House of Representatives
5 May 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m. and read prayers.

page 1557

PETITIONS

Arbitration

Mr DALY presented from certain electors of the Division of Grayndler a petition showing that in the national interest, it is essential that there be an effective and respected Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system; that the decision given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the professional engineers’ case on 3rd December 1969, which has followed to the letter in both magnitude and date of operation the salary increases for engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service which were announced before the arbitration hearing had concluded, has given rise to utter dismay and has indicated a lack of independent assessment; that recent statements made at the Australian Workers Union conference and by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have indicated disillusionment with the Federal Arbitration system and have particularly referred to the professional engineers’ case, and that an unacceptable arbitration system must inevitably lead to industrial unrest throughout Australia.

The petitioners pray that the Australian Government take positive action as soon as possible to re-establish confidence in the Commonwealth arbitration system.

Petition received and read.

Arbitration

Mr BURY presented from certain electors of the Division of Wentworth a petition showing that in the national interest, it is essential that there be an effective and respected Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system; that the decision given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the professional engineers’ case on 3rd December 1969, which has followed to the letter in both magnitude and date of operation the salary increases for engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service which were announced before the arbitration hearing had concluded, has given rise to utter dismay and has indicated a lack of independent assessment; that recent statements made at the Australian Workers Union Conference and by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have indicated disillusionment with the federal arbitration system and have particularly referred to the professional engineers’ case; and that an unacceptable arbitration system must inevitably lead to industrial unrest throughout Australia.

The petitioners pray that the Australian Government take positive action as soon as possible to re-establish confidence in the Commonwealth arbitration system.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr JARMAN presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species is now so low that they may become extinct. There are insufficient wardens’ in any State to detect or apprehend anyone breaking the inadequate laws which exist. As a tourist attraction, the kangaroos are a permanent source of revenue to Australia. It is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the control of kangaroos and other wildlife be brought under Federal jurisdiction.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES presented from some 200 residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species is now so low that they may become extinct; there are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist; as a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a per’manent source of revenue to this country; it is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being’ made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control. Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos.

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr JARMAN presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that our national symbol, the red kangaroo, is through shooting for commerce being reduced to a numerical level where, if the shooting is not stopped, the animal will become extinct; reports from scientists, conservationists, tourists, graziers and shooters, confirm that State Governments are unable effectively to enforce legislation to control shooting and that kangaroos are already extinct in many areas where they once were prolific; science has established that kangaroos seldom come into direct competition for forage with sheep and that there is therefore no reason why this unwarranted killing, which is branding us internationally as barbarians, should be allowed to continue; we, the residents of this nation, want the kangaroo, which can be found nowhere else in the world, to be part of the Australian landscape; and we believe that tourists, who will play an increasing part in the national balance of payments, want this too.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives will ban the export of products made from kangaroos; quickly pass the legislation necessary to make the kangaroo a protected animal throughout Australia - the culling of herds for the protection of the few property owners genuinely threatened by excessive numbers, or for the welfare of kangaroos themselves, to be carried out by or under direct supervision of government officers.

Petition received.

page 1558

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) left Australia on 26th April to visit Japan and Canada. In Japan he met leaders of the wool textile industry and in Ottawa is attending the ministerial meeting of the International Grains Arrangement Conference. Mr Anthony is expected to return to Australia on 10th May. During his absence the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) is acting as Minister for Primary Industry.

I also wish to inform the House that I will be leaving Australia this evening for a brief visit to Japan to take part in Australia’s national day at Expo 70. 1 expect to return to Australia on 10th May. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) will be Acting Prime Minister during my absence.

page 1558

QUESTION

RAILWAYS: PORT PIRIE TO ADELAIDE

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. It is just 7 months since the right honourable gentleman undertook to build the Port Pirie to Adelaide railway at an estimated cost of $30m to $50m over 2 years. I ask him when the Bill to authorise this expenditure will be introduced. I point out that the Bill for the Port Augusta to Whyalla railway, which he also undertook to build 7 months ago, has already been before the House since 12th March.

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I gather that the Leader of the Opposition is partly congratulating the Government on having the Bill for the last railway he mentioned before the House, introduced and the subject of debate. I accept that compliment. In regard to the other railway of which he spoke, the Leader of the Opposition would know that the matter of spur lines and other considerations regarding this railway - that is the Adelaide railway - has been one for consultation first of all by a group of consultants and also between the the 2 governments concerned, the South Australian Government and this Government. L believe that this Bill will be very shortly before the House, that it will be coming in this session. But I do point out that the arrangements, when they have to be made between 2 governments and when they have to be consequent upon an investigation by industrial consultants, cannot be pushed or hurried through.

page 1559

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that a meeting of certain representative builders of all States met in Canberra at the end of last week, that they had collated figures indicating a serious downturn in building commencements over recent months, and that they communicated these matters to the permanent head of the Department of Housing who promised to convey them to his Minister and to the honourable gentleman? I now ask the honourable gentleman whether he has received these representations, whether he agrees with the builders’ thesis and whether, if so, he has any corrective measures in mind.

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am aware of this meeting which took place last week, following which representations were made to the Government. I have since made an arrangement, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister for Housing, to see representatives of the Master Builders Federation and a number of other authorities concerned with building, on Friday morning. I do not agree by any means with some of the representations made both publicly and to the Government. They vary by degree and nature. Some of them almost amount to mass pressing of panic buttons and certainly do not do the industry any good. Believing that I might be asked a question on this subject I brought into the chamber with me a statement made by Mr Hobart, Chairman of Stramit Boards Ltd, which was published in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 1 6th April and with which I heartily agree. He said inter alia: . . on-site construction in the building industry is racing along at frenetic speed …. The immediate penalties of the present boom, where nobody seems to get much advantage, is decreasing labour productivity, extravagant competition for labour, and lower quality, all of which add up to steeper price rises and delayed finishing times. If the controls are applied judiciously and released with sufficient anticipation, a return to a healthy level of increase without long term disruption could be expected.

Under these conditions, such short term adjustments are welcomed as well as necessary.

That is a statement with which I completely concur. It is the Government’s desire to see an outcome of this kind. The building industry has not been dealt with singly but as part of the whole econorny althouigh it is an industry which is particularly affected.

This is the kind of result for which the Government is aiming and which sensible people in the building and housing industry would applaud.

page 1559

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it correct that the Government has approved of the entry into Australia of 2 new Bulgarian-built ships to be operated by the Australian Territory Liner Services in the Gulf of Carpentaria? If so, what will be the function of these ships and where are they to be registered? Has any Australian shipyard had orders cancelled or indefinitely deferred as a direct result of the decision to allow into Australia these 2 foreign built vessels?

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

– The Australian Territory Liner Services has made application to the Government to bring into Australia 2 vessels which I understand have been built in Bulgaria. The same requirement is being placed on this company as on any other company wishing to bring vessels into Australia. This is that they should, prior to the date of import, undertake to build vessels within Australia and actually place orders for construction. At this stage the vessels have not been given their ultimate licences to come into Australia. I understand that 1 vessel is already here under temporary permit and that another vessel is shortly to arrive. I think that most members of this House are aware of the very real increase in cargo volume in northern Australia as a result of the development of mineral leases at Gove, Groote Eylandt and Weipa. There has obviously been a need for more tonnage to be available than was previously needed to serve the cattle stations about the northern Australian coastline. One other Australian operator has been in that field. That company has subsequently been taken over by an overseas company. It also has some vessels plying in the trade. My Department and I have had discussions with representatives of that company and with Australian Territory Liner Services to ensure that there will be both the maximum possible utilisation of Australian built vessels and the maximum possible employment of Australian seamen in vessels operating on that part of the coast. I am sure that when the vessels are duly licensed and that when the new vessels that are to replace them are built here the service available for the Northern Territory, north Queensland and other northern Australian ports will be substantially better than presently available. I am hoping that during the process of discussions there will be a reasonable apportionment of cargo to ensure that all existing operators in the area are not penalised in any way.

page 1560

QUESTION

CAMBODIA AND LAOS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to the conflict in Cambodia and Laos. Can he give an undertaking that no Australian Service personnel are involved in these conflicts? Will he give an undertaking that none will be involved? In view of the deteriorating situation in those places, more especially Cambodia, will he make a statement to this House no later than the end of this week on the Australian Government’s attitude towards these two major international issues?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– It has been my intention to make a statement in the House on the matter of developments in Cambodia, not only not later than the end of this week but before this day is over. I think that I should wait until I make that statement before answering any questions.

page 1560

QUESTION

SHIPPING: PORT OF PORTLAND

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. As many residents in the electorate of Mallee are intensely interested in the port of Portland, Victoria, and desire that it should be used for the export of their products and the import of goods they continually require, I ask: Did the Minister for Shipping and Transport at the invitation of the honourable member for Wannon recently make an inspection of the port of Portland? If so, did he note its decentralised location, its ability to berth practically any ship afloat and the vast, highly productive area it could serve? Will he do all in his power to foster the use of this port by coastal and international shipping?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– It is true that both the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Wannon have been very eager to have me look at the port of Portland at the earliest possible oppor tunity. I have done so and I must confess I was impressed both with the facilities available and with the remarkable amount of tonnage handled in that port over the last 12 months. I understand that the tonnage is in fact a record for this port and covers both bulk cargo vessels and general cargo vessels. My visit, of course, was generally related to the difficulties associated with the centralisation of cargoes for the container movement of wool and other outgoing cargoes from the port of Portland.

It has been the objective of the Government to ensure that through commercial negotiation the shipping companies operating within the container consortia will apply a standard freight rate applicable not only to the sea leg but also to the land leg. It is my understanding that as a result of negotiations about a fortnight ago an offer has now been made by the shipping companies.It will embrace a comprehensive freight rate applicable to the out port of Portland, other out ports in Tasmania, and to Albany in Western Australia. I believe that it is essential in a port such as Portland that there be an adequate service available for the many wool growers in that area and also in South Australia who are increasingly finding in Portland an excellent selling centre.I think it must be said that a great deal of credit must go to those who were initially responsible for the establishment of Portland as a wool selling centre for their enthusiasm at a time when there were obviously very real difficulties in their way. I am sure that this latest step towards the establishment of a general container freight rate will assist that wool selling centre to establish itself to an even greater extent in the future.

page 1560

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for National Development been drawn to the fact that in the last week 2 papers to be delivered to symposiums by employees of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission have been cancelled? Is it a fact that both these papers related to the environmental effects of the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay? Was the first paper on the agenda of the recent symposium of the Ecological Society of Australia and was it entitled ‘Ecological Factors in the Siting, Design and Operation of a Nuclear Power Station’? Was the second paper to be delivered at a symposium this week organised by the Committee on Social Responsibility in Science? Was it to have been delivered by the Deputy Director at Lucas Heights? What are the reasons for the apparent attempt by the Atomic Energy Commission to suppress public debate on these issues?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I did read some Press statements relating to this matter. I am sorry to say that both the 2 Press statements that I saw were incorrect. First of all1, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission did not give any instructions in relation to a paper that was to be presented to this symposium, as has been mentioned by the honourable member. But it is a fact that a member of the Commission, Mr Davy, had been asked whether he would present a paper and he was proceeding to do so. This was delayed to some degree in view of the survey on the environment which is proceeding at the present time. The manuscript for this paper was read the day before the symposium was to commence. The basis of the manuscript was made public but it was indicated to the chairman of the symposium that the paper would not be available for presentation at that time. That was accepted and understood. The paper, when it is finally edited and completed, will be presented later this year.

I would like to make clear the second point that was referred to and which was brought out in the Press reports, that is, that this particular paper was to refer to the establishment of the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. This is entirely incorrect, because at this point of time we do not know the type of nuclear power plant that will be installed. We have only recently called for tenders for the plant. They will not close until next month and the selection will not be completed until the contract is finalised, we expect, in about October this year. Until such time as we are aware of the type of power plant and the type of fuel that will1 be used it will not be possible to prepare any paper dealing with the subject. However, the paper referred to by the honourable member dealt in a general sense with the effect of effluent from a nuclear power station on the ecology of the country. That is the basic paper that has been pre pared and that will be presented when it has been completed and edited, on an appropriate occasion later this year.

page 1561

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Science. Is the Minister aware that the Victorian State Executive of the Australian Labor Party last night issued a document stating that a Victorian Labor government, if elected on 30th May, would abolish State aid to independent schools in Victoria? As Commonwealth assistance to the independent schools is channelled through State instrumentalities, will the Minister assure the House that any action by a State Labor government to prevent Commonwealth assistance from reaching these schools will not be tolerated?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member will know the aid that is given to independent schools is by way of grants under section 96 of the Constitution and these grants are given by the Commonwealth to State governments upon condition that they apply them towards the schools in the way mentioned. At present the various State governments are accepting the grants on these conditions but if the Victorian people elected a government which had the policy reported as being that of the State executive of the Australian Labor Party against State aid it would be within its rights to refuse to accept the grants!

page 1561

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH SERVICES

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Why is it that a city like Cairns with a city population of 30,000 people and a district population of 110,000 people does not have continuous telegraph communications and why do the people have to telephone through to the Townsville exchange and pay for the trunkline calls to get urgent messages away to other parts of the Commonwealth during weekends and on holidays?

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

– It has been found that generally very few telegraph messages are made over the weekend and in a city such as Cairns where there are probably not more than 4 or 5 messages this would not justify the costs associated with maintaining staff on full time duty during the weekend, particularly from late evening till early morning. The arrangement is that telegrams are transmitted but there is an additional charge, which I think is 15 cents or less depending on the cost of the trunkline call to the area from which the telegrams are being sent. I think that having regard to the circumstances of the Post Office as a business undertaking this is a very reasonable arrangement in the interests of the Australian public.

page 1562

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for External Affairs aware of a broadcast made last night over certain commercial broadcasting stations by a Mr Frank Chamberlain in which he inferred that the United States action in respect of Cambodia was no different from the Soviet Union’s actions in regard to Czechoslovakia last year? For the sake of clarity to the public will the Minister advise, firstly: Was not Cambodia occupied by North Vietnam and Vietcong units which were advancing on the national capital before any United States intervention? Secondly, if Mr Chamberlain is correct will the Minister advise what foreign country was occupying or threatening Czechoslovakia before the Soviet intervention?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– 1 had neither heard nor had 1 been informed of the statement alleged to have been made by Mr Chamberlain. But if it is true then neither his- facts nor his analogies are correct. In the first place, Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact countries. It was a violation of Czechoslovakian independence, and the subsequent effects were that the liberal regime - the Dubcek Smrkovsky regime - was in fact replaced, Dubcek was sent out of the country, all liberal reform ceased and NeoStalinism was once again resumed in that country. On the contrary in the case of Cambodia there had been a violation of the Cambodian territory by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. The United States-South Vietnamese action is designed with 1 purpose and that is to protect the lives of free allied forces, because unless those sanctuaries in Cambodia are cleaned out they will in fact be used by the Cambodians as a sanctuary and consequently places where they can go and remain free from attack. So, Sir, the analogy is totally wrong. The invasion in both of these cases is by Communist forces and they are the ones, Sir, who are guilty of aggression. May I correct one word? I said Cambodians. I should have said North Vietnamese - Vietcong.

Mr Whitlam:

– As they have been during the last 5 years.

Mr McMAHON:

– It does nol get away from the fact that it is invasion.

page 1562

QUESTION

PUBLIC COMPANY SHARES FOR MINISTERS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. To what extent are stocks and shares being offered to Government Ministers? Secondly, why does the Prime Minister think that these advantages are being offered? Thirdly, does he think that Ministers can maintain a position of independence if they own an equity in any private concern which does business with government?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– -The answer to the first question that I am asked is obviously that I do not know. I do not know what offers are made to individual Ministers by individual people. But I do know that this Government does not believe that offers of shares which may have a capital appreciation as a result of them being taken up ought properly to be taken up by Ministers.

In reply to the second- part of the question, Mr Speaker, I would not agree with the proposition put forward by the honourable member. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Grayndler, 1 think in the last session of Parliament, I am myself a shareholder of 150 shares in the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd but I think it highly unlikely that that kind of shareholding is going to have the slightest effect on any actions taken by the Government; and other Ministers would be in the same category. 1 can only say, Mr Speaker, that 1 do not believe that Ministers should, when the governments in which they are Ministers are engaged in particular arrangements with any businesses, have shareholdings in those businesses or accept offers which are in themselves offers which could lead to a capital profit. To give an example of the approach that has been made, I know that the previous Minister for National Development in fact divested himself of a number of shares that he held in these companies. This is the general approach that the Government would make.

page 1563

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a continuing tendency to debase the English language by the use of high sounding words in substitution for simple ones; for example, lubritorium meaning garage workshop and fruitorium meaning fruit shop? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the word ‘moratorium’ means a legal authorisation to a debtor to postpone payment for a certain time’ and that its use in conjunction with the word ‘Vietnam’ to mean ‘stop the war’ is an uncritical importation of an American usage by those who are most critical of following American precedents, and, far from being a learned phrase of apparent respectability, is an evasion of plain words like ‘anti-war’ and, indeed, is a nonsense?

Mr James:

– What does tripe mean?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I think the answer to the question is the sort of interjection that we have just heard. Yes, I am aware of a tendency to use this kind of language to which the honourable member has referred. It is not entirely, I am afraid, confined to people who runlubritoriums or fruitoriums because governments themselves, and members of Parliament themselves, are not entirely immune from a charge of this kind. I do remember - I think it came from an honourable member of the Opposition in private conversation - that we had our attention drawn in a defence speech to the constant use of ‘maritime capacity’ instead of the old fashioned ‘sea power’ which seems to mean much the same thing.

I was not aware of the dictionary definition of the word ‘moratorium’ to which the honourable member referred. But apart from the dictionary definition of it, I think that the practical interpretation of it in the minds of those who are using it in this country is fairly clear. I think that that practical interpretation in the minds of many of the leaders of this so-called moratorium is not that it should merely be a gathering to express beliefs or to express desires in a peaceful way without infringing the rights of others because if that were all it was then every member of this Parliament ought to defend that right. But rather it is an intention to have gatherings to go beyond exercising that right and to infringe upon the rights of others, and to sit down in the streets and to bring to bear the wish to break a law because they dislike something which a government has done after being elected by a majority. That kind of approach, I believe, is something which every member of this House has a duty to condemn.

page 1563

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. With the Macchi jet manufacturing programme nearing the end of its current order the Australia aircraft industry is in a malaise wondering when another military aviation contract will be awarded to keep the industry functioning. About 8 weeks ago. on 4th March, I asked the Minister for Supply whether the Government had given its consent and backing to a joint project between the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the British Aircraft Corporation for the development and manufacture of a variable geometry dual purpose supersonic attack trainer. I have not as yet received a reply to the question. Can the Minister himself answer the question? If not, will he ask the Minister for Supply to furnish me with an answer?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government has always regarded a sound aircraft industry as being a vital part of the industrial support lying behind Australia’s general defence effort. The strength of this remark may be seen from the very considerable efforts the Government has made over a period of years to see that where possible military aircraft are built in Australia. But because of the nature of military orders is is very difficult to maintain an even flow of orders for factories that rely entirely on defence orders. The Minister for Supply is conducting negotiations with the industry at the moment, looking at the long term future of the industry. He has announced this but I would like to remind the House that the Government has also taken practical steps to encourage the industry to develop its own capacities. Earlier this year we provided a little more than $3m for the construction of 2 prototype twin engine light aircraft which could have a role in the 3 Services and which also, we believe, could have a civilian use in a number of areas of Australia. Whether that aircraft is bought by any of the Services and whether it has a commercial market in Australia or overseas will depend on the capacity of the industry and the quality of the aircraft produced. The important point to note is that the Government has provided funds for the construction of 2 prototypes. This’ indicates once again the Government’s determination to do what it can to assist the industry.

page 1564

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs: Is Cambodia a country whose sovereign integrity was solemnly pledged in the Geneva Agreements of 1954 by many countries including mainland China and North Vietnam? What has been the history of regard for Cambodia’s neutrality or integrity by the Communist countries in the- last 16 years? What effect has the use of Sihanoukville and sanctuaries in Cambodia had on the allied attempt to bring peace to South Vietnam?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is true that in the 1954 Geneva Agreements North Vietnam and Communist China - continental China - joined in assuring the territorial integrity of Cambodia. That is clear. But North Vietnam never abided by the provisions of those Agreements and in fact, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, a little more than 5 years ago the North Vietnamese Vietcong attacked and violated the territorial integrity of Cambodia. As for the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question relating to Sihanoukville and the supply routes to III and IV Corps areas of South Vietnam, the fact is that well over 85% of the total supplies reaching III and IV Corps areas go through Sihanoukville. This is a privilege that could not be given under any kind of international law or international understanding. This is another indication of the fact that the invading forces in South Vietnam - the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong - were being supplied through this channel. The sooner it is stopped the sooner will the war itself be stopped.

page 1564

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES: ALBURY-WODONGA

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address my question to the Minister for Education and Science. He will have noted suggestions that the next university in New South Wales might be established at some point between Canberra and the Victorian border and that the next university in Victoria might be established outside the metropolitan area of Melbourne. 1 ask: At what stage and to what extent is the Australian Universities Commission consulted about the date and place for establishing new universities? In particular, does the Minister know whether the Commission or the governments of Victoria and New South Wales have considered jointly establishing the next university at Albury/ Wodonga, a communications centre which is mid-way between the universities in Melbourne and Canberra and has at least twice the population of any other centre between Melbourne and Canberra?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The advice of the Australian Universities Commission is sought in connection with the establishment of new universities. The proposal for the establishment of a university at Albury is a very old one, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, and has been the subject of debate over a number of years. I know of no recent consultation between the Victorian and New South Wales governments to establish any joint university at that centre. I W li make some inquiries about the matter and if anything further emerges 1 will advise the honourable gentleman.

page 1564

QUESTION

LAOS AND CAMBODIA

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether he has noticed Press reports that Britain is expected to press for reactivation of a neutral observer team in Laos and Cambodia. Are these reports correct? Does the Minister see value in the proposal? What is the Government’s attitude to such observer teams working under the International Control Commission?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Some time ago the United Kingdom Government approached the co-chairman of the 1954 Geneva Convention and asked that the cochairman attempt to have the International Control Commission again take over its supervisory roles in Cambodia. The Government of the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics refused point blank to do so. Independently, the matter was referred by the United Kingdom Government to the various nations concerned. So, too, did President Nixon of the United States of America make a plea that the International Control Commission be re-established. Efforts are being made not only in those 2 countries but elsewhere to achieve this objective. So far there has been no success. In the Government’s view reconvening of the Commission would be wise. I think it can be taken for granted that it is 1 of the 3 objectives for which we will press at the Djakarta conference. These objectives are, firstly, to establish the fact that we do not believe in interference in the affairs of other nations; secondly, that we believe in the right of each country to determine its own future; and thirdly, that we hope to achieve the reconvening of the International Control Commission or, if that is not possible, something equivalent to it.

page 1565

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 address my question to the Prime Minister. What action is he taking to implement his election pledge for a phased reduction of $200m in personal income tax? Will he answer growing scepticism on this matter? Will he consider the urgent need for relief of the lower and middle income earners who progressively had been inflated into the middle and upper income tax scales?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– lt must be perfectly obvious that the Government has considered the need for relief in the lower and middle income tax scales since that consideration led to its announcement about what it would be seeking to do over its term of office, that is, to ameliorate the burden on the very people about whom the honourable member has spoken. I think the honourable member for Cunningham would have been here long enough to know that he can hardly expect me to give him a preview of any Budget actions one way or the other.

page 1565

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Evans. It concerns the clear, long term pattern of invasion of Cambodia by Vietminh and

North Vietnamese forces attested to by both the present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister of that country. Has the Minister received any protests concerning the invasion? Is he aware that the lack of protests from certain areas is merely the result of the application of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty in Asia explicitly formulated by a leading member of this Parliament and supported in practice by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Yes, I have received widespread adverse comments about the operations of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong in Cambodian territory. In the substance of his question the honourable gentleman asks about the application of the Brezhnev doctrine. I have not heard the speech made by the honourable member for Lalor but I have been made aware of the contents of that speech. He in effect said that he agreed with the statement made by Senator Fulbright that the North Vietnamese had the right to secure friendly governments in neighbouring countries. He went on to explain that he meant by neighbouring countries’ Laos and Cambodia. Prompted by somebody in the background he then included Thailand in the description of the countries that he felt could be occupied by the North Vietnamese without violating international rights in any way. This to me is a pecular doctrine. It claims that because you happen to be a North Vietnamese and therefore from a Communist country you have the right to violate the territorial integrity of other countries. This is something that no-one on this side of the House believes and we will see from the Opposition whether all honourable members on the other side of the House agree with the honourable member for Lalor.

page 1565

DROUGHT RELIEF IN QUEENSLAND

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - Honourable members are aware that the State of Queensland has been affected by serious drought conditions for several years. They will also be aware that the Commonwealth has been providing substantial drought relief assistance. Under present arrangements, the Commonwealth has agreed for 1969-70 to meet on a $t for $1 basis expenditure on eligible drought relief measures up to $4m. and to meet the full cost in excess of $4m, and it is currently estimated that the Commonwealth will need to provide some SI 5m under these arrangements in 1969-70. That would bring total Commonwealth drought relief assistance to Queensland since 1965-66 to over $32m. Honourable members will also know that the Premier of Queensland recently proposed certain modifications of existing relief- measures. Following Cabinet consideration of the Premier’s proposals, I have now informed the Premier that the Commonwealth is prepared to reimburse the State for carry-on and re-stocking loans made to graziers to enable Queensland to extend the existing limits on those loans.

The Commonwealth has always adopted a flexible attitude to the limits of drought loans. Our main concern has been that normal commercial sources of finance should first be exhausted and that in making a loan the State authorities should satisfy themselves that the applicant has a reasonable chance of recovery. It will be for the State to determine the new limits, and the rate of monthly payments of loans, in the light of the circumstances of individual graziers. I have also informed the Premier that the Commonwealth is agreeable to his proposal for graziers who have received drought relief carry-on or re-stocking loans under the 1969 drought relief arrangements to have their loans, including any unpaid sums under the earlier 1965 arrangements, consolidated as at 30th June 1970. I understand that the State’s objective is to give further relief to graziers by extending the period during which interest will be capitalised and no redemption payments will be required.

The Commonwealth has also agreed that rebates on the transport of stock for restocking purposes, which at present apply only to breeding stock, should be extended to cover all stock transported for restocking up to a property’s normal capacity - whether this involves stock purchased or stock returning from agistment - provided that the stock are held for a minimum period on the grazier’s property before being eligible for rebate. In addition, because of the widespread effects of the drought on Queensland pastoral areas and the fact that New South Wales could be a major source of stock for re-stocking when the drought is over, the Commonwealth has indicated its willingness to reimburse the Queensland Government for expenditure on freight rebates on stock purchases in New South Wales for re-stocking and on returning from agistment in that State.

The existing measures provide for additional carry-on loans to assist droughtaffected graziers with the payment of crown rentals and local authority rates in 1969- 70. We have now agreed to further assistance in this regard in the form of grants to the State to enable it to meet half the cost of rates payable in 1970 by graziers who have experienced drought for more than 2 years in the 2 droughts of 1965-67 and 1969-70 and who are demonstrably in need of such assistance.

Even before allowing for the additional cost in 1969-70 of the agreed extensions to drought relief measures to which I have referred, the Commonwealth contribution towards drought relief measures in Queensland this year would be easily the largest amount ever provided to any State for drought relief in a single year. The Government believes that the additional measures which I have now announced will make a further substantial contribution to the relief of those farmers and graziers in Queensland who continue to be affected by drought.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– by leaveThe substance of the statement by . the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) is, of course, welcomed by the Queensland Government but more so by the graziers and farmers in the drought stricken areas of western and south western Queensland. One must say, however, that this is rather a belated decision after the very many forceful requests that have been made since the end of last year. A point which I should like to make to the Prime Minister is that whoever wrote his statement has written it in a very loose way because it is most ambiguous in the sense that it is difficult to understand from it just who is a grazier and who is a farmer.

I have received a telegram from the Grain Growers Association of Queensland. It is signed by Mr Price, a man who is well respected in grain growing circles. It asks for assistance by way of further drought relief for Queensland grain growers. It reads as follows:

Association alarmed State Premier’s statement no further drought relief to Queensland grain growers contrary Department of Primary Industry report crop prospects grim certain areas. Continuous drought still exists much south eastern, western and northern grain belt. Appreciate your immediate sympathetic consideration.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this relief will cover wheat farmers also because it is not clear from this statement. The only time he mentioned farmers was in the last sentence. Will this cover wheat fanners, or is it confined to only sheep and cattle people in, say, the south-west corner or other drought areas of Queensland?

There are farming areas in western Queensland that are just as seriously hit by the drought as some of the grazing areas in the far west of Queensland. I refer particularly to some of the wheat farms. Therefore it is important to know whether this decision will also cover wheat farmers. It has not been made clear in the statement. This information cannot be gathered from the statement. I assume that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) or someone else to follow will make it quite clear. There are plenty of people other than those on sheep and cattle properties who are seriously affected by drought in various parts of Queensland. I said before - and I repeat it because the Prime Minister might not have heard me - there is ambiguity in this statement in relation to some points. No details have been given. 1 refer, for example, to the statement that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to reimburse the State for carry on and re-stocking loans. What terms and conditions are to apply here? If the State is lending money to graziers and farmers under certain conditions, does this mean that the Commonwealth is also lending to Queensland, or is it making an interest free loan or making a grant?

Mr Gorton:

– A Commonwealth loan for drought relief is always interest free.

Dr PATTERSON:

– There are some grants, too. That is only one point. I am mentioning the points that are raised with members of Parliament representing areas affected by drought. We have raised this point in the Parliament because we want to know what the statement means. I defy anybody to explain the statement that in making a loan the State authorities should satisfy themselves that the applicant has a reasonable chance of recovery. <Nobody can forecast how long a- drought will last in some of these areas. It has been going on with intensity for 3 or 4 years in some areas. No-one can make a decision on whether a person will recover or not.’ I hope this is not taken as literally as it is expressed here because it is essential that some of these graziers and farmers get assistance immediately without being subject to too stringent an examination to see- whether they will recover or not. Some of them are past recovery. If some of these carry on loans had been made available more liberally last year, for example, a lot of them would not have been past the point pf no recovery at the present time.

I find it hard to understand why the Prime Minister should say that he understands the State’s objective. The Commonwealth Government should know what the State’s objective is. ,Never mind about understanding it. That leaves an element of doubt, lt is essential that it. be made clear how this interest is to be capitalised and how redemption payments are to be made. It is quite possible that the Commonwealth does not understand because it has been difficult for graziers and others interested in this problem to understand what the State Government means in this respect. I would like to commend the Government on liberalising the re-stocking provisions with respect to stores, because it is quite clear that some graziers in the fattening areas of the south-west channel country, where store cattle are the main source pf livelihood, because of the integration of breeding properties, are not going to restock with breeding cattle. When the channels flood they will stock quickly with store cattle to make maximum utilisation of existing herbages such as parakeila and others. These are points that I believe should be clarified.

Something should have been done about rates years ago. In practically every area of Queensland they have been progressively increasing, despite the drought. It was pointed out during the debate on estate duties that people from the cities are coming into the country to invest money and to buy properties. They are causing the value of properties to increase. This is reflected in the local valuations for shires. Wool prices, for example, have been going down or have remained static and property values are decreasing at an alarming rate in drought areas of western Queensland. It is essential that some other revaluation process be used and during the drought period there should be a complete alleviation from rates which have reached almost saturation point on some small properties.

I also ask the Prime Minister to say when he will allow a debate on the amendments to the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act to take place. This is of concern to the graziers. This amendment will allow surplus wheat to be sold for stock feed at reduced prices. It is a fact that this can happen now because complementary legislation has been passed in most States. Nevertheless, it is time that this amending Bill was debated in the Parliament because it is essential to extend the supply of fodder and surplus grains to drought stricken areas. The Opposition believes that the amount of $1.45 is far too high for surplus grain that cannot be sold. This is another problem.

They are the main points 1 would like to make. Wheat farmers are in the grip of the drought just as much as graziers are. In addition, the proposal should be retrospective. With regard to the transport of stock, it is important to know whether the scheme will apply to those farmers and graziers who have already restocked with store cattle, not breeding stock. It would be quite wrong for the Government suddenly to introduce legislation or a regulation or whatever is needed covering restocking in the future when in the last 6 months a lot of restocking has been taking place with other than breeding stock. Surely these people should be covered by the retrospective operation of the scheme. Those are the points that I would like to make.’ On the whole, as I said before, this scheme is effective only for drought stricken producers, but it is rather belated.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– by leave - First of all, I would like to say that this announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) is particularly timely. Only today the Premier of Queensland, his Minister for Lands and Mr Peter Bell, President of the United Graziers Association, leave on a trip to visit the drought afflicted areas of the outback. It is further most timely because only last night the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), the right honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), Senator Lawrie, Senator Maunsell and myself met for a top level conference with the President of the Queensland Graingrowers Drought Committee, Mr Don Eather, and the Secretary, Mr Don McKechnie, to discuss their problems and to bring them into the orbit of consideration for drought relief. I would submit that this was a constructive move. As a result of that conference further submissions will be made to the Federal Government.

