrial centres overseas. If this could be attained it appeared there was a real possibility of the development, in that under developed area, of a new industrial complex that would grow and become a tangible expression of our interest in decentralised development.
At this point I stress the advantages which this underdeveloped part of Australia possesses. There are vast coal deposits and cheap steaming coal is available as a by-product of the coking coal export industry. There are extensive brine deposits as raw material for a power intensive chemical industry producing caustic soda for the alumina industry and chlorine for export. The existing alumina industry will expand with consequent opportunity for aluminium production, which requires large amounts of power. A deep water port and harbour facilities suitable for bulk carriers are ready at hand in Gladstone. All in all it is an area crying out for that development, and for that use of its natural resources, which will benefit the area itself and add to the greatness of the nation, lt offers an exciting opportunity for a great stride forward in national development. And it offers opportunity to increase our exports.
After preliminary consideration I arranged with the Premier that Commonwealth and State officials should examine the proposal. In March 1969 our officials met with their Queensland colleagues to consider the technical proposals prepared by the State Electricity Commission of Queensland. These official discussions continued in April and May. At that time the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority was retained as consultants to make an independent study of the proposal. The Authority presented a comprehensive report. Following study of it by the officials, the Premier of Queensland, on 25th August 1969, presented the State’s financial proposals for the development of the project. An interdepartmental committee, after examining the project in depth, reported to us on 19th September.
The Government is greatly impressed with the potential of the project both for the development of central Queensland and for the development of exports. We are convinced that the project is feasible from a technical point of view. We believe the estimates of cost are soundly based technically and financially. We believe that - given the establishment of certain key industries - there is a real prospect of attracting a variety of other important industries in the future. Given an initial stimulus we think that growth will continue. We believe that the wide spaces of central Queensland, which are presently under populated, will be able to develop natural resources to the full and will see towns grow to cities. Therefore, on behalf of the Commonwealth I have advised the Queensland Premier and Treasurer that we are prepared to advance up to S80m to the State over a 6 year period to help with this scheme. It is proposed that the advance should be repayable over 30 years and that it should bear interest at the semi-Governmental rate.
This offer is made for the purpose of financing that part of the power station which will meet the requirements of the special industrial development envisaged and it is hoped that this will enable the power station to sell bulk supplies to the industries at rates which will enable them to compete in world markets. The offer will enable the Queensland Government to proceed further with its negotiations with industry and to settle with the Commonwealth, as a result of such negotiation, the exact amount of the advances which will be required and the final terms and conditions for the servicing of the loan. The offer is, of course, conditional on the State being able to satisfy the Commonwealth that it can attract a viable export-oriented industrial complex in central Queensland with a demand appropriate to the output of that part of the station which the Commonwealth contribution is intended to finance. Should this proposal come to completion I believe it will provide a great strengthening of Queensland and of the Commonwealth as .a whole.
– by leave - Naturally the Australian Labor Party welcomes the Commonwealth’s participation in the provision of electricity in central Queensland, which is an area where power has been hardest to come by and is the most expensive in Australia. T should think that it would be quite clear to honourable members, particularly since the Commonwealth Department of National Development and the Queensland Department of Industrial Development made their report last April on the resources and industry of central Queensland, that power was the determining factor in the development of the natural resources in the area and the attraction of greater human resources to the area. I have had only a quick glance at the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), but I do not think any reference is made to where the power house is likely to be located. I understand the experts have advised that it would be more economical to have it located near the components of water and coal than on the coast itself.
The only misgiving I have about the announcement is that the advance - it is not a grant - seems to be on much less favourable terms than the Commonwealth has hitherto made for its advances for similar purposes in other places. The Commonwealth’s advances are normally over a 50-year period at the long term loan rate of interest. This advance is to be for 30 years at the semi-governmental rate of interest. In this respect it is much closer to the terms of the advance for the Mount Isa railway line, which attracts a higher interest rate than has been charged for the other railway projects in which the Commonwealth has concerned itself. However, whereas the Mount Isa railway loan has to be repaid over 20 years, a term of 30 years is allowed for repayment in this instance. The financing of the project causes misgivings to my Party in that the advance is for a shorter period and at a higher rate of interest than is applied to railway and other projects outlined in the Budget document entitled ‘Commonwealth Payments to or for the States 1969-70’. The project is, of course, an admirable one and should help to achieve without delay the objectives, material and human, that the Prime Minister very property expressed.
– by leave - I support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Power and water are the two great needs of Queensland. Queensland is the area par excellence in that there is every prospect of a high return for an investment in power and water. I therefore regret that no grant is being made on this occasion - it is a repayable loan on not very easy terms. I regret that the Commonwealth has stipulated that the State must satisfy it that an industrial complex can be attracted to the area. This is a back door type of provision that has left the way open for the Commonwealth to climb out of the scheme altogether. How can the State satisfy the Commonwealth until an agreement has been signed and sealed for some organisation to establish an industrial complex there? This cannot be done until the power supply is available.
I think that the Commonwealth is putting the cart before the horse. I think there already is a prima facie case that Queensland has attracted industry. No further evidence is needed. If private enterprise backs out of attraction by the assurance of cheap power then it remains open to the Commonwealth Government to take the initiative in this matter, as was done by other Commonwealth Governments in regard to such things as the aluminium and other industries.
page 2077
Debate resumed from 24 September (vide page 1879) on the following paper presented by Mr McMahon:
Estate Duty Reliefs for Primary Producers - Ministerial Statement, 24 September 1969 - and on motion by Mr Erwin:
That the House take note of the paper.
- Mr Speaker, the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) on Wednesday night in relation to estate duty was very important indeed for people engaged in primary industry. For them estate duty has been a burden for a number of years. It has been a burden in a number of ways but chiefly because it has increased land values. These have been rising for some considerable years but have increased at a very rapid rate in later years. This rise in farm land values is due to a number of reasons. In recent years there has been tremendous expansion in the primary industries. At the same time we have seen increased demand for land in all agricultural areas in Australia. In some places excess value placed on land has been due to the trend in farming towards bigger holdings and bigger properties. We have found in many cases that land prices have been forced up because farmers have bought neighbouring properties and have been prepared to pay prices greater than the real land value of the day. They have been prepared to pay the higher cost in order to extend their properties and to make them what are termed better economic units. But then, when estate duty has to be paid, we find that the duties are based on the high land values.
The estate duties charged previously have caused grave concern to many estates in Australia. This has had a detrimental effect on primary industry. Farming is not a short term industry; it is a long term industry. It continues from generation to generation. In fact herds and flocks are built up over a long period, with extremely precise attention being paid to genetics and breeding. It is a tragedy for Australia, not just for the family concerned, if properties have to be broken up because of estate duties. This has been happening. Properties have been built up over many years not by single individuals in many cases but by family units. The owners have endeavoured to pass the property down to other members of the family. Because of estate duty in many cases properties have had to be broken up so that families could pay the estate duty involved. They have not been able to find the money. I am sure my colleagues in the Australian Country Party will agree that such properties should remain intact wherever possible. If there are sons or other members of the family concerned who want to carry on the management from one generation to another then every opportunity should be taken to make this possible.
The statement of the Treasurer on this occasion, setting out proposals to alleviate the charges involved in the field of estate duty in respect of the farming world, is a definite breakthrough in achieving a particular objective: The easing of the estate duty burden so that such family properties can continue in production. Other points are involved in the estate duty field. Consider the case of a man who is the founder of a property. His family, in turn, works within that unit and helps to build up the property, lt is not really only the farmer and his wife who contribute to building up that property; the younger generation also play a part. The younger generation gathers knowledge in the breeding world and in the techniques of running that farm. Every farm in Australia is a separate unit. Every farm has its own problems and is different in some way from others; it even is different from the farm next door. Therefore it is important that young people who move up through the family units take on the family property. They should be encouraged to do so. They should be given every opportunity. The payment of estate duty has been one of the big stumbling blocks.
There are several aspects of the scheme outlined by the Treasurer. There is to be one form of relief by way of raising existing exemption limits by 20%. Other relief wilt be spelt out in future legislation. This will ease the situation in respect of properties of a certain value, and rebates will be made available up to a certain value. Also there will be an extension of time in which to pay the estate duty finally assessed. The three points I have mentioned briefly are extremely important.
The main point I wish to make is that although farming land values in Australia are now extremely high they often have very little relationship to the economics of farming and the return available from investment in farming lands. The investment does not return what one might expect from other investments in Australia or elsewhere - far from it. Honourable members know that people wishing to borrow money expect to have to pay anything from 5% to 7% interest. In many cases they pay much higher rates of interest. In comparison, the return from investment in many farming properties today is much lower than 7%, especially when one considers the long term aspect, the droughts - such as we have in some parts of Australia today - and other adverse conditions. The return may not be as great as it might seem when one is looking from a distance.
The main point is that farming remains the backbone of this country so far as our economy and our balance of payments are concerned. The secondary industries - taking the mining industry as an example - are making up ground. The mining industry now makes a high contribution to Australia’s economy, to exports and to the balance of payments position. But primary industry, as we know it today, is still playing a very major part in Australia’s economy and will do so for some time to come. In my own State of Western Australia at this time men on the land are suffering adverse seasonal conditions. This will play some havoc in the economy of Western Australia because many millions of dollars will not be circulating as would be the case had the season been reasonable. This again has an effect on the particular matter we are discussing this afternoon, relief from estate duty. Obviously the overheads involved in operating properties will rise because of this drought factor. This has happened in the eastern States in recent years, and it is happening in Queensland now. This adds to the difficulties of farming. It is one of the hazards of farming and it is one of the factors responsible for the decrease in returns on capital invested over a long period of years. The Treasurer’s statement indicates that the adjustment to estate duty will apply from the time he made his statement. The legislation to be introduced in the next Parliament will be welcomed by primary producers because it will assure them that their families will have greater security in meeting the situation.
It is often said that a person can insure against the hazard to which 1 have referred. It has been proved beyond doubt that although a person can insure, the value of that insurance cannot be maintained. Within a few years land values rise and the insurance cover becomes inadequate, lt is impossible to provide for the situation at a reasonable cost and the only alternative is to amend our estate duty legislation as is proposed. I welcome the Treasurer’s statement and I know that it will be welcomed throughout the entire farming community of Australia. It will contribute to the maintenance of farming units that have been built up over the years by generations of people, lt will enable the units to continue producing as they have been doing. In recent times we have witnessed great improvements in the quality of our wool clip and even now we are examining measures to enable the clip to be presented better. Flocks of sheep and cattle stock cannot be built up in 5 minutes, lt is a task that continues over many years and it takes time for a person to gain experience to enable him to select the better animal. It is only when successive generations follow the same pursuit that our flocks and herds can be maintained. Their maintenance is not only an asset to the individuals themselves but to the nation as a whole.
The proposed legislation will give confidence to primary producers. In many parts of Australia land values have no relationship to farming but when large and increasing populations border on agricultural territory land values spiral. Farmers, whose properties are situated close to areas of expanding population, are confronted with this problem. They are not concerned with urban development but sales of land in the general area have an adverse effect on estate duty. Such land values are out of all proportion when related to land that is used predominantly for farming activities. This is an aspect that affects the economics of farming. The Treasurer’s statement will assist to meet that situation but we must have regard to increasing land values. The position at the moment is that the value of a deceased property is based on recent sales within the area. Such sales may have taken place 10 to 20 miles away and could be quite irrelevant to the property in question. This is another problem that we should keep in mind because the value of a property should be related to the purpose for which the property is used, and in this debate I am referring to agricultural property. Land values increase when properties are sold for the purposes of closer settlement which has no relationship to actual farming. I support the statement and look forward to the assistance that will flow ultimately from the proposed legislation.
Mr STREET (Corangamite) [2.261- This statement of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) giving details of proposed legislation to be introduced in respect of federal estate duty must be surely one of the most welcome statements made in this session of the Parliament. It is welcome from the primary producer’s point of view and it is soundly based economically. It is a culmination of representations made by many honourable members on this side of the House during the last few years on behalf of various primary producer organisations. 1 have presented two particularly detailed submissions to the Treasurer on behalf of the Graziers Association of Victoria and the Australian Primary Producers Union of Victoria. I take this opportunity of congratulating those two organisations on the immense amount of work which they have put into preparing their cases. All of their submissions ha”e not been accepted but I am quite certain that the legislation that is now proposed will go a long way towards meeting the quite justified fears and concern that those organisations have had concerning the effects of estate duty on the economics of farming. Estate duty, when applied to primary production assets, does have significant differences to its effects when applied to other types of assets.
A good farm is an economic unit and once that unit is reduced significantly it affects not only the income of the people who happen to succeed to it but it threatens its survival as a viable economic unit. If there is one lesson that we have to learn today in respect of primary production it is the absolute necessity to preserve our farms as economic units. It is not so many years ago when anybody who said that Australia had a small farm problem, in the traditional sense that there is a small farm problem in Europe and in the United States of America, would have been ridiculed. He would have been told: ‘There is no possibility of a small farm problem appearing in Australia except in very limited areas’. It is common knowledge now that we are facing a real small farm problem in Australia. Anything that exacerbates this situation is going to stir up long term trouble for the Government. I am delighted to see the Government taking this realistic attitude. I stress the point that this is not merely a benefit to primary producers themselves but is of real economic benefit to the Australian economy.
Some years ago a reduction was made in Victorian probate, as it is called at the State level. As most honourable members know, the Federal estate duty is levied on the value of the residual estate after State probate duty has been paid. While the substantial reduction in State probate in Victoria was most welcome, its effect was not nullified but drastically reduced by this residual estate provision in the legislation, because when the Victorian State probate was reduced naturally more estate was left and the Commonwealth got a larger share. So in practice the reduction by Victoria was not nearly as attractive as it first appeared. This proposed legislation will be welcomed not only because it will reduce Federal estate duty but because it will have the double effect of making the Victorian provisions - and I understand there are special provisions in some other States - of more real value.
I notice that there are two main provisions in this proposed legislation. Firstly, at least 50% of dutiable assets are to be primary production assets and, secondly, 50% of the gross income of the deceased person in the last 5 years preceding death has to be directly from carrying on business of primary production in Australia. Both these provisions are soundly based. Imagine the situation if there were to be just a blanket reduction of estate duty on primary production assets. This would almost certainly lead to a change in the pattern of land ownership in Australia. It would distort the value of land and make it attractive for reasons which would not be based on economics, because if someone or a firm has very considerable assets in other forms of business, which of course will eventually become subject to probate and estate duty, and they see that there are very special concessions and attractions available to assets concerned with primary production, this will attract into the area of primary production money and resources which would not normally have been applied there. Whenever we get a distortion of resources in this way we end up with false values.
The honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) mentioned the fact that the valuations of land for primary production, on which probate and estate duty have to be paid, bear very little relationship to the return on capital which can be obtained from those assets. It is almost impossible to justify the present prices for land in most areas of Australia on purely economic grounds. If this pattern was further distorted by the attraction of money and resources which would not normally go to that sector, the primary producer who is already trying to earn a reasonable return on his capital would be in an even more difficult position than he is in now. So there would be two dangers. Firstly, it would lead to a misallocation of resources and, secondly, it would destroy the traditional form of Australian agriculture, which is a family firm, family business, family farm or call it what you like, but based on the family as the owning unit. I am not saying that there are not excellently run companies engaged in primary production. I am not saying that there is not a distinct place for companies in Australian agriculture, but I do feel strongly that anything which in the long term would tend to destroy the very strong family ties to the land would not be in the best interests of the country. It is in the best interests of the country to keep these families with a long tradition of farming behind them on the job. Earning a living off the land today is a highly technical business. It is a highly competitive business with high costs to be met, and one does not learn the business in 5 minutes. There are definitely advantages to be had by having people on the land who have .i long history of attachment to it and a wide background of soundly based knowledge on which they can base proper decisions for the running of their places.
It is also clear from studying the Treasurer’s statement that when the legislation is introduced it will have considerable implications for the way in which primary producers arrange their accounting and legal affairs. One of the great difficulties when any new legislation with quite farreaching implications is introduced is the problem of getting across to the people not only what it means but also how best they can take advantage of the concessions which are available to them. In the case of estate duty, I think people will tend to think: ‘Oh. yes, the exemption level has been lifted by 20% and there will be concessions available on estates up to $250,000’, and they will therefore have a tendency to think that the maximum benefit they can get will be more or less automatic and that there is not much they can do about arranging their affairs to get the maximum benefit. From the study I have made of the Treasurer’s statement it seems clear that, particularly for family companies, the legislation will need lo be examined very closely if it is to confer the benefits which the Government intends it to confer. 1 hope that in due course, when this proposed legislation becomes law, all honourable members who are concerned with this problem will make it their business to become fully acquainted with the provisions of the Act and give it the widest possible publicity and stress the necessity for farmers to get the best possible advice in both the financial and legal spheres so that they can take advantage of the benefits which will be available to them. J will welcome the opportunity, when the legislation is introduced in the forthcoming Parliament to speak again on this matter because, as I said, I think it is of very great importance for the future form of land tenure in Australia. Like the honourable member for Canning, I welcome the proposed legislation.
-We on this side of the House, particularly those of us interested in primary production and who understand the problems of primary production, warmly welcome this statement by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). We feel that this has been a break-through, and a break-through in a form that we have been seeking for many years. At long last the Government has shown some recognition of the special position of the primary indus tries. A great deal of a farmer’s capital is tied up in land. Land is the farmer’s tool of trade. Take that away and his earning capacity is reduced and he loses his ability to remain a viable entity. The primary industries are in a very difficult position for many reasons. Land prices have certainly soared beyond economic values in many cases because of pressure from professional people or businessmen who want to invest to save taxation. As my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) said, farmers realise that they must aggregate a certain amount of land to bring units up to economic units. Often, in desperation, farmers compete and pay more than the economic value of the land. The value of the land forms a very big proportion of the whole estate. Primary industry is in a very difficult position in that it does not have a tariff wall to stand behind. lt does not have a cost-plus system, as business has. Primary industries in Australia are very efficient. Most people are aware that the farmer engaged in primary industry in this country produces in value and production twice as much as the average farmer in the United States of America and three times as much as the farmer in the United Kingdom. This is no mean feat.
Of course I realise that farmers in this country have some things in their favour compared with farmers overseas. We do not have to house stock during the winter and we do not have to put fodder away over the winter period, but we do have extended droughts and these make very heavy inroads into primary production costs. Despite the costs this industry which is of tremendous importance to this nation still accounts for 70% to 75% of our export earnings. Tt will probably earn 75% this year. Export earnings are of extreme importance to Australia’s whole economy. Some 80% of our imports are machinery and equipment and raw material for use in industry. lt is only by earning export income that we can keep the wheels of industry turning and keep the people employed.
I believe that if a very careful analysis was made of the incidence and suitability of the imposition of probate on primary industry estates it would in many cases be found to be a losing proposition for the Government. Some years ago a survey was conducted in the US which proved pretty conclusively that the levying of probate on rural estates was a losing proposition for government and resulted in a loss of revenue to the nation. This is to a large extent also recognised in Great Britain where they now levy estate duty on about 40% of the recognised sale value of a property. Estate duty is a deterrent to production and to development in primary industry. Not only does it break up the old family property which has for generations been well run, but it breaks up the herds and flocks which have been built up and managed efficiently by trained men who are capable of doing their job more effectively than anybody else. It also breaks up properties which are economic and turns them into uneconomic units. This will be not only uneconomic to the original owner but also uneconomic for the Government and the nation.
In many cases production has been greatly reduced. The reasons for the fall in production are firstly a fear of excessive estate and probate duty, and secondly the incidence of these imposts. Many sound properties have been cut up into small uneconomic units and we find that with the standard of living that now exists what were once prosperous farmers have now been reduced to the peasant stage. The unnecessary cutting up of family properties militates very substantially against development. Many farmers, in an attempt to ensure that their children will inherit the estates that they have worked so hard for and for which tax was paid throughout their working lives in building up an interest in the property, have had to invest in life insurance to an extraordinarily high figure. It is most unfair that these farmers should have to pay estate and probate duty. This militates against every section of the community, and in the long run production will suffer, export income will suffer, and the Government will suffer because the tax will not be there to be collected. When probate duties are imposed we see properties which were once productive and efficient units broken up and disposed of piecemeal, placing people in difficulty in raising the funds that must immediately be found to pay the estate and probate duty.
Sometimes even the farm itself has to be sold and people who had been effective farmers and graziers are thrown out of their jobs and have to find some other type of work. We see pastures that have been built up over the years deteriorating because there is insufficient money to buy the necessary fertilisers to keep them going. We see properties run down because there are no funds with which to improve them. We see fences and sheds falling to pieces. We see the water reticulation systems which have been built up with a great amount of effort and expense being allowed to deteriorate. The total result is a fall in production on the farm. There is a fall in export income with a resulting fall in employment throughout the country.
Australia will for many years to come depend very largely for its export earnings on primary industry. As I said before, our primary industries are efficient. I want to pose a question which I have put before: When is secondary industry going to pull its socks up and become as efficient as primary industry? That question has often been raised. Let me put it in another way. If secondary industries were selling their products, with the present cost structure, at the prices they were getting 15 years ago or a Mule less, how many would be solvent? I venture to suggest that there would be very few indeed. This is just what the primary industries have been doing. I might say that they have been doing it pretty successfully. I do not say that the primary industries could not be more efficient, but there has been a tremendous improvement in the development and efficient running of these industries. We were delighted to hear the statement of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). We believe that the forthcoming legislation is at least a foot in the door. We think that it should have gone further, but we believe that when it is proved in time to be of economic benefit to this country it will go further.
– I do not think it will go any further.
— It will not go any further if a Labor government gets into office. This has been the policy of the Australian Country Party for many years and a great deal of the credit for this projected legislation must go to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Armstrong) who was chairman of a committee of the Country Party which did an enormous amount of work in relation to estate duty and probate duty. That committee was responsible for gathering the facts and figures. It put forward a very strong case in support of consideration of reduction of estate and probate duty. We are delighted to bear that legislation will be introduced, partly as a result of the case which we put up. It is not easy to get the Treasury to make concessions. It is most difficult to get the Treasury to see that there is benefit in something that would appear to reduce revenue. In the long run the proposals of the Government will be of great assistance to the primary industries of Australia. lt should be borne in mind that despite our vaunted mineral wealth and industrial development, the greatest assets that this nation has are still its rural assets, which include the agricultural and pastoral lands. Minerals can be found anywhere tomorrow and things can be produced in a factory built almost anywhere, but there is a limited amount of good agricultural and pastoral land in the world today. With world standards of living rising and a rise in world population the importance of rural industry will increase and certainly not decrease. Primary industries are going through a very difficult period because of the cost squeeze. At times there is a lack of appreciation by the Government of the problems facing the industries. The forthcoming legislation will help to preserve and encourage the people who, ever since this country was first discovered, have been the backbone of the nation. I am very pleased indeed to give my full support to this statement and I will be strongly supporting the legislation when it is brought before the House.
– I am sure that all thinking citizens of Australia will welcome the statement and will look forward to the early introduction of the Bill that will give effect in law to the principles set out in the statement. I am very pleased to see that the new provision will have effect as from today, so that nothing will be lost by any delay in introducing the legislation. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) said, it is perhaps easy for city dwellers to lose sight of the importance of primary production. But in fact the importance of primary production is increasing tremendously all the time. The world’s population is exploding and in fact Australia’s birthrate is increasing. The enormously increased number of people to be fed and clothed defies the imagination.
One would suppose from this that the increasing demands for primary products would make life easy for the primary producers. However, as time goes on, the primary producers seem to be running into increasing difficulties. Throughout the world the costs of farming are constantly increasing: yet the prices of primary products are failing to keep pace with the increasing costs of production. This is having a serious effect in underdeveloped countries, lt is fortunate that this Government has been able to shield the primary producers to some extent by legislation such as that envisaged in the statement we are discussing. In general terms, the primary producer in Australia is able to make a reasonable living from his efforts. However, compared with the return from most other endeavours, the return from primary industry is still surprisingly small, having in mind the level of thought and effort that is put into farming and the amount of capital that is involved.
There are additional difficulties in this country. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) referred to the problems created by the increasing value of land, especially where urban settlement encroaches on a rural area. Many factors may cause the value of land to increase enormously. This has many undesirable features. One is the increased cost arising from the increased rates that must be paid on the increased value of land. Naturally the high cost of land generates an incentive to sell portion of the farm. Australia more than most countries suffers the terrible destructive effects of recurrent droughts. These factors create such vast problems for primary producers that at times one wonders at their ability to continue and to continue as efficiently as they do in Australia. The primary producers in Australia have a magnificent record, one that it may be easy for people not close to the land to overlook but nevertheless one to which we should pay tribute.
In every context, the economical working of the farm or rural property is vitally essential. Without economical working, the property must eventually go out of existence. If this happened primary production as a whole would eventually disintegrate with disastrous results for the nation. So it is essential by every reasonable means to promote the economical working of rural properties. Primary production can be upset not only by the factors I have mentioned but also by other financial stresses which crop up from time to time in an industry that is insufficiently protected. Because of some pressure that cannot be countered immediately, prices obtained for primary products fail drastically. For instance, a sudden severe fall in the price of beef can, and has in the past, impose tremendous stresses on people in the cattle industry.
When this happens, the primary producer must find some way to meet the problem. Two obvious ways spring to mind. Firstly, the producer may resort to false economies. He may cut down on the amount of fertilising he does on his property. He may not go ahead with water conservation. He may let his buildings or plant run down beyond the economic level. All this will evenutally result in serious problems. The second obvious solution is to sell part of the farm. This is highly undesirable. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) said that it would be hard to imagine a small farm problem in Australia. This is a very real problem. The soldier settlement project at Clare in Queensland was a disaster. Tobacco growing was undertaken, but the blocks were found to be too small for economical working. The dairy industry in some areas is running into similar problems and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) is doing everything he can to correct the problems of small and uneconomic dairy farms.
For these reasons, all thinking Australians must welcome any measure that will cushion the effects of the problems I have mentioned and will counter the tendency to reduce the size of the farms until it is difficult to work them economically. In any event, it would seem to be unjust for a further disadvantage to result from the death of the owner of a rural property. It would be unfair if the simple process of death meant a reduction in the economy of a farm. This consequence goes beyond all natural justice and commonsense, not only because of the obvious emotional and sentimental aspects of selling part of a property that has been built up by the toil, care and thought of the family over many years, but also because of the diminution of economy resulting from the reduced size of the farm. Such a result would be contrary to the policy of this Government and it is only logical that the Bill foreshadowed in the statement should be introduced.