Let me in retrospect outline the work that has been done in Government circles in relation to this drought situation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) quite recently visited the grain growers and small farmers at Mundubbera in the Burnett Valley in the latter part of last year. He addressed them and heard them state their problems. That evening he flew across to Emerald and again met a large gathering of farmers, wheat growers and grain growers generally, and heard their problems. This has been taken into consideration. In reply to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) let me stress this point: Over the last few years we have been out in the field looking into the problems of these areas constantly. I have been accompanied by no less distinguished persons than the right honourable member for Fisher, the honourable member for Maranoa, Senator Maunsell and Senator Lawrie. We have been constantly working through these areas, collecting information and putting it before the Government. Let me get down to the facts. We get a little tired of hearing these grand speeches from the Opposition presenting nebulous solutions to these problems while we are the actual storm troopers casting the blows to secure the measures that are taken by the Government for the people who are affected.

It all began in the latter part of last year when the most distinguished men in the industry, whom I will name shortly, came down here and received a herring from the Treasurer (Mr Bury). These men included the President of the UGA - this is on the grazing side, I will admit - Councillor Behan, whose names are bywords and traditional in Queensland and who have proven their worth, Johnny Henssler the current President of the Central and Northern Graziers Association, and Fred

Tritton, who is the best known identity in northern Australia for his contribution to primary industry, to the grazing industry - and, I might mention, to the grain growing industry. They then went into conference with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) and the Minister for Primary Industry. This led to a further conference with the Premier of Queensland. This is the action that has been taken. These are not theories or grand speeches. These men were not seeking headlines because of attacks on the Government all the time. This was solid hard work going on behind the scene. The conference was held in Brisbane in November. Subsequently there was another top level conference in Southport. No less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister flew to Queensland for that conference. All these identities were there. Out of all this activity has come the announcement which was made today. Admittedly we would all have liked these submissions to have been made earlier. We would have liked the announcement to have been made earlier. Of course, we would like to see the wheels of government turn far more quickly, but at least we have got somewhere today.

I would now like to deal with the grain growers. About 3 weeks ago while Senator Lawrie and I were in Emerald we were approached by the field officer of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, Mr George Crawford. He said: !I think it is time that you people who have been working to secure additional drought relief for the grazing industry-

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to a point of order. Leave was given to debate this statement, not the drought.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave was given to make a statement in relation to the drought relief announced by the Prime Minister and that is what the honourable member is doing. The honourable member for Dawson also covered a good deal of ground which was not contained in the statement. I believe it is relevant to the statement made.

Dr Patterson:

– We can have a general debate on it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Dawson also covered a fairly wide range of subjects which were not included in the statement but which did have something to do wilh drought relief.

Mr KATTER:

– Of course, there is a purpose in all of this. There are two Senate candidates hopping through my territory like kangaroos with ants in their pants, and they are going about making wild statements. This is all part of the general situation. Let me return to the situation in Emerald. We were approached by the field officer of the Queensland Graingrowers Association. He felt that the same level of discussion and consideration should take place in regard to the problems of grain growers. Their position is deteriorating. The grain growers frankly admitted last night that they have not reached the crisis stage that the grazing industry has. Nevertheless, their situation is deteriorating to the point where it could well fall to this level. Let me point out now while 1 have this opportunity that many of the grain growers in my State, and particularly in my electorate, have had -3 successive crop failures. They are reaching the point where they are in real trouble. We immediately said: ‘Let’s get together’. I then convened a meeting of the Country Party drought committee and every member to a man was present last night. This was on May Day when we workers should normally be relaxing. We met in Brisbane. We had a top level discussion, and the grain growers sent their two top executive members - their senior State Vice President, Mr Don Eather, who is also President of their drought committee, and their Secretary, Mr Don McKechnie. 1 think the grain growers are pretty well satisfied with what has taken place. They appreciate that while political propaganda is belching forth from the other side of the House we are actually there fighting their cause. We have been briefed by them and the guide lines and submissions which we will support come from them. So I feel absolutely confident that the grain growers, the reasonable thinking men who are not intent on making political propaganda out of almost everything that occurs, will agree that their affairs are being handled to their very best advantage.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– by leave - I wish to say a few words in reference to the important matter under discussion. Every honourable member agrees that in time of drought relief, measures are necessary. As the honourable: member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) have said, the measure is very timely, very appropriate and very necessary. I am concerned about the attitude of members of the Australian Country Party and in particular of the honourable member for Kennedy in reference to measures of this kind. Their attack seems to be centred not so much on the matter under consideration; rather do they take the opportunity to launch an attack on the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Dawson who consistently pressed for measures of this nature long before members of the Country Party woke up.

The honourable member for Kennedy gave us a resume and repeated 3 or 4 times the names of every member of the Country Party who had belatedly and at the point of the gun, as it were, met representatives of rural interests on the important measure that we are debating today. The honourable member for Kennedy has a peculiar arrangement. He consistently attacks the Government outside the House for not bringing in measures of this kind to assist rural industry in times of drought and distress. He continually attacks the Government for its failure to face up to its responsibilities. Then he gives copies of his speech to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Press in his electorate and gives everybody the impression, quite falsely, that he. is a great militant and a great sponsor for rural and drought relief and things of that nature. But not once in this Parliament has the honourable member for Kennedy proposed a motion in support of the measures that he says are necessary and about which he speaks so much outside the Parliament. The honourable member should give expression to his sympathies and, if there is substance in his views and if he is sincere in them, he should move a resolution against this incompetent Government for its failure to assist the primary producers at this time of great stress. The honourable member would be surprised to find how many members on this side of the Parliament would join him for once in giving expression to measures which would bring support to the primary producers.

I welcome this measure today. The Country Party has nothing to be proud of in giving support to measures of this kind only at the very last moment and in the most essential of circumstances. Honourable members do not have to take my word for this. Nine hundred members of the Country Party at a conference in Warrnambool a few days ago - I suppose 900 would be the whole party in Victoria - said that the front line troops in the Parliament were not carrying out their responsibilities to the primary producers of this country. They likened these men to front line troops. I think they are more like McHale’s Navy. The Country Party, particularly the honourable member for Kennedy and others who represent huge drought stricken areas, have let the primary producers down. They have not faced up to their responsibilities. One cannot blame them in a way. When all is said and done half the Government is not interested in the primary producers. Very few primary producers are represented by the Liberal Party in the Parliament. It is nice to see the Country Party, which does not take the initiative, compliment a Liberal Prime Minister upon doing something for the primary producers that its Ministers and others have not done. As I said, honourable members do not have to take my word for this. Let them take the word of the country people. They have awakened to the fact. Those 900 militant farmers who are marching from Perth to Melbourne realised that in that corner-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable gentleman is getting away from the relevancy of the statement on drought relief for Queensland.

Mr DALY:

– Naturally 1 would not transgress your ruling, Mr Speaker. You may have been a little tolerant. I feel emotional on this issue and 1 was somewhat carried away by it. I do not like to see the Country Party refusing to support urgency motions on drought relief proposed in this Parliament by the honourable member for Dawson, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) and others. It has refused to support the Opposition on these measures and, irrespective of the merits of such motions, which are great, has consistently voted against us. The Country Party members have a peculiar arrangement with the Government. They may criticise it as much as they like outside the Parliament. Anything may happen to the primary producing interests outside, as long as in this Parliament the Country

Party lines up with the Libera! Party and the Government and votes against worthwhile propositions from this side of ‘he Parliament.

I welcome the introduction of the measure. I regret the necessity for it. More in sorrow than in anger 1 join with those Country Party representatives at Warrnabool who have condemned their front line troops for their inadequacy and incompetency in representing country interests in this Parliament. At the same time [ commend that great band of Labor men who have come to the Parliament from rural areas - the honourable member for Dawson, the honourable member for Riverina, the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) and members from other States - who will give real leadership to the country people and who will bring stability back to rural industry and withstand the criticisms falsely levelled against them by those in the Parliament who are sent here to represent, country interests but who do nothing but criticise the efforts from this side of the Parliament to provide that security and stability.

Mr Grassby:

– I desire leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– ls leave granted?

Government members - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1571

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

River Murray Waters Bill 1970. Dartmouth Reservoir Agreement Bill 1970.

page 1571

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1969-70

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– r move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for expenditure for which provision was not made in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1969-70. The total appropriations sought in this bill Amount to $90,053,000. The various items included in this Bill can be considered in detail in Committee and I propose at this stage to refer only to some of the major provisions.

The additional requirement for departmental salaries is $22m and includes provision for increases in salaries arising from the 1969 national wage case and other arbitration determinations, reclassification of offices and additional staff. Further appropriations totalling Si 3.5m are required for departmental administrative expenses, including $2.1m for overseas representation. $1.6m for rents, real estate management and surveys, and Sim for additional capital for the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank. Additional ‘ appropriations amounting to $23. 7m for departmental other services include $1.5m for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, $4.4m for embarkation and passage costs for migrants, $2.2m for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, $].6m for war and service pensions and allowances, $].4m for other repatriation benefits, $5m for the Ship Building Division of the Department of Shipping and Transport, $1.3m for grants under the Aged Persons Homes Act and $l.lm for remission of taxes and fines under special circumstances.

Additional appropriations totalling $30.8m are sought for defence Services, including approximately $20.0m for increases in Service pay and allowances and increases in salaries of civilian staff. However it is expected that there will be equivalent savings in other appropriations due mainly to rephasing of equipment orders, lags in delivery of stores and equipment, delays in the construction of naval ships and in the construction of storage accommodation and. other facilities. It is therefore expected that: total expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and Loan Fund on defence Services in 1969-70 will not exceed the Budget estimate. The additional appropriations being sought in this Bill are not to be taken .as an indication that actual expenditure will exceed the appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1969-70 to the extent of the full $90,053,000 as it is expected that there will be an offset of approximately $42m because of savings in expenditure under other appropriations in that Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1572

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1969-70

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain Parliamentary authority for additional expenditure in 1969-70 amounting to $34,087,000 on various items relating to capital1 works and services, payments to or for the States and certain other services. Although additional appropriations of $25.8m are sought for capital works and services it is expected that because of savings of about $8.6m in other similar appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1969-70, the cash requirement over the Budget estimate of $536.7m will be about S 17.2m. The major requirements are S2m for a repayable advance to the Papua and New Guinea Administration for construction of the township at Arawa in connection with the Bougainville copper project; S3m advance to the Papua and New Guinea Administration for budget equalisation purposes; Si. 6m for acquisition of sites and buildings; SI. 4m for loans to co-operative building societies in the Australian Capital Territory; $3.9m advance to the Northern Territory Housing Commission which will’ be offset to the extent of about S3. 4m because of savings in a similar appropriation; Si. 1m for the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric power project; S4m for payment to the Post Office Trust Account and S5m for buildings and works.

Additional appropriations of $8.1m are sought for payments to or for the States, including $7m for drought assistance to Queensland. It is expected that there will be savings of about $0.6m in other similar appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1969-70. The additional appropriations sought for other services amount to S21 2,000, which includes a grant of $150,000 to the South Pacific Games (1969) Trust.

As I have said, this Bill seeks additional appropriations of $34,087,000. However because of savings in expenditure under other appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1969-70, it is expected that the total expenditure will exceed the amount appropriated in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1969-70 by about $24.9m. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1572

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1970-71

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
^Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys to carry on the necessary normal services of the Government during the first 5 months of the financial year 1970-71. The total amount sought in this Bill is SI, 11 3,002,000 comprising:

The amounts provided represent the estimated requirements for the first 5 months of the financial year and in respect of most services generally represent approximately five-twelfths of the 1.969-70 appropriation. No provision is made for new services.

An amount of $20,000,000 is sought to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1572

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1970-71

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $221,757,000 for certain expenditures to carry on the necessary services of the Government for the first 5 months of 1970-71. The total amount sought comprises:

The amount for capital works and services is required in general for the orderly continuation of works programmes, but includes a $5m repayable advance to the Papua and New Guinea Administration for construction of the township at Arawa in connection with the Bougainville copper project. The amount of $20m is sought to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year, and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 1573

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 April (vide page 1050), on motion by Dr Forbes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move:

If nothing else has been established by the manner in which the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) has handled his portfolio so far at least 2 points become irrebuttably identified. First, he has a poor and unreliable grasp of it and secondly his credibility with the medical profession rates deplorably badly. Can the nation have faith and trust in a man who, until his Party’s trau matic experiences at the last election, asserted frequently, loudly and overbearingly the unqualified virtues of the Government’s so called voluntary health insurance scheme? Indeed, can there be confidence in the claims of such a man when today we have what is a major recasting of the National Health Act which covers that insurance scheme? Clearly, this is a frank admission of the considerable and grave failings of the scheme and contradicts the urbane banality of the Minister’s earlier claims.

In the past he was quick to defend private insurance schemes in spite of their wasteful costliness and inefficiency, borne by the hapless contributor. In March this year, chastened by the cathartic effects of the 1969 election results he confessed with a characteristic want of grace that: The Government accepts the Nimmo Committee’s findings that there, have been some practices of a wasteful , character, particularly those arising out of the undesirable competitive activities between some open funds’. What credibility can be invested in a Minister who engineers an election promise of his Party - reform of the health insurance scheme - based on the fundamental principle of making it more expensive for those able to remain within its framework as contributors, and then after the election blandly admitting his costing of the alterations was. a mere $16. 5m understated? To put it another way, the latest estimate is nearly 69% greater than his original quote. This is a rather masterly, albeit scarcely commendable, confidence trick on the paying Australian public.

The Minister’s statement in March and his second reading speech on this Bill are public admissions of the Government’s humiliation on health insurance policy. Clearly, its radically altered tack on this issue of policy is convincing evidence that it interprets the 1969 election results as a stunning vote of censure against it by the Australian public. In June 1968 the Minister airily stated as a virtue of his Government’s scheme: the danger is not so much that people may be excluded from the best treatment or care for financial reasons, but that they’ may suffer neglect through failure to use agencies which are available.

Unaware, of course, of the Minister’s impercipience Professor Henderson, of the

Institute of Applied Economic Research, stated bluntly at the 1969 Australian Institute of Political Science Summer School on Poverty in Australia’:

Measures to relieve poverty must include reform of the present arrangements for insurance against cost of illness. These are seriously inadequate in several respects.

In any event it is some relief that he and his battered band of supporters have seen some light on the road back from the polls. Some relief by way of subsidy will be available for some low income earners. The very fact that this proposal is included in the amendments to this Act is an indication of just how inaccurate were his assertions in June 1968 which I quoted earlier and which appear in the issue for that month of the ‘Australian Medical Journal’. The provision of this relief, however, will not be according to some carefully graduated scale of need but rather distributed within rather broad income bands without discriminating in favour of those within those bands with the greatest needs. I will have more to say about this later. Quite clearly the Minister’s doctorate in philosophy did not bring him into contact wilh Aristotle’s principle of 2,300 years ago:

Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally and also when unequals are treated equally.

Again, there has been a no more unseemly display of public ineptitude than the running brawl the Minister has provoked with the medical practitioners. Remarkably the Minister is the man who has forever been implying that he had the doctors tied up, but he is the man who has been quite severely rebuffed by the doctors. In an effort to truckle to the doctors he has set a course of public deceit for himself. While proclaiming the benefits of the common fee to the public in a manner clearly designed to convince them that this sphere will be mandatory for doctors he has, through his Department, if one can believe public reports, told the doctors another version of what the practice will in fact be.

I now want to quote from the publication, The Australian GP’, which is the organ of the General Practitioners Society in Australia. The April 1970 issue of this publica tion at page 6 makes an interesting statement. This quote is in relation to Sir William Refshauge. The article states:

Sir William emphasised that the government would encourage, but certainly not compel, adherence to the list of ‘common fees.’ He stated that the purpose of Dr Forbes’ addresses to AMA Branches was to allay any fears held by GP.

Naturally I was somewhat intrigued by this assertion of the General Practitioners Association and accordingly I telegrammed the Minister to obtain from him an explanation of the true intent of the Government because, after all, it is not written specifically into the legislation before this House - that is, we have no undertaking as to what measures the Government will adopt to ensure that the common fee is upheld by medical practitioners, that patients who resort to medical practitioners can expect that they will obtain the benefits that were outlined by the Prime Minister according to a peculiar mathematical formula which some describe as from the top of the head approach during the last election campaign. The Minister’s reply was rather surprising. Instead of discussing precisely the assertions of the General Practitioners Association he wrote to me tersely quoting what he has said in his earlier statement in the House on this point. It was scarcely an enlightening proposal. After all, what he said in the House earlier does not tell us how he intends to ensure that the benefits of the common fee will, be provided by general practitioners. His statement refers to adherence to the common fee as a factor vital to the success of the new health benefits plan. He states in the particular section in which we are interested that because of the assurance of the profession that it will adhere to the common fee he will not follow the recommendations of the Nimmo Committee and discriminate against those medical practitioners who fail to uphold the common fee. The Nimmo Committee’s proposal was that those general practitioners who did not provide common fee benefits for patients should find that no medical insurance benefits were available for their patients. Finally the Minister said:

The Government will constantly review cooperation by the profession.

This is scarcely an answer to any of the points I raised with the Minister, that the General Practitioners Association is clearly under the apprehension that the common fee will not be enforced and that doctors will be free to operate quite flexibly within the arrangements of the medical insurance scheme. If this is in tact true the promises of the Government and its dogmatic assurances to the general public, as distinct from undertakings by the Minister for Health to the general practitioners, mean completely different things. Remember that about 1,000 members of the General . Practitioners Association have claimed that they will not operate on the common fee basis. If the Association is correct many people resorting to general practitioners will obtain limited benefits from the medical insurance scheme and the grave problems which these amendments to the legislation were supposed to overcome will persist. It seems that the Minister works according to an amazingly high factor for obfuscation.

The Bill does not deal with the Minister’s promise, made somewhat earlier in the session, that a health insurance commission would be set up. Nor does it include any proposal for the deduction from wages by employers of employees’ contributions on a voluntary basis. The proposed amendments to the Act fail dismally here and one is justified in asking why these matters have received no attention in the Bill notwithstanding that in March this year the Minister claimed quite definitely that they would be the key points in the legislation.

Let me move on . to the legislation itself - to the issues implicit in the amendment: How will costs . be kept down h health insurance in Australia? This is the key to the problems that have bedevilled the scheme to date. So far the Government has failed to hold costs within a reasonable area. By the very nature of health services costs will increase at a faster rate than comparable costs for other services in the community. To a large extent this is unavoidable because of the complex and extremely expensive nature of research - of improved treatment in health services - but this is no justification for allowing completely unfettered increases to occur. It is rather a stimulus for a responsible body, such as a government, to take steps to try to restrain those cost increases which must be borne by the general public, essentially by the hapless contributor to the scheme and by the unfortunate Australian taxpayer.

From all the evidence one can gain by international comparisons, voluntary health insurance schemes are inherently inflationary and the inflation occurs at a much faster rate than is the case where universal schemes operate. The experience is that universal schemes hold down the rate of increase much more successfully than do voluntary health insurance schemes. I will give some examples, comparing 1967 with 1948. As a percentage of the gross national product the cost of health services in the United Kingdom in 1948 was 3.54%. In 1967 the cost had increased to 4.18%. In the United States in the same period the cost increased from 3.3% of the gross national product to 5.26% of the gross national product. In terms of gross national product this was an increase of 59% compared with an increase in the United Kingdom of only 18%. What must be remembered in all this is that Great Britain not only has been more successful than the United States in holding down the rate of increase in the cost of health services but also gives a comprehensive cover to all members of the community. In the United States 24 million people have no insurance at all. About 61 million people have no insurance for in-hospital medical expenses. About 102 million people have no insurance for doctors’ surgery visits. So one can readily comprehend the comparative advantages favouring a universal system of health insurance.

Because of the many similarities in the American approach and the Australian approach it is instructive to note that the American system is collapsing. Its failure, like that of the Australian scheme, is due to the fact that many people find it so costly to be a member of the scheme. Not only the poor people must worry in this regard but many others as well. The proposals now before us will do only a moderate amount to modify this cause for concern, particularly if the assertions of the General Practitioners Association are correct. Certainly on their face value the current proposals fail to provide any relief for long term non-medical hospitalisation. This surely is a serious deficiency.

Let me compare the American scheme with ours because it will be seen that the American scheme, which is based on voluntary health insurance, is collapsing. It will also be seen, on the evidence that one can easily obtain, that this is freely admitted by responsible authorities in the United States. After 1 have done this I will move on to a comparison of the Labor Party’s proposals for universal health insurance and the Canadian scheme, thus upholding my argument that universal health insurance is more successful in containing cost increases than is a so-called voluntary health insurance scheme based on a multiplication of competing insurance organisations, each involving unnecessary cost which is a dead loss to the contributor and to the scheme. In America the former Secretary of Housing, Education and Welfare and now head of the Urban Coalition, John W. Gardner, has bluntly stated that the present system of medical care delivery is outworn, expensive and outrageously inefficient. In an article headed ‘The $60 Billion Crisis over Medical Care’ the reputable United States magazine ‘Business Week’ in January this year stated:

The clamour for some kind of national health plan is already drowning out the shouts against Socialism and it has been heard on Capitol Hill. Perhaps as early as 1971 Congress will start formulating a national health care programme.

The reason for this is that the American Government - a businessmen’s government generally advised by successful businessmen, unlike the government of Australia, which is staffed by failed businessmen - has recognised that voluntary insurance is bedevilled by chronic problems of sky rocketing medical costs and a failure to deliver the goods to the paying public. In America the national health bill per capita has increased by $293 - more than twice the level of a decade ago - and is still climbing at a breathtaking rate.

I suggest to honourable members that there is a clear similarity to the position in Australia. Since 1966 the cost of health in the United States has been rising at an average of 7% per annum, which is well above the rate of increase in other consumer prices. The more one analyses the situation in the United States the more one observes this similarity - the collapse of the American scheme and the imminent collapse of the Australian scheme. All that the Government is proposing in this legislation only temporarily defers the date of crucial decision when it must confront the problem of what is to be the alternative scheme for the Australian public. In his publication Economic Policy in Australia’, Mr B. Mc Far lane points out in a table that in 1959-60 the per head cost of health was $58 and in 1965-66 it had increased to $90 - an increase of 55% in 7 years. Over the same period Commonwealth hospital benefits have been held static at $2 a day. This represents quite an unreasonable approach by the Government. The interpretation of this, of course, is that an increasing burden is cast on the shoulders of the State governments. From memory, deficits of the various public hospital authorities in Australia amount to $l55m, according to the latest information received in reply to a question appearing in the debate reports. Much of that sum has to be taken up by the State governments. In 1966 over $6m was written off as bad debt by the public hospitals in Australia. In the meantime the Government holds $2 a day the rigid level of hospital bed benefit struck in 1963, in spite of a . confrontation by spiralling prices.

In the past 18 years the cost of running public hospitals and nursing’ homes in Australia has increased more than 8-fold while the number of patients has merely doubled. This evidence can be looked at in 2 ways. Firstly, one gains an appreciation of how significantly rapid is the rate of increase in the cost of maintaining health services. At the same time one also gains an appreciation of how reluctant the Federal Government is to react responsibly in the face of this sort of challenge. It is patently obvious to anyone that the States are incapable of meeting all the demands made on their limited resources. Certainly this is true in the field of health services. Accordingly, when we speak, as we do. of medical insurance or even of hospital insurance we are only skirmishing around the periphery of a very big problem which involves an approach towards community health services based on an integrated arrangement of those services focused on regionalised public hospitals.

Perhaps I ought to revert to the case of the United States where the Committee for National Health Insurance has recommended universal cover in health insurance and a regionalisation of services based on a fund to which contributions would come from the employer, the employee and the Federal

Government. The significance of this, firstly, is that it is very similar to what the Australian Labor Party is proposing; secondly, it has been suggested in the United States, the country of free enterprise. It is amazing then that we find the conservative Government of Australia appalled at any suggestion that we ought to introduce universal health insurance to the community. As Dr Salkind, former Secretary of the British General Practitioners Association, has stated: ‘We must have national health. Private health is just too expensive.’ This is the experience today in the United States, and he was commenting on that situation when he made that statement. It is the experience in Australia today. In 1967, the year referred to in the latest figures I could obtain, we spent 5.5% of the gross national product on health services and the United Kingdom spent 4.18%. Yet the United Kingdom provided considerably more than is available under the Australian scheme. The latest national opinion polls show that in Great Britain 78% of the public is well satisfied with the national health system. In contrast, in Australia the polls in January this year showed that only 38% of the Australian public was satisfied with the scheme as it currently operates.

In interpreting statements made from time to time in this House by the Minister for Health in reply to questions, it would seem that either the Australian system is twice as deficient as the British system or that it is only half as satisfactory as the British system. In any event his assertions have been that the scheme in Great Britain is gravely deficient and is causing wide spread dissatisfaction. You know, if 78% of the public is satisfied, then that is not too bad. That is about twice as much satisfaction as the current Australian scheme is able to provide. But in any case, on the basis of the Minister’s claims and the gallup poll findings, it is quite apparent that if the Minister is consistent he will admit that the Australian scheme is twice as bad as the British scheme.

I want to make it quite clear at this point that the British scheme is not related to the Australian Labor Party’s scheme, contrary to the windmil’l which the Minister for Health likes to joust out from time to time. The Labor Party’s scheme is based on a H% levy on taxable income. The British scheme is based on a system of poll tax; regardless of income level, one pays a fixed amount. Again, the Labor Party’s scheme is based on a concept of fee for service from general practitioners in private practice; the British scheme is based on a per capita remuneration. Again, the Labor Party’s scheme in no way interferes with the rights of the private practitioner or of the patient. These are things which will continue in the way they have continued up to the present time. Our scheme merely is concerned with the funding of health insurance in Australia to make sure that adequate money is available in this important area. As Dr Salkind indicated: Private insurance is too expensive. Clearly it is a case of public responsibility to ensure that adequate health cover is available for the public.

It seems that not only the Minister for Health is intent on misrepresenting the proposals of the Australian Labor Party. I noticed that he has been joined by Sir Clarence Rieger. It seems that Sir Clarence Rieger is playing a rather droll Cervantes to the rather dull Don Quixote of the Minister for Health. Let us look at the cost of the scheme so far. This is the crux of the whole issue before the nation. The Government’s proposal aims at making the health service more expensive to the public. The real cost must be measured in terms of an extra $29. 5m in Commonwealth benefits and an extra S24m in contributions from the members of the scheme. To that total of $58m we must add the subsidy of $llm for low income earners, which is $3m higher than the Government originally proposed. We find that the extra amount involved is S65m. That is the magnitude of increased cost which must be borne by the unfortunate contributor and taxpayer in Australia to resuscitate temporarily a flagging medical and health insurance scheme.

But that is only the first episode of the serial. The next episode, no doubt after the Senate election is safely out of the way, will come when the Government proposes certain steps somehow to resuscitate hospital insurance in Australia. But where does this all end? How much longer will it continue? Will it be a matter of substantially increased costs for the community every 2 or 3 years? Confused explanations have come from the Minister as to how the scheme will operate. I hark back to the cla;m of the General

Practitioners Association that it had an assurance from the Director-General of Health in Australia speaking on behalf of the Government. It clearly conflicts with undertakings given by both the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister to the Australian public. If the association is correct, this takes us back to square one in this unhappy game of trying to keep the health insurance system operating. The Minister for Health groans. I wish he had given a similar groan when he sent to me the letter I referred to earlier. It would have been a simple matter for him to have said in his letter:’These allegations are completely untrue and we intend to take steps which will ensure that the common fee is upheld by all general! practitioners or else certain things will be done’. I do not know what the certain things would be, but so far the Minister has tried to be evasive on this issue.

I refer to the proposed increased costs. This is a surprising proposition from the Government in the face of the recommendations in the Nimmo report. The Nimmo report said clearly:

Health insurance contributions are already as high as most people are prepared to pay.

If the Nimmo Committee - this expert Committee which, after its broadside, left the Government in a state of shell shock and the Minister in a state of numbed silence, although not many people detected much difference - made this finding how can the Government justify its latest step of increasing the cost of health insurance to the Australian consumer? What it is trying to do is ration health protection according to means and the slipshod half measures which are put before the Government at present can at best only temporarily defer the collapse of the scheme. Again the Government has not faced up to the challenge of the Nimmo Committee to introduce regionalisation in the operation of the scheme. The Committee reported:

In our view only one open fund should be permitted to establish facilities for the enrolment of members and collection of contributions in any one region.

The reasons for this are obvious. It avoids unnecessary complications, duplication, overlapping of services, competitiveness and so on - the elements that are the very essence of the scheme operated by the Government. What the Nimmo Committee was trying to get at was that if we regionalise the activities of the open funds to some extent we can eliminate some of the unnecessary cost factor and contain costs which are the bugbear of health services in the community.

I said our scheme was based on a1¼% levy on taxable income. For something like 80% of taxpayers in Australia this will mean cheaper contributions than they are currently paying. For the majority of contributors it will mean a net payment considerably less than the Government scheme will provide even allowing for the benefits of its regressive tax deduction system. I would like to revert to the case of medical practitioners because the approach of the Government has been exclusively directed to what the scheme means to doctors and has been remarkable for- its almost total absence of consideration of what the scheme means to patients. We are concerned with both patients and doctors. Our scheme means better remuneration with both patients and doctors. This is quite clearly justified on the experience of Canada from which we have derived a fair bit of our inspiration for this scheme.

MacLeans Journal of 18th September 1965, not long after the health insurance scheme began operating in Canada, said:

How comfortable Saskatchewan doctors have become with medicare is demonstrated by the fact that few exercise the option, which they fought for in 1962, to practise outside the plan.

The reason clearly was that they had assured income. They no longer had the problems of bad debts; of overhead costs and of maintaining their services. The medicare commissioner, Doctor Samuel Wolfe, pointed out that there was only a very slight increase in the demand for doctors’ services as a result of the introduction of the scheme. This again is a reply to the claims of the Minister for Health and bis unthinking supporters on the Government side who like to echo the thoughtless words the Minister uses as criticism of our scheme. Our proposals would not involve a rapid increase in demand for doctors’ services. The experience of Canada establishes this point. The limited increase in demand there seems clearly to have. been , a justified increase arising from people having a need fulfilled which in the past they have been unable to satisfy because they could not afford health protection.

Looking at the extravagant costliness of the Austraiian scheme from some aspects we find that the reserves in the medical funds for 1967-68 were $44m. They exceed 3 months’ contributions by some $27m or nearly 5 months’ contributions. The reserves in the hospital funds stood at $76m, nearly 10 months’ contributions. . Using 1967 figures, the reserves in . the hospital funds equallea 8.31 million bed days on average costing based on the figures provided in the evidence of the Department before the Senate Select Committee inquiring into this subject. In 1966 we had 6.3 approved hospital beds, private and public, per thousand of population, a total of 75,600 beds available in Australia. Yet the amount of money salted away in reserves would provide 1 1 0 bed claims for each bed available in Australia. Clearly the magnitude of reserves was not justified and one is left spellbound at the calm way in which the Government allows this sort of practice to continue. In the 10 years up to 1967 the administrative costs in medical funds were reduced by the not large amount of 1% and equalled 15.1% of contributions. Similarly the administrative costs in hospital funds were reduced by roughly 1% and now stand somewhere near 11% of contribution income.

We should contrast this with the experience in the United States of America which has a similar voluntary health system. The authorities there say the scheme is collapsing because they cannot make it efficient enough. They have been able to achieve a retention ratio which is more than just administrative costs. It includes the amount of money diverted to reserves as well. In America the retention ratio in the Blue Cross Funds is 4% for hospital funds and 9.6% for medical funds. On American standards in 1967-68 the retention rate for hospital funds in Australia should have stood at $4. 8m; in fact it was $21m. On the same standards for the same year the retention rate for medical funds should have been $ 11.3m; in fact it was $18m. These are tremendous increases over the levels which the United States of

America was able to achieve with obvious greater efficiency in administration and operation of the scheme than we are able to achieve. In spite of this the Americans feel that the scheme ought to be scrapped because the successful businessmen advising their Government feel this is no economic way in which to operate the scheme. In fact, by failing to achieve this efficiency we paid S23m more than we should have. That is a lot of public money, a lot of dead money which is lost as a benefit to contributors to the scheme and a lot of dead money which has to be provided by taxpayers in Australia.