If I may I will mention several points that are inherent in the statement. The first is the eligibility of properties. A property is eligible if more than one-half of the assets that are dutiable are primary production assets and also if more than 50% of the gross income of the deceased person for the preceding 5 years was derived from primary production. It is good to see that for this purpose not only the land used for primary production but also the improvements, livestock, produce and plant and machinery are taken into account. The relief takes two main forms. Firstly, the existing exemption limits on eligible estates will be raised by 20%. The present exemption level, if the estate is passing to close relatives, is $20,000. Then it diminishes by $2 for each $8 and cuts out at $100,000. Now the basic exemption will be increased to $24,000 and it will not cut out until $120,000. For small estates which do not pass to close relatives the basic exemption is $10,000 and it cuts out at $50,000. Now the basic level will be $12,000, cutting out at $60,000. The elevation of the basic rate and the cut-out rate is one form of relief. The other form will be by allowing a rebate of part of the duty attributable to the value of primary production assets included in the dutiable estate. I am sure that all thinking people will warmly welcome these proposals and look forward to their introduction in the form of legislation.
– I want to identify myself with this discussion for the particular reason that I have identified myself with some of the work that has gone on in bringing pressure to bear for the introduction of these proposals. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) said, these proposals represent a breakthrough. They are a breakthrough on a matter of principle. I would like to make one thing clear. When one starts to talk about relief from estate duty it may appear to some people that we are concerned only for the owner of a large estate. This is not so. One of the prime objectives of these proposals is the protection of small farms. The proposals are designed to obviate the necessity to break farms up into uneconomic units. I think it is evident that these proposals stem from the homework done by back bench members on this side of the House. They have put to the Parliament and to the Government the views of the people whom they represent. Back in 1967 I raised this matter in the House and I can remember other honourable members from this side raising it. Such unanimity on the subject indicates some merit in our suggestions.
In the debate on the Appropriation Bill in 1967 I sought a reduction in the duty levied on all estates and I made a particular plea for a special scale of duty in the case of those people engaged in primary production. At no stage did 1 advocate the total abolition of this tax. I dealt with the case of people game enough to go into business on their own in a small1 way. Quoting from the latest report available at the time of the Commissioner of Taxation I pointed out that the greatest number of income earners was in the $2,000 to $3,999 bracket. I pointed out that on an estate of the size which such people might be expected to hold the estate duty would not be a very large amount but, taking the figures compiled by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, to earn annually the amount of estate duty charged on such an estate it would need to have a value of about $67,000. I pointed out that in the list of Commonwealth income earners estate duty ranked seventh. It accounted for 0.8% of the Commonwealth’s total income. I conceded that theoretically a man could provide during his lifetime for estate duty. He could do this by taking out insurance. But I pointed to the fact that inflation has an effect on insurance and also that the value of insurance policies is included in the estate.
I can remember that at this time I was quite frustrated. Nothing was done about my suggestions. I did get a two page letter from the Treasurer. Apparently somebody had heard me. It was one of those letters written by an expert who can say no in a delightful manner. That was 2 years ago, and things have changed in the interval. I have shown the letter to a number of interested people. Against some of the Treasurer’s comments in a handwriting other than mine is the word ‘rubbish’.
Since that time we have made progress. We are debating a statement by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) that some relief from estate duty will be granted to primary producers. I will not go into the details of the scheme; they have already been covered. The purpose of the scheme is to avoid the necessity to break up economic rural holdings, particularly family holdings, because of the need to pay estate duty. This is an important matter. Those who are affected by estate duty will know that the Commonwealth’s tax is far less than the State tax on estates. The Commonwealth has set the lead and I suggest that the States might follow, so that still greater relief may be provided to the people affected by these proposals.
Debate (on motion by Mr Irwin) adjourned. [Quorum formed.]
page 2085
Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed:
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker, which lime of meeting shall be notified by Mr Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.
page 2085
Motion (by Mr Erwin) agreed to:
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of ils next sitting.
page 2085
Valedictory Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn.
– We have now reached not only the end of the parliamentary year but also the end of the twenty-sixth Parliament and as a House of Parliament we hover on the verge of dissolution. During the life of this Parliament we have witnessed major changes, some of them unprecedented, and we have mourned the loss of friends and colleagues. It has been, I think, an exacting time for all. We have all been conscious of the privilege of being able to give some service to the nation and the people wc represent according to our lights and according to our beliefs.
As is traditional at the end of a parliamentary year, I would like to place on record some words of appreciation of those on who we depend for the efficient working of the Parliament. Firstly, I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on the way you have presided with great dignity, complete impartiality and, this morning, with some wit over this House. In this you have been most ably assisted by the Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), and by your Deputies. I am personally indebted to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. I would also extend my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and to his Deputy, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), for their help in the workings of the democratic processes which are an integral part of our Parliament. Our appreciation must go also to the Leader of the House (Mr Erwin) and to the Whips for their contributions to the conduct and efficient management of the business of the House. We would like to express this too to the Clerk of the House, to his Deputy and to their staff for their ready assistance and advice in their important role. The Hansard staff have discharged their duties with their usual efficiency and their usual assistance to the grammatical expressions of members. We are most grateful too for the range of services which have been provided to honourable members by the Library. Then there are the large number of people responsible for the other day to day activities of the House. I refer to the broadcasting staff, typists, attendants and those who work in the dining room. In particular, 1 am sure honourable members would like mc to mention the transport officer, Mr Gordon Pike, whose job is to get us here and send us home again, a job he has been doing very efficiently and cheerfully for many years. 1 am sure that all honourable members were delighted when Her Majesty recognised his services in the birthday honours.
We should not overlook the contributions of the members of the Press Gallery in keeping the public informed of the activities of the Parliament according to their interpretations of the activities of the Parliament. We may not always welcome what we read or indeed believe it but the Press plays an important role in the working of our parliamentary system and they have been playing this role. Finally, I would like to mention those members who are retiring from the Parliament. Firstly, I would like to mention my friend and colleague of many years who came in in 1949, the Minister for Defence, Mr Allen Fairhall, who has been a member for 20 years and a Minister since 1956. Also from this side of the House we are farewelling the honourable member for Isaacs, the Honourable Sir William Haworth, and the honourable members for Denison (Mr Gibson) and Lawson (Mr Failes). On the Opposition side we are saying farewell to the honourable members for Banks (Mr Costa), Blaxland (Mr Harrison), Darebin (Mr Courtnay), Dalley (Mr O’Connor), Darling (Mr Clark), East Sydney (Mr Devine), Kingsford-Smith (Mr Curtin), Scullin (Mr Peters) and West Sydney (Mr Minogue). We extend to them all our best wishes for a happy life in their retirement.
Sir, there is no need on this occasion to exchange premature seasonal greetings. My colleagues and I confidently expect to be back in our places in the Parliament before Christmas and we will then have the opportunity to extend our seasonal greetings, with the warmest seasonal greetings to the members of the Opposition.
– I support this motion as I have the last two which we passed in record time. We expect that the first motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Erwin), which concerns the special adjournment, will not be very onerous for you, Mr Speaker. The motion means that before the Governor-General dissolves the Parliament you have the right, and we have been unanimous in conferring on you the right, of calling the Parliament together. That means that you can call us together tomorrow or on Sunday. On Monday the House will be dissolved by the GovernorGeneral. It might help many honourable gentlemen to know that my advice to His Excellency will be that the Parliament be called together again on 25th November.
I join the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in the remarks he made on all the people in this House and about it, and particularly in his references to you, Sir. Few, maybe, would have believed that you would have turned out such a good Speaker as you did. I think you are as good as your Party could have produced and I think you excelled yourself on your last morning. In the next 3 years I expect my colleagues and I will be fully occupied with the affairs of government. We expect the diplomatic posts to go mainly to the professionals. But if there are any to go to parliamentarians you will be our first choice. 1 have only one other commitment in that regard. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) I have promised Lisbon. Mr Speaker, you have been away in preparation for this sort of life on many occasions. With increasing frequency, in fact, you have represented this Parliament overseas. On those occasions you have been very well represented by your Deputy. He starts off with certain advantages, of course, at the initiation of each day’s proceedings. I think I might also say that on some occasions we have found his rulings even more acceptable than yours. To all those from both sides who have sat in the Chair, we offer thanks for their contributions.
Particularly do we appreciate the services of the Clerks. No-one watching the proceedings of the House could fail to ask themselves where even you, Mr Speaker, would be without the advice of the Clerks. We thank all those who at all hours of the day and night help us in all our activities, who look after our transport and communications, who provide us with research and refreshments, who keep our words within parliamentary and grammatical propriety.
I must single out, as the Prime Minister did, members of the Press. Everyone realises, from the configuration of this Chamber, how natural it is that the Press should look down on us and how necessary it is that we should look up to them. On this occasion I must make particular reference to those honourable members who are voluntarily leaving this place. There are thirteen all told, an exceptional number, who because of retirement or the distribution of electoral boundaries have chosen to retire from Parliament. Of this number nine belong to my Party. There are nine honourable members from New South Wales in the Parliament who will be leaving. Seven of these honourable members are from my Party.
I first mention the supporters of the Liberal and Country Parties who are voluntarily leaving. I join in the tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall). He would know that, however much we may have differed politically - which we did quite consistently - I have the very highest personal regard for him. He has made his way in life and in his Party by his own efforts, not through inherited advantages. He served his community - especially the business circles in the Newcastle district - and his Party in this Parliament with zest and effect. On a lighter note I would like to say that I should imagine that he is as disappointed as were his three immediate predecessors that it was not given to him to welcome the greatest thing with wings since angels. If there is ever a phantom of our Forces it is the Fill aircraft.
The honourable member for Lawson (Mr Failes) and his family before him have served consistently and arduously many parts of the western districts of New South Wales. I pay a tribute to him for his service in the Chair during the Committee stage and in parliamentary debates. His seat has been abolished. The Country Party is the only Party which can be sure that after the forthcoming election it will occupy the same part of the House. Whilst it may be losing the services of the honourable member for Lawson, it seems possible that if there is still to be a conservative representative for the seat of Paterson it will be Mr Frank O’Keefe, who is a member of the Country Party.
From Victoria the honourable member for Isaacs (Sir William Haworth) is another of the forty-niners. Before becoming a member of this Parliament the honourable member served in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria and was a Minister there. Another Liberal, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Gibson) is the only one of the thirteen honourable members whom we know to be leaving who will not be drawing a pension. We hope that he can afford the sacrifice entailed. He will be concentrating on the law. i would expect that in due course he will follow his distinguished father to the Bench. 1 must now speak about my own colleagues who are leaving the Parliament of their own choice. Seven of them are from New South Wales, which will mean that only ten of the present Labor members in this House from New South Wales will be in the next Parliament. In other words, the newcomers will outnumber the continuing ten by 2 to 1. The forthcoming election will produce remarkable ramifications in many other fields of public life. For instance, the upper echelons of the Public Service will be depleted when Mr Bill Morrison, a former Deputy High Commissioner in Malaysia, represents the electorate of St George, Major Peter Young, who was the senior intelligence officer in Vietnam, represents Lowe, Mr Vince Martin, a senior Treasury official represents Banks and Mr Bob Whan, the senior wool research officer with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, represents Macarthur. Recruits from the New South Wales parliament will include not only Mr Frank O’Keefe, but Mr Grassby, and Mr Lionel Bowen, including Mr Cliff Maliana and the Hon. Roger Nott. There will be former members of the Federal Parliament returning - Mr Alan Fraser, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Jim Monaghan and Mr John Armitage. I have no time, despite the interjections, to go over the whole list of Labor recruits in New South Wales.
Seven New South Wales members of the Opposition will be retiring. The honourable member for Darling (Mr Clark) has been a member of this House for more than one half of the history of Federation. He joined it at the same time as the right honourable member for Murray (Mr McEwen), who will be like a gnarled oak on the horizon of national politics, we believe, for another year.
– 1 wish to raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Five of the honourable members whom the Leader of the Opposition has warned will lose their seats have gone out to pack their bags. Do you not think that they should wait and hear the rest of his speech?
-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.
– The honourable member for Darling comes from a family which has rendered long public service. His father was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales for 12 years before he himself was elected here. The honourable member has served under twelve Prime Ministers. He represents one of the largest electorates in the world. It borders on three States and one Territory.
– You would like it to be larger.
– It was larger before we redistributed the electorates in 1949. He regards all Australian citizens as being equal. He represents people not acres. Because of the geographical situation of his electorate he has been impatient of State differences in road, rail and air transport and has advocated the development of the potential of the whole Murray-Darling river system.
The next in period of service in this House is the honourable member for Dalley (Mr O’Connor). He survived redistributions in 1948 and 1955 but he succumbed to the redistribution last year. He is away at the United Nations at the moment. On behalf of the Party I paid tribute to him before he departed on this mission. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr E. James Harrison) served in the Legislative Council of New South Wales for 7 years before coming here. One of his great interests, flowing from his industrial life before entering the Parliament, was rail standardisation. One of the most effective displays of bi-partisanship in this Parliament occurred on 31st October 1956 when the Liberal Party and the Labor Party rail standarisation committees presented identical reports. The honourable members for Blaxland and Stirling (Mr Webb) and I comprised the Labor Party’s committee. Every proposal in those two reports has now come into effect. The only rail standardisation project on the statute book which has not come into effect so far is one which we enacted in 1949.
The honourable member for Banks (Mr Costa) has shown a particular interest in the House in matters relating to the Public Service because before he came here he served in the Post Office, in which half the Commonwealth’s employees are engaged and which is the greatest business in the southern hemisphere. He has, to an exceptional extent, been regarded as a spokesman and representative of public servants and has acted on their behalf consistently during his 20 years service here.
The honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Curtin) will be remembered not only for his speeches and for his questions but also for his interjections. All would acknowledge that nobody is more penetrating in his interjections, both in terms of politics and acoustics. Because of his previous life he has always had a great interest in developing Australian heavy industry and Australian defence industries. As a trade unionist he gives confident and authentic expression to trade union ideals. I have never known a man who has enjoyed his life in Parliament more.