Let me contrast the Australian scheme with the Canadian scheme. The Minister for Health, as is his wont because he works to a high misrepresentation factor on a lot of these issues when it suits him, said in the House of Representatives on 9th September when relating the Canadian scheme to the Australian Labor Party proposals:

The Canadian medicare scheme has only just been accepted by the last of the Provinces, yet costs are getting so much out of hand that the Federal Government of Canada has announced that it will be abandoning the scheme in 5 years time. Almost immediately after the introduction of the scheme the Federal Government of Canada proposes to hand responsibility back to the Provinces because it sees this as the only way of containing costs under this system.

This is demonstrably an untruth and either the Minister delivered this in the House wilfully or out of ignorance. In either case he is not flattered by his performance. I suspect, as is his wont when cornered, he has never hesitated to make his last ditch stand of prevarication. Because of what the Minister for Health said here, I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Health, Mr Munro, and he replied with some sense of passionate feeling as follows:

It is completely unwarranted for anyone to allege that the federal government has been forced to relinquish administration of the scheme to the provinces because the scheme became unwieldy and expensive’ when operated by the federal government. Because of the constitutional position, to which I have referred, the federal government has not been operating a medical care insurance plan as such or selling medical care insurance to individual Canadians. The same remarks apply to hospital insurance. The federal government could not ‘relinquish administration’ of something which is a provincial prerogative.

Later he said:

No-one disputes that the programme is costly but it is anticipated that the rate of escalation will be more controlled than it was in the days prior to the introduction of universal provincial medical care insurance plans. When universal hospital and medical care insurance plans are introduced the evidence is that total costs (public and private) generally increase at a lower rate than that experienced when private carriers insure only a portion of the population.

That is the experience in Canada. The experience in Canada under that universal scheme compared to that of the United States of America is further evidence for my argument that universal schemes are more successful in keeping down costs of health insurance.

In 1958 the cost per hospital bed in the United States of America was SUS25 and in Canada $Can 16. That was the year the hospital insurance and diagnostic services programme commenced. In 1967 the figure had increased to $US59 in America and $Can42 in Canada. The differential increased from $9 to $17 in Canada’s favour. I will quote the experience of Canada from an official document of the Canadian Government. That document states:

Thus, during the past decade, despite the fact that the United States did not have a universal government-operated hospital insurance programme and there were and still are millions of Americans without any protection against hospitalisation costs, the costs per day of hospitalisation have risen by a substantially greater amount than in Canada and, in fact, the differentia] between the average costs of hospital care in the two countries has almost doubled.

In the period 1963-66 in the province of Saskatchewan the per capita cost of physicians’ services under the new arrangements for health and medical1 insurance increased at an annual rate of just under 4.9%. This compares more than favourably with the increase for the remainder of Canada which, during this period, had not introduced this scheme. The rate of increase for the rest of Canada was 7.9% per annum. The Saskatchewan scheme involved an increase equal to only two-thirds of the increase incurred by the rest of the nation. All the people in Saskatchewan were covered by the scheme, but a limited number only were covered by the scheme that operated in the remainder of Canada.

I like to quote from official documents from the Canadian Government because it saves the Minister for Health from making the error, as is his characteristic, of misunderstanding and therefore misreporting what the Canadian experience has been. In another official document the following appears:

The experience of the commercial insurance industry and of the governmental plan in Saskatchewan clearly indicate the definite economies of scale and of uniformity of coverage, the subscriber in Saskatchewan having had to pay much less in order to receive each dollar of benefits whether he was a member of an insurance group or not. There is no reason to doubt, in theory at least, that the commercial insurance industry could administer group medical care insurance with comparatively low administrative costs, but their costs inevitably have to be much higher to cover such factors as the cost of selling insurance, higher administrative costs resulting from the administration of a multiplicity of plans, and other business expenses in some cases such as the need to make a profit and pay dividends.

Surely this is fairly much the experience in Australia and this is the problem which is bedevilling the scheme as it operates under the Government’s principles at present. The other problems we are confronted with in Australia today are the problems which the Hall Commission, a royal commission on medical and health services in Canada, grappled with. That Commission indicated that private insurance carriers, for a number of various reasons, collected substantially more from their subscribers in the form of premiums than was required to pay the claims and administrative charges, due to such factors as sales commissions, profits and accumulation of reserves.

Surely to goodness we can learn from the experience of Canada. For goodness sake do not let the system again fall on its face. To suggest a universal scheme is to propose a fairly efficient scheme. Frankly, from a Socialist point of view - and I claim to be a democratic Socialist - our scheme is not a radical scheme. It is a concept for the funding of health protection in Australia and it is the sort of proposal which would be accepted by any reasonably minded and responsibly directed government. With universal health insurance we can get a better distribution of doctors because they know it will still pay them to go into the poorer areas. At present one cannot blame doctors. They are highly skilled people who must undertake lengthy study. They have higher skills than most other professional men, because they have to study for the longest period required of any professional person in the community. They are entitled to a fair return for the degree of skills they acquire. It is too much, under the Australian scheme which the conservative Government operates, to expect them to go into poorer areas and carry the cost and the risk burden of operating there. Under universal health insurance these risks are eliminated and adequate income is guaranteed. Health protection for all people in the community, regardless of means, is available.

Under our scheme, as an extension of what we have in mind, we would seek to obtain a better distribution of the services of general practitioners by conscious policies of financial inducements to persuade doctors to practise in under-doctored areas. I should imagine that supporters of the Country Party would find some attraction in this proposal. Our scheme seeks to preserve the family doctor. We are not going to coerce and bully the doctors as the Government is doing at the present time. Our scheme would provide treatment according to need and would not be inhibited by the cost factors preventing low income earners who, although they may be above the margin provided by the government subsidy, nevertheless find cost to be an inhibiting factor in obtaining health protection. There would be no limitations on the right of patients to choose their doctors or on the right of doctors to choose their patients. We are not talking about state health. We are talking about a public responsibility to ensure that all people have adequate health protection.

Finally, the low income subsidy has failed to differentiate between people with a large number of dependants and those with few or none within any given income band proposed to be covered by the amendments. I regret that I cannot deal with this any further, nor can 1 deal with what I feel is the real central issue - the real challenge before Australia today - that is, the total supply of health services. What are we to do about hospitals? What are we to do about the provision of community health services? Are we concerned about the lack of planning over the next 10 years, not the next 10 months? Our planners are scarcely prepared to lift their heads above this sort of limited objective because they have insufficient finances for that period. We need a foundation to foster investment in research and development of health services. Australia provides only $50,000 a year for this purpose, but the United Kingdom provides $9m and the United States of America S40m.

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

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Klugman:

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– The health care of a developing community such as ours is one of the most important and, at the same time, one of the most difficult tasks of government. In this debate we are considering only I aspect of a complex problem. Other aspects, such as hospital facilities and care of pensioners and the aged, will, I presume, be considered in later debates. In considering a health plan one has to steer a course between 2 dangers. One can see the perils of an over-regimented medical system such as in England, which aims at equality but only achieves inefficiency. On the other hand one can see the danger of a system such as that in America where medical resources are allocated mainly on the ability to pay and proper medical care is beyond the reach of many people. We must avoid both these extremes. There are certain principles which 1 believe we must follow. The first is that no-one must be denied reasonable medical care because of his financial status. The second is that there must be a reasonable freedom of choice for both the patient and the medical practitioner. The third principle is that the national expenditure on health must rema n in balance with our expenditure in other areas such as education, national development and social welfare.

This new health benefits plan has had some vicissitudes and there are still some anomalies in the proposed fees which will have to be corrected; but basically the plan is sound. In this country, where we are endeavouring to achieve an efficient voluntary health scheme the co-operation of many parties is required. The medical profession, the insurance firms and the Government should all aim at achieving the best results, not primarily for themselves but for the community as a whole. If this co-operation can be maintained a voluntary health scheme will work better for the community than any compulsory socialistic scheme, but if this co-operation falters there will be pressures from the community for a system of nationalised medicine, and this would be a disastrous step for the health care of the community.

Many members of the medical profession seem to think that the Constitution is an effective bar to the nationalisation of medicine as in England, but there are at least 2 ways in which the Constitution can be circumvented by a Socialist government determined on nationalisation. The most obvious of these would be a participating doctors scheme under which medical benefits would be payable only to patients whose doctors practised in a manner and at fees fixed by the government. To avoid the muddle and inefficiency of nationalised health services we must all work together to sustain and improve the voluntary scheme, of which this new health benefits plan is a vital component.

The first principle of the voluntary health scheme is that no-One shall be denied reasonable medical care because of his financial status. The differential rebates in the new plan are essential if we are to achieve this aim. Whatever we do about the fees of general practitioners’, it is certain that specialists will still charge more for similar services, and without differential rebates patients who have to have specialist treatment would be financially penalised. These differential charges are not the invention of the Government; they merely recognise a feature of medical fees which has been in existence for many years. It is not unreasonable for specialists to charge more. The cases which are referred to them are usually the more complex and difficult ones.

The necessity for some differential fees was recognised in the submission of the College of General Practitioners, when it recommended that an extra rebate should be paid on the recommendation of the referring doctor. Clearly the referral is the key to the successful operation of the system. The specialist benefit should not be payable unless a signed referral from a general practitioner is attached to the claim. This should remove one of the chief worries of the general practitioners. It has also been suggested that patients will insist on being referred unnecessarily to a specialist, but I believe that the confidence of patients in their general practitioners and the inconvenience of making a separate visit to a specialist will make this type of abuse relatively rare. If it does become prevalent, it will be possible to adopt some variant of the proposal of the College of General Practitioners so that the higher specialist benefits would be payable only of the general practitioner in his referral certified that it was a case beyond his personal capabiilty

But, even when the costs of the various procedures are agreed, there will still be a number of anomalies that require urgent attention. The first is the extraordinary discrepancy between charges for similar services in different States and, in the case of New South Wales, between parts of a State, lt seems that the medical profession was previously unaware that these discrepancies existed, and I hope that we will soon see machinery set up whereby these anomalies will be eliminated. It would be absurd if future adjustments to fees were based on such insecure foundations. We also need, of course, some agreed machinery whereby these charges can be updated at intervals of, say, 2 years. This will be one of the most difficult problems because the medical profession is traditionally jealous of its rights to set its own fees. But each doctor in private practice in Australia next year will receive an average of $8,500 of public funds from the Federal Treasury, and the Government has a responsibility to the taxpayer to see that any increases in these amounts are economically and socially justified.

Although this new health benefits plan greatly improves the fairness of the health scheme, one great anomaly remains. I refer to the allowable deductions for medical insurance premiums. An income tax deduction of $1 is worth nearly 3 times as much to a man on $12,000 a year as it is to a man on $2,000. These deductions, in effect, represent a cash payment by the Government to assist the taxpayer in meeting his medical insurance contributions, and it has some odd effects. This deduction, coupled with the assistance given to low income families who pay their insurance premiums, produces this situation: People on below $42.50 a week get Government assistance to pay all their health insurance premiums; people on less than $45.50 a week and more than $61.50 a week get two-thirds of their insurance premiums paid for them; people on less than $48.50 a week and more than $70 a week get one-third of their insurance premiums paid for them; and the people in the middle - that is those on between $48.50 and $70 a week - get least. They have less than one-third of their insurance contributions paid for them.

I believe that this situation needs examination. The best estimate the Legislative Research Service could provide for me was that the deductions allowed for health benefits contributions reduce Treasury revenue by about $30m a year. I think we should consider eliminating the income tax deductions for insurance premiums and use the $30m increase in Federal revenue to increase the Commonwealth contribution to health benefits and thus reduce the insurance contributions of everyone equally.

No matter how good our health insurance arrangements are, they will avail us little if we do not have enough doctors, lt has been suggested that this new health benefits plan will cause a decline in the prestige of general practice and a fall in the number of general practitioners. I do not think this is true. The decline in general practice is a world wide trend, and the trend is most advanced in the United States, the country the health policy of which is most under the control of the medical profession. What is the situation in Australia? The most recent study of medical manpower was made in 1967 by Mr R. B. Scotton. In an article in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ he suggested that, in terms of the number of medical practitioners per head of population, Australia was at that time better off than England and New Zealand, and by now would probably be better off than Canada and nearly as well off as the United States. He also pointed out that the number of medical graduates from our universities would cause a steady improvement in the doctor-patient ratio.

But this refers to the total number of medical’ practitioners. Our number of general practitioners does not seem to be rising in proportion to the population, and there is some evidence that their average age is increasing. Why is the proportion of general practitioners in the medical profession steadily falling? The reason does not seem to be financial. From the results of a survey recently carried out by the University of Melbourne, it seems that the average earnings of a general practitioner in Victoria are higher than those of any other profession and are exceeded only marginally by his specialist colleagues. In fact, the average lifetime earnings of a general practitioner seem likely to be higher than those of the average specialist. Of course, the general practitioner has to work hard for his income. He has long and erratic hours - much longer and more erratic than most specialists. But on the other hand, the general practitioner, as the family doctor, has a most important role in the community - a role that is most rewarding to those who are motivated in this way.

The recently established College of General Practitioners is working hard to improve the prestige of general practice. The most important means to this end is an increase in post-graduate ‘ training of general practitioners. It is a sobering thought that a general practitioner can practise for 50 years or more after qualifying without ever undergoing any further formal training or qualification, or even any private study. Of course, the great majority of general practitioners endeavour to keep themselves up to date, and the efforts of the College of General Practitioners to formalise and extend this postgraduate training are altogether admirable. I think that ultimately periodic postgraduate training will have to be made mandatory. Although the postgraduate training efforts of the College of General Practitioners are excel lent, other measures will also be needed to increase the number of general practitioners to meet the needs of the community.

The first of these measures is to study the entry standards into medical schools. At present all our main universities have quotas for the medical faculty, and all of them use academic attainments, usually matriculation results, as the sole criterion. This has resulted in a large number of clever boys, looking for the most rewarding profession in which to employ their talents, choosing a medical course, although their motivation towards medicine may not be strong; they are more interested in the social and financial rewards. Of course, they are a minority, but I understand they are an increasing proportion. I think the entry requirements should be widened to include such factors as common sense, humanity and desire to serve the community, as well as academic standards. Admittedly these would be subjective judgments and would be time consuming, but I believe their use would result in a more desirable motivation among medical students and an increased proportion of them would be likely to be attracted to general practice. These entry qualifications should be one of the first targets of the new advisory committee on educational research. After all1, it costs the community - the taxpayer - an average of something like $40,000 for each medical student who completes his university training. So it would be worthwhile taking some additional trouble with their selection.

The second area to which we should give attention is the guidance given to medical students in the later stages of their course. At present they are instructed almost entirely by specialists during the period when most of the students are making up their minds on the direction their careers will take. I think that there is no alternative to the continuation of instruction by specialists, but the university medical schools should make a determined effort to balance the influence of the specialists with a programme showing the attractions and advantages of general practice. I would hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these two measures would provide the necessary number of general practitioners, but we must face the possibility that they may not be sufficient. The laws of supply and demand will probably keep the correct balance between the various medical specialist fields, but the laws of supply and demand cannot be relied upon to keep the overall balance between general practitioners and specialists. If there is a shortage of general practitioners the average general practitioner will have to refer patients to specialists or to hospitals - patients whom he could normally have treated himself. As he becomes more and more overworked and achieves less and less professional satisfaction, there would inevitably be an increasing and accelerating trend towards specialisation.

There must be, in any community, an optimum balance between general practitioners and specialists. The community as a whole is making very substantial financial sacrifices through the universities to provide an increasing number of medical practitioners. As I said earlier, we are very well off overall by world standards. I believe that, as a last resort, if other measures fail, it is up to the medical profession to control its own internal balance. If the proportion of specialists is becoming excessive, I think the medical profession must restrict entry into the various specialist bodies. If it is thought that this is an unreasonable interference with medical freedom, I would draw attention to the arrangements in the legal profession. In the legal profession the number of junior counsel advanced to Queen’s Counsel is controlled by the profession in. co-operation with the State governments, so that the number of Queen’s Counsel is determined not only by the desire and attainments of the individuals but also by the number of Queen’s Counsel the Bar can support and the balance between senior and junior counsel. This system seems to work very well, except perhaps in South Australia. Although the problems are different, I think a similar level of internal self-discipline in the medical profession could preserve the balance between general practitioners and specialists.

Although the three suggestions I have made concerning the general practitioners are primarily the constitutional concern of the States, I believe the Federal Government must act as an initiator and catalyst in trying to solve the problem, because the general practitioner is an essential component of an efficient and satisfying health system. He is the only one who can provide family medical counselling, preventative treatment and early recognition of the presence of disease. No-one else can fill this role adequately. If there are not enough general practitioners, as is the case in America, for instance, home visits will be cut out and patients will have to go to specialists or hospitals for advice and treatment which could have been given by the local general practitioner. This will be expensive to the community and often highly inefficient and inconvenient for the patient. Here in Australia we have a medical profession whose prestige and ability are not excelled anywhere in the world. This new health benefits plan will minimise the financial problems of the patient. We must supplement these financial provisions with initiatives aimed at ensuring that the general practitioner remains, as the family doctor, the keystone of the health system.

Or KLUGMAN (Prospect) [4.38]- I congratulate the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) on assimilating extremely well the medical briefing from the Collage of General Practitioners without accepting its political propositions. 1 would certainly agree with him. It gives mc great pleasure to second the amendment proposed by the Opposition. Today we are debating this Government’s panic amendments to prop up the failing health legislation. I think it is important to have a quick chronological look at the origin of this amending Bill. Until about 3 years ago the Australian Medical Association and the Minister for Health talked about Australia’s leadership in this sphere of health schemes. The basis for this was similar to the basis for the Minister’s claim that Australia’s hospitals were the best in the world; in other words, non-existent. It is interesting, by the way, to read the speech he gave in 1967 and note that the only authority he quotes in support of his claims is Mr Enoch Powell. However, during the last 3 years at least many attacks began on the scheme. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), with the help of such medical economists as Messrs Scotton and Deeble from the Institute of Applied Economic Research at the University of Melbourne, not only exposed the iniquities of the Liberal scheme but went further and proposed Labor’s alternative national health programme.

The Minister for Health, a man with impressive academic qualifications, has doggedly defended the present scheme. I feel that his statements often have obviously been briefs from the Voluntary Health Insurance Council, a pressure group financed by some of the larger funds. One of the most depressing and yet interesting aspects of the defence of the Government’s scheme and the attacks on Labor’s plan has been the faceless men preparing handouts for the Minister and the AMA. Most prominent amongst these men in New South Wales have been Mr Cade and Mr Turner, tsars of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd and the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, respectively.

Mr Robinson:

– Who wrote your speech?

Br KLUGMAN-I did. It is in pencil. That is why I am taking some time to read it. We have reached the stage where Sir Clarence Rieger, Federal President of the AMA, is also a director of one of the South Austraiian medical funds and the President of the Voluntary Health Insurance Council. We never know when he is speaking as the Federal President of the AM A and when he is speaking as the representative of the Medical Benefits Fund, but I feel, as a member of the AMA, that more often than not he is speaking as a representative of the Voluntary Health Insurance Council. Only recently has it become obvious to AMA members that as their President he is acting as a spokesman for the directors of the larger benefit funds. Please do not interpret this to mean that he is speaking for the ordinary members of these so-called mutual benefit funds. Not only do the members have no say in their funds but they are not even told who the directors are. The Articles of Association of Mr Turner’s Hospitals Contribution Fund are not even available to this House. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) to supply these. He has apparently been unable to do so.

In the Medical Journal of Australia on 11th April 1970 Dr Knight of East Melbourne wrote:

When the Government during the election campaign last year announced its ‘new’ scheme, the AMA should have made it clear that doctors have no part to play in patient-government relationships. Instead the Federal President of the AMA issued a statement which . appeared to he an instruction for doctors to campaign actively on behalf of the Liberal Party’s scheme and oppose that of the Labor Party. This apparent incursion into the political arena had Icd many to believe that the AMA is actively joining the Government and the benefits societies . . .

Dr Knight is not the only doctor to wake up to this. At an extraordinary general meeting of the New South Wales Branch of the AMA on 22nd March this year in Sydney 1,007 proxies were received. One - I repeat, only one - was given to Sir Clarence Rieger. Suddenly doctors all over the country are realising that the leadership of the AMA, which until recently they had supported as being ‘establishment’ and anti-Labor, is really acting in the interests of the highest echelons of the largest health funds.

Lel us return ‘ to recent political history. Until 2 or 3 years ago we had claims by the Minister, the Liberal and Country parties, the AMA and the so-called open funds that all was well with their - 1 emphasise the word ‘their’ - scheme. Under the leadership of the leader of our Party the contributors, who had been grumbling but leaderless and - I emphasise this - unrepresented on the boards of the funds, showed the conservative politicians that they were dissatisfied. Even the Australian Democratic Labor Party expressed its support. On 3rd April 196S the Senate agreed to the appointment of a select committee. to inquire into medical and hospital costs in

Australia and, in particular, to examine the operation and administration of the medical and hospital benefits schemes, and to recommend such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will, having regard to the constitutional division of . legislative power in Australia, enable the provision of the optimum standards of medical and hospital care for all.

Although the Government parties had a majority on the Committee the Government panicked and on 18th April 1968, a fortnight later, appointed the Nimmo Committee to review the voluntary health insurance system in Australia. Its terms of reference were quite restrictive and it had no authority to hear evidence in public. The Government’s aim was to divert attention from the Senate Select Committee and to take the heat off health insurance as an issue. It was only partly successful. The Nimmo report of March 1969 was highly critical of this best of all systems, although it was restricted in its terms of reference. The findings of the Nimmo Committee included:

  1. The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many.
  2. The benefits received by contributors are frequently much less than the cost of hospital and medical treatment.
  3. The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others.
  4. The rules of many registered organisations including the so-called ‘special account’ rules permit disallowance or reduction of claims for particular conditions. The application of these rules has caused serious and widespread hardship.
  5. An unduly high proportion of the contributions received by some organisations is absorbed in operating expenses.
  6. The level of reserves held by some organisations is unnecessarily high.
  7. The cost of illness may include, in addition to hospital accommodation and treatment and medical services, a wide range of other services which have never been covered by the health insurance scheme. These ‘other’ services include nursing home accommodation and treatment, physiotherapy, home nursing, chiropractors’ services, chiropodists’ services, optometry and dentistry. Whilst future increases will be necessary from time to time as costs rise, health insurance contributions are in present circumstances as high as most people are prepared to pay and as many people can afford to pay. . . .

In addition to the findings the Committee made 42 recommendations. Nothing more happened until September 1969. Let us remember the political context; at this stage the Government was supremely confident over the coming election. The gallup polls tended to justify this confidence. Then suddenly things changed. In August 1969, according to the gallup poll, the Liberal Party had over a 5% lead when people were asked: ‘How would you vote if an election was held today? By 4th October the Australian Labor Party had a 3% lead. The Government panicked. It looked back to see what the reason was for the sudden change in its standing. One of the questions that had been asked at the gallup poll in August was: Do you support the present system of health insurance, or do you support the ALP’s scheme?’ The ALP’s scheme had a 58% to 39% margin, which was the biggest margin in relation to any of the issues which the gallup poll organisers thought were up for discussion at the last election. At that stage the Government decided that it had to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The Prime Minister then made h:s rather sudden announcement.

Following the rather embarrassingly disastrous opening of the election campaign the Prime Minister lost his nerve. Having announced a $5 maximum payment for any medical service he was astounded to find that a number of doctors and procedures were involved in an operation. When challenged on this he rather characteristically did not bother to check w th his Minister for Health. He stated bluntly: ‘It includes the lot’, meaning pathology, X-rays, anaesthetics, assistants, surgeons and aftercare. As usual he then produced 2 arbitrary figures, no doubt supplied by the Press Coordinator for the Royal Visit, Mr Tony Eggleton. Not unexpectedly, these figures showed that the Liberal Party’s scheme was better and cheaper than Labor’s. Also not unexpectedly, the figures were completely wrong.

Not having done anything about the 42 recommendations in the Nimmo report brought down in March, the Government passed amending legislation in September 1969, just before the dissolution of the House, to implement partly one of these 42 recommendations. The recommendations had been to provide free or subsidised fund benefits for low income families. These were defined with reference to the Commonwealth award wage for each State and related to the number of dependants. Instead, the Government’s amendment fixed on $39 a week as the upper limit for families to receive free insurance. The legislation was to come into force in January 1970. But the Government knew that the national wage case decision would alter the awards in the interim and would be brought down before the legislation would come into force. The Government’s excuse was that it could not risk entering into an open ended arrangement by tying the legislation to the minimum wage. No such talk of open ended arrangements takes place when it comes to fertiliser subsidies. The subsidy is paid on every ton of fertiliser no matter how many are sold. I assume that that, is because of pressure from the Country Party or from representatives of the chemical firms.

So 14 months after the Nimmo Committee’s 42 recommendations we have only I implemented and that in a far more restrictive fashion than recommended by the Committee. Not surprisingly, we are about to amend this 1 recommendation introduced by the Government last September. Since last October the Minister has been trying to produce legislation to implement the Prime Minister’s election promises. He has allegedly had discussions with the AMA, the funds, dissident doctors - that is, those who have not received knighthoods for their services to medical politics - and State Health Ministers. It is interesting to note in passing that at an AMA meeting in Sydney on 22 March at which the doctors overwhelmingly recorded a vote of no confidence in their federal council, one of the federal councillors pointed out that this body, the federal council of the AMA, had not even met for the previous 6 months. The Minister kept on issuing statements that the legisla tion was ready. On 4th March he made a statement to this House. He admitted that his, or Mr Justice Eggleston’s, guesstimate at election time of $ 1 6m extra cost to the Commonwealth and almost no extra cost to contributors was out by over 100% as far as the Commonwealth was concerned and that the increase in subscriptions from contributors would be at least $22m per year. Since then the Minister has been attending AMA meetings - smiling - appealing to most doctors’ anti-Labor prejudices; changing his proposed legislation - smiling; ‘ facing Government back bench dissent - smiling; and wishing he were back with the Army either as Minister or as an officer. When he finally introduced this Bill last month there had been further withdrawals from the Nimmo recommendations. There is how no reference to our National Health Insurance Commission to administer the health insurance programme and employers will now nor be obliged to collect and remit contributions on behalf of employees who elect to pay their contributions in this way. No doubt pressure from the large open funds and the employers federation deleted these suggestions.

What are the remainder of these proposed amendments? They have been called the centre piece of the Gorton Government’s legislative programme. What a centre piece. They sound impressive when we are told that they occupy 178 pages. However 142 of these pages are schedules of common fees for every State of the Commonwealth. These fees are of course not binding on doctors; they contain many anomalies and they are already out of date in some instances and will soon become so in others. For those of us who like puzzles we can while away the cold Canberra evenings and find, using many cross references, that the most common fee for a suprapubic prostatectomy, item 5010, in Victoria is $200 and in Tasmania it is $150; for an endoscopic prostatectomy, item 5014, it is $210 in Victoria and only $100 in Tasmania. By the way, the explanation of thus, if any, is not that the urologists are. much more expensive in Victoria than in Tasmania because we find item 5019, the median bar endoscopic resection, probably the commonest of these operations, has a common fee of $90 in both States.

Let us look at the rest of the amendments. We have some minor redefining of medical services so as to include a small number of procedures performed by oral surgeons but even these are restricted to those performed in operating theatres of approved hospitals. The schedules are to be changed by regulation, but we are not told on what basis. Both doctors and contributors are vitally interested in this. We have amendments assuring contributors of maximum cost of S5 for medical services provided the doctors charge the common fee and provided the cure is surgical. Should a contributor be unlucky enough not to be curable by surgery but to require repeated examinations, visits, tests, transfusions or infusions, each one of these can cost $5. A coronary occlusion, a stroke or a diabetic coma can still cost a lot in medical fees alone. There can surely be no reason why a cancer victim treated surgically should pay only $5 whilst if treated with radiotherapy or with drugs he has to pay much more. I think that in many ways this is symptomatic of the Government’s approach to issues. I think the Government’s motto is: We will deal with the dramatic aspects, but where logic and reasoning are required that is not our cup of tea’. There is still no refund for patients attending outpatient clinics at hospitals.

There is no attempt to encourage preventive medicine; there is no rebate for routine overhauls which take a long time; there is no extra rebate for cancer smear tests or immunisations, apart from the usual consultation fee which would often be less than the actual fee charged. When dealing with the registration of funds there is still no obligation on them to let members have any say in them or even for members to know the directors, the method of election or even the constitution. We have recently heard in this House that Mr Turner of the New South Wales Hospitals Contribution Fund was appointed to the Art Gallery Society of New South Wales in return for appointing P. G. Huxley Esq. as a director of the HCF. Apart from him how many more Liberal Party protegees are there amongst the directors? These amendments, whilst they will be beneficial to some contributors, of course do not change the basic weaknesses. We still have a scheme based on equal and now greatly increased contributions. We have, because of tax concessions, the spectacle of the net cost decreasing as the taxable income increases.

It is indeed a cornerstone of Liberal legislation.

I now want to say a few words regarding some of the medical criticisms. The main attack has been on differential rebates between general practitioners and specialists and the common $5 specified excess in case of operative procedures. Let me say that I support the Government on this. I hope that the Minister will not accept any amendment after he hears this. What the doctors opposing this are saying is that the poorer people should be financially, deterred from seeking specialist treatment in order to preserve the jam on the butter of general practice, lt opposes a fundamental concept of an effective national health service, which is that the best medical care should be available to everyone regardless of his financial resources. Personally I am very concerned that the Government will use regulations regarding referrals financially to deter patients from seeing consultants. If there are those on the Government side who say that specialists are necessary for some of the minor conditions such as confinements, let me ask them whether their wives or daughters had general practitioners or specialists for any confinement in a city in the last 10 years.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners last week produced a leaflet entitled ‘You and Your Doctor’ for distribution to patients. It is in the form of question and answer, and I give this example:

  1. Why should doctors determine their own fees anyway?
  2. . . . This matter is part of the doctorpatient relationship, which has existed for centuries. Once an outside party is involved in the setting of fees, the relationship begins to crumble. Doctors realise that medical care is everybody’s right, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay, and many an account has been settled with a dozen eggs, or a basket of fruit, or nothing more than the spoken thanks of the patient. In no other field of business or commerce does this relationship exist. Do you wish to see it destroyed? . . .

This is a statement from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It is no wonder that Her Majesty left this country on Sunday. I certainly would like to see this necessity to depend on charity destroyed. There is no need in a country such as Australia to depend on the charity of a doctor or for a doctor to accept certain services from a patient rather than to have the services paid for by some public authority if the patient is unable to afford it. It is similar to last year’s handout by Sir Charles Rieger in which he said: . . that delicate, personal, doctor-patient relationship where the patient is personally responsible for his fees.

No health scheme such as this one will ever be fair or even effective and apparently only a Labor government will provide these changes. The scheme must be based on general taxation to be equitable.

By the way, it is interesting to note that the Commonwealth contribution of $2 per bed day to a contributor’s hospital costs has not been altered since 1962, even though this year there was an opportunity to do so. During the Chifley Government the Commonwealth contribution was 60c per day for every bed but now it is 80c for non-contributors and $2 for contributors to hospital funds. The approximate bed day cost in New South Wales was $1.60 in 1946, with a Commonwealth contribution of 60c, or 37%. Under the Menzies Government in 1962 when the $2 was brought in the cost was $12; in other words there was a Commonwealth contribution of 16% to the cost. Now under the Gorton Government the Commonwealth contribution has dropped to 10% of the cost because the cost per bed has increased to $20 per day and the contribution has not altered. Even in the case of pensioners the Commonwealth, which pretends to shoulder financial responsibility for their health, only contributes $5 per day which is only 25% of the cost. It is no wonder that the hospitals cannot even begin to live up to the Minister’s claim of being the best in the world. Let us further remember that the costs mentioned are only maintenance costs and do not include capital expenditure. It is no wonder that the Minister’s statement that people could get a hospital bed at the standard they desired almost at will in Australia is far from factual.

May 1 conclude by quoting from an editorial in what is not exactly a left wing paper - the ‘Australian Financial Review’. It states:

What started off as a serious exercise in social engineering with the avowed purpose of removing the financial penalty that occurs through Hi-health, has become a battleground of pressure groups with the public left forgotten on the side lines. Where does the patient rank in the policymaking now?

The Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, who is not even a member of the inner Cabinet, apparently interprets his position to be that of an adjudicator between pressure groups that have been institutionalised by Government machinery - listening to the health funds here, tut-tutting at the Australian Medical Association there, speaking sternly to hospitals everywhere.

He is the embodiment of what is wrong with the Liberal Government of today.

Somewhere along the way the guiding principles of Liberalism have been subordinated to defending the policies and values that have been handed down from another era.