The honourable member for East Sydney (Mr Devine) is the last member for East Sydney. Such has been the spread of population in New South Wales during the course of Federation that he has represented part of an area for which my grandfatherinlaw was twice a Labor candidate. The honourable member has expressed great interest not only in urban affairs but in civil aviation. His dialogues with the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) have been more protracted than most. He is bound to be elected as a member of the Sydney City Council tomorrow.
Finally from New South Wales, Sir, there is the honourable member for West Sydney (Mr Minogue). He served in the Sydney City Council for 10 years and also served with the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) for a certain time on the Sydney County Council as well. He has had a particular gift for publicising issues in which he is interested, from Martin Place to Lord Howe Island. In particular we will remember him as one who has shown special concern for those who have been disadvantaged because of their faith and disregarded because of their age. He has never forgotten his city; he has never forgotten his birthplace; and he has made some memorable contributions to jurisprudence in the field of workers compensation.
Sir, there are two of my colleagues from Victoria who are leaving the Parliament, the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) and the honourable member for Darebin (Mr Courtnay). The honourable member for Scullin, like the honourable member for Blaxland, is attending a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He is another of the fortyniners. We paid our tribute to him on his last day in the Parliament. The honourable member for Darebin has served my Party in the Parliament for 1 1 years. Before that he had had long political and industrial service in his home State. He has kept the faith bravely and consistently as all his colleagues inside and outside the Parliamentary Labor Party recognise.
Sir, in listing departing members, we are expressing appreciation to good colleagues and friends. We wish them health and happiness. I would like publicly to thank my own colleagues for the support I have received from them, in increasing measure, during the 17 years I have served in the Parliament, and during the last 3 years as their leader. I have confined my remarks to the honourable members who have announced their intention to leave the Parliament. It will be seen that between them they have served some 250 years in it. Their departure will leave a great gap in the public life.
This has been an interesting Parliament, as the Prime Minister has said. It has become more interesting as time has gone on. We are all looking with exceptional anticipation and interest to our comings and goings in the next few weeks. Mr Speaker, thank you again, and all your staff, the people in the chamber and the others in this Parliament over whom you hold jurisdiction.
– Mr Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the Australian Country Party. I join with the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in paying tribute to you on this occasion. It has been a very satisfying experience to serve as a parliamentarian under your speakership. I am sure there is no-one in the Parliament who doubts your integrity of decision or who has any second thoughts about your capacity to understand the Standing Orders and to manage the affairs of the Parliament. Therefore I join with the others in paying tribute to you. We thank you and your deputies who occupy the chair from time to time. I also pay tribute to my Party colleague, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). As Chairman of Committees, as a Deputy Speaker and as Acting Speaker in your absence, he has discharged his duties with credit to himself and, 1 am sure, with satisfaction to the House.
For myself I say that this has been a pretty hard Parliament. 1 think it has been pretty hard for all of us. Because of the great issues we have all had to work hard wherever we sit in this place. I have had pleasure in working with my colleagues and with my Party. Turning now to the Prime Minister, he faces his first election. I have no doubt at all of the outcome. He will come through with great credit and great success to lead the coalition government again in the next parliament. The Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition members have discharged their duties in opposition with distinction and with credit to themselves. They will gain 3 more years of experience in Opposition and 1 am sure will be able to serve even better as Opposition members in the next parliament. I pay tribute to the Party Whips. They have kept all of us in order. Mr Speaker, we are all indebted to the Clerks and officers of the House for the service which they perform and I, with other speakers, also would like to put this on record. To the Hansard staff and the Library staff equally, all parliamentarians are indebted and I pay my tribute. To the Press I pay my tribute. This is a day when I feel I can do so without any hypocrisy. On odd days occasionally I would find difficulty in speaking.
– Does that include the ABC?
– No, not really. However, I do pay my tribute to the Press. I turn now to honourable members who, of their own decision, do not intend to re-contest seats in the Parliament. I refer first to my colleague, the honourable member for Lawson, Mr Laurie Failes. He has served this Parliament and his Party with great distinction for 20 years. There must be, in the history of Federation past and future, few people who have been the only member for a federal electorate. He came in when the electorate was newly created in 1949; he goes out when the electorate has been abolished in 1969. None of us has any doubt at all that had he wished to continue in the Parliament he would have won a seat to enable him to do so. The honourable member for Lawson has been a good companion, as well liked, I think, as any person in the Parliament. He has been an able man in presenting the arguments of our Government and of his own Party. He has been a very experienced man. In the Parliament, in the constituency, in public and when he has travelled overseas as a parliamentarian, he has held high the honour and reputation of the Australian Federal Parliament. I pay my personal tribute to Laurie Failes for his service, and I do not forget the company that his wife has given to us all here also.
To my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) who is, by his own decision, calling it a day, I say that the only mistake I have made is not to do the same thing at the same time. I do pay a tribute to the service that Allen Fairhall has given to the Government, to his Party and to this country in the very wide areas of responsibility that he has occupied over a period. My Party would wish me to wish him well in his retirement and to hope that he does not exert himself overmuch in the coming election. The honourable member for Isaacs (Sir William Haworth) has been a very old friend of mine, a very distinguished Victorian and Melbournian. He served in a ministerial capacity in the State Parliament before he came here. I offer to him the very warmest wishes of the Australian Country Party in his period of retirement.
I am defeated in any attempt to name the electorates of the Australian Labor Party members who, of their own decision, are not recontesting seats, but the honourable member for Darling (Mr Clark) occupies a particularly special place in my mind because he and I came into the Parliament in the same election. Incidentally, Sir
Robert Menzies came in in that election also. It was a very distinguished crop that came along in 1934 - and that seems a long while ago. To me it is more than half of my life and it is probably proportionately the same with the honourable member for Darling. In Opposition and in government the honourable member for Darling has discharged his responsibilities in such a manner as to be a credit to himself and, 1 am sure, satisfactory to the Parliament. 1 remember him particularly for two things: The first, that he came in in the same election as I did and the second that as Chairman of Committees he named me. So he stands brightly in my memory for both of those occasions.
– He named three of you in the one motion.
– That is right. He introduced mechanisation or automation into the Parliament.
– That was a three star lot.
– That is right. I mention now Mr Eric Costa, Mr Frank Courtnay, Mr Dan Curtin, Mr Len Devine, Mr Jim Harrison, Mr Bill O’Connor, Mr Dan Minogue and Mr Ted Peters. These men have all been good companions and good parliamentarians and I, and my Party, wish them well in their decision not to stand further in the Parliament.
– This is the first time I have taken the opportunity to speak at this stage of a session. Like the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), I entered this Parliament in 1949 when more than fifty new members entered this House, not to mention the Senate. Thirteen members are going out, eight of whom are forty-niners. Only twelve of the forty-niners will be left with us after the election, assuming that each of them is returned. I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall), who is retiring. Like myself, he gained his political initiation through the Henry George League in which we learned some of the things which the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) has stopped espousing. I refer particularly to the disadvantages of blind tariff protection. Neither of us believes implicitly in it any longer, but we did then agree with some of the things about which the honour able member for Wakefield spoke. I think the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr McEwen) is another honourable member who did not agree with what the honourable member for Wakefield used to say. 1 wish to pay a special tribute to the forty-niners who are going out. Mr Costa is a kindly and unassuming man. He is very sincere and liked by everybody. I do not think anyone has ever heard Eric Costa pass a nasty remark about another honourable member. Dan Curtin is a very generous person in every way. He is a straight from the shoulder man, and has the very epitome of the best qualities of a fair dinkum, rugged Australian trade unionist. We will be sorry to see him go. He does not look now any different from when I first saw him, in 1949. He has looked after himself well. I was once told that reformed drunks always finish up in good health. Dan has not had a drink for well over 40 years and the benefits of his abstinence are obvious.
Jim Harrison is another colourful character. He usually led for Labor on industrial matters but at one time there was an exception. Percy Clarey was here then, another great forty-niner who has long since departed. He felt that as a former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions he ought to take the prime position. Dr Evatt, always a diplomat in these matters, said: ‘Both sit at the table’. And they did. At the table at that time was Harold Holt, as Minister for Labour and National Service, sitting in the seat now occupied by the Prime Minister. Eddie Ward said in his inimitable style: ‘There you have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost’. He never told us who was which. Wardie said that he refrained from identifying them because he did not want to offend anybody.
Dan Minogue is quite unique in this Parliament. No person has ever entered this Parliament, and it is probable now that no person ever will, with the same rich Irish brogue which characterises Dan Minogue’s speaking. He did a magnificent job to get the Sydney Post Office clock re-erected. That is one of his great achievements. He got shamrocks readmitted into Australia on the occasion of Heather Menzies’ wedding. He discovered that heather was being allowed in for the wedding and shamrocks were still banned because of a disease. He handled that matter with great distinction. Frequently he has drawn attention to the injustices suffered by the people of Ireland and has called out for unification of that country. He managed to get an air strip on Lord Howe Island put on the map, at least notionally.
His greatest achievement, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has pointed out, was his success in wringing from the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) an undertaking that a Bill would be introduced - although it has not yet been brought in - to amend the compensation legislation to cover the loss of genitals. I take it that Dan Minogue meant it to cover women as well as men. He did not say so. However, we have the promise but not yet the fulfilment, which is so typical of the Government.
Mr Peters, who is at present overseas representing us, is one of the old school. He is an austere, undeviating protectionist of the finest calibre. I remember that once in caucus he said that we should remember that we were in an egalitarian party and a few minutes later I noticed him take his son into the dining room where they both ordered a return of oysters, which seems to me to be a good way of proving the point. Unfortunately, he is leaving us. He has been true to the Labor Party and he stands out in my memory, as does the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), for the way in which he resisted the great pressure of an attempt by the Democratic Labor Party to drag him away from the Australian Labor Party. He did not leave us.
Of the members who were in this Parliament in 1949 only twelve are still here today. But about only seven of the present members were here when I first came into the Parliament 20 years ago. I like to recall the very great men who were here when I came here in 1950 and who are no longer here. I wonder whether in 20 years time members who are just coming into the Parliament now will be able to look back on those of us who are here now and say of us, with the same sincerity as I say of those whom I intend to mention, that we were really great Australians who contributed very greatly indeed to the history of our country. I think of Larry Anthony, one of the greatest and most devastating oppositionists [ have ever heard. He was a great debater. I think of Howard Beale, who, in not such a prominent way, was a very good and effective member who became an ambassador for us in the United States. 1 think of Archie Cameron who, unlike yourself, Mr Speaker, was a man who did not worry much about Standing Orders. He made them up as he went along. You appear to do it yourself at times too, but not so consistently as Archie Cameron did. Archie Cameron took a very great dislike to Phar Lap, even to the extent of having his picture removed from the barber’s room downstairs. He was very quick witted. He liked to think that he was an authority on the Bible, although his quotations were not always terribly good. On one occasion, when Mr Pollard complained about not being able to ask a question, Archie Cameron said: ‘You are like Solomon’s barren wife. You can never be satisfied.’ Dick Casey was a great figure who later became Lord Casey and Governor-General of Australia. He is another man whose record in this Parliament, so far as I arn concerned, is highlighted by his wonderful talk on the habits of the rabbits. He was then the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and he gave a very interesting talk about myxomatosis.
Ben Chifley was here when I first came into Parliament, and so was that great stalwart, Percy Clarey. Alex Downer, now High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, was also here, as were Arthur Drakeford and Dave Drummond, a very sturdy member of the Country Party who everybody loved and respected and who I know was a great friend of the present Leader of the Country Party. He was a great man. So was Bert Evatt, and there was Artie Fadden. I suppose Artie Fadden was easily the most hospitable Acting Prime Minister I have ever seen because he used to take over Sir Robert Menzies’ headquarters, which had a good larder of whisky and the like. I was one and there were many others present who had the good fortune to be invited in to help him drink it before his term of office finished. When Sir Robert Menzies came back from overseas the first thing he had to do was to fill up the larder. Very often it just got filled up in time for Artie Fadden to start getting right to it again. He enjoyed this very much indeed. Fadden’s Gap is a memorable part of this building about which T will not go into detail, but the older members know where it is.
I talked of Allan Fraser who, fortunately, will be back again. He was one of the few men who could really rattle the great Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. Sir Robert Menzies was a great man. He was one of the greatest parliamentarians I have ever seen and easily one of the finest orators I have ever heard. His 1951 speech on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill stands out as being by far the greatest oratorical effort I have ever listened to and, I suppose, that anyone will ever hear. A tape recording of his speech was made by Hansard, or it may have been by the Library.
-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– I have never been a great user of time on the debate for the adjournment of the House and the likelihood that my voice will expire with my time will prevent me from falling into bad habits. When I entered politics in 1949 I did so with these words of that gallant Papal Knight, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) ringing in my ears: Politicians are like poultry. They are roosters today and feather dusters tomorrow’. It would pay us all not to forget that piece of wisdom. I do not propose to go off into reminiscences this afternoon because there has been some of that, and perhaps it is very valuable in its way. There are quite a number of my colleagues who no doubt will want to say a word or two, and so I content myself with expressing my thanks to you, Sir, for your gentle discipline. I thank my friends on both sides of the House, happily, and say that when they face the barrier in the next week or two I will be in there working until the starter presses the button. But after that I would like to settle down. In my view the happiest result would be if every member of this Parliament, except those of us who retire, were re-elected. In that way the country would be assured of continuing good government. But in the meantime I merely express my thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), to the Leader of the Country
Country Party (Mr McEwen) and others for their kind words, because I find that after 20 years in this place it is easier to take kicks than kind words.
– I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you, Mr Speaker, and the officers of the House for the courtesy shown to me during the period I have been in the Parliament. I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), and others who have spoken, for their references to me. This has been a very interesting period of my life. As the Leader of the Opposition said I entered the Parliament in 1934 and have spent more than half the time since Federation here. I think I have served under 12 of the 19 Prime Ministers we have had, and it has been a very interesting experience. When I first entered the Parliament we were going through a very great depression and there was vast unemployment and great economic suffering amongst the people. From 1939 to 1945 we went through a grave period of war, worry and anxiety and the Parliament had the problem of steering Australia through those grave times. Then came the period of rehabilitating those who had taken part in the war and who had to be returned to a place in the economic life of the country. That presented us with very great difficulties indeed. I think that the experience gained in those times has helped us very greatly in keeping down the unemployment which plagued us greatly when I first entered the Parliament.
We indeed have a great country. It has a most magnificent future and I feel that under a Labor government we can look forward to an even more favourable period than we have experienced in the past. But I would like to thank again the officers of the House and of the Parliament generally, also the Ministers and the staffs of the departments, for the courtesies which they have extended to me. Those officers have helped me in making my job lighter by handling the various problems which I took along to them from time to time. It is not easy to be in opposition to the Government. I have had 35 years in Parliament of which 27 have been in opposition. It gets a bit monotonous at times. I think the time is arriving when there will be quicker changes of government.
When J first entered the Parliament I was told by the member whom I had displaced that I was too young and knew too little about it. J said that was not a bad fault and that 1 would grow out of it. I have remained here long enough to grow out of that failing. I would like the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr McEwen) to know that his friendship over the years is appreciated by me. The right honourable gentleman, Sir Robert Menzies and 1 came to this Parliament at about the same time and for many years I used to think we were a very formidable group One was the Prime Minister, one was the Deputy Prime Minister, and I was the rank and file. I would like again to thank the officers of the Parliament and those honourable members and Ministers who have spoken today and have expressed kind wishes. I only hope that I have the good health to enjoy my retirement. It is my wish to retire while I am still young enough to enjoy life. If anybody comes looking for me in retirement he will have to get a boat and row out into the harbour to see me.
– The Twenty-sixth Parliament is now very close to its demise and I would like to say a few words as, no doubt, would many others on this occasion. 1 thank the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), and the Leader crf the Australian Country Party (Mr McEwen) for the generous remarks and good wishes they have extended to me. There are very many thoughts circulating in my mind at the moment, as no doubt there are in the minds of other honourable members who are retiring. There is one observation I would like to make. It concerns the very smooth way that this democratic institution of ours operates. From day to day it goes on, from session to session and from year to year. As far as I am concerned that is an observation that one cannot help but make without admiration. I perhaps have had more time to reflect on this matter and to see a little more than most honourable members. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have acted as a Deputy Speaker in this House for many years, and I have perhaps been able to make a closer observation of the operations of the House than many other honourable members.
We all take for granted the quality of parliamentary administration, but I shudder to think what this place might be like if the administration were not so good. We are indebted, as other honourable members have said, to those people, both inside and outside, who play a very active part in the operations of the Parliament. To all those people inside and outside I would like to say: Thank you. They have shown to mc many acts of kindness and courtesy and, indeed, at times they have shown a great deal of patience. I would like to go into detail and mention names, but names have already been mentioned this afternoon and therefore I think it is unnecessary for mc to repeat them. I am sure that the people to whom I am referring know very well whom I mean. Of course the Parliament works smoothly for other reasons and one of those reasons is that members come to this place with a sincere desire to make a contribution to the welfare of Australia and the people who live in this great nation. What divides us is only the method of reaching that objective. When all is said and done, there is a true understanding which generates friendship among us all, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) has just said. lt is at times like these, when many of us are retiring from this Parliament for good, that one fully realises the reasons why this Parliament works so well. Of course, it should work well. This is as it should be but it is not so everywhere. As you, Mr Speaker, know, many parliaments in the world today do not operate as efficiently as we do. I have no fears about the future of this democratic institution. As long as honourable members come to this Parliament motivated by the same ideals that served us so well in two World Wars, this Parliament will remain the safeguard of freedom and liberty for the people. The differences between us will be settled in this chamber on the basis of agreeing to disagree and not by violence in the streets as, unfortunately, is happening around the world today.
In conclusion, I wish all members the very best of good health during this coming campaign. Campaigns can be a very great strain on members of Parliament. 1 wish them all the best. I hope they come back here after 25th October in the same respective numbers as at present. I will’ watch their individual fortunes with a great deal of interest and a great deal of understanding.
– I join with the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the right honourable the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), my own Leader (Mr Whitlam) and other members of this House who this afternoon have spoken about those who will be retiring at the end of this Parliament. Since becoming a member of the House of Representatives I have learnt that one must expect a large turnover at the end of each Parliament, but this Parliament is unique for the number of members who will retire voluntarily. Much has been said about all of them this afternoon. Naturally, 1 am more acquainted with those on my side that I am with those on the Government side. I have formed very great friendships with those members of my Party who will retire voluntarily after today. I would like to think that, just as I have made very good friends among all of them, there are members on the other side of the House, who will not be returning in the new Parliament, whom I could regard as friends. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others have spoken individually about all those members. There is no need for me to repeat what has been said. T believe that they can leave this Parliament with a sense of having, in their own way, made a very significant contribution not only to the procedures of the Parliament but indeed to the development of the country and of the electorates that they have represented so well.
Finally, J pay a very special tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall). I refer to him particularly because during the last 3 years one of my responsibilities in this Parliament has been, as well as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Defence. No doubt there have been many occasions on which the Minister for Defence and myself have clashed. We have differed on political issues. There have been occasions, too, I believe, when the Minister for Defence has found it necessary, because of something that I initiated, to prepare a speech hastily. I know that the Minister for Defence is not the kind of member who looks for tributes either from this side of the House or from his own members. But it can be said in all sincerity that there are very few people, irrespective of their political views, who would not agree that he has made a tremendous contribution as a member and as a responsible Minister in this Parliament. We may disagree with him politically, but the fact remains that he has not spared himself in his efforts on behalf of the Party he has represented with very great distinction and he has certainly not spared himself on behalf of the people of this country. So I pay that tribute to him and I wish him a very happy retirement. 1 come to one other matter that has been referred to by honourable members who have already spoken in this very pleasant debate. They have referred to the great assistance that we all receive from those who make it possible for this Parliament to function - the attendants and those who are responsible for all the minute details of the Parliament’s work. I also pay a tribute to you, Mr Speaker. You have always displayed complete impartiality. I appreciate the assistance you have given to me and I know that other honourable members on this side of the House appreciate the assistance you have given on all occasions. The Clerks and the Hansard staff at all times are most helpful.
I also express my appreciation to the Minister for Air (Mr Erwin) in his capacity as Leader of the House. We have worked together for only a very short period, but I have enjoyed a very happy relationship with him in this capacity, as I did with his predecessor. I know that all honourable members would agree that he has a very difficult task in ensuring that the House functions smoothly. Just as the Minister for Air as Leader of the House must at times find it difficult to satisfy all the honourable members on his side, 1 occasionally have the same problems. But I believe that together we have been able to ensure that the House has continued to function smoothly and for the benefit of all honourable members.
Since I am now referred to the responsibilities of the Leader of the House, I want to pay a special tribute to his assistant, Mr
George Brownbill. 1 think that without him it would be impossible for the House to function. I have in mind the work that is entailed when speeches and statements are to be made by Ministers, sometimes at very short notice. Mr George Brownbill has proved himself to be a very capable officer, and I am sure the Minister for Air would concur with this. There has been a good deal of co-operation between Mr Brownbill and myself and I want to thank him personally for the assistance that he has given, not only to me, but also to my staff.
I conclude by joining with other honourable members in wishing those who will be leaving the Parliament a very happy retirement. I know that they will always retain fond memories of their long and happy association with the Parliament.
– For several of us this is the last political roundup. It is a very sad occasion in many ways, but it is a proud occasion. It is an occasion on which those of us who have served here for a number of years realise that we have had a new education compared with anything that we had experienced before. At the outset I refer to the indebtedness that we have to a great number of people in this place. This has been mentioned already by other honourable members. I support the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and other speakers in expressing my indebtedness personally and politically to you, Mr Speaker, as a friend and as the Speaker of this House, and I couple with you in those remarks my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), who is your Deputy Speaker and is Chairman of Committees. Then there are also the Deputy Chairmen of Committees with whom 1 have been associated over the years. The people in this little group, from different political parties and with different allegiances, have had a specific job to do and have set out to do that job to the best of their ability. We have been a very happy group, for which I thank you as our leader in this field.
References have been made to officers of the House. Anyone who has taken the Chair, particularly in Committee, knows very well how much we owe to the Clerks sitting on each side of us. They are always ready to help us and prompt us, particularly those of us who are Deputy Chairmen and who may not be completely au fait with the Standing Orders. We owe them a great debt. They have been very helpful to us. Mention has been made of Hansard, the Library, the House staff, refreshment rooms staff, transport staff, attendants and a great number of other people. I do not wish to traverse that area beyond saying that there are some departments in this place of which we know very little. One officer of whom little is known is probably the chief engineer who is responsible for the engineering services in this place. Every time we turn a tap, walk through a door or switch on a light we take advantage of these services. It is a service which never ceases and one for which we owe a great debt. One cannot speak highly enough of the attendants and their help to all honourable members. The transport officer has been mentioned. He is now trying his level best to make arrangements so that we may all leave Canberra in the shortest possible time after the House rises. For all of those things we owe a debt to the officers of the Parliament.
I propose now to refer to the personal and kind remarks that have been made to me. 1 acknowledge the kind and generous compliments that have been paid to me. I have served under two leaders in my own Party and three leaders of our coalition. To all of them I feel a debt of loyalty and appreciation that I could be a party to the magnificent development of Australia under their leadership. Parliament has seemed to me to be more than just an arm of government; it is a complex in which the Opposition and the backbencher play a vital part. It is a tremendous organisation. It is not possible to conceive of Parliament without a good Opposition, and in all humility I add that it is not possible to conceive of Parliament without the backbencher. There would not be a Parliament if every member were appointed to the Ministry, certainly in a country the size of ours and with the number of members that are required. In referring to all the people who make up this great complex and who work to keep it serviced and operating I am reminded of a remark that my father made to me, that it is not the job that counts but how it is done. Everybody in this place has always appeared to me to be pulling his weight and. doing the job for which he is probably best fitted. 1 have always tried to serve my constituents to the best of my ability. It is always a proud moment for a member of Parliament to receive from somebody unable to help himself in his adversity a letter thanking the member for the succour obtained through his representations in this Parliament, the organisation geared for that purpose and in which Ministers, with the help of their departments, play such an important part. Reference has been made this afternoon to the help which a member of Parliament receives from his wife. No-one but a member of Parliament who has the God-given gift of a good woman at his side will appreciate how much a member’s wife can mean to him. We owe our wives a great deal. 1 am pleased that their contributions have been recognised today. For so many years their value was disregarded.
After 20 years in this Parliament 1 remain the original member for Lawson. 1 understand that my friend, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), will, within a few months, be able to say that he has been the original member for Mallee for 20 years. During my time in this Parliament 1 have been indebted to my constituents for their faith in me and to my many friends in the Parliament and outside, in Canberra and beyond, for their help. In saying farewell to them I extend my very best wishes. This is a sad parting but, as my friend the honourable member for Darling (Mr Clark) reminded me, I have no wish to be carted away on a stretcher. We have taken the alternative of retiring voluntarily. I thank you all. I take my leave knowing that while the standard of parliamentary government which we have enjoyed over the years remains unblemished we have no fears about the vigorous growth of this great country.
– It has been a delightful afternoon to sit here listening to the tributes paid by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) to those members who are retiring from the Parliament. The tributes were well deserved. Tn good Australian language, this is it. Some of us are leaving after 20 years in this place, Mr Speaker, your electorate adjoins Kingsford-Smith. I have enjoyed your company and your friendship in this place. I will not bother with refine ments. This Parliament is a great Australian institution, so I will use good Australian language: You have been a very good bloke. 1 pay a tribute to our Transport Officer, Gordon Pike, one of the most important men in this place. He gets us here and takes us home, and he does everything for us while we are here. Parliament is without doubt a great institution but in the 20 years that I have been here I have been disappointed by the neglect of an even greater institution - the great Australian trade union movement, that great body of millions of skilled and unskilled Australians, male and female. 1 do not think the trade union movement gets in this Parliament the consideration that is due to it. After all, without the great body of trade unionists Parliament could not function.
– What about the primary producers?
– The honourable member for Mallee is a great friend of mine. Although we have come to grips at times, 1 have great respect for him. The primary producers can look after themselves. They form the most protected section of our community. If trade unionists could get half as much consideration as is given to primary producers they would be well satisfied. I can go into retirement with a smile on my face. I thank all of those people who are connected with the Parliament, especially one body of persons who have not been mentioned this afternoon, namely, the girls on the switchboard. They really make the Parliament tick. They should get the consideration that is due to them. Taking a line from what Laurie Failes said, I pay a tribute to my wife because she has helped me considerably over the years in which I have been the member for the great electorate of Kingsford-Smith.
I pay tribute also to the people of Kingsford-Smith. After all, they were responsible for appointing a great member named Dan Curtin to represent them in this Parliament. Dan Curtin can go out of this House today knowing that he did everything possible for these people, that every promise he made to them he kept to the best of his ability, and that every complaint that they brought to his notice was given the consideration due to it. Kingsford-Smith is a great electorate. I have lived in it for many years and the people of KingsfordSmith are great people. I leave this Parliament today with a clear conscience in regard to my work over the past years in accordance with the pledge that I gave to those people when I came into this House. Time marches on. I have had 55 years of hard work - 35 years as a member of that great organisation, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia, and 20 years in this House. That is a total of 55 years out of 72. There is not much left. I am going out now to enjoy hard-earned leisure for the next-
– Thirty years.