At all costs (to the public) nothing must be done or said to antagonise the organised and vocal pressure groups.

In Australia only the silent majority is defranchised

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The last remarks made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), who has just sat down, show quite clearly how little the Opposition has understood the intention of the Government in bringing in this Bill. The main thought behind this was: What is going to be the benefit to the patient? It is obvious from what has been said by the two speakers from the Opposit on to date that they are jealous of the fact that the Government has introduced a Bill that is so much more advantageous to the patient than the Labor socialised scheme, of which we heard so much of during the last election, could possibly be; they know that this is what the public will want. No doubt the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) made a very erudite speech but I am afraid I was not able to follow his thoughts all the time because he quoted so many opinions of so many people that his speech became a disjointed mass.

Dr Mackay:

– He gabbles a lot too.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Yes. It was a disjointed statement which did not cover the basis of this Bill. The honourable member said a little about what the Australian Labor Party’s scheme is going to be. He said it will be cheaper. He also said it would be ‘li% based on income’. I need hardly remind the people of Australia that this li% is a figure that has never really been authentically checked for accuracy. There have been some estimates made of what it may be but there have been no checks as to its accuracy.

The estimate of % was made in 1966 by a couple of researchers at a university who were filling in spare time and hoping to make a few bob on the side by preparing some sort of submission which presumably the Labor Party took up. If the estimate in 1966 was 1£% it will certainly be a lot more now. There is a very important point here. The li% of income tax that is talked about means an 8% increase in what is paid in income tax. This is pretty important. This is something that escaped the people opposite, but is obvious to anyone who has really tried to follow the development of our scheme through. In my view, the only thing that matters in the long run is what will be best for the patient.

I can remember what happened when the national health scheme was introduced. Honourable members will recall that the Labor Party was most anxious to nationalise the doctors, to regiment them and subject them to some form of compulsion such as there is in the British scheme. This is exactly what Labor wanted to do. The Labor Party wanted to nationalise the doctors in the early stages of the scheme. However, it never learns - it is still trying to do the same thing.

The British scheme is not only a failure; it is a costly failure. It is a failure because people have to wait months and months before they can receive medical attention. They have to line up in a doctor’s surgery; they have to sit on a long bench and move up in the same way as people have to do in veterinary surgeries. The British scheme is also a failure because it has not been able to develop 1 new hospital over the last 10 years or more. People are being deluded by the fact that the Labor Party says that it is a free service. There is no such thing as a free service. The people of Britain are paying for it all right: they are paying for it through the nose.

When the Government first introduced this national health scheme the main thought was to see that the doctor’s bill was paid. It was a scheme that was drawn up to enable people to pay the doctor’s bill. The idea was to put the scheme on an insurance basis and 90% was to be recoverable. I would much prefer to see the scheme conducted on a 90% basis than perhaps the $5 that is spoken of now. But over the years the doctors became caught up a little with the fact that they were getting such a wonderful bonanza out of the scheme when the bills were paid that they proceeded to lift their charges to the stage where, roughly speaking - and I do not want to drag out the statistics to put it into actual terms, and the position varies in the several States - the patient had to pay one-third instead of 10%, the fund paid one-third and the government made up another one-third. That breakdown of the figures is near enough for the purposes of the argument. But in spite of this unexpected and perhaps I could almost say unwarranted prosperity that the medical profession had enjoyed doctors failed to co-operate with the Government over all these years in the way that I believe they should.

We have a wonderful example of this in the lack of co-operation given by doctors to the pensioner medical service. Last year the Government brought in the tapered means test. This covered a lot of people in a deserving area. The Government saw a need to help people who were right on the border line and on the fringe - retired people on fixed pensions and so on. By the introduction of this tapered means test a lot more people were brought within the ambit of the service. But the doctors would not take them. I believe that the doctors are being well paid for their work in the service. If one worked out how many doctors there are and how much the service has cost over the year in total one would find that, taking the average amount that a doctor receives, it is a very, very nice basis on which a doctor can start his practice. Some doctors get a very great deal more than the average.

There is the position with which we were faced last year. Over the period since the scheme was introduced there had been some changes in the economy. It was not practical for the Government just to follow the doctors’ rise in fees by increasing its payments. It was not possible for the funds to do so, and the public was paying too much. The Government decided that it would appoint the Nimmo Committee to examine the whole position although, quite frankly, I do not really think that the Nimmo Committee was necessary. Its report is very interesting. I think all the information contained in it was available to us. I believe that many honourable members are better acquainted with this problem of health benefits than the Nimmo Committee has shown itself to be. We are quite aware of the difficulties that exist and are capable of bringing forward amendments which would have brought the scheme up to date. But the practice these days is to seek the advice of outside experts and so we got the Nimmo Committee, which made a number of recommendations.

Its first recommendation was that a commission should be appointed. Earlier today we heard the honourable member for Oxley, who led for the Opposition, move an amendment to the motion for the second reading in which he sought the appointment of a national health insurance commission to run medical and hospital services. It is clear that if the Nimmo Committee had not been restricted by its terms of reference it may have gone overboard and advocated the Socialist scheme which the Labor Party has adopted, because the Nimmo Committee did advocate the appointment of a commission. From discussions I have had I understand that a commission is to be appointed to run this scheme, although there has as yet been no official announcement of this. I am not in favour of a commission, but this is not the place to go into my reasons except to say that I think this is a Socialist move. The Government proposes that the commission shall have certain functions. The Labor Party has made i: clear that it would operate the scheme under a commission, which would decide the nature of the scheme, the percentage of income that would be taken from people to run the scheme and which doctors patients would get. If we have a commission running the scheme it would be so easy for a future Labor government, if Australia ever has the misfortune to get one, to change the system overnight into this Socialist dream that would completely ruin the historic relationship between patient and doctor.

Faced with the necessity to amend the structure of the medical side of the national health scheme the Government decided to go ahead firstly with the medical scheme. I would like to go on record now as saying that at this moment there is too much confusion about the differential payments to allow us to go ahead and pass this Bill before we are sure of the best way to handle the matter. The medical profession has been consulted and it has told us what it wants. In the main it has been the Australian Medical* Association to which the Government has turned. This was natural because this is the body with which the Government has dealt over the years. The other groups have in the past remained in the background, content to let the AMA do the talking for them. This does not mean that the AMA is representative of the entire profession. Now we find that the general practitioners have many fears. Personally I think they are baseless, but nevertheless they are held by the general practitioners. Then there is a group calling itself the Section of General Practice in the New South Wales branch of the AMA. Surely if this is part of the AMA its representations should have been made through the AMA. But the Government consulted with the AMA and came up with these differential payments.

Unfortunately the Nimmo Committee said that the fees charged by specialists in the practise of their speciality should be ascertained separately from the fees charged by general practitioners. I suppose you can read that to mean that there should be a differential payment, but that is not the way I interpret it. Last year when we had quite a lot of discussion about this matter I was under the impression that we were arriving at a common fee basis. Everybody accepted this and I believe that in putting its scheme forward the Labor Party would have adopted the common fee basis. The Labor Parity has not told us whether it would have consulted the AMA or whether the 5 doctors in its ranks would have been the authorities to decide. We do not know what would have happened. But the idea of a common fee was, I believe, accepted by all of us. However, in the last few weeks we have been confronted with this disparity between what a general practitioner should get for a certain procedure and what a specialist should get.

There is within the medical profession throughout the world such an obvious move towards specialisation that it is not surprising to find that the number of general practitioners is not growing. In one of the notifications that we have had from one of these bodies - so many come along that we tend to forget who sends them - we were told that there are 6.000 general’ practitioners in Australia and that the number has remained static for the last 5 or 6 years. This is a section of the profession whose numbers are not increasing. The young fellows enter the profession with the idea of being specialists. They are rather horrified at the prospect of general practice, where they have to accept responsibility. This is what is wrong with the young men of today and their university training: They are not prepared to accept responsibility. They are not prepared to face up to the fact that they have to make decisions concerning the health of people. They feel that it is much more attractive and more remunerative to specialise. I am not altogether sold on the idea that specialist practice should be better paid than general practice. Some specialists are not as good as other specialists. Do we have a common fee for specialists? Who is to stop the top specialists in Australia from getting higher fees than their colleagues receive? What will happen to the concept of the $5 maximum to be paid by the patient if he goes to the top man for surgery? Will the patient still pay only $5 out of his own pocket? This aspect is very confusing at the moment.

The AMA had many consultations with the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) and the Minister addressed many AMA meetings. After having stuck to the differential basis for weeks or months we now And that the AMA, in a letter dated 1st May which I received only today and which 1 have not had time thoroughly to study, has split its differential list into a number of sections. Section A contains 25 services which are rarely referred by a genera) practitioner to a specialist - services such as reducing a dislocated thumb. Section B contains 102 services, which are relatively commonly referred to a specialist - for example, confinement and appendectomy. After all there are a lot of general practitioners who perform tonsillectomies, appendectomies and so on. Surely 70% or 80% of confinements are handled by general practitioners. In section C there are 181 services in which referral to a specialist is the general rule. They have reduced their double barrelled list already from 340 to 181.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has gone to a lot of trouble to list the 340 numbers set out in the back of the book. It has stated that some of these things should be paid for on the basis of the common fee of the general practitioner and that the others should be paid for on the basis of the common fee of the specialist. Believe me, 1 spent a lot of time going into this matter. I was trying hard to get the picture of what the medical profession wanted. I found that the general practitioners want to add one procedure to the 340 joint procedures and I will come back to this matter later on if I have the time. They want to amend 14 of them. They want to include things which only specialists do. They want to delete 239 of the lower priced benefits and to delete only 86 of the higher priced benefits based on the specialist figure.

In the case of the numbers which they want amended, they have not exactly asked that either one or other of the figures should be adopted. What they mean in effect is that there should be a number referring to tonsils and then, if the case is a complicated one and the general practitioner has to refer it to a specialist, an A number should be used and the case then should attract a specialist fee. This applies to tonsillectomies, removal or adenoids, appendectomies and hernias, for example, when the cases are complicated. I do not see much difficulty in working thu suggestion into the scheme by means of adding a few numbers.

Not being a doctor I found the list to be confusing and I was not able to follow exactly what the general practitioners meant. In the case of confinements it seemed to me to be obvious that they wanted to make sure that they got their fee but that if trouble arose and the case had to be referred to a specialist the specialist fee also would be covered so far as the patient was concerned. This is not terribly clear. For that reason I would like to have a little more time at my disposal before this Bill becomes law in order to decide on the right course to be followed.

Under the heading ‘Anaesthetics’ 20 or 30 procedures are set out alongside the numbers in the Schedule. The general practitioners have suggested that anybody who administers anaesthetic must be a specialist, because he has to be qualified in this respect. They argue that the fact that he happens to be a general practitioner is no reason why he should be paid less than a specialist who is called in to administer an anaesthetic. 1 can see that the Government would have trouble in accept :ng this ‘idea. Every anaesthetic administered by a general practitioner would have to be paid for at the higher price. Therefore the present rather high cost would be increased, and I would like to know by how much it would be increased. How often is a general practitioner called upon to administer an anaesthetic? This could happen very often ;n a country town because a specialist would not be available. If a doctor has to perform an operation then naturally he will ask one of his colleagues to administer the anaesthetic.

Mr Irwin:

– He would not become one by practice?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– They have to become proficient iri the procedure. What is the difference between being proficient and being classed as a specialist in anaesthetics? Let us consider what happens in Melbourne when one goes into a hospital. The anaesthetist has a consultation and for that he receives a fee. Then he receives a fee for what is done in the theatre. It is all very fine business. I have gone through these figures carefully and have compared them in order to see what they are. It is obvious what has been done. Let us take the case of a simple procedure involving a hand. They wanted the specialist fee to be brought down to the general practitioner fee. But if a complication arose in connection with that same procedure they felt that the general practitioner, if he did the work, should be paid at the same rate as the specialist. The question is: What do you pay for - the skill of the man who does the job or the job that is done?

I find this legislation very difficult to assess. Again I say that I would like more time to find out more about what has happened. I received this submission from the general practitioners only on 30th April. At that time Parliament was in recess. The submission from the Australian Medical Association I received only today. It seems to imply that there is some problem facing the medical profession as to what should be done.

I have said already that my opinion was that there would be a common fee. Now I would like to throw in a third consideration. The general practitioners have gone through ail the numbers in the Bill and have said which services should be paid for at the general practitioner rate and which should be paid for at the specialist rate. But have they done this on the basis of which is the most common fee charged? Originally we were told that computers were used to decide which was the most common fee. Has this been done now for the full range of general practitioners and specialists and have they come out with a common fee? If this has been done, it might alter the submission of the general practitioners. Presumably an adjustment on these lines would fit in with the principle behind what they are trying to do. It also would fit in with the principle of what the AMA is trying to do. I believe it would satisfy a lot of doubts in the minds of people who are wondering just how far we should go in making this service a benefit for the doctor rather than a benefit for the patient. This is my problem when I consider the Bill.

There is one other aspect I would like to mention before my time expires. I refer the House to clause 8 of the Bill which deals with definitions. The Government is proposing a concession to the dental profession. For many years the dental profession has complained that no matter how good an oral surgeon might be in practising dentistry such patients were debarred from receiving a benefit whereas if a doctor performed some procedure within the field of dentistry the patient would receive the benefit. The Government has now decided upon the definitions set out in clause 8 which states: professional service’ means -

  1. a prescribed medical service that is rendered in an operating theatre of an approved hospital by a legally qualified dentist or dental practitioner approved by the DirectorGeneral for the purposes of this definition:

I do not have time to go into it now but I give notice that I will move an amendment in Committee that the words ‘rendered in an operating theatre of an approved hospital’ be deleted so that where it is more convenient for an oral surgeon to do a procedure in his surgery he could do so. I can see a lot of difficulties in it. When I say 1 give notice of an amendment, it is subject to my obtaining further information. This aspect was brought to my attention only over the weekend. My time has elapsed and I will defer my further remarks to the Committee stages. 1 wind up by saying that I have always maintained in this House that the national health scheme, as we understand the basis on which it works, gives the people of Australia a better health service than any I have been able to examine, whether in Canada or the United Kingdom, and certainly a lot better than the United States of America. We should stick to the principles upon which our present national health scheme is based. I would like time to digest some of the information that has been brought forward by the doctors in the last few days.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 1594

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Inquiry into Drilling for Petroleum Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leaves - 1 am pleased to announce that the Premier of Queensland and 1 have agreed on the details of establishing Commonwealth and State royal commissions to inquire into the risk of damage to the Great Barrier Reef from drilling for petroleum. The royal commissions have been established under the Commonwealth’s Royal Commissions Act 1902-1966 and the Queensland Commissions of Inquiry Acts 1950 to 1954. The Commissioners and the terms of reference will be identical for each royal commission. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Sir Gordon Wallace. Sydney, New South Wales, Chairman; Dr James Eric Smith, Plymouth, England; and Mr Vincent John Moroney, Calgary, Canada. The terms of reference for the royal commissions are:

  1. Taking into account existing world technology in relation to drilling for petroleum and safety precautions relating thereto, what risk is there of an oil or gas leak in exploratory and production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef?

  2. What would be the probable effects of such an oil or gas leak and of the subsequent remedial measures on -

    1. The coral reefs themselves;
    2. The coastline;
    3. The ecological and biological aspects of life in the area?
  3. Are there localities within the area of the Great Barrier Reef and, if so, what are their geographical limits, wherein the effects of an oil or gas leak would cause so little detriment that drilling there for petroleum might be permitted?
  4. If exploration or drilling for petroleum in any locality within the area of the Great Barrier Reef is permitted, are existing safety precautions already prescribed or otherwise laid down for that locality regarded as adequate and, if not. what conditions should be imposed before such exploration or drilling could take place?
  5. What are the probable benefits accruing to the State qf Queensland and other parts of the Commonwealth from exploration or drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef and the extent of those benefits?

The area of the Great Barrier Reef referred to in the above terms of reference includes the entire area from low watermark on the mainland of Queensland to the outer line of the Reef and includes also the area outside and adjacent to the outer line of reefs. These agreed terms of reference incorporate some improvements and changes of a drafting nature from the agreed terms announced on 29th January following the conference on that date between the Premier and myself.

The Premier and I are pleased that 3 persons of such eminence have agreed to be the Commissioners. Sir Gordon Wallace recently retired as President of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. He had previously been a judge of the Supreme Court of that State. While at the Bar he held office as President of the New South Wales Bar Association in 1957-58 and VicePresident of the Law Council of Australia in 1957. Dr Smith is a Doctor of Science, a Fellow of the Royal Society, Director of the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Chairman of Trustees of the British Museum of Natural History and Chairman of the Indian Ocean Biological Centre Consultative Committee. He has held teaching appointments at the Universities of Manchester, Sheffield and Cambridge and for some years was Professor of Zoology at the University of London. He has served on the Science Research Council of Great Britain and on the Council and Committees of the Royal Society of London. As Director of the Plymouth Laboratory, he organised the research undertaken by the Plymouth staff on the effects of the ‘Torrey Canyon’ oil pollution on marine life. Mr Moroney is a consultant petroleum engineer with experience in problems of off-shore operations. He has had over 40 years experience with oil companies in engineering and managerial positions throughout North and South America. He graduated from the Georgetown University and is a member of the Canadian Institute of Mining an. Metallurgy and of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.

The inquiry would be an open one and the royal commissioners have sufficient authority to collect any evidence required. All interested parties could appear before the commission and state their views and adduce evidence to support those views. The commissioners will make announcements on arrangements for the hearing of such evidence. Counsel assisting the royal commissions will be Mr A. E. Woodward, O.B.E., Q.C., of the Victorian Bar and Mr C. E. K. Hampson of the Queensland Bar. I present the following paper:

Great Barrier Reef, Royal Commission on Drilling for Petroleum - Ministerial Statement, 5 May 1970.

Dr Patterson:

– Will the Prime Minister move that the House take note of the paper?

Mr GORTON:

– Yes. I move:

That the House take note of the paper. DR PATTERSON (Dawson) [5.37]- I make this request because the Opposition has considered this matter and would like to move an amendment seeking to make an addition to the terms of reference. The Opposition has no argument with the terms of reference. The first one deals with the risk and this calls for a physical interpretation. It asks: What are the risks involved? They may be reduced to mathematical standard errors or they may be a generalised standard based on experience in other parts of the world. The second term of reference deals with the probable effects of such an oil and gas leak on the coral reefs themselves, the coastline and the ecological and biological aspects. I admit this could have some cost put on it. On this commission are two scientists, technical people, and I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) would agree that these matters are in the realm of physical science. They deal with the physiological aspects of the inquiry. A third term deals with the safe areas. I would take issue here because I think that the commission has an impossible task in defining an area. There are very wide areas within the Great Barrier Reef area itself which are still virtually uncharted and for a royal commission to define geographically some of these areas, such as the eastern part of the Cape York Peninsula, as being safe or not safe for oil drilling would be a tremendous task involving tremendous knowledge of the Reef. The fourth term of reference relates to safety measures.

Up to this point I think that everybody would agree that these are physical measures. However, we must ask what benefits will accrue to Queensland. Benefits in every language mean benefits in terms of dollars. If it means simply qualitative benefits, it is virtually meaningless. It has to be benefits accruing, and I am sure this is what the inquiry is directed at. If there is an oil strike what can this mean in terms of dollars to Queensland and to the economy of Australia? We have no argument about this, but I suggest that it would be extremely difficult to measure. However, if we can measure the benefits, as anybody trained in economics knows, we have to be able to measure the cost. That is why the Opposition proposes as an amendment an extension to the terms of reference. It is virtually the same as the fifth term of reference.

There are benefits if there is an oil strike, but what are the costs that will accrue to Queensland in the event of a blow-out, for example? This is really what has been the great argument throughout Australia. On one hand the Queensland Government has been talking of tremendous development benefits, but on the other hand biologists and others have been referring to tremendous costs. It is of no good for the Prime Minister or anyone else to say that costs cannot be measured. Of course they cannot be measured in their entirety. The ‘Torrey Canyon’ disaster, with the oil spilt, involved about $30m. The Santa Barbara incident involved another quantitative factor. In the Royal Commission’s findings someindi cation should be given of the tremendous cost to this nation in the event of an oil spillage or a gas leakage. The Opposition is moving an amendment, because it believes the proposal is lopsided.

The first 4 terms of reference deal with physi cal aspects and relate to risk, the ecological balance and the effects on the coral reefs and coastline. They are physical aspects. AsI have said, it will be difficult to define safe areas in the Barrier Reef. 1 doubt whether Mandrake could define them. Safety measures can be worked out by mining engineers but surely if we include the fifth term of reference there must be some indication of the cost involved if something goes wrong. For that reason I move:

I should think that the Prime Minister would welcome this amendment because it is consistent with all the statements he has made. We have to consider the 2 sides of the question - the benefits and the costs. If it is good enough to consider the benefits, it is good enough to consider the costs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Everingham:

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

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask your indulgence to raise a matter that is not really a point of order. The Prime Minister has indicated to me that he would like to respond. I wonder whether the Chair would permit the Prime Minister to be called now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Dr Patterson:

– Certainly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Mr GORTON (Higgins- Prime Minister) - Concerning the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who is in charge of this matter for the Opposition,I would have this to say: First of all, what I have been putting to this House is terms of reference which have been agreed upon only after long discussion between and long consideration by the Government of Queensland and the Government of the Commonwealth. It has been, as the honourable member will remember, some considerable time since it was first decided that such a commission would be set up. There has been, during that period of time, discussion not only on who should form the members of this commission of inquiry but also some considerable discussion as to just what the terms of reference should be. So what is being presented is an agreement between 2 governments on terms of reference. An amendment moved in this place and passed would have no effect unless a similar amendment was moved, passed and agreed to by the other government concerned; rather, it would have some effect because it would have the effect of delaying the beginning of this commission of inquiry which, I regret, has been delayed so long.

This is not a matter entirely within the decision of this House. Of course, we could take a stand and say: ‘We will not agree with what has been decided between the 2 governments’; but this would really, I think, militate against the kind of commission of inquiry which I think all of us want to see set up. That is one very great difficulty which would prevent me from accepting the amendment moved by the member in charge of this debate for the Opposition. I think that a good deal of the desires which have been expressed by the honourable member would, in fact, be met by the terms of reference as they are put before us, because the second term of reference just asks the royal commission what would be the probable effects of an oil or gas leak on the coral reefs or the coastline or the ecological and biological aspects of life in the area. That,I think, could be worked out. Then if there were a finding that the probable effect was this, it could, I suppose, be worked out without the requirement of a royal commission what the monetary requirement would be to correct the damage that had been done. This is really all that is being asked for by the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition.

So, not because I have any strong objection to this, though I think it would be asking a very great deal of any royal commission to guess what probable costs might accrue to Queensland from an oil and gas leak in an undisclosed area of the Barrier Reef, that oil and gas leak being of an undisclosed size - although I think this would be extremely difficult nevertheless the object that is behind this amendment I do understand. But I feel, as I said before, that we should not accept this amendment because I believe it is to all intents and purposes covered by the terms of reference and because acceptance of an amendment here would only delay the 2 royal commissions from being set up, and I think that the time has come for this to be done and for these commissions to bc begun without any further delay. So, with some regret. I am afraid that 1 cannot accept the amendment moved.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.

page 1597

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL 1970

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr McEwen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Australia has made dramatic progress in industrial development in the past decade. Great new industries, many based on newfound mineral riches, have come into being. In 10 years, the annual value of industrial production has more than doubled. Australian manufacturers have broken through into world markets. Massive exports of minerals are a dramatic new element in the economic scene.

Australia today has a solidly established industrial capacity. It is undoubtedly a firm foundation for further growth. Most Australian manufacturing is geared to a smaller scale of production than that of older industrial countries. But opportunities for worldscale production, especially in industries based on new mineral resources, are increasingly appearing. The question is only whether we have the capacity and will to take advantage of them. Australia has emerged as one of the most competitive suppliers of basic materials for the industries of the world. This is a source of great strength. Our resources can be the springboard to a great industrial future, manufacturing goods for world markets, from our own low-cost raw materials.

It is, however, a basic feature of our developing economy that, as the gross national product increases, so do our import requirements to sustain our industries and meet consumer needs. We face a growing burden of income remitted abroad. Income remitted overseas by companies in Australia has in 5 years risen from 8.3% to 10.5% of our export earnings. In addition, income being earned by overseas investors and ploughed back in further investment in Australia has more than doubled in 5 years. This means a building up of commitments for further income to be paid abroad in the future. And, where the investment is in equity form, there is no end to the commitment. Traditionally, exports of rural products have earned the bulk of our foreign exchange needs. But, with the difficulties which our exports of farm products face in overseas markets, we have to look for export earnings more and more to the products of our factories and our mines. In recent times while the value of our imports has been increasing at the rate of 8% per annum, the value of our rural exports has been increasing at less than 2% per annum.

We have to increase our industrial exports. We must get the maximum return we can from exports of our mineral resources. Our policies to strengthen and broaden Australia’s export capability have been directed importantly to increasing the export of manufactured goods. Export incentives, trade promotion, the Export Development Council, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, have all helped to create a very real capacity of Australian manufacturing industries to sei) their products overseas. But much more needs to be done to build in Australia an industrial structure which can be a principal source of export earnings in the future and which, in the process, will bring lower costs in Australia through the economies of larger-scale operations serving wider markets. We have a ready made opportunity to develop further exports of industrial products from our abundance of high grade, competitively priced raw materials. Each ton of iron ore, or bauxite, or wood chips, or copper, or nickel concentrates, if processed to just one further stage would multiply its earnings many times over. Processed still further, as I believe it can be, and finding some growing access to world markets in the more highly processed form, the rewards in terms of export income would be still greater.

The capital which comes from abroad into our industries is itself a major and growing element in Australia’s balance of payments. Five years ago total capital inflow was running at $500m to $600m in a year. In the past 2 years it has been well over $ 1,000m a year. Capital inflow brings benefits, but also commitments. We must do everything possible to see that it is used to best advantage.

The proposals outlined in this Bill will encourage the establishment of industries which will contribute most to permanent development in Australia and the longterm strength of the balance of payments. The Government clearly approves, and will continue to encourage, the inflow of investment from abroad. It is nevertheless a matter of national concern that overseas capital is usually obtained on terms which have resulted in predominantly foreign ownership of many of our greatest industrial enterprises and fastest growing industries.

Hardly a month goes by when we do not hear of an overseas takeover of an important and growing Australian enterprise. In 1969 alone, at least 15 Australian owned companies, with assets worth $100m, disappeared from the lists of the two largest stock exchanges because of takeover by overseas interests. There are also, of course, many other companies which have continued in existence but with the overseas ownership growing and becoming dominant.

Overseas takeovers and mergers are not necessarily bad. Indeed, they may be part of the process of an Australian industry growing up, becoming more efficient. But too frequently in the pattern of such arrangements, when the Australian partner cannot meet his share of the capital requirements - whether equity or loan - he will at best become the minor partner in the new enterprise that results. We cannot let ourselves be lulled into feeling that all is well because comfortable aggregate statistical figures show only 20% to 25% foreign ownership of manufacturing. Manufacturing industry, in the statistical records, includes thousands of small establishments designated as factories because they have 4 or more employees or use power. Looking deeper into the statistics, we see a vastly different picture.

If we look at the situation in factories with over 20 employees we find, for example, that the motor vehicle industry is nearly 90% foreign controlled. The industrial and heavy chemicals industry, and the pharmaceuticals industry, are over 80% foreign controlled. In the electrical and electronic industries, including in the total many small enterprises, overseas ownership is around 50%.

Production of alumina and aluminium is about 75% owned overseas. Foreign domination is not confined to the largest industries. The production in Australia of such day-to-day items as roller bearings, electrical hand tools, abrasives, and glazed ceramic tiles, to mention a few of the smaller and more specialised industries, is carried out predominantly by foreign-owned companies. This degree of foreign ownership has come about in a variety of ways.

Some foreign firms, for their own reasons of company policy, are not prepared to allow any Australian participation in their ventures. There are others who regard some minor Australian ownership as desirable, to give a measure of recognition to Australian national sentiment and, under the borrowing guidelines, greater access to local finance. A growing number of more . enlightened foreign companies are willing to have, and even seek, Australian participation to the point of an effective Australian voice in the board room. They aim to make the foreign company a good Australian corporate citizen. But these companies often cannot find Australian interests able to participate with them to the extent necessary to achieve a significant element of Australian ownership.

There are many demands on our limited capital resources. Scarce Australian investment funds do not easily flow to new projects which may take many years to reach the earning stage. Foreign domination also arises in circumstances where established and growing Australian enterprises, with a small foreign holding in the Australian firm, reach the stage where they must expand their scale of operations very substantially in order to compete against imports on the Australian market and to operate effectively in world markets. These Australian companies too frequently have to accept the fact that they cannot attract the investment they need from within Australia. Overseas they are unknown and lack the stature and investment appeal to borrow in their own right. Under these circumstances, it is left to the minority foreign element to provide the funds, and hence become the controlling element.

There are enormous difficulties for an Australian manufacturing enterprise to achieve world scale and competitiveness under substantially Australian ownership. And foreign corporations do not, by and large, have the objective of bringing Australian industry to the stage of competing on equal terms with overseas industry. There are export franchise limitations, arrangements that limit competition with a foreign parent, processing of raw materials here, and sale at cost, as inputs for industry overseas, and fabricating industries finding themselves at the mercy of foreign-owned firms who control the prices of their raw materials. These are some of the consequences that can follow from excessive foreign ownership of industry and resources. It is increasingly evident that what is best for a multi-national giant is not necessarily best for Australia. Again, too often, there are cases where Australian innovation and research benefits foreign, rather than Australian, industry because the resources to develop their full potential cannot be found within Australia. Australians are not lacking in inventive capacity. But the cost of turning an idea into a product ready to be marketed and then to develop the markets can be beyond the capacity of Australian industry. So the idea lapses, or is sold overseas.

In what I have said I speak not to criticise foreign companies, but to point out the circumstances which indicate a lack in Australia of the means for Australian companies to marshal adequate financial resources for major expansion and development under Australian ownership. I know of no important country, other than Australia, where the Government exhibits an indifference as to whether its natural resources or production opportunities are owned in whole or in part by overseas interests. In practically every other nation of the non-Communist work! there are policies or procedures or institutions designed to exercise authority or influence upon ownership of industry. Many countries achieve their objectives of domestic ownership in major industry by means of controls and administrative regulations. Approvals have to be obtained before foreign companies can set up operations, or merge with or take over a domestic company. A host of regulatory devices applying to foreign investment are to be found. We have no intention of following this example in Australia. It is the firm intention of this Government to preserve in Australia the free enterprise system. We will maintain Australia’s unique open door to investment and ownership by private enterprise, lt is because of this intention that the Government now proposes a constructive means of fostering the objectives of industrial development and maximum Australian ownership in it.

I have explained some of the problems and the needs which have prompted us to take a new initiative. I have explained that we will completely avoid trying to solve the problems by regulation or controls. Instead, we are going to create a new facility which will be in a position to assist an Australian venture that seeks its help to undertake a viable and important industry development. The facility will be fashioned and equipped especially to assist projects in export industries, and industries founded on Australia’s natural resources. It will direct itself to giving assistance in ways which will help Australian companies to gain or preserve a greater Australian participation than otherwise would be the case.

By establishing this new institution, to be known as the Australian Industry Development Corporation, we believe we are taking a major step forward in policies for development and for Australian ownership. The Corporation will operate expressly to assist Australian industry to expand its capacity and scope, and increase its efficiency and competitiveness. It will assist in retaining and expanding Australian ownership of industry and resources. The Australian Industry Development Corporation is designed to fill a very significant gap in the Australian investment scene. Its role will be to assist Australian interests in marshalling financial resources, particularly from overseas, for major industrial development. lt will have the capacity to help where the existing banking and other financial institutions cannot meet the financial1 and investment needs of Australian companies for development and expansion. It will assist in cases where the development would otherwise not take place, or would otherwise be possible only with undue loss of ownership and control to overseas.

That there are great resources of capital overseas willing for investment in Australia either as equity or fixed term lending does not have to be demonstrated. The facts of capital inflow speak for themselves. If we could get more capital from overseas in non-equity form, carrying a terminating liability for income payments abroad, our balance of payments would be the stronger and our industries less dominated from overseas. What we want to do by establishing the Australian Industry Development Corporation is to create a facility to tap some of this overseas capital for Australian industry, getting it more in the form of loans and less in overseas equity. The Corporation will do this by the same means used successfully by overseas owned industrial companies w.’th their own vast dimension and obvious credit worthiness After very thorough study in Australia and overseas, and very full consultation with many of those with whom the AIDC would hope to do business overseas, we are in no doubt that such a corporation, established by the Australian Government, will be able to tap overseas funds for attractive industry development projects in Australia.

The Corporation’s objectives and the policies governing its operations are set out in detail in the Bill. The Corporation’s task will be to encourage the development and expansion of Australian industry, including the mining industry and processing and manufacturing industries based on mineral resources, lt will have as a clear objective to facilitate this industrial development in ways which will promote trade both internationally and between the States. It must aim especially at expanding exports on a world-competitive basis, and enhancing our long term balance of payments position. It must seek to enable Australian industry to conserve our foreign exchange by competing with imports without recourse to high tariff barriers. It must attempt to keep for Australian industry the advantages flowing from Australian invention and innovation. In these and other practical cases where its assistance is sought, it must aim to protect and maximise the Australian participation and ownership.

The AIDC’s task will be to obtain, principally from overseas, the funds required for particular projects which Australian interests themselves have not been able to obtain either in Australia or overseas.

Mr Cope:

– Jeff Bate will be able to-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They are talking about Jeff Bate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McEWEN:

– It is not a funny story. This is something very important to the Australian interest. The Corporation will apply these funds in whatever way the particular circumstances of the project require. It will bc able to lend to projects, if loan finance is what the project needs. Or it may apply the funds in a mix of equity and loan investment, if the project needs this to avoid too heavy a burden of debt finance in the early stages. This may be the situation, for example, where a considerable time is likely to elapse before the project can become income earning. To enable it to carry out its functions, the AIDC will be set up as a corporation of significant stature and substance. It will be established as a corporation with a capital of SI 00m, paid up initially to $25m, and with the strength and security afforded by the S75m uncalled. The capital which the

Government will be providing to the Corporation will be given not for the purpose of relending, but to give the Corporation stature and image as a borrower. The Corporation will be permitted to borrow up to a limit of 5 times its capital and reserves. But it will be required to obtain its borrowings principally from outside Australia.

It is, of course, quite properly provided that the AIDC must not be placed in a less advantageous position, in regard to access to local borrowing, than that of overseas companies operating and borrowing in Australia. However, its borrowings in Australia will not only be a minor part of its total borrowings, but will also be expressly subject to limitation by the Reserve Bank. The Corporation’s capacity to call up capital beyond the initial $25m to the total issued capital of $1 00m will be subject to special conditions. It is, of course, made clear that the whole of the $)00m capital is available if required lo meet the obligations of the Corporation to lenders. The Corporation will not normally be able to obtain more than S25m of the uncalled capital in any one year, and then only upon 1 year’s notice. The last $50m will not be available except to meet obligations, unless the Auditor-General certifies that the Corporation’s borrowing has already reached the sum of 4 times its capital funds.

As to the Australian Resources Development Bank Ltd, the 2 institutions will work side by side. They are conceived for different purposes. They both will have owed their origin lo initial substantial Government financial and policy support. But they have different objectives. They will have different ways of operation. They will for the most part tap different sources of funds for different types of ventures.

The capital of the corporation, including the uncalled capita], will provide security for those who lend to it. In addition, the Corporation in its overseas borrowings, will have the added attraction to overseas investors of the opportunity of some participation in Australian development projects which are attractive in their own right. The Corporation, in borrowing overseas, may make it a feature of the loan that some proportion may be converted to an equity shareholding in the venture within a stipulated time. This device, known in financial circles as an equity sweetener, should assist both in obtaining funds from overseas and in the interest rates which have to be paid. The Corporation will have the stature to become a borrower of substance in international capital markets, without the need for Government guarantee of its loans.

The point has been widely canvassed in overseas finance and investment circles and we have been assured that the Corporation, as a body established by the Government, with its status and its substance, could become a successful borrower overseas. The Government recognises that the AIDC in seeking loan finance principally from overseas, will be borrowing in capital markets where interest rates may sometimes be even significantly higher than in Australia, especially in comparison with finance from normal Australian banking institutions. This is consistent with the intention that the Corporation should supplement the role of existing financial institutions and supplement scarce local resources of development finance with cap tai from overseas.

The Corporation will not be a source of cheap finance. But, by its stature and the variety of borrowing methods available to it, it should be able to obtain overseas loan capital otherwise not available except to a very few of the largest Australian industrial companies which could be regarded as having world status. It will obtain this finance for Australian companies at rates which viable industrial ventures should be able to bear - and in fact are in many cases already bearing. There are impeccably sound enterprises in Australia and elsewhere today borrowing at much higher rates than currently apply to institutional finance raised in Australia.

Earnings or capital gains from the Corporation’s investments will be used as capital reserves, to strengthen its capacity as an international borrower and broaden its assistance lo Australian industry, in accordance with its objectives.

The AIDC, though set up by Government, will be a body entirely set apart from Government and operating only within the charter set down for it in the legislation. It is structured to become entirely a part of the private enterprise scene. Its role will differ from the customary role of statutory corporations, or even from a Government owned company or business concern. It will not earn any income for Government revenue or carry out any specific Government function. It will bc subject to taxes on exactly the same footing as any public company. The Bill contains specific provisions to ensure that the Corporation will assist only viable projects. It is not designed to be a supporter of lost or doubtful causes. In accordance with private enterprise principles, it will not be authorised to involve itself in enterprises which are not, in the judgment of its Board of Directors, commercially feasible, its operations will be subject to the same tests of commercial viability as are ordinarily applied in business planning by the experienced board of any great private enterprise venture.

As I have already said, the AIDC will be controlled by an independent Board of Directors. This Board will consist, in the main, of part-time directors, drawn from private enterprise. But it is expressly provided that there must be at least 1 fulltime director with experience and expertise in finance, and at least another full-time director with a wide knowledge of industry. There will be the necessary provisions for audit and accounts. The Bill provides for the AIDC to have the fullest freedom in its administrative and financial arrangements, so that it may conduct its affairs for all practical purposes as if it were a private enterprise company. An annual report and accounts of AIDC must be presented to the Government and tabled in the Parliament. If the Government, on receiving an annual report of the corporation, considered the Board was not operating in accordance with the policy principles laid down in the legislation, it - the Government - can meet with and inform the Board to this effect. In that event, to ensure that this provision will only be used in a responsible and open manner, the Government must then table in the Parliament its reasons for so acting.

The Corporation must not seek a controlling interest in enterprises with which it becomes involved. Moreover, it must regularly review any investments it has acquired in the course of giving ass stance to various projects, and must dispose of those holdings which are no longer necessary to its policy objectives. It is, of course, not required to dispossess itself of these investments at non commercial prices, nor is it to jeopardise the Australian ownership of an enterprise in the process of such disposal. These provisions are so designed to ensure that the Corporation does not become a dominant element in the ownership of an industry, but continually turns over its borrowed funds to provide similar assistance in other areas. The Corporation’s role will be to provide a specialised service to Australian industry. There is absolutely nothing in its charter to clothe it with any power or authority for regulation, intervention, or coercion. The Bill makes it clear that the Corporation may assist in a venture only when its assistance is sought. It must not become involved in any enterprise except with the consent of the company concerned.

There is one matter connected with the present proposals, but falling outside the scope of the Bill, which needs to be mentioned. To give maximum flexibility to the Corporation and other Australian borrowers wishing to attract overseas capital in loan form on the best terms and with least loss of Australian equity, the amending legislation on the taxation of interest on convertible notes, foreshadowed by the Government last September, is being reviewed. There will, however, be no concession applying to the AIDC that would not be equally available to any other company.

In conclusion, the AIDC will exist not merely to provide funds for Australian industry, but to provide funds to Australian industry to secure or aid a particular result. It will help to structure industry on a world competitive basis, and to maximise the Australian ownership. No financial institution exists which is charged with this responsibility. There are opportunities in world markets for more and more manufactures produced in Australia, from raw materials at present exported so competitively in unprocessed form. There are pressing needs for Australian industry to expand, and in the process to improve its efficiency, and become highly competitive at home and overseas. There is no institution or facility in Australia which has the primary purpose of encouraging and aiding industrial undertakings to achieve a dimension by which they will be capable of competing in world markets, and of competing with imports in the domestic market. It is to our national advantage for

Australian industry to be able to develop, and grow, with minimum resort to foreign ownership.

There is finance overseas which can be attracted by industrial projects in Australia. But Australian interests, in a ti but a very few cases, have not the stature or international appeal to tap these funds. There is thus a gap in the financial resources available to Australian, as distinct from foreign, firms operating in Australia. The Government believes that the AIDC, which is proposed, will help fill this gap. It believes the Corporation wiN be able to assist Australian interests, working alone or in association with foreign interests, by marshalling overseas funds in a manner at present only open to foreign corporations. The Corporation will use these funds as required by Australian interests to promote the objectives I have described.

As I have said, the AIDC is completely non-regulatory and non-restrictive in nature. It is structured to function in a private enterprise environment and completely in acordance with the principles of free enterprise and the free enterprise system. With the safeguards for private business incorporated in its charter, no existing institution or firm need fear it as a competitor. It is so structured that it can assist Australian interests, where they seek such assistance, in a way for which other financial institutions are not suited. It will not have the status or privileges of a bank, nor will it function like a bank. It will be able to operate without the limitations that are necessary or usual in the field of banking. The Corporation will be able to participate in projects alongside private enterprise companies, assisting them in the provision of the financial resources needed. But, having become a participant it will be required to play only a passing role. As soon as it can adequately recoup its financial outlays in a project, successfully developed, it will move on to other projects, contributing again to the objectives I have set out.

This Bill may well be called bold. It is certainly novel, creative and forward looking. I commend it to honourable members.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 have much pleasure in moving: That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1603

CAMBODIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - For some years North Vietnamese regular forces, and other forces controlled by North Vietnam, have been withdrawing across the Cambodian border after battles in South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese have built, in Cambodia, base camps in which their forces could rest, refit, regroup, and be prepared for further military action against allied troops in South Vietnam.

This military disadvantage was endured with great forbearance by United States and South Vietnamese forces - for even though the neutrality of Cambodia was being violated by the Communists, the Allies continued to hope that the protests of the Cambodian Government might lead to a cessation of the North Vietnamese invasion. This was a vain hope and since the displacement of the Sihanouk Government by the Lon Nol Government in Cambodia, North Vietnamese and forces controlled by them have extended and expanded their invasion of Cambodia’s neutrality.

There has been a gradually increasing violation of this neutrality - a violation which was grossly wrong in itself - which was carried out by a nation which had signed the Geneva Agreement to respect Cambodia’s neutrality - and which increasingly gave a military advantage to the enemy and posed growing military danger to Allied forces in South Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese have extended westward from the bases they had been occupying. They have attacked, in Cambodia, administration centres, communications and populated areas in Eastern and South Eastern Cambodia. And along with this increasingly cynical and increasingly overt invasion, they have taken steps designed to create a zone in Cambodia, occupied by them, along virtually the entire length of the South Vietnamese border with Cambodia. As President Nixon pointed out, they have embarked on a programme to make Cambodia a vast enemy staging area and a springboard for attacks on South Vietnam along 600 miles of frontier.

They have in fact begun a wider invasion, and embarked on a course which poses greater military dangers to Allied forces than before. This new military threat, increased in gravity, has led to South Vietnamese and United States forces taking action to protect themselves by crossing the border into Cambodian Territory occupied by the North Vietnamese. The decision, reached by the President of the United States, was taken on operational military grounds and was designed to protect the lives of Allied servicemen.

Those who condemn this decision, as the Government does not, must either argue that there has not been an increased threat to Allied forces as a result of North Vietnamese action - and this is scarcely arguable or tenable - or they must hold that it does not matter whether there has been an increased threat or not - that regardless of increased danger Allied forces should be left in that danger from the flank and should not try to prevent it. We do not accept this.

Our own Australian forces are not engaged in this operation and I see no prospect that they will be. But the effect of the operation could well be to make all Allied forces in South Vietnam, including our own, more safe. Our own objective for Cambodia is known. We wish to see a neutral Cambodia - a country which is not used by anyone as a base or a battleground; a country which enjoys in truth that freedom from interference, that real neutrality which it was guaranteed under the Geneva Agreement and which was breached by North Vietnam.

We will try by diplomatic means to bring this about - and to bring about a method of international inspection designed to ensure that respect for the neutrality of Cambodia is real and is continuing. For let mc make this clear. We do seek a Cambodia whose neutrality is respected in fact and in truth. We do not seek a Cambodia which is called neutral but which is occupied in greater or lesser part by North Vietnam. For this would be a continuance of the pretence which has prevailed. It would not mean that the neutrality of Cambodia was real. And it would mean that South Vietnam was endangered.

In the Government’s view this is the situation. The neutrality of Cambodia has been consistently and progressively violated by North Vietnam. The increasing tempo of the violation has posed an increasingly grave military threat to the lives of Allied servicemen. It has also, by widening and escalating the war, threatened to prolong it, and to delay vietnamisation and to delay the time when Allied forces could be withdrawn.

The action taken by the United States and South Vietnam was action to protect the servicemen against attack by an enemy which was increasingly occupying a neutral nation. We understand the reason for their action and we find it odd that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) should, on behalf of his Party, viciously criticise that action. It is worth noting, Mr Speaker, that so far as I know not one member of the Opposition, at any time, has criticised the violation of Cambodian neutrality during the last 5 years by the North Vietnamese. (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to come to order. This is an important statement and I believe that the Prime Minister should be given the courtesy of being heard without interruption.

Mr GORTON:

– There have been no claims that these Communist actions were fatefully widening the war’ or that their increasing invasion of Cambodia ought to be condemned. There were no fulminations from the Opposition against that violation of neutrality. Those were Communist actions and immune to criticism from the Opposition. But now that counter action has occurred, our Allies are criticised in the Opposition - they, we are told, have widened the war; they, we are told, have engaged in escalation; they are in the wrong now that this has happened.

Sir, such comments I believe are support for the theory that Communist forces should be allowed to operate as and when they like; that they should be excused for invading and occupying neutral countries; and that it is wrong for action to be taken to stop them and that such comments by giving that support, to me, Sir, show a willingness, even a desire, to accept defeat or surrender of Allied forces in South Vietnam.

I can understand - though strongly disagree with but I can understand - those who wish to surrender in Vietnam, and abandon the South Vietnamese, and let aggression succeed. But I cannot understand those who while the struggle continues, are prepared to subject Allied forces to military threat and to endanger the lives of soldiers in action. We entirely reject this attitude. We will continue to work for a truly neutral Cambodia by all means we can. But we will not excuse our enemies and attack our Allies in our joint endeavours to bring peace and self-government to South Vietnam in the way the Opposition has done.

I present the following paper:

Cambodia - Ministerial Statement, 5 May 1970. Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed: That the House take note of the paper.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– 1 ask for leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not need leave to speak to motion ‘that the House take note of the paper’.

Mr BARNARD:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) tonight has pledged his Government’s support to the violation of Cambodia. The Vietnam war has been extended to the CambodianVietnam war. The only haven in Indo-China not troubled by war will now share the bitter fate of its neighbours, Laos and Vietnam. It is only fair to say that the Government’s reaction has lacked its usual enthusiastic acclaim for America’s efforts in Indo-China. The Prime Minister tonight has paid lip service to President Nixon’s hard line declaration. But there is a feeling of hesitancy and uneasiness about the whole of the Government’s approach to the new extention to the war. Its support for American intervention in Cambodia has not extended to the commitment of Australian troops or the provision of significant arms assistance to General Lon Nol’s Government.

The Government’s response has been a belated one. Quite properly the Prime Minister made his statement to this Parliament at the first possible opportunity. But for the first time there have been no earlier statements - no special television or radio broadcasts - no indication of the Government’s response to President Nixon’s action. The predictable response has at least been made but the delay is significant. There is reason for belief that the old ring of confidence which surrounded the Government s philosophy on Vietnam has been dissolved. The distinct impression can be gained that all it not well with the Government’s assessment of its Indo-China policy and that it realises that America may have gone too far and that the period of unquestioned commitment may be nearing an end.

It is tragic that the Prime Minister’s statement follows hard on the heels of the first significant initiative on Indo-China taken by an Asian nation which was not a participant in the war. This was the call by Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Mr Malik, for a conference of nations in the Asian region on the Cambodian crisis. This was supported by Australia’s Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon). A conference of this nature gave for the first time a chance for Asian nations to hammer out a concerted policy in an effort to end the Indo-China war. It meant that for the first time the great emerging nation of Indonesia and the great industrial power of Japan could use their influence and prestige in the area to find a solution. What Australia could achieve in the context of this solution was limited by its role in the war. Nevertheless it was right that it should have supported Mr Malik’s initiative. At question time today the Minister for External Affairs briefly outlined what he hoped this conference could achieve. Unfortunately the potential of this conference was destroyed by the blunt use of power. The sudden intervention by the United States in Cambodia made irrelevant any meaningful political or diplomatic initiatives by Asian nations.

There has been much talk of the use of Cambodia as a sanctuary for North Vietnamese and Vietcong troops. For the past 16 years Cambodia has been a sanctuary in another sense. Quite remarkably it preserved its neutrality and kept Indo-China’s war beyond its borders. During this period Cambodia was certainly a country with a sluggish economy and of comparatively modest expectations and aspirations. However, it was a sanctuary from the anguish and suffering of Vietnam. It was an emblem of what could be achieved in Indo-China. President Sihanouk was able to contain a Communist presence in his nation while working to remove it by diplomatic means.

At the same time he was able to assure a reasonable prosperity and a gradual progress for his nation. Cambodia has had unfortunately more disasters in the few weeks since his departure than in the 16 years of his rule. Under Sihanouk the areas of Vietcong control could be measured in miles or even yards from the border. They are now being measured in hundreds of square miles and even whole provinces. Under Sihanouk there were very few deaths from Communist presence or the occasional insurgence of troops from South Vietnam. The dead can now be numbered in thousands. Under Sihanouk the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were contained on the frontier or hidden in forests. They are now marauding over communication networks and assailing provincial centres and even the capital. Phnom Penh. This has been the result of replacing accommodation with confrontation.

I do not want to go into the circumstances surrounding Sihanouk’s removal. Undoubtedly the Americans have snubbed Lon Nol and have treated him with the contempt they never dared to show to Sihanouk. They have rejected his request for massive armed assistance. They have invaded his country without giving advance warning or seeking his sanction. The decision to enter Cambodia was taken on South Vietnam’s initiative not on Cambodia’s initiative. This is a measure of the low standing Lon Nol has with America, lt is clear evidence that he is another puppet ruler propped up by the military.

It is very doubtful what military impact these invasions of Cambodian territory will have. We do not know whether the North Vietnamese headquarters have been located or destroyed. There are conflicting reports on whether these headquarters are even in the areas invaded. It seems unlikely that the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong, knowing that the threat was imminent, would wait casually for the South Vietnamese and the Americans to arrive. We do not know how many Vietnamese or Vietcong will be killed. We do know that thousands of innocent peasants will be killed or maimed; water buffalo will be destroyed and rice crops devastated. The North Vietnamese and the Vietcong will be driven deeper into Cambodia. The whole country will become a sanctuary and ulti mately a charred battleground. This will bring in its turn all the paraphernalia of the Indo-China war - a propped up military regime, a war economy, inflation, corruption, dislocation of social life, thousands of refugees and immeasurable human suffering. The end result can only be the destruction of a magnificent little country and the complete commitment to Communism of its gifted Prince whose only defect was his efforts to save Cambodia from the evils now enveloping it.

The whole tone of President Nixon’s speech on the Cambodian military presence was deeply depressing. President Johnson said he would not be the first United States President to lose a war. This was the whole theme of President Nixon’s speech, lt put politics and pride above pity and peace. The maintenance of national prestige was reared above the preservation of humanity. This extension of the war has been widely denounced by responsible sections of the United States - the United States Congress and the United States people. The Vietnam war has had terrible effects on America. It has produced the greatest internal social disruption and violence since the Civil War, 110 years ago. It has hamstrung American initiatives in the Middle East and is threatening the success of the talks on limiting strategic armaments. Yet it seems the United States has embarked on a course designed to reverse the positive achievements secured at heavy cost in the past 2 years. The war has been extended and intensified; the bombing of the North has been resumed; the negotiations in Paris are endangered. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) pointed out, the extension of military operations to Cambodia is not a turning point in the war; lt is a turning back to despair and disaster.

Debate (on motion by Mr Turner) adjourned.

page 1606

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1594).

Or EVERINGHAM (Capricornia) [9.2]- The second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) on the National Health Bill 1970 quoted the Australian Medical Association’s published statement that ‘the greatest weakness in the medical benefits scheme is the varying and unpredictable gap between fees charged and rebates received’. This weakness has not been met by this Bill. Whilst there is provision for a specified repayment in cases where the doctor charges a common fee, there is no suggestion that the common fee list will be reviewed regularly. There is no mechanism for this review or updating-. There is no suggestion that doctors will not frame their charges, as many have done in the past, according to the fee schedule, thereby increasing the contribution of the patient in many cases. There is no guarantee that there will be consultation with the profession to maintain confidence in the Government’s intention to meet a reasonable proportion of the fee and to leave the patient with a reasonably small amount to find in payment for a specific service.

Whilst there has been some improvement there is still a very wide gap between the provision of a full health service for those who want it and the threat of the large costs of prolonged illness, lt is all very well to say that a patient can have his X-rays, his pathology, his anaesthetic, his operation, the assistants at the operation, an assistant for the anaesthetist, and all the aftercare following the operation for the one fee of $5. But let us suppose that a patient goes into hospital with a suspected surgical condition which holds him there for a few weeks and he is visited daily by I or more specialists, including the X-ray man, the pathologist and the anaesthetist who assesses fitness for the operation. Finally all these people decide to treat him by conservative methods and that there need be no operation. In that case the $5 ceiling does not come into the picture and that patient is liable to payment of a fee for every individual service he has received during that illness. He may not have received even as much service as he would had the operation been undertaken. The same illness may recur at a later date and it may be decided that an operation is necessary. The patient will then get more intensive treatment for the lower price of $5. Therefore this is a hastily conceived scheme to attack what the AMA has described as the greatest weakness of the medical benefit scheme according to the Minister’s second reading speech.

The College of General Practitioners of Australia is opposed to the principle of differential rebates. The Australian Medical Association proposed this scheme not only as spokesman for the doctors but also largely as spokesman for the voluntary funds. Honourable members should remember that the scheme of voluntary funds is the Earle Page scheme. Earle Page grabbed it with both hands when it was put forward by the British Medical Association, as it then was, as the only alternative offering to a complete national scheme of health services. The BMA produced it in great haste in fear of being conscripted. Of course this is not possible by Federal Government action under our Constitution. However, we have this voluntary scheme and the Australian Medical Association supports it. The Federal President of the AMA is a leading executive of these voluntary health organisations, and he supports the scheme. The same organisation, as I have said, now puts up the scheme of differential rebates.

Several arguments could be put up against the proposition. One of them was put forward by the College of General Practitioners. The College suddenly discovered that there were political implications in the quality of care. As an academic organisation, thinking itself to be nonpolitical, it was concerned about this. Therefore it opposed the idea on the ground that it would tend to downgrade general practitioners in the eyes of the public. It argued that the public would find out that there is a differential rebate; that therefore the dearer service must be worth more; that therefore there would be a rush on the specialists and the general practitioner would be deprived of the more lucrative side of his practice which includes relatively specialised procedures. It was felt that the idea would downgrade the general practitioner and would accelerate the relative decline in the numbers who go into general practice. The Minister completely denied this suggestion; he has wiped it aside. However, there is talk that he is renegotiating the differential rebate schedule with the AMA because it has had second thoughts in view of the outcry from the College of General Practitioners.

There are other solutions to the question of differential rebates and the gap between the fees charged and the rebates gained by patients. There is the Australian Labor

Party scheme which offers patients an alternative - a little bit of competition, which is espoused by means of lip service by honourable members on the other side of the chamber. They tell us they like efficiency which grows with competition. But what competition are they offering us in this scheme? It is the competition of competing insurance funds. The Government has done its best to stifle competition by preventing the more efficient funds from lowering their premiums. It has forced standard premiums on all the funds within rates that are set by the least efficient so that the funds would not go broke and so that the Government would not have to rescue them. The result has been an enormous build-up of reserves in the funds that are more efficient. This is no way to run a competitive system; this is no way to achieve economies of costs. These economies can be achieved without penalising the patient.

The Australian Labor Party scheme, 1 emphasise, allows this competition because we will give the patient the option of going to a completely free service, where top-line top quality medical services will be available, or going to a private practitioner. One of the alternatives that has been put into practice in another country that espouses free enterprise is the Kaiser scheme in America. We have been told that the moment a service is made free at the point of service, where the patient does not have to contribute a moiety for the service he receives, the service is swamped by overusage. But this assertion is based on the suppositions of economists who have never seen such a scheme work. When they go to a place like Sweden where it does work and they find the service is not swamped, they do not believe their eyes. Of course the people who formulated the Government scheme have not been there.

In America the reverse has proved to be true. For example America has a voluntary scheme like our own. The Blue Cross, the Blue Shield and group insurance schemes are in competition. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield correspond to our voluntary insurance funds. The group insurance schemes correspond to the Australian Labor Party’s proposal for a complete service free at the point of service. Henry Kaiser set up such a scheme because he felt respon sible for providing a medical service to people in isolated communities where he had hydro-electric projects working. The scheme started with a fee for service system just like the Blue Cross and the Blue Shield and just like the Australian system. People were full of discontent. As the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) told us, they are full of discontent in this country. They showed their discontent in the gallup polls almost more strongly than on any other issue at the time of the last Federal election. When Henry J. Kaiser switched to the group service scheme, the prepayment scheme where the patient contributes a fiat rate and gets all his services on demand, satisfaction and contentment were the result. The scheme has been so successful that today only 3% of the members are his employees. He threw it open to the public and it has now spread across the Rockies into Denver and it is starting to form partnerships with other group schemes.

Other group schemes in other parts of the country have been equally successful. Their record is that members occupy roughly 30% fewer days in hospital than do members of the old Blue Cross and Blue Shield schemes, which foster the horse and buggy style solo medical practitioner practices on which we rely so much in this country and on which the United States relies so much. Some 8 million Americans are now receiving medical care under these group plans. They are subject to the restraints of the market place, restraints which do not occur in the scheme that we have. Here competition is stifled, except the competition that occurs between competing and overlapping voluntary insurance bodies.

One advantage that is evident in the American group scheme is this: Not only are the patients more contented and not only is there a more efficient use of resources, but the doctors also are more contented. They are getting more money because they have a built-in efficiency motivation, a loading for efficiency. They get a bonus if they can run below their budgets for hospitals, clinics, tests, rosters and everything else that is involved. If they can work within the monthly premiums that are set every year they get a bonus and this bonus ensures they are better paid than are solo practitioners. What is more, they have no worries about bills and they have no worries about whether a patient can afford a particular type of care. They are able to restrain overtreatment and they do so. Quite recently they relieved a surgeon who was a little too fond of the knife. There is a fraternal supervision of 1 man’s standard of practice by his colleagues. It is impossible to get this in solo practices. There is a competition among the medical practitioners to see that they practise good medicine, that they get the regard of their colleagues. The final piece of competition, which is quite absent from the Australian scheme, is that patients are enabled to compare the work of different doctors in the clinic and so get some awareness of the quantity and quality of medical care they should be getting. That is something which is almost entirely absent from the Australian scheme.

These are accepted market principles at competition which make for efficiency in every other type of industry with which n private enterprise government claims to concern itself. There is a sharing of the financial risks by the community so that people do not have to worry when they have a severe illness. Costs are supplied in some regions. There are autonomous regional organisations under the Kaiser scheme. There are even some alternatives allowing for the degree of cover a patient can have; he can decide whether he wants to cover himself for 1 1 1 days a year or for the whole year. By and large it is a comprehensive system; the existing voluntary schemes are not. The voluntary schemes have to be helped out and subsidised by the Government’s special fund and by all sorts of patch-ups, help-outs and hand-outs. The other schemes are self-sustaining and they are multiplying at the maximum possible rate. They had a total cash flow in 1968 of SUS17.2m on revenues of $US16m and this has provided them with enough funds for expansion. They are expanding now at the rate of 200,000 members a year.

This refutes the very widely held and widely sponsored belief among Government circles, medical circles and voluntary insurance circles that if a medical service is free or virtually free the public will stampede into it. The reverse is the case. Over-use, inefficient use and over-treatment occurs in the voluntary system because there the patient goes for the service where he will get the biggest return and this is built into the surgical rebate system in this Bill. It will be cheaper for the patient to have an operation, which will cost the Government and the community more, than to avoid the operation. This is a built in incentive to over-treatment. Not only do they get the virtues of efficiency due to group practice in these Kaiser centres with all the facilities on tap at one place and with the best possible hospital equipment, but they are actually going way ahead of many hospital administrations because of the integration of doctors with hospitals and their interest in seeing that these hospitals are efficient. They are aiming at cable electronic recording of a patient’s medical history right through his life. Many of them are already on computer tapes.

The Minister, the Government and their friends, in their opposition to the Labor Party’s scheme, have spoken out of poor knowledge, incomplete knowledge, out of ignorance of the comparative virtues of a pre-payment scheme as against a voluntary insurance scheme. We have had thrown up at us the British scheme and have been asked why doctors leave the United Kingdom. We are not seeking to bring in any British scheme. We are seeking to maintain a fee for service scheme and alongside it a free public service which the patient may have if he wants it. We are not afraid to see the two of them competing. We believe that we will see which is the better system - whether the doctor will rather earn a salary as a specialist in a well equipped centre with regular relief, with regular study leave and refresher courses, with the proper facilities for research and teaching that have never been available in this country, or whether he will prefer to go on struggling along being half the time businessman, half the time doctor, and never knowing when he will have all his facilities in the one centre instead of having to spend a lot of his time travelling from hospital to hospital and from surgery to clinic.

One of the speakers from the Government side referred to the qualifications for entry to medical school. This has already been taken up by the College of General Practitioners. In the last issue of the journal of the World Medical Association, which was largely devoted to the question <f general practice, a very strong argument was put up for the general practice section of the medical school to be the dominant section. Now it is the also ran, the after thought, the thing that is tacked on if a place can be found for it somewhere when all the money that is necessary for all the specialist departments has been provided. This is not the way to run a medical education system. If we want doctors who are primarily doctors and who think primarily of patients - that is, primarily of health - and not primarily of specialist compartments into which a body can be carved up, then we have to put the prime emphasis on the whole patient. We will not get this under a system that is dominated by specialists. The general practitioner must be of at least equal status. As the editorial in the journal points out, quite possibly the dean of the medical school will have to tell these specialists, who are forever trying to enlarge their empires within the medical course, what their proper place is and what is allotted them in the medical course.

The Bill has touched on the production of certain vaccines. Goodness knows, it is high time that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in particular did have a freer hand to produce and to provide all kinds of medical supplies and not be limited in the way that it is out of deference to private drug firms. However, there is a subject that is of even more importance from a public health point of view than vaccines. It has been brought up and discussed time and time again during my time in this Parliament and for years before that. It is a subject on which the Government has shillyshallied, hedged, shuffled and referred back to the States and to a conference of Attorneys-General to see what laws they think ought to be made. I refer to what was described in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ of 21st February of this year as the principal avoidable cause of premature death - smoking. It is a long time since smoking came under this cloud of suspicion. On 11th January 1964, after 15 months of intensive study, the Surgeon -General’s Advisory Committee said:

Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient Importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action.

It stated unequivocally that cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men and far outweighs other factors. Air pollution was found to be a very minor factor in the cause of the disease. It noted that the death rate from heart disease was 70% higher in cigarette smokers than in nonsmokers - enough to assume that it was a cause to take action against. This was in 1964. This subject has been debated in all the newspapers and journals around the world since 1964. The Committee found that cigarette smoking is the most important of the causes of chronic bronchitis in the United States and that it increases the risk of dying from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Doctors knew this when I was a student. More than 4,000 published reports were studied and more than 150 investigators were personally interviewed. Members of this Committee were not ratbags. They were eminent scientists who had never made any public statements on the question of smoking and health. Their appointment was approved by the tobacco industry as well as by the American Medical Association and other health agencies. Half of them were cigarette smokers. This report was the most comprehensive and authoritative report ever made on this subject and every report since has confirmed it, including the Public Health Services reports of 1st July 1967 and 1st July 1968. Every paper and survey that has come out since, some of them trying to be more comprehensive, if at all possible, have only served further to confirm these facts.

Well, what has the Government done? In America the Government has done little enough. The tobacco lobby - it lobbied very intensively - managed to water down the Bill which was recommended by the Committee. The Committee wanted to have all cigarettes and all smoking advertisements labelled with the warning:

Warning. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death from cancer and other diseases.

This is how it came out through the sieve of the Senate:

Caution. Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health.