– Twenty-five years, anyhow. I approach it with a smile on my face. I am in the best of health, thank the Lord, and I will carry on in the usual manner. When I wake up in the morning I will say to myself: ‘I am as free as the breeze. Where are you going today, Dan?’ Dan will say: ‘We will see where the sports are on, whether they are at that great place called Randwick or at Rosehill. We might go up to see the equines that are performing poorly, having in view the great spring meeting which will be held in the electorate at Kingsford-Smith in the next few weeks’. I hope to back a winner, too.
I thank everyone connected with the Parliament - the attendants, the girls on the switchboard, in the dining room and in the bar, the men in the broadcasting room and the representatives of the Press - they have been pretty critical in the past but I forgive them. I really believe that everyone connected with this Parliament, right down to the men in the boiler room, do a big job. I think that they should get the consideration due to them. In conclusion, I would like to make an appeal to the Government. Many fine words have been spoken this afternoon and I think deep consideration should be given to increasing the salaries of everyone connected with the running of the Parliament.
– As one of the twenty members of Parliament who are retiring, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and honourable members on both sides of the chamber for giving me the opportunity to represent Australia as a member of four overseas dele gations. I would like to thank my Party for selecting mc to represent it on those delegations. I believe that this was a great honour. On two occasions I have been away with delegations led by the Clerk of the House, Mr Turner. The last delegation of which 1 was a member was led by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and we visited Rio de Janeiro and other places.
Naturally I was pleased when I was elected to this House 20 years ago. Before entering this place I had great experience in fighting and arguing at meetings. I belonged to an Irish association. I lived very close to Tilly Devine and to the people of Surry Hills, and what I did not know about rough and tumble was nobody’s business. However, when I came into this place I thought it was about ten times worse. What we see and hear inside this chamber and what we see and hear outside the door is as different as chalk is from cheese. You think you are representing the Liberal Party or the Labor Party and as soon as you get outside the door people air their grievances. Since I did not take sides to any great degree people used to tell me their grievances.
I have been asked on several occasions what I am going to do in retirement. Well, I am not going to do anything in the line of work because if you work for 20 years in a job you are entitled to long service leave and I intend to take advantage of that when I leave this House. I will have on honorary job in the morning helping to elect a Labor Council for the city of Sydney and to see that by the time the poll closes at 8 o’clock tomorrow night John Armstrong will be Lord Mayor of Sydney. This is not to say that the other candidates are not entitled to be elected. However, they are not entitled to butcher Sydney as the Liberals have done. They cut the size of the wards in Sydney, the second largest city of the British Commonwealth of Nations, in half. So, instead of there being 100,000 electors there were only about 43,000. To show how they have been gerrymandered, one of the wards has 6,000 electors on the roll, while the Labor-held ward next door has 14,000. Anyone who professes to be fair dinkum must admit that this election is off to a bad start. Nevertheless, I feel that our Party will win tomorrow.
I will do what I can at the elections; I will be right on the job.
The Australian Labor Party is very fortunate in having two such good leaders. It will not be their fault if we do not win the next Federal election. Mr Gough Whitlam is not Irish; he is not English; he is not German; he is not anything but a good Australian. If the people do not go to the polling booths and vote for the party that Gough Whitlam is leading, then 1 want to know what they want. 1 hope that they will not be carried away by side issues on this occasion. Mr Lance Barnard has continued the family tradition by doing a very good job.
I promised that 1 would speak for only 2 minutes. I think I have spoken for 3 minutes so far. Let me say that certain friends of mine reported that I was very sick and a docile sort of man, and that anything could happen to me. But, thank God, that was the furthest thing from the truth. Years ago I joined the Hibernian Society and the lodge. I hear people talking about social services, health benefits and everything else. I have had the honour of being in the lodge for 48 years, and I have never yet drawn a week’s sickness money. I have to thank God for that. My health is good. I hope and trust that Australia will continue to carry on the tradition that it is carrying on now. While honourable members are doing a good job, irrespective of the side of the chamber on which they sit, at least they are not contributing to anything like what is happening in my native country of Ireland. I read in the Press that men are being accused of doing this, that and the other thing and that they cannot be tried in an open court because the evidence of the policemen would be beard and there would be somebody watching them. The British Government, which as a Labor Government should know better, is now building a wire fence or wall in the north of Ireland. It is the greatest standing disgrace ever to come to the country. I am very happy to be here today. I assure honourable members that this will not be the last they will see of me, because I will visit them occasionally.
– I wish to be associated with the tributes that have been paid to you, Mr Speaker, and to the honourable members who are retiring today. This is not only the end of a Parliament but also a sentimental and sad occasion because the careers of many honourable members finish today for various reasons. Today marks the departure from this place of many men who have rendered valuable service. I add my tribute to all that has been said about the contributions they have made to the good government of this country and the welfare of the people of Australia.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the rewards of politics may be said to be great, but the disappointments and demands of this avocation are extremely heavy. All those who are leaving us today - whether as a result of facing the electors or because they are retiring - have experienced those things. To those honourable members who are leaving us permanently, whether of their own volition or otherwise, let me say that they know the tribulations of politics. It was nice today to hear honourable members pay tribute to their families who have assisted them in their work. I refer particularly to the honourable member for Lawson (Mr Failes).
I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall), whom I believe to be a splendid Minister. On all issues on which I had dealings with him, he was quite nonparty political in regard to my representations. I believe that his retirement is a real loss to the Parliament. I thank the honourable member for Lawson, who has been a Deputy Chairman of Committees, for the courtesy and tolerance he showed on the few occasions on which I overstepped the limits of what should be done under the Standing Orders. I pay tribute to him for the representation he has given to his electorate, which has now been abolished.
I wish all honourable members who are leaving the House well. I express my thanks to them - both those in my Party and those in other parties - for our association. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your tolerance and understanding on the few occasions on which I have transgressed. I hope that your successor will be just as understanding and tolerant as you have been in the time you have been in office. Whilst I cannot say Many happy returns’ to all honourable members, I wish them all the best of luck.
– Briefly, I wish to offer my personal thanks to honourable members for the assistance I have been given since becoming Leader of the House. In particular, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lance Barnard, for his co-operation in connection with the arrangement of the business of the House. I thank also the Government Whip, Mr Max Fox, the Deputy Government Whip, Mr Winton Turnbull, and the Assistant Whip, Mr Kevin Cairns, for the help they have given me. My thanks also go to Mr Alan Turner and the Clerks of the House for their guidance. I also wish to thank Mr Bill Bridgman and his Hansard staff as well as the attendants of the House. I make special mention of the Parliamentary Draftsmen, Mr John Ewens, and his staff as well as Mr Bob Linford, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet Office, for the tremendous job they have done. My liaison officer, Mr George Brownbill, has given me invaluable assistance. His task has been greatly assisted by Mr Clem Lloyd, private secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. My thanks go to them. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation of the help my personal staff has given me during the year.
– It would not have been necessary for me to detain the House for one moment if it were not for the fact that the camel train of the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) had stringhalt. Some devoted people in my electorate forwarded a petition to me. I will not read it to the House. I think it would suffice to read the relevant part of it. I raise the matter in view of the fact that a lot of people have put a lot of work into collecting these signatures. The petition is about migrants. The petition states that, upon the acceptance by the Department of Immigration of any application for permission to migrate to Australia resulting in the entry into the country of that migrant, the right to participate in our society and to enjoy the standards and rights enjoyed by the people of Australia should be automatic. I put that petition to the House because these people have exercised their democratic right. The petition was posted in Melbourne last Wednesday, but I received it only this morning. As a Socialist, of course, I love everybody and wish everybody well. It just happens that a lot people need a lot of correction, Mr Speaker, but you have handled us with a great deal of discretion, tact and impartiality over the past 3 years. I wish you well, too.
– Thank you. I wish to say how pleased I am to hear the comments which have been passed regarding the staff of the House. Reference has been made to the Clerks of the House, Hansard and the Parliamentary Library as well as to the attendants and others. I believe that those remarks are well merited. I think that the staff of the House serve members extremely well. I would like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) as well as the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) for their generous remarks about the occupant of the Chair. I also thank other speakers for their generous remarks. I think they have been extremely generous. However, I want to assure honourable members that when I take over again after the forthcoming election I will carry out my duties with the same impartiality. I shall conclude my remarks at this stage as the hour is late and many honourable members want to catch aircraft home. However, before doing so, I wish to say that this is a sad occasion. In spite of the thrust and parry of debate within the chamber and in spite of differences of opinion in the way in which one seeks to attain goals, whether they be nationalistic or socialistic, one finds that many true friendships have existed in the chamber. I join with other honourable members to wish those who are retiring today and their wives and families the best of health and a long life in the future.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 4.44 p.m. until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr Speaker and to be notified by him to each member by telegram or letter.
page 2101
asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:
In view of the very high rate of unemployment which exists and has existed for a long time in Northern Ireland generally, and among the skilled and semi-skilled workers of Belfast particularly, will he instruct his Belfast officers to launch a special campaign to encourage as many of these people as possible to emigrate to Australia.
– The answer to the honourable member’s, question is as follows:
Migration promotional campaigns in Northern Ireland are a regular feature of the normal migration publicity programme carried out in Britain. For the balance of September and during October departmental film shows in two centres and lectures to clubs and the agricultural college have been arranged.
Since June 1969 there has been an increase in the interest shown in migration from residents of Northern Ireland. The results for the months June to September 1969 compared with those for the corresponding period of last year are:
page 2103
1969 1968
June .. 574 455
July .. 499 403
August .. 1,071 664
September 694 (to 20th) 435 (full month)
page 2103
June 275 245
July .. 193 210
August .. 742 288 September 607 (to 20th) 193 (full month)
Additional staff from London has been posted to Belfast to cope with this increased interest.
Unfortunately, because of recent events, it has been necessary to suspend temporarily some specific promotional activities, for example a promotional tour by the Mobile Office arranged for September had to be cancolled because of the civil disturbances. However, with the return to normalcy it can be expected that full-scale activities will be resumed shortly.
asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:
What were the housing requirements of the migrants admitted to Australia each year since 1949.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A rough guide to the number of dwellings required by immigrants to Australia is provided by the number of married women among total settler arrivals, including wives coming out to join their husbands in Australia, These numbers are estimated as follows:
As the Commonwealth Statistician commenced recording settler arrival figures from 1959 only, the figures for 1949-50 to 1958-59 are based on ‘Permanent end Long Term Arrivals’, that is, persons who stated on arrival that they intended to reside for a period of one year or more in Australia. Since these figures would contain Australian residents returning and long-term visitors, they represent an over estimate of actual migrant housing requirements.
However, these figures do not include the number of dwellings required by migrants who marry after arrival or by single migrants who acquire a dwelling. Conversely, they include some migrant wives who do not initially require a separate dwelling because they live in hostels or share a dwelling with relatives or friends. It is not practicable to calculate an appropriate allowance for these factors. lt is also necessary to explain that in order to calculate the necessary addition to the stock of dwellings required because of overseas migration, it would be necessary to take into account the number of dwellings that are vacated by emigrants from Australia and to deal in terms of the net total immigration of families into Australia. The results would show that the number of additional dwellings required because of migration would be substantially less than the figures given above.
This point may be brought out by comparing the total number of marriages in Australia plus married women migrant settlers with estimates for the net annual addition to the dwelling stock, which consists of completions plug additions to the stock due to the conversion of houses into a number of flats, etc., minus losses to the stock due to demolition of dwellings and fire, etc.
The annual number of marriages plus married women settler arrivals is compared with estimates for the annual addition to the dwelling stock in the following table:
It will be noted that the sum of marriages plus migrant wives considerably exceeds the estimates for the additions to the dwelling stock. This is because the calculations make no allowance for the break-up of families by death, etc., or for the departure of settler families.
Indeed a considerable number of the dwellings added each year to the dwelling slock have the effect of increasing the proportion of families that occupy a separate dwelling; and of decreasing the number of families living in shared accommodation.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:
– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
A.C.F. and Shirleys Fertilizers Ltd, Brisbane,
Queensland.
Adelaide and Wallaroo Fertilizers Ltd,
Adelaide, South Australia.
Albany Superphosphate Co. Pty Ltd, Albany,
Western Australia.
Australian Fertilizers Ltd, Port Kembla, New
South Wales.
Cresco Fertilizers (W.A.) Pty Ltd, Bayswater,
Western Australia.
Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Birkenhead, South
Australia.
Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Geelong, Victoria. C.S.B.P. and Farmers Ltd, Perth, Western Australia.
Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd,
Risdon, Tasmania.
Esperance Fertilizers Pty Ltd, Perth, Western
Australia.
Greenleaf Fertilizers Ltd, Boolaroo, New
South Wales. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria.
Phosphate Co-op. Co. (Aust.) Ltd, Melbourne,
Victoria.
A.C.F. and Shirleys Fertilizers Ltd- 1919. Adelaide and Wallaroo Fertilizers Ltd- 1882. Albany Superphosphate Co. Pty Ltd- 1954. Australian Fertilizers Ltd - 1921. Cresco Fertilizers (W.A.) Pty Ltd- 1927. Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, South Australia - 1913. Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Victoria- 1922. C.S.B.P. and Farmers Ltd- 1910. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of A’asia Ltd- 1924. Esperance Fertilizers Pty Ltd - 1964. Greenleaf Fertilizers Ltd- 1950. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd- 1878. Prosphate Co-op. Co. (Aust.) Ltd- 1927.