The sign was hung on the doors of the television stations and the radio stations: Business as usual’, and so it is. We had a convention, gentlemen’s agreement, with the tobacco companies here about 4 years ago I think - it does not matter, because we have not seen any change in die advertising as a result of it - that they would not do anything in their advertisements to show teenagers smoking or to show sportsmen and spectators of athletic activity smoking, and half a dozen other very cleverly worded restrictions of this kind. But the cigarette ads went on as before showing near teenage people, near sportsmen and observers of virile activities smoking. Of course, there is every kind of subtle suggestion to lead viewers, particularly young people, to believe that cigarette smoking is the key to fun and games with the opposite sex, good times at home and abroad, world travel, social success and virility.

Finally the Federal Communications Commission decided to do a little bit. It was shamed into doing something about broadcasting and television. It must be remembered that the non-smoker never reads this watered down warning on the cigarette packet. He, particularly the young person, is brainwashed by television all the time. The Commission ruled that television and radio stations which advertise cigarettes must give health agencies a reasonable amount of time to present evidence of the health damage caused by smoking. Some of these stations are now running spot announcements about the hazards. But the ruling is being attacked in the courts by the broadcasting and tobacco industries. A silent and unorganised majority is powerless against a highly organised, special interest group, and this Government could not care less.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I want to speak in support of the legislation presented by the Government and to oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. In doing that, I must confess that there are one or two matters in this National Health Bill about which I have some doubt and some query as to their success. I realise the complex nature of this legislation. When one looks at the Bill one gets an appreciation of the tremendous task in trying to bring forward to the Parliament the legislation we are considering. I have had discussions with members of the medical profession in my own electorate and, as we all know, we have received a volume of correspondence and comment from many sections of the medical profession, which I think shows that there is a great de.al of confusion about this legislation. If one looks at some of the recommendations and suggestions that have been put forward by the medical profession one realises that there is some contradiction even within the profession. However, following the establishment of the Nimmo Committee and what is now known as the Nimmo report’, it was obvious that the Government had to take steps to improve our national health scheme.

I am sure that anybody who listened this afternoon to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) leading for the Opposition in the debate on this piece of legislation would, from the moment that the honourable member for Oxley finished, have been more confused than previously as to what the Australian Labor Party’s policy on health was, and I am sure that they would have nothing to do with any of the suggestions or ideas of the Opposition on this Health Bill. Even though I disagree with 1 or 2 things in this Bill, I congratulate the Minister on the task that he has performed and on the fact that he has made himself available to have discussions with various groups of people who are concerned with health matters.

The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) this afternoon pointed out one of the difficulties and one of the complexities of the Bill. I would like to congratulate him on the speech he made. I thought it was a very well thought out and logical presentation of some of the facts and some of the complexities of this legislation. He pointed out some of the difficulties, particularly in relation to the benefits that are received by various sections in the community. In fact, the concluding portions of the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), when he mentioned the position of low income families, bring home to us some of these problems. He said:

As a result of the increase in the Commonwealth minimum weekly wage in December 1969 it is proposed to increase the eligibility level for full health insurance for low income families to $42.50 per week. The Bill also provides for graduated assistance toward the cost of contributing for health insurance to families with weekly incomes not exceeding $48.50.

In future, families with incomes of up to $42.50 per week will be entitled to full medical benefits and also to hospital benefits equal to the cost of public ward treatment without any payment of contributions. Families with incomes between $42.50 per week and $45.50 per week will be eligible for the same benefits on payment of contributions at one-third the usual rates, while families with incomes between $45.50 and $48.50 per week will be eligible for the benefits on payment of contributions at two-thirds the usual rate.

An appreciation of the area covered in this legislation and the number of people who have to be considered in any scheme such as this comes from this paragraph:

It is estimated that some 84,000 families and 271,000 persons will be eligible for assistance, because of the extension of the assistance, and that the additional cost in a full year will be $3m.

This highlights one of the complexities of this piece of legislation. I think that some investigation should be made and that some consideration will have to be given to the group beyond this who are below the high income earning capacity to see whether assistance can be given to them. One proposition that we of the Liberal-Country Party Government have always put forward is that people should be prepared to accept some responsibility themselves where it is possible for them to accept that responsibility. That is why the Minister in his second reading speech mentioned assistance to those in the low income group. 1 believe that 1 of the weaknesses in the national health scheme in the United Kingdom has been shown to be the fact that there is literally no responsibility on the people. They might say: “We pay taxation, therefore to this degree we are contributing to the scheme’. But I believe that in any contributory national health scheme there should be an acceptance of a degree of responsibility by some of those who are receiving the benefit. The honourable member for Oxley, of course, mentioned that if the Labor Party scheme were put into operation the doctors would receive a greater remuneration than they would receive under the present Government scheme. This was a rather peculiar statement because much of the criticism by the Opposition of the medical profession has been based on the argument that they are receiving too great a remuneration.

The honourable member for Isaacs also mentioned the necessity for reviewing the fee charged. This is, perhaps, an area in which there is a degree of concern in the medical profession. I think we can say without any hesitation that the concern of members of the medical profession is not a concern for their own financial position, for their remuneration. I suppose in any profession one would find some people who are more concerned with the financial return than with the care of their patients. But in the very large majority of cases the concern of the medical profession is that the health scheme work for the maximum benefit of the patient.

There is general agreement on the principle of a common fee. Perhaps one can work from this foundation. There is concern about the gap between the costs of the specialists and the costs of the general practitioner. It is also felt in some quarters that this gap could be reduced by increasing the rebate and 1 think there is a point there. The list of the most common fees is an important factor and it must be used as a basis for rebates and for contributions. But it must also be subject to periodic revision. 1 would say that possibly every 3 years the need would arise for the list to be reviewed. An example of what can happen can be seen in the extension of the pensioner medical scheme. When this scheme was first brought into being some little while ago there was a certain restriction upon those who were receiving the benefits of it. Then as the Government brought forward amendments and brought other groups within the framework of the scheme, it was extended to cover a far greater number of people. I feel that there is a need to examine the relation between the payment under this scheme and the attention given by the doctors to see whether there should be some alteration. 1 would also use that as an example of what can happen when an agreement is reached in relation to a scheme and then by legislation that scheme is altered and improved. Those who agreed to participate in the first place are in some instances penalised because there is no review of their remuneration in the new circumstances as against the situation that existed when the scheme was first brought into being. One of my worries is that if this disparity develops to too great a degree the general practitioner will disappear from the scene. There are 2 factors which could contribute to this. One is that so many cases would be referred to specialists that there would almost be no need for the general practitioner, except as a person who would refer a patient to a specialist. The other is that those entering the medical profession might feel that in the circumstances they should study to be specialists and not go through the period of being a general practitioner. This would be detrimental both to the patients and to the profession. To my mind it would be of greater detriment in the country areas where specialist treatment is not always available.

The general practitioner has a tremendously important part to play not only in relation to the physical welfare but also the psychological welfare of the patients. This is a very important part of the medical profession. Those of us who have had any experience at all know the tremendous valueof a general practitioner, the old family doctor. That doctor is a very important person to the family not only in providing medical care but also in providing assistance to the family in many other ways. As I said, those of us who have had any experience of this relationship realise the tremendous value of the family doctor to family life. If this were to be lost, asI said, it would be of great detriment not only to the medical profession itself but also to the community at large.

The other matterI wish to mention is that if we follow this to its logical conclusion we will see that because so many people are being referred to specialists by the general practitioner the specialist will lose his value. The extent of a specialist’s practice is limited and he has more time to devote to the study of his particular speciality and to keep himself up to date with those matters that are of vital importance to him as a specialist. If, by the fact of so many people being referred to him, he has to participate in surgery or even in the examination of patients who in the normal course of events would not be under his care, to this degree we are in danger of weakening the position of the specialist. I do not want to go into greater detail on the matter of funds or any other aspect because these have been covered and will be covered by some of my colleagues on this side of the House when they make their contribution to the debate on this legislation. Those are general comments thatI wish to make in relation to this legislation.

The Government has been criticised because all the recommendations of the

Nimmo Committee have not been followed. Because a government appoints a committee or asks a committee to investigate a particular matter, it does not mean that the government has to accept any or all of the recommendations of the committee. The purpose for that committee is to investigate certain circumstances related to the subject matter that it has been given the authority to investigate. The Government has an understanding and an appreciation of the total position. This is not necessarily held by the committee which has been making the investigation. The Government must always retain the right to accept or reject all or any of the recommendations made by the committee. I would anticipate in any particular sphere that a government would be mindful of the knowledge of the men who have been on that committee, whatever the subject matter may have been that it was investigating. It would also accept the full responsibility for ultimately making a decision and putting that decision into legislation.

As I said, I support the legislation presented by the Minister. I have some doubts, which I have expressed, relating to some of the matters.I appreciate that until the legislation has become effective and is in practice there cannot be a certainty in relation to some of the queries and doubts that we might have. To that degree I am glad to know that the Minister has said that it after a period of time it can be proved that anomalies exist in the legislation he will certainly take steps to eradicate them.

Mr England:

– Before the end of the year.

Mr LUCOCK:

– Before the end of the year, as my colleague the honourable member for Calare points out. I am sure that, the doctors having presented their point of view, the Government will have the support of the medical profession and that further discussion with them on the legislation will be of benefit to both the medical profession and the people of Australia.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) opened his speech by suggesting that a Socialist government would be determined to nationalise the medical profession, that doctors would be sent here or there to practise at their pads - they have been called drug pushers, so I presume that that is the right phrase to use - and that patients would be directed where to go. The implication is the use of force and regimentation. That surely is a lot of rubbish. Such a feeling seems to be rather common amongst some honourable members on the other side of the House. There are several reasons why it is rubbish. First of all - no doubt the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), or. the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes), both of whom are at the table, can reassure us on this - the Constitution would not permit the nationalisation of the medical profession. I take it that that is right. The Australian Labor Party has no intention of waiting until the Constitution has been amended by referendum before it undertakes to do something about a national health scheme. There is a further and, 1 suggest, much more serious reason why we would not be in favour of nationalising the medical profession. I take it that we can all accept that the medical profession would be very unwilling servants. I am sure that I would not want to be treated by such a doctor. I am sure that no-one else in this House nor anyone in the community would, either. What confidence could one have in a doctor who is an unwilling servant?

Apart from the law there is a perfectly valid psychological reason why we should not nationalise the medical profession. Of course, if honourable members opposite had bothered to keep up with their reading they would have noticed that that is no longer the policy of the Labor Party. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) suggested that the difficulty is that doctors’ fees have been going up faster than they should have and that this has created a dreadful problem for the Government, that it has widened the gap between the actual fees and the payments from the benefit organisations and the Government. He suggests that this is imposing dreadful hardships on the community, that it is the doctors’ fault and that the Government has had to do something about it. The sad reality is that this is a world-wide phenomenon. He also implied that doctors are earning a lot of cash, and he quoted a recent survey conducted by the University of Melbourne to prove this point. I do not doubt that at all. It is true. The reality is that, despite the high incomes, there are not enough doctors in this sort of Western society. Again, that situation is not confined to Australia. It is a world-wide phenomenon.

I am not necessarily asking for more or less money for doctors. I am interested in having enough doctors for the community. It is no good belly-aching about how much money they earn or do not earn. The fact is, whatever they are earning there are not enough doctors being produced. Even worse, of those who are graduating not enough are becoming general practitioners, for very good reasons. For rather less dedication in terms of hours, with better conditions, with living in large cities and having all sorts of other facilities quite apart from their medical needs to make for a better life for them, doctors can become specialists and earn at least as much as, and often more than, general practitioners. All the incentives are against their becoming general practitioners. The community is suffering from a shortage of general practitioners. The doctors are overworked. If one goes along to see a doctor one would be lucky to spend 2 minutes with him before he started writing a prescription. It is not necessarily his fault. There may be fifty other people waiting outside in the consulting room. The reality is that the sort of medicine a general practitioner should be dealing with requires more time. He has to earn his living. At $2.80 or $3.50 a consultation, if he can push each one through in 5 minutes instead of an hour, he is obviously so much better off. These are the reasons why patients get short shrift. These are the reasons why I used the terms ‘pad’ and ‘drug pushers’. To compensate and to cope the doctor too often is forced to prescribe a barbiturate rather than listen to the complaint.

The honourable member for McMillan, in complaining about the Labor Party’s vicious proposals, indicated that the Socialists on this side of the House had received unexpected support from the Nimmo Committee. He indicated that it was fortunate that the Government had placed restrictions on the ambit of the Committee because, if not, it no doubt would have come up with full support for the Labor Party’s Socialist scheme, which is none other than a national insurance commission. I was shocked by what the honourable member said. I have noted the composition of the Committee. It included Mr Justice Nimmo and Sir Leslie Melville. I doubt whether either of those gentlemen would be a Communist or a Socialist. I suppose the culprit must have been Mr Norman Mcintosh. He has not a title so I suppose he must be the suspect one who wound the others around his little finger. 1 think it is an incredible suggestion that the honourable member made. If the hint - it is a very broad hint - contained in the Nimmo report is that a national health insurance scheme would be the best thing for the country, then I would suggest that that is probably what the facts show.

One has to consider the purpose of this whole expensive exercise, the national health scheme. It costs over 6% of our gross national product these days and it may be nearer 7%. By comparison, the British scheme is rather cheaper for rather more, lt runs at about 5%. The Americans spend over 7% on their health service. The only point I want to make out of that is that health services are expensive wherever you go. Because you have a seemingly free health scheme, in the sense that you pay for it in tax rather than by direct contributions as the British do, it does not necessarily mean that therefore it will be more expensive, that there will be runaway expenses and that people will over-use the medical profession. 1 know that that is what we all love to say and what we feel, but it just is nol true. Even in this country we have the example of the pensioner medical scheme to prove the point that I am trying to make. I give due credit to the Government for bringing in that scheme. When it was first brought in many critics claimed that the pensioners would so over use the medical profession that no-one with a real illness - because it was automatically assumed that pensioners do not have illnesses; I do not know why that assumption was made but that was the assumption - and the ordinary paying patients - this was a key matter - would be able to get anywhere near the doctors. When you look at the statistics, they appear to confirm this view.

The usage of doctors by pensioners went up steeply and all the pessimists said: ‘There you are. It will not be long and that will be the end of the doctors.’ But after a few years it levelled off and it has stayed steady. In my view this means that the rise indicated the under utilisation of doctors by pensioners when they still had to pay. In fact, once their legitimate demands for medical services were met a ceiling was reached. It did not continue to snowball and in fact it was self-regulatory because no-one wants to go to see a doctor unnecessarily, lt is not km. You go because you feel you need to see a doctor, and that is a good enough reason for going to sec him. Even if there is only a fear which he is able to cure by simple reassurance, that is good enough justification for going to a doctor.

What is the reason or the purpose tor for this whole expensive exercise confronting us in this Bill? Is it to ensure that the community has the best health services, or is it to ensure that the people can pay for whatever it is that they get? I would like to suggest that the present scheme is solely concerned with ensuring thai doctors, hospitals, chemists and all the other services covered by the scheme are paid for, irrespective of the need for the service or the quality of the service provided. Leave aside the whole question of quality and forget any doubts about that for the moment. The exercise then is to ensure that the health service providers - the doctors and the hospitals - are paid for their services, irrespective of whether the person who receives the service is rich and able to pay for himself, or poor and clearly unable to pay for himself. Let us examine the present scheme and the proposed improvements and see how they will function.

Any patient irrespective of his income is free to go to his doctor of choice. Let us consider the doctors simply because that is an easy illustration for the whole scheme but I do not just mean doctors. The doctor is free to charge and he is expected to charge and encouraged to charge the common fee specified in the schedule, lt is true that he is not forced, but I think the moral pressure is there to impel him, to adhere at least fairly closely to the schedule, if not exactly to it. This fee is charged the patient irrespective of his, the patient’s income. How is the patient, irrespective of his income, expected to pay the bill? All patients, irrespective of their incomes, are expected to subscribe to a medical benefit organisation. Irrespective of their incomes they contribute the same amount. In real terms this means that the poorer you are the more you pay. The essential thing is the final amount of money which has to pass out of your pocket for the insurance cover. As payments to benefit funds are tax deductible the poor man will get back in tax refund a negligible amount of the money he paid whilst the rich man will get perhaps half of it back. I am not concerned at the fact that a rich man pays more tax than a poor man. I accept that as I assume we all do as social justice which has motivated not only modern social welfare states but many other earlier and even ancient societies. The principle of the richer you are the more you pay’ is not in question.

I am concerned only with the specific payments for health insurance purposes. The fact remains that in a final analysis the rich pay less than the poor for their hospital and medical benefits. But let me come back to the patient paying his bill. If the theory is right, most of the bill will now be paid by the benefit organisation payment and the Commonwealth payment, leaving the patient to pay up to $5 directly out of his own pocket. Statistically, most of the medical expenses in this community are incurred by patients visiting their family doctors. The patients will expect to pay at least 80c per visit and many will have to pay more for ordinary consultations as the most common fee concept means that many fees will actually be higher, and I doubt whether doctors now charging more will bring their fees down. That is business. When we again apply to these payments the taxation rebate which will be much higher for those earning high incomes we again find the poorer sections of the community will bc paying much more for their medical services than are the wealthy sections of the community.

I take it that the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the doctors’ bills are paid. For a given number of medical services the medical bill is a clearly defined sum. The 12,000 or so doctors will charge their fees and they will get their money. But what will the community pay? That is the question. There is no suggestion that the Government is contemplating that doctors shall receive more than they are receiving at present, though as an aside I will take a bet that if this scheme works the doctors will in fact get more than they received in the past. But I must not digress. I am sure that was not the Government’s intention. The whole purpose of this exercise is to get a definite sum of money out of the pockets of patients and into the pockets of doctors, hospitals, etc. Let us examine the mechanics of the procedure. We pay taxes. A certain amount of the money we pay gets lost on the way in running the Taxation Branch. I believe it is about 2%. We pay contributions to benefit organisations. They cost money to run and that money has to come from the contributors, so it is added to the final sum which finishes up in the pockets of doctors.

I would like to quote from an article by John Deeble in the ‘Economic Record’ of December 1967. He said:

By 1965-66, operating surpluses of nearly $10m were achieved which with income from investments provided an addition of about $13.4m to reserves. The overall retention rate . . . 23.2%.

In other words, for every SI paid in 23c- plus finished up going not to pay for the medical service but just to run the whole machine. He gave some comparisons with other countries such as America, a beautiful free enterprise community. He said:

For non-profit hospital insurance under the large Blue Cross plans, retentions were only 7% of contribution revenue in 1961, compared with 28.1% in Australia. Relevant Canadian data are limited to medical insurance, since voluntary hospital insurance has been replaced by universal provincial hospital plans.

The Canadians are a bit ahead of us. In 1960-61 the expense and retention ratios of Canadian non-profit medical insurance organisations were 7.9% and 15% respectively. These figures compared with 15.2% and 24.9% for their counterparts in Australia. Deeble said:

It would be unfair to attribute these differences to the deficiences of Australian management. The whole Australian system is intrinsically expensive.

Boy, what an under-statement! In other words, the effect of this Bill is not only to force people to pay the total hospital and medical expenses, which of course any scheme would undertake to do, but in addition for the privilege of calling it voluntary we are expected to add 25% to the total bill. How does all this differ from the Australian Labor Party proposals? For the moment I will deal not with all aspects but only with the problem of paying the doctors. There is no suggestion in our proposals that anyone will be directed to go to any particular doctor any more than under the present scheme. There is no stronger suggestion of price control than is contained in the Government proposals. In other words, we can assume that whatever are considered legitimate expenses in the Government scheme - doctors and hospital expenses, that is - the Australian Labor Party would accept. The difference between us is in the way we would collect the money from the patients.

Firstly, we would collect it through a single collecting agency. That would save alf the running expenses of all the 114 or 120 - however many there are - hospital and medical funds. The collection would not be On a flat rate irrespective of income so that when taxation rebates are allowed the rich pay much less than the poor. Our collection rate would be graduated according to income so that the rich pay more than the poor - a principle accepted by this Government for most of the taxation revenue in the country anyway.

In the handling of payments to the providers of the health services, even if we do not improve on the present system one can accept the expenses of the so-called closed benefit funds now operating and show that the cost will be cut in half. Their expenses run at about 6% or 7%. This would be the effect if we were using in essence one closed fund, namely the national health insurance scheme. But the tragedy with all this discussion about money, money, money is that it is irrelevant to what should be the real concern of a national health scheme - that is the availability and quality of medical and hospital care.

Much is made of the claim, as the Minister asserted it, if he can pause for a moment in his conversation to recall his statements in the House a couple of weeks ago, that people in the United Kingdom had to wait a long time for certain operations. The Minister made the assertion that one had to wait a long time for hernia operations in the United Kingdom and this presumably meant that people there were not getting their operations when they should. Other suggestions have been made at various times that if we had what we are proposing, the usage rate would go up. 1 have hinted at this earlier; I have tried to illustrate it with the pensioner medical scheme. Apparently, if one does not have to pay for it we would all want many more operations than we would want if we had to pay for the services. It is apparently fun to have an operation. If we do not have to pay for it, we are all in to get it.

I would like to quote from the proceedings of the Australian Hospital Association 1969 Congress from a paper delivered by Dr Lawson, who is now the Director of Hospital Services in Tasmania. He discusses this business of the difference between fee for service and a salaried medical service when doctors do not get paid a fee for this service and they are paid irrespective of how much work they do or how little work they do. lt gives them a chance to indulge in the government stroke. The data was obtained, Dr Lawson says, from the medical benefit organisations in New South Wales and Victoria and from the Commonwealth Department of Health. He used rates amongst insured members for hernia operations, tonsils and adenoid operations, appendix operations and hysterectomies. This information, he says, was then compared with data from the United States of America and the United Kingdom, lt is done in terms of the operation rate which is expressed as the annual rate per thousand members. He says:

With the exception of herniorrhaphy- or hernia operations - these particular operations were selected for study as the criteria for these operations are not clearly defined and they are the most frequent types of operations performed on a given population. Herniorrhaphy was included because the criteria for operation are relatively clearly defined one either has a lump or one does not. Dr Lawson continued:

These factors allow herniorrhaphy rales to he used as a guide to the comparability of data between countries and between methods of payment to doctors. 1 hope that honourable members have the picture - the background of the study. This is what Dr Lawson found in general terms:

Operation rates for tonsillectomy, appendicectomy, and hysterectomy for intermediate and private patients in Australia - i.e., those who .irc cared for by doctors remunerated under an insurance supported fee for service system - appear to be much higher than for American and British patients who are cared for by physicians who do not receive fees for individual services

Oddly enough the operation rates for hernias were similar in each category of patient. I will give some figures. In Australia, where we have our glorious free enterprise and fee for a service, the operation rate for tonsils and adenoids was 7 per 1,000 on a fee for service basis. In the United States of America, among some of these schemes that were mentioned by a previous speaker from this side of the House where doctors are paid a salary and where it is not a fee for service, the operation rate for the same sort of operation was only 4 per 1,000. Do honourable members opposite really mean to suggest that twice as many children in Australia get sick as children in America? In the United Kingdom where there is a free health service, the operation rate was only 3.6 per 1,000. Once again, are British children much healthier than Australian children?

The appendicectomy rate is also striking. In Australia the operation rate on fee for service is 5 per 1,000. In America, where the doctors are paid a salary, the rate is only 1.4 per 1,000. It seems people in America are much healthier. In the United Kingdom it is only 2.5 per 1,000, and so it goes on. The interesting thing, though, is that the operation rate for hernias was much the same because there is no argument about the criteria for operations. Either one has a hernia or one has not. This brings me to the point in answering obliquely to the Minister’s statement earlier about hernia operations and a patient waiting for so many years that he may well die before he has an operation. The operation rate in Australia for a hernia is 1.5 per 1,000. In the United States it was 1.9 - the same doctors pay the salary. The rate was a bit higher in the United States. In the United Kingdom it was 2. Might I suggest that on a system where doctors are paid a salary one is more likely to get the operation if one needs it. In fact, the fee for service in this situation in Australia tends to deter one even when the indication is a clear cut one. So much for the suggestion that fee for service somehow stops over-usage.

Of course, one might argue back and say: ‘That is all very well but the doctors working on a salary were not doing their job. The doctors in Australia were doing all the operations that were necessary and the lazy devils in Britain and America who were working on a salary just could not be bothered to perform operations’. In other words, the implication is that the quality of medical care is inferior if the doctors are paid a salary. One does not have to go -to Russia to find the answer to that one either; one can go to America. The whole concept of salaried service versus fee for service has been analysed. I shall read another quotation from the artitcle by Dr Lawson:

It has been suggested that the higher operation rates among patients receiving medical care under fee for service’ arrangements reflects a higher quality of care among this group. In New York State, Shapiro et al. (1958) have demonstrated that the contrary situation exists in that community, the perinatal and infant mortality among patients receiving care from salaried doctors in group practice being substantially lower than under fee for service plans.

He makes the point that:

Both groups of patients were comparable from the point of view of sex, occupation and ethnic origin.

He agrees that this is not necessarily the situation in Australia. He goes on to state: but it does make the point that fee for service systems of medical care do not necessarily offer better quality care than a salaried service.

In conclusion I should like to suggest that the whole business contained in this massive document - pages and pages of fee schedules - is irrelevant to the real problem facing this community in terms of health care. We can easily work out the bill. You can get the statistics - the operation rates - the patient usage of doctors. You can know the average incomes of doctors and compare them with incomes in other countries. This is not the problem and whether you pay for it on a fee for service or a salary basis - whether you have a national insurance scheme or leave it free for all as America has - it still costs a hell of a lot of money. That is a fact all over the world. It is time we started worrying about the quality of medical care and its availability. It is about time we started to analyse what people are getting and stopped worrying about what we are paying. We have to pay a lot anyway.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– The legislation now being debated is complicated and involved. It has been prepared after a great deal of detailed examination and research, notwithstanding the offhanded way in which the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) dealt with it. At the outset, therefore, I should congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) and his departmental officers who have worked so hard on the preparation of the broad scheme now embodied in the legislation and the detailed administrative machinery that it establishes. I know that this has been a difficult task for them; that diverging interests and needs have had to be reconciled; and that a basic principle of relieving the burden of fear of crippling medical costs has had to be adhered to. The final result is commendable and the Minister and his officers should be praised for the document they have prepared.

There has been considerable criticism of the scheme proposed and now embodied in this legislation. That criticism has come from well meaning and authoritative people and it should be listened to and considered. This is what I have tried to do in coming to a conclusion on the attitude 1 should take to this legislation. I say this in particular of criticism of the scheme made by general practitioners belonging to the principal associations of general practitioners and those who have made personal representations to me. lt is healthy that proposed legislation, especially on such an important matter as medical costs, should be held up to public scrutiny and there has been no shortage of that in respect of this legislation. What is much more important, however, is that having considered all the criticisms and suggestions and taken them into account, the Government should have this legislation implemented and working as soon as possible.

The criticisms of the legislation have thrown up an important point that should be made simply and forcefully to the Australian people and especially to the medical profession. The scheme proposed in the legislation is one of substantially two alternatives offered to the people. The present scheme is basically voluntary and is an insurance scheme based on a partnership between the Government, the insurance funds and the medical profession. It is a scheme that preserves doctors in their position of free agents and enables them to practice their profession as individual practitioners with the traditional relationship with their patients. The only other alternative offered to the country is that proposed by the Opposition. In these days of communication subtleties and sophistication the Socialist intentions of the Labor Party are often concealed. Indeed, the honourable member for Maribyrnong made an attempt to conceal precisely these intentions. When they are articulated they are described as democratic Socialism, as if that were calculated to give them an air of respectability that they would otherwise lack.

So it is with Labors proposed health scheme. The Doctors Kildare of the Labor Party as they go on their hospital rounds describe their scheme as universal insurance. This is certainly a misleading description of the Opposition’s health scheme lor it is nothing more nor less than Socialism and at its basis in practice is the nationalisation of the medical profession, despite assertions to the contrary by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Lest it be thought that I am biased, let me say that my authority for that proposition is none other than one of those quasi-intellectual journals that the Labor Party seems to procreate so regularly called ‘New ALP Journal’. In its July-August 1969 number this publication set out the Labor Party’s health policy and described it with dewy eyed enthusiasm. lt said:

This feasible, grass roots proposal is true Socialism, lt is a plan that all members of the Party can be proud to quote at any time and in any company.

I trust that when it is quoted in the future in the company of doctors it will be pointed out that under that scheme doctors will in effect become paid employees of the State and that there will be no place for the doctor who still wants to retain the traditional relationship with his patient. 1 hope that when it is quoted in the company of middle and lower income earners it will he explained clearly that the scheme cannot be financed without a levy on taxable income - not income tax as is sometimes thought but income - of li% which would mean an increase in income tax of something more than 8%. I am in a quandary to this extent, that the honourable member for Maribyrnong asserted quite positively that the basis of the Labor Party’s health scheme was not one of nationalisation. On the other hand, I have this scholarly journal to which I. have referred which describes the scheme in glowing terms as being true Socialism. Perhaps some honourable members opposite who follow me in the debate wilt be able to clarify this quandary in which I find myself.

Having disposed of the Labor Party’s health scheme - it is perhaps significant that I was able to do this in about 5 minutes - I would like to turn to two of the criticisms of this legislation that have been made by general practitioner bodies. The first relates to the concept of the common fee - the concept that is basic to the whole scheme. 1 would have thought that by now there would be little argument about this, but I find that this is not so for the Section of General Practice of the New South Wal’es Branch of the Australian Medical Association has said in a document very recently sent to honourable members that the Government has misused the concept as originally presented by the AMA; that the concept was developed by the AMA as a guide for the Government and the health insurance funds in setting rebates - in other words, a private matter, as they describe it. 1 could overlook these statements if the document did not go on to say, as it does, that the Government is now preparing a list of most common fees to fund members, which is said to be a break in faith. I assume this is meant as a breach of faith. lt is unfortunate that this allegation of a breach of faith should have been made and doubly unfortunate because it is wrong.

The first point to be made is that the most common fee concept was put forward by the AMA itself and put forward as far more than a guide. The AMA made submissions and recommendations to the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs and it made a specific recommendation on the common fee concept. Its recommendation was in these terms:

Within each State a comprehensive table of medical benefits should be available to contributors, designed to return by way of rebate at least 80% of current customary charges for each service listed.

The reasons advanced in support of that recommendation were what one would have expected them to be - that the public was faced on the one hand with varying medical charges from doctor to doctor and State to State but on the other hand fixed benefits were payable by the Commonwealth and the funds. Indeed, it was the great defect and criticism of the previous scheme that there was such a substantial gap between the medical fees charged and the rebate which the patient received. So it was natural that the principle should have been resolved to determine the fees most commonly charged or customarily charged, as the AMA put it, and that the rebates which a patient would receive would be based on that common fee. It was that scheme which the AMA advanced in its submissions to the Senate Select Committee. It was that scheme which it again advanced to the Nimmo Committee. It was that scheme which was advanced by the Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia to both committees. It was the scheme recommended by the Nimmo Committee itself.

Now we see the Section of General Practice of the New South Wales Branch of the AMA alleging that the common fee concept was only a guide - a private matter which the contributors were not to know about - and that there has been a breach of faith by the Government. I reject this, Sir, for no other reason than that the AMA itself recommended a system of common fees as the basis for calculating the rebates to be paid to contributors. The intention of the AMA, clearly, was that the common fee concept should be adopted, that it should be used, and that contributors should know about it so that no longer would they validly be able to complain about the unpredictable gap between doctors’ fees and rebates.

One segment of the AMA’s own submissions to the Senate Committee and the Nimmo Committee should be enough to bury the myth that the New South Wales general practice section has raised. It said:

With the establishment of such a schedule of benefits complaints from contributors about the amount to be paid in addition to rebates should disappear, except in an occasional case where a more than customary charge has been made; and here the complaint might well be levelled at the particular doctor, rather than at the National Health Scheme or the Funds.

The second of the criticisms of the legislation to which I wish to direct some comments is the criticism of the proposal for differential rebates for the cost of medical services performed by both general practitioners and specialists. At the outset, I want to repeat that this criticism has come from well meaning and honest people who are influenced by the desire to keep the general practitioner as the fulcrum of medical practice, to keep him available as the general source of medical knowledge and experience in the interests of the general public. I know that the general practitioner groups who have criticised the scheme and have offered alternatives have done so honourably and with the welfare of the public and the type of medical service available to the public as their prime motivation. Nevertheless, criticisms of the scheme have been made and thos: criticisms need to be met or accepted.