A.C.F. and Shirley Fertilizers Ltd, Brisbane Ltd.
Australian Fertilizers Ltd, Port Kembla, New
South Wales.
Australian Gas Light Co., Mortlake, New
South Wales.
Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd, Brisbane, Qld. C.S.B.P and Farmers Ltd, Perth, W.A. Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Geelong, Victoria. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of A’asia Ltd, Risdon,
Tasmania.
Greenleaf Fertilizers Ltd, Boolaroo, N.S.W. I.C.1.A.NZ, Ltd-
Eastern Nitrogen Ltd, Newcastle, N.S.W.
Nobel ((A’asia) Pty Ltd, Botany, N.S.W.
(7>-
A.C.F. and Shirleys Fertilizers Ltd - Sulphate of ammonia, aqua and anhydrous ammonia, NP/NPK* compounds.
Australian Fertilizers Ltd - Ammonium phosphate, NP/NPK* compounds.
Australian Gas Light Co. - Sulphate of ammonia.
Austral-Pacific Fertilizers - Ammonia, urea.
C.S.B.P. and Farmers Ltd - Ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphates, aqua and anhydrous ammonia.
Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Victoria - Calcium ammonium nitrate, NP/NPK* compounds.
Electrolytic Zinc Co. of A’asia Ltd - Sulphate of ammonia, NP/NPK* compounds.
Greenleaf Fertilizers Ltd- NP/NPK* compounds.
I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd: I.C.I.A.N.Z., Melbourne- NP/NPK* compounds.
Eastern Nitrogen Ltd - Ammonium nitrate, ammonia. Nobel (A’asia) Pty Ltd- Urea.
N = nitrogen, P - phosphorus, K - potassium. (Ky-
A.C.F. and Shirleys Fertilizers Ltd- 1919 (ammonia - 1966). Australian Fertilizers Ltd- 1964. Australian Gas Light Co. - 1909. Austial-Pacific Fertilizers Ltd- 1969. C.S.B.P. and Farmers Ltd- 1968. Cresco Fertilizers Ltd, Victoria - 1969. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of A’asia Ltd- 1956. Greenleaf ] Fertilizers Ltd- 1969. I.C.I.A.N.Z. Ltd- 1965.
Eastern Nitrogen Ltd- 1969.
Nobel (A’asia) Pty Ltd- 1964.
asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
General Primary. A 3-year course is being progressively introduced to replace the 2-year course.
page 2108
Primary Teacher Course. A 3-year course is being progressively introduced to replace the 2-year course.
Tasmania has established a Standing Committee on Teacher Education comprising representatives of the Tasmanian Education Department, the University of Tasmania and Indpendent Schools.
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
Since bis answer to me on 26th November 1968 (Hansard, page 3283), have the other States agreed, as South Australia and Western Australia had to release their predictions of numbers of (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers likely to be available in government schools up to and including 1975.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Information has now been made available by the other States and is contained in the following tables.
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
What percentage of eligible children in each State and mainland Territory was enrolled for pre-school education in the last year for which information is available.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Sources.
Pre-school enrolments- Australian Pre-School Association, Department of Education and Science and Department of the Interior.
School enrolments and Population 3-5 years - Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics.
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
Why is the percentage of children receiving preschool education in the Northern Territory so much lower than in the Australian Capital Territory.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The percentage of children attending pre-school in the Northern Territory expressed as a percentage of the relevant age group, as indicated in the answer to Question No. 1682, is 42.5, whereas that in the Australian Capital Territory is 48.8.
The difference is believed to be attributable to-
The greater concentration of population in the Australian Capital Territory;
A stronger social tradition of sending children to pre-schools in the Australian Capital Territory.
It is interesting to note that at the present time virtually all four year old children whose parents seek it are attending community pre-schools in the Northern Territory, and that typically there is a shorter waiting list for entry to pre-schools in the Northern Territory than is the case in the Australian Capital Territory.
asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In addition throughout the Commonwealth, 154,337 applications were received for services utilising lines and equipment already in place as follows:
Since provision of services utilising lines and equipment already in place involves little or no work effort, each of these applications was satisfied with virtually no delay.
Separate forecasts are not made in respect of metropolitan and country areas.
Each State will distribute its installation effort between metropolitan and country areas according to the relative incidence of demand and physical capacity to meet that demand.
The division of this expenditure between metropolitan and country areas will depend to some extent on the incidence of demand, but it is expected to follow a similar pattern to that for 1968-69.
Note - The amounts shown are not directly comparable with expenditure recorded during 1968-69.
Revised accounting procedures now ensure that expenditure on common plant, such as junctions, etc., is shown separately and not included in the telephone services expenditure as in past years.
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:
Automobile Association and its constituent clubs deplored the poor standard and incomplete nature of pre-delivery service on new motor vehicles by both manufacturers and dealers.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Motor manufacturers are careful to uphold the reputation of their products and in cases where a fault becomes known, they take action to remedy the situation. This is evidenced by the recent recalling of vehicles to replace faulty brake valves.
The present system of recall of faulty vehicles appears to be operating satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the Australian Transport Advisory Council is keeping the matter under review.
In addition Governments are now starting to require that certain prescribed safety design standards as distinct from manufacturing standards are met.
The Australian Transport Advisory Council at its meeting in July 1969 established the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board comprising Commonwealth and State representatives which will issue Certificates of Compliance for vehicles or components complying with Australian Design Rules for motor vehicles, adopted by Council, and enacted in State and Territory legislation.
To date twenty-one design rules have been endorsed by Council and three are to become operative as from 1st January 1970.
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows.
Fisheries In the Gulf of Carpentaria (Question No. 1907) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:
What administrative and legislative changes have been made by the Commonwealth and Queensland in respect of fisheries in the Gulf ot Carpentaria since June 1968.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A- ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
On 1st August 1968 I announced that licences under the Fisheries Act authorising the use in proclaimed waters of boats to process fish taken by other boats would not be issued in future unless the intending licencees notified my Department by 9tb August 1968 that they had contracted to purchase, build or convert boats for this purpose. All licences issued in respect of such boats are endorsed with conditions prohibiting their use as processing boats within 100 miles and 60 miles of shore-based prawn processing plants in Queensland and Northern Territory respectively. In addition, all licences issued in respect of boats over 65 feet are endorsed with a condition prohibiting their use as processing boats in the area of the northern prawn fishery.
On 30th October 1968 I announced in an address to the Australian Fishing Industry Council that no further joint ventures involving the use of foreign boats and crews in the northern prawn fishery would be approved, at least until we have more information on the resources.
On 20th March 1969 I announced the establishment of my Department’s Northern Fisheries Unit to be based on Cairns for the purposes of keeping my Department informed of activities in the fishing industry in northern Australia, assisting fishermen in provision of statistics and log-book information and ensuring compliance with the licensing requirements under the Fisheries Act This Unit is now functioning with temporary staff from my Department and recommendations have been made concerning the officers to staff it permanently.
Licensing authorities have been instructed to endorse all boat licences under the Fisheries Act to prohibit the transfer of fish from a boat in proclaimed waters to a boat not licensed under the Act
I am not able to speak for action taken by the Queensland Government
page 2114
No legislative changes have yet been made by the Commonwealth although a review of the Fisheries Act has been undertaken in my Department and I expect in the near future to propose to the Government that amending legislation be prepared. I understand that the appropriate Queensland authorities also are preparing amending legislation.
asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
How many students were there in each form of tertiary education in 1951 and how many are there in this year.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Education: Expenditure in Australia (Question No. 1939) Mr Whitlarn asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
Has his attention been drawn to a report which appeared in ‘The Australian’ on 30th August which stated that the Chairman of the Independent Headmasters’ Conference, Mr P. Thwaites, had said that the headmasters all agreed that Australia is not spending enough of its gross national product on education and that our proportion of G.N.P. is not as high as it is in comparable countries.
If so, and in view of the similar report in The Age’ to which his attention was drawn on 10 September (Hansard, page 1036), is mis an apparent confirmation that Mr Thwaites made this statement when ho released the official communique of the conference.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) This information is not available.
New South Wales
Married male students receive $1,410 + $110 per annum for a dependent wife and $80 per annum for each child. in addition, students receive annual allowances ranging from $22 (2-year course) to $100 (Art course) to assist in the purchase of textbooks and materials.
Victoria
Married male students receive an allowance of $1,875 per annum.
Queensland
Married male students receive an allowance of $1,274 per annum. Students at university receive a book allowance of $30 per annum.
South Australia
Those who commence training as an adult receive an allowance of $1,400 per annum.
Married male students receive an allowance of $1,410 per annum plus $100 per annum for each dependent child.
Special tertiary teaching scholarships are awarded on the results of the University Matriculation Examination, or on the results gained at the end of the first year of study at a Teachers College or University. A student who gains one of these scholarships receives in addition to the allowances shown above a sum of $200 per year for each remaining year of his course.
Scholarships of $1,800 per annum are awarded to university graduates to undertake a one-year course of training.
Tasmania
Scholarship holders are paid as follows during training:
An allowance of $150 per annum is paid to all students who are obliged to live away from home.
Married male students receive an extra allowance of $400 per annum and $75 per annum for each child.
Scholarships of $3,412 per annum are awarded to university graduates to undertake a one-year course of training.
Universities: Enrolments and Incomes (Question No. 1604) Mr Whitiam asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
What is the number of new enrolments and the total number of enrolments at universities this year.
What is the (a) number and (b) percentage of university students holding Commonwealth university scholarships this year.
How many persons (a) applied for, (b) were offered and (c) accepted scholarships and what was the percentage of applicants who accepted scholarships.
How many persons passed matriculation level examinations in each State at the end of last year.
How many Commonwealth university scholars were enrolled in the first year of their courses at each university this year.
How many Commonwealth university scholars are in (a) full-time and (b) part-time studies this year.
How many full-time Commonwealth university scholars are receiving (a) part and (b) full living allowances this year.
How much does the Commonwealth expect to pay this year in respect of Commonwealth University Scholarships for (a) fees, (b) living allowances and (c) fares.
What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of Commonwealth university scholars who failed last year in the (i) first year and (ii) later years of their courses.
What was the student-staff ratio in each university last year.
In which universities and faculties or schools have quotas been imposed this year.
What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of eligible applicants who were excluded by these quotas.
(a) How many medical students are enrolled and (b) how many beds are available for teaching at each university.
Which universities have increased fees this year and by what (a) amount and (b) percentage.
What (a) amount and (b) percentage of its income did each university receive from (i) the Commonwealth, (ii) a State, (iii) endowments and benefactions and (iv) fees in die last year for which information is available
What (a) amount and (b) percentage of fees received by each university in that year was paid by the Commonwealth.
What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of (i) male and (ii) female students in final year of secondary education in each State and Territory last year.
What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of new (i) male and (ii) female university students in each State and Territory this year.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth Statistician has recently altered his definition of ‘new’ students. This change affects the count of new post-graduate students, in particular, in 1968 and 1969. Therefore, to assist the Honourable Member, I have shown in the following table the number of new bachelor degree students separately for each of the past years for which I have previously given information on new students in response to his questions.
The numbers of new post-graduate students in 1968 and 1969 are given in reply to part (1) of the Honourable Member’s Question No. 1614.
(a) The number of applications received for Commonwealth University scholarships available in 1969 was 51,033.
Note: Id this Table, students shown as passing in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania have qualified to matriculate. For New South Wales and Western Australia, the actual numbers of students qualifying to matriculate are not available; the numbers shown above are estimates based on the number of students passing in five or more subjects.
At 30 June 1969 there were:
The student-staff ratio in each university in 1968 was:
The Universities and the faculties or schools in which quotas were imposed in 1969 were as follows:
The Australian National University wished to limit enrolments in the subject Political Science 1 but enrolments were less than the limit envisaged and the quota was not brought into effect. Macquarie University limited its total enrolment.
(a) The numbers of medical students enrolled al each university in 1969 are as follows:
The percentages in column (b) of part 16 show the relationship between students’ fees, as defined, paid by the Commonwealth and students’ fees paid from all sources as used in the answer to part 15. The two sets of figures used to calculate percentages in part 16(b) are not strictly comparable. The figures m part 16(a) include fees paid to student unions etc. whereas the part 15 figures exclude these; again the part 15 figures include an unknown element for post-graduate fees. The amounts involved are relatively small but would, if known, require a small variation in the percentages given in the answer to part 16.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In view of the widespread interest in this matter, I made a detailed statement in the House on 16 September 1969. The information which lbc honourable member is seeking is set out in that statement
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
What revenue from their own sources was received by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State,
tocal government authorities in each State, (d) semi-government authorities in each State and (e) each mainland Territory (i) including net revenue of business enterprises and (ii) excluding net revenue of business enterprises in 1968-69.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: “ The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the figures in the tables below! They have been compiled on a basis similar to that currently employed in constructing the national accounts. As regards parts (a) and (e) of the question, relating to the Commonwealth and the Territories, revised figures for 1966-67 and 1967-68 are given in order to update information previously supplied to the honourable member (Hansard, 19 November 1968, page 3008). Figures for the States and semigovernment and local authorities (parts (b), (c) and (d) of the question) are not yet available for 1968-69. However, figures for 1967-68, which were not available when the answer to the honourable member’s previous question was given, are given in the second table below.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
What was the (a) revenue, (b) debt charge and (c) percentage of debt charges to revenue in respect of local government authorities in each State in the last year for which figures are available?