First, it is claimed that if this legislation is implemented general practitioners will die out and disappear; people will rush to the nearest specialist at no extra cost; and that the young graduate will be deterred from going into general practice because the financial rewards of specialist practice will be greater, and because of the danger that the general practitioner may become little more than an office doctor. After giving a great deal of thought to this argument I have come to the conclusion that, although there may indeed be some weight in it, it is certainly not sufficient to justify opposing this legislation or altering the scheme at this time. Nevertheless the Government will have to give close and continuing attention to the effects of the legislation on general practice. It will have to watch closely the trend of graduates to go into general practice or into a specialty. And if there are signs developing that general practice is not getting the stream of recruits it needs to provide the service that only general practice can provide, then the Government will have to amend the rebates scheme or provide incentives to ensure that there are adequate numbers of general practitioners.

I believe that the general practitioner is still held in such awe by the community that patients will be guided by their advice as to whether to consult a specialist. It should not be assumed that merely because in some cases a patient may receive specialist treatment at no greater cost than general practitioner treatment, there will be a mass migration away from general practitioners to specialists. Such a view overlooks the regard that the public still has and will continue to have for the family doctor and the natural desire on the patient’s part to have one doctor treat him for all conditions for which he is competent to treat him. One can proceed only on one’s own assessment of what is likely to happen when the scheme is operating and my own assessment is that there will not necessarily be a mass desertion of the general practitioner. If there develop signs that this will be so and that the consequence will be a loss to general practice, then I repeat that the Government will have to amend the scheme or make other arrangements to ensure that this vital section of medical practice remains the substantial and useful section that it now is.

It is because of the fear of some of the critics of the scheme that the scheme will erode the position of the general practitioner that proposals for amendment have been put forward by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. These proposals, it has been said, have been prepared after careful consideration and it is clear from the detailed nature of the proposals that this is so. The most significant of the proposals is a series of amendments which the College would like to see made to the Schedules. The principle on which these proposals have been made has been stated by the College in the following terms:

A single scale of benefits be introduced so that those procedures carried out by and normally accepted as within the province of the General Practitioner would attract the present General Practitioner benefit, whilst those procedures more exclusively carried out by Specialists would obtain the present Specialist benefit.

As I understand it, it is proposed that alterations should be made to the Schedules to delete one or other of those items for .which there is both a separate specialist Commonwealth benefit and a non-specialist benefit. Which benefit remains in the Schedule is determined by whether the medical service in question is one carried out and normally accepted as a general practitioner service or a procedure more exclusively carried out by a specialist.

The first comment to make about such an approach is to question the desirability of using any such division and providing one rebate, whether the service is performed in fact by a general practitioner or a specialist. Such an approach strikes at the very basis of the Government’s proposal that a patient should be able to have specialist treatment when properly referred and receive a rebate of his costs based on the fee commonly charged by specialists. To calculate his rebate on the fee commonly charged by a general practitioner when the service has been performed by a specialist and when the specialist has charged the specialist’s common fee is an entirely different scheme and one which gives the patient less in his rebate and obliges him to pay more out of his own pocket. It seems to me that the Government’s proposal is sensible, is based on the b hard facts that some services will be performed by specialists although they are also normally within the province of the general practitioner, that specialists will charge the specialist’s common fee and not the general practitioner’s fee, that patients will want to be referred to specialists and that general practitioners in some cases will refer their patients to specialists. All that being so, the patient’s rebate should be calculated on the specialist’s common fee, as the Government proposes, and not on the general practitioner’s common fee as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners suggests.

The second comment I make about these proposals from the College is that if there is to be a system of single rebates instead of differential rebates, it does seem curious that the test for a specialist’s rebate should be whether the procedure is more exclusively carried out by a specialist. I would have thought a service was exclusively a specialist service or it was not. To describe a service as more exclusively a specialist service is curious because it suggests that a service is not exclusively a specialist service, and not within the province of the general practitioner, but somewhere in between. If this is so, it seems strange why there should be a higher rebate for that type of service even though it may be performed on a particular patient not by a specialist but by a genera] practitioner. This gives me some doubt about the manner in which the dual benefits proposed by the Government have been broken up by the College and distributed over all medical services as a single scale of benefits.

However, having made those comments I want to repeat that the Government will have to keep a close watch on the operations of this legislation when it becomes law. It should remember that criticisms of the Bill and suggestions for amendment have come from responsible men and their professional organisations and that in particular they have drawn attention to the possibility of general practice suffering from the operation of the legislation. I am not convinced that it will suffer. But the Government must continue to examine closely the workings of the scheme, any excessive use of specialists that appears and the recruitment of young graduates into general practice. For general practice to suffer and lose its position as the basis of medical practice, as has happened in some other countries, would be a disaster.

Finally I wish to make some comments, very briefly, about another matter which is of considerable importance, that is, the lack of doctors in country areas. This seems to me an appropriate occasion on which to make some comments on that. Many country towns are without doctors. There are whole areas in the country that do not have them. My own electorate includes some near country areas and one of them centres on a town named Whittlesea. The people of that area do not have a single doctor available to them and have to travel many miles to find a doctor or rely on a doctor to find time from his practice to travel to Whittlesea to see the patient. This is a quite unsatisfactory situation which should be rectified by some means or other. T put it as a bald proposition. If private initiative cannot encourage doctors and give them the incentive to go to country districts, and this is one area where it has not happened, the Government must provide incentives and other types of encouragement to get doctors into country areas. There is a desperate need for them and something should be done about that aspect because people in the country are suffering very severely. Having made those comments may I repeat what I said at the outset. In my view the Bill is a very substantial one brought about by a great deal of hard work and thought. 1 commend the Government strongly for the legislation it has introduced.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I cannot join the rather dewy-eyed optimism or admiration of the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) for this Bill. I must admit he left me speechless with his modesty with regard to his breadth of appreciation of relevant health services. I find it rather difficult to address myself to this Bill for 2 reasons. The first is the very breadth of the subject matter which has been opened up and the second is my complete contempt for the theory of payment, the theory of revision of medical and health services contained in this Bill. To me it heaps inequality on inequality, iniquity on iniquity. It is a complete fraud. It arises out of an investigation by a committee that was restricted in its terms to examine only voluntary health insurance. That committee did a good job within those terms but there are many other aspects of financing health services that should have been considered. Was the Government frightened when laying down the terms of reference that it would find its wailing over many years that this was the best type of health service was completely false, and was shown to be by a committee which it appointed? Of course it was.

Today we have been led to the first bed of a rather didactic clinical wardroom. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), figuratively dressed in the flowing robes of a Ph.D., gave a preliminary oration earlier and today we have dissected the whys and wherefors of the Government’s and medical profession’s responsibilities for financing. But while we have gathered around the bed and drawn back the sheet from the patient, he has been left there shivering except when the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) spoke of the quality of patient care and massaged some life back into him. What is this patient concerned about in the provision of health services? Firstly he wants the best quality of medical care. Secondly he does not want the overwhelming cost of such care to threaten the whole economic basis of his life and his family’s life. What guarantee has he of the quality of medical care? What steps have Federal and State governments taken to ensure this quality? They provide the majority of beds available in hospitals foi the patients. They even subsidise private hospitals extensively, not only through the fees paid but through various other arrangements that are made. For example, in Victoria the interest rate on a loan for the construction of a private hospital was greatly reduced and guaranteed by a government. Admittedly it was not this Government but we cannot divorce the State Government from the Federal Government in the hospital held.

Governments also in their own way determine the nature of the government of hospitals, how they are run and the composition of their boards of management. But of quality they require none, relying only on actions in tort for negligence or actions in criminal law for even worse to apply the necessary sanctions to encourage the practitioner to maintain his standard of care. The only other check is the knowledge of admitting officers and medical superintendents at these hospitals. Doctors notorious for cavalier or inefficient patient treatment find that when they telephone for a bed all beds are full. We have heard about bed availability and we have had comparisons made with the hospitals of Great Britain. But let us look at the situation of those unfortunates who have to use public hospitals - I am not saying they are unfortunate in the quality of care they receive because often here they receive the best care - and are waiting for elective surgery. I invite the Minister to check with some of the hospitals in which he should show an interest and find out just what these waiting periods are for hernias and such like, for the stabilisation of diabetics and other medical conditions. He will get a surprise. It is all right if a patient can pay to enter a private hospital. He can get a bed there provided he can pay.

What responsibility does the medical profession accept in quality control? Surely it cannot be said that this type of health Bill is just a measure for financing where the agreement is primarily between the Government and the patient. Each trained doctor, even if he has paid his own fees at university, has been heavily subsidised by the Commonwealth and State governments. The cost of his subsidy during training is somewhere between $6,000 to $8,000. He does his further hospital training in hospitals which were expensive in capital outlay for buildings and equipment paid for by governments which also subsidise the maintenance and staffing. What is more, he is paid. This provision is made for him by governments. The profession does not supply it. When he goes into practice the financial basis of his practice will be repatriation and pensioner medical scheme patients. These are the fairly constant recurring factors in his income and they provide the basic bread and butter for him and his family. He will use hospital facilities provided by the Government and expensive equipment provided by the Government, to earn his income.

The community hospital in my electorate has 323 beds. At least 60% of those are for private and intermediate patients. The facilities there are paid for by the Government for doctors to obtain their income. So the doctor has certainly a great responsibility for the quality of medical care. I suggested that payments for repatriation and pensioner medical scheme patients are important but it seems that patients who are covered in these 2 categories are the only responsible patients we have because those payments require no contribution from the patient at all. Under this scheme all other patients are irresponsible. They must pay the margin between the rebate and the actual fee charged. They are irresponsible. They are out of the group. Once these people reach 65 years of age and become pensioners, they also become responsible patients instead of receiving the same privileges that repatriation and pensioner patients rightly receive.

The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) spoke on some of the quality control measures that doctors can use. As he pointed out, these measures were used particularly in the Kaiser Prepaid Health Scheme. I point out that not only is quality control imposed in that instance but also that this pre-paid scheme, which I had the pleasure of seeing in operation some 18 months ago, supplies medical and surgical treatment and also hospitals and training for nurses. In addition, it provides for research and all the other factors that make a complete health service. This is something that this Bill does not propose although it is called a National Health Bill.

There are many other services like this one. T mention as an example the Windsor Medical Service. That is a pre-paid scheme whereby doctors contract and are subject to very severe discipline by their peers - that is, by their fellows - with regard to their rates of visiting, quality of service and so on. This scheme is so well respected that it is endorsed by the Essex and Kent County Medical Societies, by the Ontario Medical Association, chartered by the Canadian Government, and so on and so on. These are the sorts of comprehensive schemes that can cover so many factors.

What is this quality control that is needed? I suggest that the medical profession has to accept, criticism in this field for its lack of activity, lt is only recently, because of the discussions that have arisen out of this Bill and because of the pressures of hospital administrators who are unhappy with the standard of care in their hospitals, that the accreditation of hospitals is starting to be talked about. This is accreditation of hospitals on the basis of buildings, facilities and the equipment that is applied there.

This accreditation of hospitals would be done also on the basis of the competency of the medical practitioners working there, lt would be done not by a big brother committee but by members of the medical profession themselves. They would conduct medical and surgical audits of the performances of doctors. For example, a pain in the chest may indicate a coronary occlusion. They would determine how many cases involving pains in the chest Doctor X had admitted as coronary occlusion cases and in how many of those cases his diagnosis was accurate. This quality control is important for the major reason of proper patient treatment. Proper patient treatment in these cases requires intensive care units. Such units are highly expensive to operate and so will reflect on the costs of services. Surgical audits assess the ability to diagnose and to perform an operation properly. Tissue committees can confirm this.

I regret that the Minister for Health has no knowledge of this type of procedure although it is now pretty common knowledge amongst hospital administrators and doctors. A simple question related to this matter has been on the notice paper since 19th March. Simple and all as it is, and with his wide discussions on these matters, the Minister for Health is unable to answer that question. What it leads up to then is a delineation of privileges of the individual practitioner and the privileges that should be extended to him in the hospital. His primary degree in medicine and surgery should allow him a limited number of procedures, in which most general practitioners can be skillful if they apply themselves - the ordinary appendectomy and so on - but this work must be subject to quality control, lt is of no good his ripping out 10 appendixes quite successfully and having the patients go home but when the tissue committee has a look at them finding that only I of the 10 shows any pathology at all. The patients will receive a rebate on this. They will have occupied hospital beds unnecessarily and have been subjected to an unnecessary operation with the attendant risks that apply to any operation. And so these privileges are gained by constant training of the doctor - the doctor who wishes to apply himself to the use of new techniques and new procedures and who becomes well trained and improves the quality and skill of his work. If this is so, what argument is there for differential rebates? Surely the rebate is for service skilfully performed.

Differential rebates merely serve to suggest to the community that there are 2 standards of medical care - the first rate and the second rate. The real speciality procedures would be carried out by specialists. If it is neuro-surgery, obviously a general practitioner would not try this procedure; the neuro-surgeon would do it. The speciality procedures clearly define themselves. But if a general practitioner is skilful enough to do the routine operation, as is the specialist, why should there be differential rebates? After all, if the specialist is so skilful he is probably able to do 3 appendix operations and rip out a pair of tonsils for an encore in an hour while the general practioner is doing 2 appendix operations. It seems to me that we are forgetting the quality of medical care for the patient as being the criterion by which the medical practitioner is paid. We are taking too much notice of university degrees as the measuring stick for this. I have a degree in medicine and I admit that after a number of years in a State Parliament and now here I feel thai I am obsolescent for expert procedures. I am not ashamed of that. I have applied myself most faithfully to parliamentary duties. If a man does this he is unable to keep up with the techniques of advancing medicine - not the knowledge . of medicine, new procedures and the organisation of medicine but the actual techniques. This is why I come down hard on this matter of accreditation, audits and delineation of privileges as a way to ensure quality control of medical service and to allow this rather vexed question of differential rates to be got out of the way.

What we have is really not voluntary health insurance. How can it be voluntary health insurance when there is such a large government contribution to make it viable? We hear that if our scheme for health services, paid for by a compulsory type insurance scheme, was instituted the payment by the Government would destroy the doctor-patient relationship. What a lot of nonsense that is! What a myth this is! I shall quote from an address given by Pro fessor Griffith, who is Professor of Hospital Administration at the University of New South Wales, to the Tenth Australian Area Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in April of last year. I think he made a rather good comment on this financial relationship between the doctor and patient. He said: When not protesting about the possible loss nf professional freedom the less well informed members of the profession, and this seems to be a majority, protest that the present direct doctorpatient financial relationship is hallowed by centuries, if not millennia of sacred tradition.

Debate interrupted.

page 1625

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! lt being 11 p.m. and in accordance with the Order of the House of 16th April I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Snedden:

– I ask for your indulgence for a moment, Sir, while I settle an issue of procedure, lt has been indicated to me that the honourable member for Scullin wishes to continue for about 10 minutes in order to finish his speech. We do not want to interrupt him. For that reason I would require that the question be now put without debate. We would then negative the question. Upon the conclusion of the period required by the honourable member to complete his speech I will move the adjournment of the House forthwith. I propose then, if necessary, to close that debate because of the arrangement that there should be no adjournment debate on a Tuesday evening.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: That the House do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative.

page 1625

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Second Reading Debate resumed.

Dr JENKINS:

– I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) for the courtesy extended by him and other honourable members. Before the motion was put I was quoting the words of Professor Griffith, who said:

When not protesting about the possible loss of professional freedom the less well informed members of the profession, and this seems to be a majority, protest that the present director doctorpatient financial relationship is hallowed by centuries if not millennia of sacred tradition. If this were not a parliamentary occasion, 1 would be tempted to reply to them with an unparliamentary 5-letler word because their claim is undoubtedly all balderdash. For centuries, from the most ancient times, many doctors whether ‘medical men or medicine men’, to use that wonderful distinction for which we are indebted to Professor Trendall, have been accustomed to receive payments from third parties for the treatment rendered to patients. In Greece it was from the community; in Rome from the army; in medieval rimes from the feudal lord, lt is only since the times of the Mercantilists that a majority of doctors like other traders have started to demand payments on the nail for goods provided over the counter. 1 think there is a great deal of substance in those words. We should dismiss some of our fears and point out to the people the true position. They should not be carried away by a proposition that a sacred right is threatened. I have here a pamphlet circulated by general practitioners that suggests that where the family doctor could not be paid he received bunches of flowers, baskets of fruit, and onions and potatoes instead of the fee. I must admit that I was never offered such goods in replacement of the fee. but I often received gifts in addition to the fee in gratitude for the treatment that a family doctor can give. This pamphlet uses an emotional method of criticising the scheme. The approach is purely subjective. We say that we have the best hospitals in the world and the best general practitioners in the world. But what criteria are used to make those judgments? They are purely subjective impressions, formed without the use of any criteria. 1 have the highest respect for my fellow members of the medical profession, but there are some who do not attain high standards. Under out present terms they are able to operate in just the same way as their more talented fellow practitioners. It is about time we put a stop to this. 1 remind the House that under Lloyd George there was a pretty substantial voluntary health insurance scheme in Great Britain between about 1911 and 1948. A royal commission on national health insurance in 1926 had this to say:

  1. . the difficulties of a composite support to a complete medical service from insurance funds . . would be so considerable alike in their financial administrative and social aspects, that some more practical solution must be sought. In particular we feel sure that the wider the scope of these services the more difficult will it be to retain the insurance principle. The ultimate solution will be … in the direction of divorcing the medical service from the insurance system and recognising it, along with other public health activities, as a service to be supported from the general public funds.

As long ago as 1926 voluntary health insurance was given that type of critique. There are only 4 ways of financing health services. Firstly, there is across the counter dealing by direct payment. 1 do not think that the medical profession or the patients would agree to that one. Then there is the hire purchase system that applies to so many other things. In other words: Have your illness now. pay later. That does not work either. Then there is voluntary health insurance, with all the defects that my colleagues have pointed out,- with all the inequities and with the cost bearing mostly on the lower income earner instead of being on a graded scale. Then there is compulsory health insurance. Honourable members can call it by whatever term they like. Under a compulsory health insurance scheme the moneys would come, as we have suggested, from a social security levy on taxable income or, as others have suggested from time to time, from the public purse. In this way we can have a partnership between the patient, the Government and the medical practitioner.

The sort of thing that is being forced through under the present voluntary health insurance scheme is shown in the reports of last year’s annual meeting of the Hospital Benefits Association, lt had 773,716 contributors at that stage. The contributors are the life blood of the voluntary health insurance organisation. How many representatives did they have in the controlling body of this organisation? Out of a possible 52 members of the board controlling it they had 4 representatives. Three quarters of a million contributors had 4 out of a possible 52 representatives. What is more, the executive of the organisation is elected before the annual meeting of contributors, so they are cut out of the voting. Worse than that, no alteration shall be made in the articles governing this organisation without the consent in writing of the Lord Mayors’ Metropolitan Hospital and Charities Fund and of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Medical Association. The contributors are the ones who keep that association going. They are the ones who are paying the executive. They are the ones who are giving it a reason for existing and who are helping it to exist. They are allowed 4 representatives out of 52, but any alteration to ease this situation may be put into effect only with the permission of the Lord Mayor’s fund for charity or the Victorian Branch of the AMA.

At the meeting at which the contributors’ representatives were elected there were 51 voters remaining when the final vote was taken. But 17 of that 51 were senior staff members of the Hospital Benefits Association. This is the situation in which the voluntary health insurance organisations have been put under the present scheme. This Bill does not alter that; as I say, it keeps these iniquitous and inequitable matters going on. The present system means waste. It involves no suggestion of checking the quality of service by the doctors. Under it there is no attempt to keep down costs.

If I had time I could also cite from this document the amount of money used by the voluntary health insurance funds in straight out political manoeuvring. They say that they reserve the right to answer unfair criticism or to correct misunderstandings of the present system of health insurance. That is their let out for opposing any scheme that does not envisage their continuing. I regret that I cannot have more to say on that matter. We look at their administrative costs and find that they range up to about 15% of contributions, whereas Windsor Medical Services lnc. in Canada has an administrative expense of 5.5 cents out of each $1. Although it has been said that general practice is dying off, we find from the document that office, home, night and hospital calls by medical practitioners cause an expenditure of 44.3 cents per $1.

In rounding off I would say that it is pretty obvious that I reject materially the principles and ideas behind this Bill. We have said that we would not oppose it because there may be some benefit from it for the lower income group. However, 1 have grave doubts about this. I hope that I have indicated that there is a responsibility of government, of the medical profession, and of patients to be considered in what sort of care is given to the community.

Debate (on motion by Mr Jess) adjourned.

page 1627

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Dr Forbes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Grassby - Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Dr Forbes) put: That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 55

NOES: 53

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.19 p.m.

page 1628

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated

Local Government Finances: Debt Charges and Revenues (Question No. 54)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date and consolidate the answers which his predecessor gave me on 23 February 1969 (Hansard, page 141) and 26 Sep tember 1969 (page 2121) on (a) revenue, (b) debt charges and (c) percentage of debt charges to revenue in respect of local government authorities in each State.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is contained in the following table, which was provided by the Commonwealth Statistician.

Clothing Industry (Question No. 194)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Can he say (a) how many people are employed in the Australian clothing industry and (b) what proportion is (i) male and (ii) female.
  2. What is the capital investment in the industry.
  3. Is the clothing industry a reasonably decentralised industry.
  4. ls the industry efficient.
  5. Are some sections of the industry experiencing grave difficulties from imports from countries which are noted for low wages and poor working conditions.
  6. What is the intention of the Government regarding protection for (his industry.
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. Employment in the clothing industry (including hosiery and knitted goods) totalled 101,266 in 1967-68. Of this. 17,692 were males and 83,574 were females.
  2. Capital investment as at 30th June, 1968 in the clothing industry group was $197m. of which $142m. were invested in land and building and $55m. was invested in plant and machinery.
  3. Statistics are not available on the number of factories located in decentralised areas. However the clothing industry like other textile operations is a substantial user of female labour. Labour of this type is available in country centres and the clothing industry has established in decentralised areas to take advantage of it.
  4. The industry has been spending substantial sums of money and devoting a considerable amount of time to the matter of efficiency. In the year ended 30lh June, 1968, for example, it invested approximately SI 3m, in new plant and machinery. It is conducting a number of interfirm comparisons in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry.
  5. Within the last two years, manufacturers of knitted outerwear, knitted shirts and woven shirts encountered severe import competition. All three sectors of the clothing industry were referred to the Special Advisory Authority who found the need for temporary quantitative import restrictions on the knitted goods and temporary duties on woven shirts. The recommended temporary protection was imposed and the Tariff Board is currently conducting an inquiry into these sectors. The Department of Trade and Industry has before it no applications for review of protection in other sectors of the garment industry.
  6. The long established policy of the Government is to afford reasonable and adequate protection to economic and efficient industries. Careful consideration will be given to any further request for such protection.

Post Office: Wages (Question No. 272)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What is the number and classification of persons employed in his Department who receive a weekly wage (a) less than the basic wage and (b) with a margin over the basic wage of (i) less than $1, (ii) between $1 and $2, (m) between $2 and $3, (iv) between $3 and $4, (v) between $4 and $5, (vi) between $5 and $6, (vii) between $6 and $7, (viti) between $7 and $8, (ix) between $8 and $9, (x) between $9 and $10, (xi) between SIO and $15 and (xii) between $15 and $20.

Mr Hulme:
LP

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

There is now no basic wage prescribed in Federal Awards or Determinations. For purposes of answering the Question, the average has been taken of the minimum wages prescribed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of the various States of the Commonwealth. This figure at present is $42.40 per week.

To answer the question on the basis of actual salaries presently applicable would involve the scrutiny of thousands of pay cards decentralised throughout the Commonwealth. However, Departmental employees receive annual increments and adults generally attain the maximum of their salary range within a relatively few years. Therefore maximum attainable rates for adult males, which can more readily be ascertained, have been used in answering the question.

On the foregoing basis, the following details are given in answer to the question.

No Departmental employees receives less than the minimum wage.

No Departmental employees receive a margin of:

less than $1.00.

between $1.00 and S2.00.

between $2.00 and $3.00.

between $3.00 and $4.00.

between $4.00 and $5.00.

The following are particulars in respect of the remaining parts of the question:

between 55.00 and $6.00. 2 Sandblasters

between $6.00 and $7.00 1974 Cleaners. Labourers, Watchmen 1245 Lines Assistant* Grade 1

between $7.00 and $8.0(1 125 Garage Allen Jams, Gardeners Grade I, Lift Attendants

between $8.00 and $9.00 15 Polishers

between $9.00 and $10.00 1657 Lines Assistants Grade 2 4 Miscellaneous

between $10.00 and $15.00 6066 Linemen Grade ) 341 Storemen 181 Workshops Assistants Grade 2 297 Miscellaneous

between $15.00 and $20.00 6024 Postmen and Postal Officers Grade 1 1060 Clerical Assistants Grade 2 817 Motor Drivers 220 Senior Storemen 174 Miscellaneous

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 338)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

How many persons who have been awarded Commonwealth (a) university and (b) advanced education scholarships in each of the various States in each of the years for which records are available have gained the awards after repeating the last year or form of their secondary school studies.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

No statistics of the numbers of students who have obtained either a Commonwealth University scholarship or a Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarship after repeating the final year of secondary schooling are available.

Schools of Engineering: Enrolments (Question No. 341) Mr Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many qualified applicants have (a) sought entry and (b) been admitted into the schools of engineering in each of the institutes of technology and colleges of advanced education in Australia in each of the last 5 years, or, where more recently established, in each of the years of existence.
  2. What quotas have’ been applied in each instance.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Student enrolments in schools of engineering for 1965 and 1967-72 in colleges of advanced education, which includes institutes of technology, are given in the First and Second Reports of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education; these enrolment details comprise actual and estimated numbers. For the years up to and including 1969 no information additional to that appearing in the Reports is available. The actual enrolments for 1970 are not available at this stage as returns have not yet been received from the colleges but this will be supplied when available.

Concerning the number of qualified applicants and quotas for engineering courses, some limited information of this nature has been provided in the past by State authorities for the Committee and it is expected that a list of courses which have operative quotas can be supplied to you later this year. However, information beyond this is given to the Committee on the understanding that it is for ils use in planning and is not for general release. In the circumstances I suggest that the question may more properly be directed to the appropriate State authorities.

Kitchens of Sara Lee’ (Question No. 475)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether a firm known as Kitchens of Sara Lee’ is to open a factory in Lisarow, New South Wales.
  2. If so, has he any information as to whether the company has any Australian shareholding or is it totally made up of American shareholders.
  3. Has the company received any assistance from the Development Bank.
  4. If so, how much.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The proposal by Kitchens of Sara Lee to establish a plant at Gosford, N.S.W., to manufacture Frozen Bakery Products was featured in ‘The Australian Financial Review’ dated 27 February 1970.
  2. I do not have this information.
  3. and (4) It is not the practice of a bank to provide the kind of information requested.

Education: South Australia (Question No. 479)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there is a growing crisis in education in South Australia, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, and that the State is unable to meet pressing demands in the areas of building, transport, teacher training, administrative costs and salaries.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the views of education experts that the situation is the direct consequence of the lack of Commonwealth finance at all levels of education.
  3. If so, will he immediately recommend a special purpose grant of $20 million the allocation of which to be the sole responsibility of the State, to enable South Australia to meet the crucial needs of its education programme.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) For some years the school systems of all States have been faced with rapid increases in enrolments. During the past decade primary enrolments in government schools have increased by 50% while secondary enrolments have increased by 150%. These increased numbers have placed a substantial burden on available resourses and both State and Commonwealth governments have made considerable efforts to cope with pressures on State education systems. State governments have devoted increasing proportions of their budgets to education while each year the Commonwealth has increased its special purpose educational grants to the States. There is no evidence available to me to suggest that efforts in South Australia have fallen behind those of other States.
  2. Any requests for further Commonwealth asis t a ncc to the education system of any particular

State will be considered in the light of the results of the Survey of the Needs of Government and Non-government schools in all States and Territories now being completed under the sponsorship of the Australian Education Council. It is important to note also that the whole question of Commonwealth-State financial relations is under review. As you will know the matter was discussed at a Premiers’ Conference on 26 February last and further consideration is now being given to the arrangements which will operate afterthe present programme of Commonwealth financial assistance grunts to the States is completed in. June 1970.

Reserve Bank: Foreign Exchange Cover (Question No. 558)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Under what statutory authority does the Reserve Bank provide foreign exchange cover against the risks of changes in exchange rales.
  2. Is it Reserve Bank policy to make such cover available for a short term only and for commercial trade transactions only and not for capital items.
  3. Did the Reserve Bank reject a request by the Australian Resources Development Bankto provide such a cover in the early stages of its operations before it built up reserves.
  4. Has consideration been given to the circumstances in which the Reserve Bank can provide cover for the Industry Development Corporation.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The Banking Act 1959-1967 and the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations.
  2. , (3) and (4) The forward exchange facilities provided by the Reserve Bank are designed primarily to facilitate export and other current transactions, and cover is available only for the normally short periods required for such transactions. Capital transactions, including overseas borrowings, are not eligible for cover.

University of Papua and New Guinea: Staff (Question No. 572)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) European and (b) nonEuropean expatriates have been appointed to the staff of the University of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. For what periods have they been given (a) appointments to the staff of the University and (b) permits to enter theTerritory of Papua and New Guinea.
  3. Do non-European appointees have to obtain extensions to their permits at shorter intervals than European appointees; if so, why.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. (a) 200 European expatriate staff were employed by the University as at April 1970,

    1. 6 non-European expatriate staff were employed by the University as at April 1970.
  2. (a) Academic staff are appointed forterms according to their classification. Professors are appointed initially for six years, lecturers and senior lecturers for three years and tutors and senior tutors for one year. The contracts of nonacademic staff range from two to six years in duration. (b) Permits for appointments of less than two years are for the period of appointment only. Permits for appointments of two years or more are for two years in the first instance.
  3. Yes. Extensions for Europeans are normally for two years. Extensions of non-European permits may be considered on the circumstances of the case but are normally for one year. This arrangement gives effect to the policy of admitting limited numbers of highly skilled or key non-Europeans for limited periods. The Administrator’s Council was fully consulted before this policy was introduced in 1966 and it recommended some amendments in the policy and administrative arrangements proposed. As adopted the policy and arrangements include the changes recommended by the Council.

Japanese Motor Cars (Question No. 593)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement made in Melbourne on 12 March by Mr William Bourke, Managing Director of Ford Motor Company of Australia, in which Mr Bourke attacked Japanese small car marketing in Australia and revealed that he had told Ford dealers that the Company was looking forward to the day when Japanese cars would not be seen in Returned Services League Club parking lots.
  2. In view of the Japanese motor companies’ commitment to working within Australian government policy, will the Government dissociate itself from an attempt to restore old prejudices which are increasingly foreign to this country and which could lead to misunderstandings with our major trading partner.
Mr McEwen:
CP

– In reply to the question of the honourable member: 1 have not seen reports of the statement attributed to Mr Bourke of the Ford Motor Companybut in answer to the second part of your question I would point out that it has been Government policy to trade with the Japanese on a basis of mutual co-operation and advantage for many years and in 1957 a Trade Agreement was signed with Japan which formalised the trade relations between the two countries. The expansion in trade that has taken place since that date has proved beneficial on both sides and Japan is now Australia’s biggest customer and took $822 million of our exports in 1968/69. On the other hand Japanese exports to Australia totalled $415 million in 1968/69. This volume of trade is indicative of the good relations that exist between Australia and Japan.

Papua and New Guinea: Contracts of Employment (Question No. 667) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What penalties, if any, apply to agreement workers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea for breach of a contract of employment.
  2. Are wages due to such workers paid in full at regular fortnightly intervals.
  3. Are all such workers granted annual holidays with pay; if so, what are the details of such paid annual leave.
  4. Is an employer obliged to pay the return fare to enable an Agreement worker on annual leave to return to his native village for the duration of his annual leave.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The Native Employment Ordinance 1958-67 under which agreement workers are employed in Papua and New Guinea does not prescribe penalties for breaches of agreements by agreement workers. The Ordinance provides that an agreement may be terminated by a court, upon application by the agreement worker or the employer. The court may:

    1. make an award to the agreement worker for loss of wages, allowances, issues, etc., where the agreement is terminated because of the actions of the employer, or
    2. make an award to the employer for outofpocket expenses where the agreement is terminated because of the actions . of the employee.
  2. The Ordinance provides that an agreement worker must be paid his accrued current wage or such portion as he elects to receive on the last day of each lunar month (i.e. 28 day period) after the commencement of the agreement. These wages may be paid instead at other times mutually acceptable to the employer and the worker. The accrued current wage’ excludes deferred wages which are paid on termination of the agreement. A minimum of one third or one half of the wages payable to the worker, depending on the length of the agreement, is paid as deferred wages.

  3. The Ordinance provides that all agreement workers are entitled to:

    1. recreation leave at the rate of 6 days for each year; and
    2. long service leave at the rate of 18 days for each 5 years. of continuous service with the employer, plus Sundays and public holidays occurring within the period of leave. Recreation leave accrues annually for agreement workers accompanied by their families, and at two year periods for unaccompanied workers. Long service leave accrues at the end of each period of S years. Pro rata recreation and long leave is given in cases where agreements are terminated except on the ground of serious misconduct by the agreement worker.
  4. No.