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the figures in the table below; they continue the series provided in answer to a previous question by the honourable member (Hansard, 25 February 1969, page 141). The figures for Victoria differ from those supplied for earlier years in that they now include transactions of the Private Streets Accounts. Adjusted figures for the earlier years, for both Victoria and the six States combined, are given in footnote (d) to the table.
asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:
Will he review the law on conscientious objection to see whether (a) it forces political opponents of Australia’s military activities to take part in a war against their conscience, Cb) it is consistent wilh good morale in the forces to incorporate persons who are politically opposed to their military role and (c) it is consistent with the democratic aims of the allied action in Vietnam to force men to kill those whom they do not see as a military threat to Australia.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c) No. The Government believes that the existing provisions afford adequate recognition and protection to genuine conscientious objectors, giving them full recourse to the process of law in having their status determined. No country accords the status of conscientious objector simply to those who claim it. Political opposition to military service or to a particular war ought surely to be expressed through recog nised democratic processes and should claim no special right of exemption from democratic decision.
All members of the Army, whether volunteers or national servicemen, have a common liability for overseas service and there is no evidence to suggest that the political opinions of national servicemen have affected them in carrying out their military duties. The morale of the Army force in Vietnam of which almost half are national servicemen compares favourably with that of any Australian force committed to operational service. Moreover it is open to any national service registrant, whose objection to military service is based on opposition to a particular war, to exercise the option of undertaking alternative service in the citizen force which is open to him at the time when be is required to register.
Local Government and Semi-Government Debts and Interest (Question No. 165S) Mr Whitlam asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
What was the (a) total internal debt outstanding, (b) annual interest payable on it and (c) amount provided for redemption of it in respect of local government authorities and semi-government authorities in each State in the last year for which figures are available.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The information requested by the honourable member is contained in the following table. The table is based on information provided by the Commonwealth Statistician.
Air Force Association: Pensions and Welfare Plan (Question No. 1673) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:
What would be the estimated cost ot each proposal in the Air Force Association’s pensions and welfare plan presented to honourable members in July?
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In this answer I am providing annual cost estimates for those items in the plan which can be costed with reasonable accuracy. Details are as follows:
Notes - Where applicable, these costs have been calculated on the basis of the rates payable as a result of this year’s Budget proposals. t
The figure of $2,988,000 in proposal 11 includes an estimated $927,000 arising from an increase in the Intermediate Rate pension which would be adjusted as a result of increases in the Special Rate and General Rate pensions.
A precise estimate of the medical and hospital treatment proposal is not possible but, on the best available information as to numbers who would bc eligible and current costs, the estimated cost would be of the order of from $3,500,000 to $4,000,000 annually. As the Minister for Repatriation has indicated in earlier answers, there could also be a requirement for additional capital expenditure in repatriation institutions.
Proposal 16, when would require the agreement of the Banks, would involve some administrative cost, the total amount of which would depend on the arrangements which could be made.
For reasons which follow, and which the Honourable Member will understand, estimates of cost for the remaining items are not included in this reply. Two proposals, numbers 12 and 15 are not precisely formulated in the Plan and thus do not lend themselves to satisfactory costing. In the case of proposals 2 to 5 and 14, there is insufficient factual information to attempt a satisfactory estimate and no adequate method of testing the assumptions which would need to be made in arriving at a particular figure.
asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:
– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
These areas have not been declared as ‘national park’s’ but restrictions on habitation and use have ensured the conservation of their natural resources.
New Conservation legislation is currently being drafted which will provide, amongst other things, for the forma] setting aside of such areas for conservation purposes. In the meantime consideration is being given to declaring some areas as public parks under existing legislation.
Northern Territory- In 1959 the National Parks and Gardens Ordinance was enacted to constitute a Reserves Board and to provide for the development, control and management of national parks and certain other reserves in the Northern Territory.
Eight areas totalling some 370,000 acres have been reserved as national parks and vested in the care of the Reserves Board and a further 20 areas have been reserved and vested in the Board for purposes of public recreation and protection of flora and fauna.
The Government subsidises the activities of the Reserves Board in its development programmes for these national parks and reserves. A subsidy of $219,000 is proposed for the Board in 1969-70. Consideration is being given by the Government to the establishment of a major national park in the northern part of the Territory.
er asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:
– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows:
er asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:
– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth does not occupy the whole of the space in any of the buildings mentioned. The dates on which the Commonwealth first occupied space in the respective buildings are:
(3)
MLC Building, $76,556 (including cleaning).
(5)
In- those instances where subleases have not yet been registered negotiations are still proceeding with the owner concerning specific covenants proposed to be included.
asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:
How many applicants for Australian citizenship have been refused naturalisation on the ground that they were (a) Communists and (b) extremists of the right.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Exact figures cannot be given within the time available for this answer. It could be stated that the majority of refusals were on the grounds of Government policy relating to Communists. It is assessed that approximately 20 refusals were based on Government policy relating to extremists of the right.
Education (Question No. 1074)
– An answer to Question No. 1074, asked by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) appeared originally in Hansard, pages 1119- 1120 of 15th April 1969. It has now come to my attention that the answer to Parts 1 and 5 of this question gave incorrect information relating to the numbers of eligible applicants for Later Year awards under the Commonwealth University and Advanced Education Scholarship Schemes.
The questions asked by the honourable member and a revised answer to them are set out below:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The following table shows the total number of applicants for Later Year Commonwealth University Scholarships in each State for 1967 and 1968, and also the number of Later Year awards offered and accepted in those years.
Yes.
In addition the criteria for awarding Later Year Advanced Education Scholarships are basically the same as those set out in (3) above for University Scholarships. However, the number of Later Year “ Advanced Education Scholarships offered in a particular State may also be affected if the quota of Open Entrance awards for that State is not filled. In this case, these unused scholarships are made available as Later Year awards to wellqualified candidates.
ns asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:
How many persons are (a) imprisoned and (b) awaiting trial or sentence under the Crimes Act.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I regret that I cannot provide precise or full information in answer to this Question. Over recent months the number of persons imprisoned for offences against the Crimes Act has been of the order of 50-60. The difficulty in obtaining precise information in this matter stems partly from the fact that, for most offences against the Commonwealth Crimes Act, any person may institute proceedings and partly from the fact that where persons are sentenced to imprisonment for offences against the Crimes Act their sentences are almost invariably served in State gaols.
asked the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Information about all grants by Commonwealth and State Governments, through their departments and agencies, for research into Aboriginal affairs is not readily available. Moreover, to the extent that universities and research bodies have used for research into Aboriginal affairs Commonwealth and State Government funds provided for their general support, a complete statement of the amount of governmental aid for such research could probably never be drafted.
The staff resources of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs are not adequate to undertake the very substantial task of collecting the information, to the extent it can be collected, in addition to its existing heavy commitments, lt is therefore only practicable to report financial aid provided by the Commonwealth through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, for the following major research projects, other than those undertaken directly by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, in the last financial year: To the University of New South Wales (Dr B. Nurcombe), for research into the effects of cultural deprivation and to test the results of environmental enrichment ($10,720 for the first year of a three year project).
To the University of Queensland (Professor J. Rendle-Short), for field and hospital studies into the health of Aboriginal children in Queensland ($19,057 for the first year of a three year project).
To the University of Adelaide (through funds provided for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of South Australia), for research on the function and pattern in Aboriginal alcohol consumption ($4,000 for the first year of the project).
To W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd ($9,000) and to Unisearch Ltd ($4,020) for two studies in selected regions of New South Wales having substantial Aboriginal populations.
To Monash University (Centre for Research into Aboriginal Affairs), for a survey of relations between Aborigines and others in selected towns ($5,000).
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Due to the large number of bodies which are involved in social welfare research and the lack of any co-ordinated documentation, the answer which I am able to give to the honourable member is not comprehensive or complete. Whilst I will outline gome Commonwealth activities in this field, details are not available of the financial atd given by each of the State Governments, or of research being conducted by universities and other organisations. Some information is obtainable in the annual reports of such organisations as the Social Science Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, various reports of Commonwealth and State authorities and of the Australian universities. As an example, the reports of the Australian Research Grants Committee show that since the Committee began its work in 1965, assistance has been allocated to such projects as: (i) Survey of Consumer Finances in Australia, 1967-68, Professor R. C. Gates, University of Queensland.
1966- $6,500
1967- 46,480
1968- $13,405
1966- $6,500
1967- 510,606
1968- 825,140
1969- $2,500
1966- $30,400
1967- nil 1968- nil
1969- $4,000
I have also been provided with information on financial assistance given to social welfare research by certain Commonwealth Departments.
1967 - $18,880
1968- $35,220
1969- $44,060
and
1968- $3,240
1969- nil
Information on research into Aboriginal welfare is not included as this is being dealt with in answer to a separate question addressed by the honourable member to my colleague, the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs.
I recognise the importance of the issue which has been raised and I draw the Honourable Member’s attention to my answer to Question No. 1675 in which I have indicated that my Department has commenced a major survey of research and development activities in Australia.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) Australian casualties in Vietnam to December 1968 were:
Australian casualties from January to the end of August 1969, were:
It is not practicable to provide the honourable member with the statistics he seeks.
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
Has consideration been given to amending the Copyright Act to provide for all universities to have the same depository rights as the National Library?
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No, I do not recall receiving any representations for such an amendment.
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
These figures show the number of students enrolled in Masters and Ph.D courses. The Commonwealth Statistician has recently altered his definition of ‘new’ students. This change affects figures for new Post-graduate students in 1968 and 1969. Consequently, the figures given above are not comparable with those given previously for earlier years.
Since 1959 218 students- approximately 9% of those granted awards have given up their awards before completing their studies leading to a higher degree. Some of these gave up their awards because they found their training programmes loo difficult, but the majority have continued their study either overseas with the assistance of other scholarships, or in Australia on a part-time basis while in employment in industry or at universities.
asked the Treasurer upon notice:
Will he apply section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to restrain
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Particulars of the accounts and financial statements of companies may be secured from the offices of the Registrars of Companies. However, identification of a company through which foreign investors had a controlling interest in an Australian industry would not be possible from these documents alone. Much would depend on the criteria of control to be applied - both for a company and for an industry. To the extent that those criteria involved beneficial interests, such as interests held through nominee companies, investigations going beyond the registered documents would be necessary.’
South African Minister for Economic Affairs (Question No. 1622) Dr Everingham asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourmember’s question is as follows:
Mr McEwen announced today that the South African Minister for Economic Affairs, Mr J. Haak, is to visit Australia from Sth to 17th June, and will be a guest of the Australian Government The visit will be a part of a tour to six countries including New Zealand, Argentina and the United States. Mr Haak’s visit to Australia is for the purpose of personally investigating the possibilities for increased trade and industrial co-operation, Mr McEwen said. The South African Government has also announced that it is sending a small Economic Mission to Australia to coincide with Mr Haak’£ visit. This Mission is to consist of leading executives from South African commerce and industry and is designed to complement Mr Haak’s visit.’ (3) The statistics of Australian trade with South Africa are published in the Commonwealth Statistician’s Bulletins on Overseas Trade, and in recent years are:
The statistics of Australian private investment in companies in South Africa in recent years, which are available from the Commonwealth Statistician on request, are:
Figures for earlier years are not readily available.
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are set out in the following table (each Judge and each staff member is mentioned only once in the table: it should be noted that all Commonwealth Industrial Court Judges and Mr Justice Gibbs also held during the period concerned other permanent appointments in addition to those shown in the table - the amounts shown for their personal staff members include fares and travelling allowance in relation to travel connected with those other appointments):
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
What were the internal and overseas securities on issue, annual .interest liability and capital repayments on behalf of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State, (c) local government authorities in each State, (d) semi-government authorities in each State and (e) each mainland Territory as at 30 June 1969.
Mr McMahon: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details requested in respect of the Commonwealth and each of the States are set out in the following table:
The latest information for local government is for the year ended 30 June 1966, and is set out and semi-government authorities in each State in the following table:
Readily available information for the mainland Territories relates to indebtedness and repayments of principal for the year ended 30 June 1968. It is as follows:
Information as at 30 June 1969, including information with regard to annual interest liability, is being obtained and will be forwarded to the honourable member as soon as it is available.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
What progress has he made with his investigation into a natural disaster fund since his answer to me on 26th November 1968.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Extensive a formation has now been collected on the natural disaster relief schemes operated in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. This information it still being examined but, subject to availability of staff, it is hoped that the results of the examination will be available during the next Session of Parliament.
Defence: Ship and Aircraft Orders (Question No. 1668) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourmember’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As I have indicated in answer to a previous question, my Department has commenced a major survey of research and development activities in Australia. This survey will include the collection of a considerable amount of information on the allocation of funds for research purposes through contracts and other means. At the present time, however, the survey is in a preliminary stage and I am thus not in a position to provide details in the form requested by the honourable member.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that imports of railway rolling stock are not separately recorded. He has, however, supplied the following table showing imports of railway and tramway goods vans, goods wagons and trucks cleared for home consumption by country of origin and rate of duty for the year 1968-69.
asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:
On what dates and for what routes has TransAustralia Airlines sought and been granted or refused a licence since his answer to me on 16th October 1968. (Hansard, Page 2,053).
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details of licence applications made by TransAustralia Airlines since 16th October 1968, and the results of the applications are as follows:
In my previous reply I stated that two other licence applications by Trans-Australia Airlines were under consideration. The results of these applications were as follows:
War Service Home Units in Territories (Question No. 1719)
asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:
Why have the Territories not passed, as all States have now passed, strata title legislation which would permit the War Service Homes Division to make advances for home units.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
It has been necessary to devise a special legislative scheme suited to the leasehold system of land tenure.
It is expected that printed copies of a draft Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory will be circulated to interested bodies before the end of the year.
The proposed legislation for the Australian Capital Territory should provide the basis for similar legislation for the Northern Territory.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 September 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1969/19690926_reps_26_hor65/>.