Papua and New Guinea: Native Employment Ordinance (Question No. 669)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

  1. Does the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Native Employment Ordinance apply to the Kandrian District.
  2. If so, what is the minimum wage and what are the provisions relating to (a) money in lieu of rations and (b) money in lieu of tobacco prescribed by the Ordinance for native plantation workers in the District.
  3. How many of the workers are (a) provided with free accommodation, rations, medical treatment etc. and (b) paid money in lieu of accommodation, rations etc.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. The prescribed minimum wage for the Territory which applies to the Kandrian sub-district is $52 per annum for the first year of employment, $58.50 per annum for the second year and $65 per annum for the third year and thereafter of continuous employment with the same employer. The minimum wage also includes payments in kind in the form of rations, clothing and other prescribed articles, accommodation, and medical treatment at specified standards.

    1. Money in lieu of rations may be paid to an employee if a labour inspector appointed under the Native Employment Ordinance issues a permit either:
    2. to an individual employee; or
    1. to an employer in respect of each of his employees who resides in the area specified in the permit.

The issue of a permit is dependent in part on whether there is an adequate supply of native food readily available to the employee. A casual worker may be paid money in lieu of rations if there is agreement between the worker and the employer.

  1. An employer, if requested, may pay a weekly amount equal to the value as assessed by the Secretary for Labour in lieu of tobacco to a person entitled to a weekly issue of tobacco. Currenly the money allowance in lieu of food and other articles, for the Kandrian Sub-district is $1.85 per week and the payment in lieu of tobacco is 13 cents per week.

    1. (a) 97. (b) 104, of whom 58 are provided with accommodation and 46 do not require accommodation. There is no provision for payment of an allowance in lieu of accommodation, medical treatment and other issues, the cost of which is met by the employer as required.

Telephones (Question No. 719)

Dr Everingham:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated cost of providing a 50 per cent subsidy towards the cost of providing

    1. new and (b) upgraded telephone connections in each of the next 3 years.

  2. What is the total number of subscribers’ telephone lines in Australia. ^

Mr HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Subscribers involved in providing or upgrading private sections of line to prescribed standards beyond distances where Departmental construction ends have the choice of having the Post Office or a private contractor do the work, or doing it themselves. If the Post Office does the work, subscribers have (and often take) the opportunity to reduce their expenditure to varying degrees by assisting with either labour or materials. With the several alternatives offering to subscribers as outlined above, coupled with the subscribers having the right to choose between aerial and cable construction and since the number of subscribers on a common route, nature of the terrain, etc., all bear on the cost factor, it is not possible to estimate the effects of providing a 30% subsidy.
  2. At 28th March, 1970, there were 2,650,717 services in operation. Instruments connected totalled abut 3.75 million.

Papua and New Guinea: Ex-Servicemen’s Credit Board (Question No. 730) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. When was the Ex-Servicemen’s Credit Board established in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What are the names and positions of the persons who have constituted the Board.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. 17th November 1958.

  2. Section 6 of the Ex-Servicemen’s Credit Ordinance 1958 established the Board consisting of an officer of the Department of the Treasury, an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries and an officer of the Department of Lands, Surveys and Mines. Officers who have from time to time constituted the Board are:

    1. L. Anthony - Acting -Director, Department of Lands, Surveys and Mines
    2. E. Clout( - Acting Director, Department of

Lands, Surveys and Mines W. L. Conroy - Director, Department of Agricul- culture, Stock and Fisheries

  1. S. Grove - Director, Department of Lands, Surveys and Mines
  2. C. Henderson - Director, Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries
  3. E. Macinnis - Director, Department of Lands, Surveys and Mines
  4. K. Milner - Acting Director of Finance
  5. P. J. Newman-Treasurer
  6. J. Nunn - Land Settlement Officer
  7. H. Reeve - Treasurer

The functions of the Ex-Servicemen’s Credit Board were taken over by the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank on 1st January, 1969 following which the Board ceased to operate.

Exports and Imports (Question No. 700)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of Australia’s exports to (a) Canada, (b) France, (c) Italy, (d) Japan, (e) The Netherlands, (f) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (g) the United Kingdom, (h) the United States of America, and (i) West Germany in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What was the value of imports from each of these countries during the same years.
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The following answer is supplied:

The value of Australia’s exports and imports to each of these countries for each of the last 5 financial years was:

Australian National Gallery (Question No. 671)

Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When was the body known as the Interim Council, Australian National Gallery appointed.
  2. When did this Council last meet.
  3. Did the Council recommend to the Government the appointment of a Director of the proposed National Gallery.
  4. Has such an appointment yet been made.
  5. If not, when is it proposed to make such an appointment.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. On 26th July 1968.
  2. On 13th April 1970.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.
  5. It is hoped that an appointment will be made shortly.

Papua and New Guinea: Land Board (Question No. 731)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. When was the Land Board established in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What are the names and positions of the persons who have constituted the Board.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The Land Board was established in New Guinea in 1925 in Papua in 1931.
  2. Pre-war the Board comprised the Director of Lands as Chairman and other Administration members After the war the Board consisted of either the Director of Lands or the Chief of the Division of Lands. More recently, a permanently appointed Chairman plus two Government members have been given Territory-wide jurisdiction while the District Commissioner and two members of the public including one indigene have district jurisdiction. Current permanent members are:

Chairman: Mr L. J. Dawe of the Department of Lands

Deputy Chairman: Mr W. Logan and Mr H. K. Gee both of Department of Lands

Permanent Members: Mr G. T. Linsley of Department of District Administration, Mr G. K. Graham Department of Agriculture and Mr R. L. Claringbould of Department of Trade and Industry.

There are also members for each district consisting of the District Commissioner one indigenous member and one expatriate member. These usually sit with the Chairman or a Deputy Chairman but may on occasion meet without him. Last year in the Gazelle Peninsula a programme to help ease population pressure on land in the area was started with the release of tracts of lands for settlement purposes. A special land board to deal with the allocation of blocks was established consisting of the District Commissioner with four indigenous members.

Defence Expenditure in Australia (Question No. 764)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What amount of the defence bill was spent within Australia in 1968-69.

Mr Bury:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is that, of Defence expenditure totalling SI, 164.7 million in 1968-69, approximately $835 million was spent in Australia.

Papua and New Guinea: Holdings Producing Palm Oil (Question No. 797)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What are the minimum, maximum and average areas of holdings producing palm oil owned by (a) indigenes and (b) non-indigenes in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

There are 954 oil palm leases to indigenes in Papua and New Guinea whose minimum and maximum holdings are IS acres and 20 acres respectively and whose average holding is 17 acres. There is one lease of 4.500 acres for a nucleus estate operated by a public company in which the Papua and New Guinea Administration has a 50% equity. The development of the palm oil industry in Papua and New Guinea is based on the establishment of nucleus estate plantations which extend to independent indigenous smallholder producers the use of highly capitalised oil milling facilities. To obtain good quality palm oil the fruit must be processed on being harvested and central processing using modern equipment is essential. Nucleus estate plantations are designed to produce sufficient fruit to supply the minimum economic throughput for a modern oil mill. The nucleus estate and processing facilities are surrounded by the indigenous smallholder blocks.

River Murray Commission (Question No. 76)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development the following question, on notice: (lj On what dates and subjects has the River Murray Commission received the reports mentioned in his predecessor’s answer to me on 15th April 1969 (Hansard, page 1068).

  1. On what dates were these reports made available or will they be made available to honourable members.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The River Murray Commission received three Interim Reports and five Progress Reports on the Murray Valley salinity investigations from its salinity consultants, Messrs Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey. These reports were dated as follows:

Interim Reports - February 1968 July 1968 December 1968

Progress Reports - March 1968 June 1968 September 1968 December 1968 March 1969

  1. The Interim Report of December 1968 was included in a volume entitled ‘Reports to the River Murray Commission Relating to the Future Development of the Water Resources of the River Murray’ and was. made available to all Commonwealth Parliamentarians in January 1969. The other reports listed above have not been made available.

The final report on the salinity investigations has not yet been formally presented to the Commission although it is expected within the next two months. The report is taking longer than anticipated to complete due to the additional time and effort required by the Consultants to collate, assess and incorporate the vast amount of material uncovered during their investigations.

When the report becomes available it will be submitted, together with the Commission’s comments, to each of the Contracting Governments to the River Murray Waters Agreement for consideration and for approval for distribution. Subsequently, if approved, the River Murray Commission will arrange the distribution of the report.

Pensioners (Question No. 611)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many age pensioners in each State and the Commonwealth receiving the (a) married rate and (b) standard rate of pension also receive (i) full and (ii) part supplementary assistance.

    1. Will he supply similar details in respect of invalid pensioners.
    2. How many (a) Class A widow pensioners and (b) other widow pensioners also receive (i) full and (ii) part supplementary assistance.
    3. Will he arrange for this type of information and also details of expenditure involved to be included in future annual reports of his Department.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) Supplementary assistance is paid subject to a means test to persons who pay rent, or for board and lodgings or for lodgings and who are in receipt of an age or invalid pension at the standard rate or a widow’s pension. Persons in receipt of an age or invalid pension at the married rate are not eligible for supplementary assistance.

Separate statistics of the number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance at maximum or part rates are collected only at the end of each financial year. The following tables set out for each State and the Commonwealth, the assistance at the maximum rate and at part rate number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary as at 30th June 1969:

  1. Certain of the above details are already included in the Annual Report of the DirectorGeneral of Social Services. The question of including additional information, as requested by the honourable member, will be considered when the Annual Report for 1969/70 is being prepared.

Rehabilitation: Home Employment Loans (Question No. 613) Mr Hayden asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What loans were available, at the time when the scheme was established, for rehabilitation cases who wished to set themselves up in home employment.
  2. What would be the level of these loans at the present date if (he amounts were adjusted according to the all States retail price index.
  3. What rate of interest was charged on the loans when the scheme was introduced.
  4. What is the present rate of interest.
  5. How many persons have (a) sought and (b) been granted (i) full and (ii) partial loans under the scheme.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Provision for a loan of up to £200 was introduced on 4th June 1955.
  2. $583.
  3. 4)% per annum
  4. *i% per annum.
  5. Statistics do not show how many applications were received, nor whether a full or partial loan was granted in each case. Since the introduction of this provision, five persons have been granted loans.

Snowy Mountains Authority (Question No. 477)

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development the following question, upon notice:

  1. What has been the cost to date of the Snowy Mountains Authority’s construction works in respect of (a) water storage and (b) power generation.
  2. What amounts have been expended from consolidated revenue for these works.
  3. How is the cost of the Snowy scheme to be repaid.
  4. What capital moneys have been repaid, and by whom.
  5. What ‘ terest moneys have been received, and from whom.
Mr R W Swartz:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Construction of works of the Snowy Mountains Scheme has cost approximately $720 million to date, exclusive of interest. These works include all facilities for the control, storage, diversion and release of water as well as for power production. Separate costs of works in respect of (a) water storage and (b) power generation have not been kept as they are inseparable in most instances.
  2. The whole of the expenditure to date in constructing the Snowy Mountains Scheme, that is S720 million approximately, has been financed by advances from Consolidated Revenue under Capital Works and Services, with the exception of advances totalling $90 million which were financed by the Commonwealth from a loan obtained from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  3. The cost of the Snowy Scheme is being repaid over 70 years by annual instalments of depreciation included in the Authority’s net cost of production of electricity. This net cost of production is paid for by the A.C.T. Electricity Authority and the Electricity Commissions of New South Wales and Victoria in proportion to the electricity received from the Scheme by the Australian Capital Territory and the two States.

The interest rates used in the calculations are the long-term Commonwealth bond rates at the time advances are received by the Authority. These interest rates have varied between 31% and 6% per annum.

  1. Up to 30th June 1969 $6,362 million of capital moneys (advances) has been repaid. This amount represents the depreciation included in the net cost of production as mentioned in the answer to (3).

Repayments are made by the Snowy Mountains Authority to the Commonwealth Treasury out of moneys received from the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority and the Electricity Commissions of New South Wales and Victoria.

  1. Approximately $127,138 million in interest has been paid to the Commonwealth Treasury by the Authority up to 30th June 1969, comprising:

Million $6,092 Interest accumulated during construction. $121,046 Interest on capital invested in revenue producing projects.

The above amounts of interest have formed part of the Authority’s net cost of production of electricity and as such have been met by the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority and the Electricity Commissions of New South Wales and Victoria.

Pensions (Question No. 718)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Has consideration been given to the request for a higher rate of pension for social service recipients in the Northern Territory in view of the disparity in purchasing power of pensions in the Territory as against that in other parts of the Commonwealth.
  2. If so, with what result
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It has been long standing Commonwealth policy that the rates and the conditions of eligibility for pensions and other social service benefits should be uniform throughout Australia. This has been the policy not only of this Government, but also of its predecessors. However this matter, which is a matter of policy, will be considered at its appropriate time, in the Budget context.

Rehabilitation: Book and Tool Allowance (Question No. 612)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What is the book and tool allowance for rehabilitation training cases.
  2. When was the allowance first granted.
  3. What would the allowance now be if adjusted according to the all States retail price index.
  4. How many persons have (a) sought and (b) been granted (i) full and (ii) partial allowances under this scheme during each year since its introduction.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. A maximum of $80 in any 12 months.
  2. When introduced on 10th December 1948 the figure was £20, subsequently raised to the present amount on 21st April 1967.
  3. $100.
  4. Statistics do not show how many applications were received, nor whether a full or partial alowance was granted. The numbers of persons granted allowances each year since the introduction of this provision are:

Wool (Question No. 651)

Mr Duthie:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the current rate of import tariff levied by the United States on Australian wool.
  2. Is he able to say whether the United States imposes import restrictions on Japanese textiles made from Australian wool.
  3. What was the value of trade both ways between Australia and America and between Australia and Japan during the years 1968 and 1969.
  4. What tariffs or import restrictions applied in both trading fields.
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Duties applicable to the major part of Australian wool currently being exported to the United States are as follows: and Japan for 1967-68 and 1968-69 are as follows:
  1. Australian overseas trade statistics are compiled on a financial year basis. Exports of greasy and other wool are available but exports and imports of woollen fabrics are not fully recorded as such. Separate details are available for imports of knitted or crocheted fabrics wholly or chiefly of wool, and for exports and imports of woven fabrics of wool or fine animal hair. Relevant details of exports to, and imports from, U.S.A.

  1. A. Japan - Tariffs and Import Restrictions on Imports of Woollen Textiles

    1. Tariffs - principal items

The majority of Australian exports fall into Category (a). 33. 1 1

  1. The United States imposes no discriminatory import restrictions on Japanese textiles made from Australian wool. Examples of the United States duties on woollen textiles are given in Section 4 below.
  1. Import Restrictions

It should be noted that item 53.11 - woven fabrics of sheep or lambs wool or of fine animal hair, containing not less than 30% by weight of sheep or lambs wool or of fine animal hair, excluding those used for pianos, was placed on the automatic approval list for entry into Japan from 14 February 1970.

The only wool or wool textile item still subject to import restriction into Japan is 58.10 - embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs. For goods falling within this tariff item an import licence must be obtained from the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry.

  1. United States- Tariffs and Import Restrictions on Imports of Woollen Textiles

    1. Tariffs - principal items
  1. Import Restrictions

Apart from tariffs there are no import restrictions on imports of textiles into the United States. However, the United States Government is currently holding negotiations with the Japanese Government in an attempt to reach an agreement on reducing the volume of imports of Japanese textiles into the United States.

Over the last fourteen months there has been mounting pressure in the United States from both the textile industry and Congress for legislative action to impose restrictions on the import of textiles.

The Australian Government is following developments and will ensure that Australia’s interests are brought to the attention of the Governments of the United States and Japan.

Judges and Magistrates (Question No. 858)

Mr Daly:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a condition of appointment that members of the judiciary and magistrates under Commonwealth jurisdiction must terminate any association with political parties and their activities.
  2. If not, is he in a position to state the political affiliations, if any, of any members of the judiciary or any magistrates at present functioning under Commonwealth jurisdiction.
Mr Hughes:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No. Appointments of judges and magistrates are made without regard to their political sympathies or affiliations.

High Court of Australia: Appeals (Question No. 136)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many appeals to the High Court from the Supreme Court in each Territory and from each Federal Court were (a) instituted and (b) heard in 1969.
  2. How many (a) taxation matters and (b) industrial property matters were heard by (i) single justices and (ii) the Full Court of the High Court in 1969.
  3. How many cases were (a) set down for hearing and (b) heard by single justices of the High Court in 1969.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. The number of appeals (including applications for leave or special leave to appeal) to the High Court from Territory Supreme Courts and Federal Courts (including, for the purposes of the answer, as in the answers to similar questions last year and in 1967, State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction) was in 1969 as follows:
  1. The number of taxation matters and industrial property matters heard by Single Justices and by the Full Court of the High Court in 1969 was as follows:

Full Court Single Justices

  1. Taxation matters 5 29

  2. Industrial properly matters . . 3 6

    1. The number of cases set down for hearing and heard by Single Justices of the High Court in 1969 was as follows:
  3. set down - 63
  4. heard- 52.

Prosecutions: Attorney-General’s Consent (Question No. 139)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General1, upon notice:

Has he given thought to the question of compiling and maintaining a list of the Common wealth and Territory laws that render the consent of the Attorney-General a necessary pre-requisite to a prosecution for an offence.

Mr Hughes:
LP

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

Yes, I have given thought to this matter. The compilation of such a list would inevitably be a protracted task, since it’ would be necessary to examine carefully not only the Statutes and Statutory Rules of the Commonwealth but also the Ordinances and Regulations of the Territories. However, I have concluded that it is desirable that such a list be prepared and maintained. Accordingly, I have given directions that the preparation of such a list be commenced by my Department but because other projects must be accorded higher priority I have not asked that the task be treated as urgent.

Judiciary Act Committee (Question No. 137)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Will he, before the second reading of a Commonwealth Superior Court Bill, table the Judiciary Act amendments which the Solicitor-General’s committee has drafted to implement the Superior Court proposal (Hansard, 26th September 1969, page 2140).

Mr Hughes:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Superior Court Bill that was introduced during the twenty-sixth Parliament lapsed when the House of Representatives was dissolved. I am at present considering whether the Bill should be re-introduced and, if so, in what form. Until I have completed my consideration of this major question, it would bc premature to consider tabling the draft amendments of the Judiciary Act that the honourable member hits mentioned.

Commonwealth Tribunals: Transcripts of Proceedings (Question No. 696)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

What was the total amount paid for transcripts by parties to proceedings before the (a) Commonwealth Industrial Court, (b) Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, (c) Public Service Arbitrators and (d) Conciliation Commissioners in each year since 1957.

Mr Hughes:
LP

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

The Department does not keep such records as would render it practicable to supply this information.

United States Secret Service Agents (Question No. 247)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many United States Secret Service men or women were in Australia during the visit of the Vice-President of the United States.
  2. Did these agents act as police officers during the visit.
  3. Were they granted police powers by the Government.
  4. Under what circumstances can foreign nationals carry arms in Australian territories.
  5. Are foreign agents who act in a capacity, normally reserved for police officers required to prove that they have a comprehensive knowledge of Australian law and police practices.
  6. Were agents accompanying the Vice-President granted full diplomatic immunity or any other immunity from Australian laws.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that 29 agents came to Australia in connection with the visit of the VicePresident of the United States.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. The relevant law for the Australian Capital Territory is the Gun Licence Ordinance 1937- 1964.
  5. 1 know of no cases in which officers of foreign governments have, in Australia, acted in a capacity normally reserved for police officers.
  6. 1 am not aware of any action taken by the Government to grant diplomatic or other immunity to persons accompanying the Vice-President.

Commonwealth, State, Semi-Government and Local Government Revenues (Question No. 52)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What revenue from their own sources, including net revenue of business enterprises, was received by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State, (c) semi-governmental authorities in each State, (d) local government authorities in each State and (e) each mainland Territory in (i) the earliest year for which comparative figures are available, (ii) 1949- 50, (iii) 1954-55, (iv) 1959-60. (v) 1964-65 and (vi) subsequent years.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is contained in the following tables, which have been provided by the Commonwealth Statistician. The figures have been prepared on the same basis as those provided in reply to previous questions on the same subject asked by the honourable member. For years prior to 1968-69 the figures have been revised to incorporate more recent information.

Nurses (Question No. 195)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the statement in the answer which the Minister for Health gave me on 26th September 1969 (Hansard, page 2162) that reliable figures on the number of registered nursing personnel in Australia are not available.
  2. What steps is the Commonwealth Statistician talcing to secure reliable figures on this subject.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that there is no one source from which statistics of registered nursing personnel in Australia can be derived. Some information can be obtained from the registers of nurses maintained in each State, the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory: from information obtained during the Australian population censuses: and from returns provided by hospitals and nursing homes. None of these sources reveal the numbers of qualified nurses engaged in their profession in Australia.

The registers of nurses are not a satisfactory source of statistics for this purpose because of differing requirements in each State and Territory, double counting under different categories of nurses, duplication of registrations as between States and registration of nurses who do not follow the profession.

Information obtained from the 1966 Population Census is inadequate for the purpose because nurses were included in a category which also includes trainees but excludes nurses working in outer occupations at the time of the census as those would be listed under those occupations.

Statistics of nurses provided by hospitals and nursing homes include student nurses, nursing aides and other nursing staff without full qualifications and exclude nurses employed outside those institutions.

The Statistician has advised that he is examining the practicability of obtaining separate classifications of ‘certified nurses’, ‘probationers or trainees’ and ‘nursing personnel not elsewhere classified’, for purposes of both the next Census and the annual returns from health and welfare institutions. He is also examining the possibility of obtaining statistics which would include qualified muses working in other occupations at the time of the census.

Shipping: ‘Joseph Banks’ (Question No. 653)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Who is the owner of the cargo ship Joseph Banks’.
  2. Is it classified as an intra-state or interstate trader.
  3. What ports does the ‘Joseph Banks’ trade between.
  4. How many passages has the ‘Joseph Banks’ made in the past six months.
  5. How many have been made to Westernport in Victoria.
  6. ls a jetty being built at Westernport in Victoria for the exclusive use of the ‘Joseph Banks’.
  7. Under what articles is the ‘Joseph Banks’ commissioned.
  8. Under what award is the crew employed.
  9. What is the base wage rate for a crewman employed under a Tasmanian wages Board Award.
  10. What is the base wage rate for a crewman employed under a Federal Award. (1.1) Have any breaches of the Commonwealth Navigation Act by the ‘Joseph Banks’ been reported to him.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Transport Commission Tasmania.
  2. The ship operates in both interstate and intrastate trades.
  3. ‘Joseph Banks’ trades between Hoban and Binders Island (Lady Barron) with trips from Northern Tasmania to Flinders Island an.i Northern Tasmania to Westernport.
  4. I am advised that between October I96v and April 1970 5 voyages were made from Hobart with many intermediate calls at other ports.
  5. During the same period 35 trips were made to Westernport.
  6. I have no knowledge of a jetty being built at Westernport exclusively for the use of ‘Joseph Banks’.
  7. Commonwealth Limited Coast Trade Articles.
  8. The conditions of employment arc not governed by an award but by an agreement between the Tasmanian Transport Commission and the Merchant Service Guild of Australasia (Tasmanian Branch).
  9. The basic rate for a deck hand in the determination of the Shipping Wages Board is $45.35 per week. I understand there is no classification of crewman.
  10. Under the Federal Award the base rate for an able seaman is $54.10. There is no classification of crewman in the Federal Award.
  11. 1) None.

Dogs: Exports to Japan (Question No. 516

Mr Crean:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

How many and what types of dogs have been exported from Australia to Japan in each of the last 3 years.

Mr Bury:
LP

– In reply to the honourable member’s question, the Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that statistics regarding the number and description of dogs exported from Australia are not available separately. The only information available is that recorded under Export Commodity Item 941.00.19, ‘Animals n.e.s. (including Zoo Animals, Dogs and Cats), Other’. The value of exports to Japan for this Item (expressed on a free on board port of shipment basis) for the financial years 1966-67 to 1968-69 are as follows:

Gross National Product (Question No. 524)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the value of gross national product per head of the work force in each year since 1950.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Quarterly estimates of the work force based on quarterly sample surveys published currently by the Commonwealth Statistician date back only to August 1966. Prior to that date work force figures were published only in respect of the actual population census data.

A consistent and continuous work force series dating back to 1950 is not, therefore, available; however, estimates based on the information that is available have been made in my department. A number of assumptions have been made in preparing these estimates and they are not. therefore, regarded as definitive. Using these estimates in conjunction with the gross national product figures published by the Statistician gives the following results in terms of the value of gross national product per head of the work force since 1950-51:

Taxation Deductions: Housing Interest (Question No. 559)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

In the light of subsequent increases in interest rates, will he bring up to date the figures which his predecessor gave me on 22nd August 1968 (Hansard, page 535) on the loss to revenue if taxpayers were permitted to deduct interest on housing loans from their taxable incomes.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The loss to income tax revenue which would result if taxpayers were allowed deductions for -interest paid on housing loans without limit as to amount is now estimated at approximately 590m per annum.

The estimate is based on interest paid in 1968-69 on advances for the purchase of dwellings made by banks, life insurance businesses, superannuation funds, building societies, public- financial enterprises and instalment credit companies, lt does not include loans from personal sources. The earlier estimate provided on 28t.h August 1968 by my predecessor related only to amounts identifiable as housing loans made by the traditional lending institution1!. As was pointed out, the earlier estimate did not, for example, include the cost of allowing deductions for interest on loans for homing obtained from finance companies or from personal sources.

Taxation: Companies Registered at Norfolk Island (Question No. 615) Mr Webb asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that over 1,000 companies have registered at Norfolk Island to avoid mainland company tax.
  2. If so, what action is proposed to bring these companies within the tax held.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The number of companies registered on Norfolk Island has grown to more than 1.000 and the Government has reason to believe that a size able proportion of the recent growth in registrations is attributable to schemes having as their purpose the avoidance of Australian tax. Since these schemes generally involve the creation of more than 1 Norfolk Island company, the number of possible tax avoidance schemes is thought to be considerably less than might be inferred from the growth in the number of Norfolk island companies.
  2. The Government would, of course, be concerned if it were possible for persons prepared to enter into such schemes to avoid tax - and thereby increase the tax burden on other taxpayers - by the simple expedient of creating what might be called ‘paper companies’ on Norfolk Island. It remains to bc seen whether these schemes will be successful. The Commissioner of Taxation is conducting a thorough examination of the arrangements involved and is pursuing the matter vigorously within the framework of our existing lax laws. It is not possible at this stage to indicate what courses of action the Government might take in this matter.

Oil Drilling (Question No. 674)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

es asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd, in August 1968, import a jackup oil drilling barge named ‘Jubilee’.
  2. Was an import licence necessary: if so what were the conditions of the licence.
  3. Could this barge have been built in Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, Initial approval was given for rig lo operate in Australia for 12 months from August 1968. Approval subsequently given for rig to continue working until August 1970. Any retention beyond that period may be contingent upon replacement ship being built in an Australian shipyard.
  3. Yes, but not by the time it was required.

Shipping: Matson Line (Question No. 675)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: ls he able to say whether the United Suites Government subsidises the United States of America owned Matson Navigation Company Shipping Line: if so, what subsidy is paid.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

I understand that an operating differential subsidy is given to operators, in certain circumstances, to place American vessels on a parity with those of foreign competitors, but I am unable to say what subsidy, if any, is paid to the Matson Navigation Company Shipping Line.

Education: Adult Migrants (Question No. 568)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What action has been taken to rectify the position discussed by Professor W. F. Connell in his back-ground paper ‘Education for Adult Migrants’ for this year’s Citizenship Convention.
  2. Which of Professor Connell’s suggestions have been adopted.
Mr Lynch:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. 1 refer the honourable member to the Ministerial Statement which I made in the House of Representatives on 23rd April 1970 on Migrant Education. The comprehensive programme outlined in that statement with respect to adult migrants and’ intensive courses will provide remedies in a number of the areas to which Professor Connell referred in his paper ‘Education for Adult Migrants’. Others will require research which will be a continuing process. There are some aspects to which Professor Connell referred, for example, the emphasis upon vocational education and the question of allowances to be paid to migrant students attending part-time accelerated courses or, as Professor Connell suggests, semi-intensive courses, which are receiving further consideration by my Department in consultation with the Department of Education and Science.

Australian Capital Territory By-election (Question No. 911)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Hae? Mr Hermes, S.M. ever informed his Department that he was a member of the Liberal Party before his discussions with the Deputy Secretary last month (Hansard, 23rd April 1970, page 1515); if so, what was the name and position of the officer whom he informed and when did he do so.
  2. How many cases have been heard by Mr Hermes (a) under the National Service Act and (b) involving Vietnam protests.
  3. Is he able to say whether in any of these cases Mr Hermes had informed the applicants or defendants or counsel that he was a member of the Liberal Party; if so, how many.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. No. 2 and 3. I am not presently able to supply this information. I have, however, directed that inquiries be made to ascertain whether it is practicable to collate from any available sources the information necessary to give an answer. If it is practicable to obtain the information, I shall provide it.

American Land Holdings in Australia (Question No. 16)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a news item in ‘The Australian’ of 11 th February last which quoted the Wall Street Journal as having recently published an article headed ‘The Great American Land Grab’ in which it was claimed that Americans now hold between 60 and 70 per cent of the ‘Top End’ of Australia where leases for station properties sell for between 10 cents and a dollar an acre.
  2. If so, is it a fact that leases have been acquired as claimed in the article and does the list of American landholders lengthen daily.
  3. As the ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory consists of a tropical rainfall belt of rolling range and wooded hills, will he take steps to prevent American speculators from seizing more of the leaseholds of a very valuable and very vulnerable part of Australia.
  4. Did the Gunn Land and Exploration Partnership recently buy the long-term lease to Coolibah, a 3,965 square mile ‘Top End’ cattle station situated on the Victorian River.
  5. Can he say whether this partnership is a largely American syndicate and whether Sir William Gunn, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, was active in the negotiations for the purchase.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. Yes. As the Wall Street Journal article of 9th February 1970 specifically deals with the Northern Territory, 1 assume that the Right Honourable Member’s question refers to the Northern Territory.
  2. The position in the Northern Territory is greatly exaggerated by the article. In the Top End of the Territory, roughly north of latitude 16°, American interests hold 20 pastoral leases comprising approximately 50% of the area held under pastoral leases. Only 3 of these leases were purchased during the past 2 years, including 1 by an American immigrant who has settled in the Northern Territory.
  3. No. Government policy is to encourage Australian participation in developing the pastoral industry rather than on limiting overseas investment. The Crown Lands Ordi’nance provides that if an applicant for a new pastoral lease is a resident of the Territory, the Land Board shall, in making recommendations, give due weight to the fact that he is such a resident. On the other hand, the Government would ‘not want to see a position created whereby the owner of a pastoral lease in the Territory who wished to sell it was prevented from doing so simply because the prospective purchaser came from overseas.
  4. The lease of Coolibah Station has not been transferred to the Gunn Land and’ Exploration Partnership. However, it is understood that some transactions have taken place in the shares of the Coolibah Pastoral Company.
  5. It is understood that Sir William Gunn was active in the negotiations. The Northern Territory Administration has sought details of any recent share transactions concerning Coolibah Station but these have not yet been received.

Electoral: Interstate Voting (Question No. 699)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Are many persons who seek to vote for a candidate in another State often deprived of a vote because the Divisional Electoral Office is many miles away.
  2. If so, will he consider allowing the Assistant Returning Officers at major polling booths power to receive interstate absentee votes during the hours of polling.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Any person who, throughout the hours of polling on polling day, will not be within the Slate for which he is enrolled, may make an application for a postal vote any time after the tenth day prior to the issue of the Writ for an election, although ballot-papers cannot be issued in response to an application until after the hour of nomination. An elector outside the State for which he is enrolled who has not applied for a postal vote prior to polling day may, on polling day itself, attend personally at the office of a Divisional Returning Officer and there and then record a vote. The number of interstate electors who fail to avail themselves of the postal voting facilities before polling day and then find that they are unable to attend at the office of a Divisional Returning Officer for the purpose of voting is unknown.
  2. When the Commonwealth Electoral Act is next being amended, consideration will be given lo extending voting facilities so that Presiding Officers may issue voles on polling day to electors absent from the State for which they arc enrolled.

Commonwealth Properties (Question No. 471)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many properties does the Commonwealth (a) own and (b) rent in each State.
  2. What are the total values of the properties owned in each Stale.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

(D-

  1. The total value of properties owned by the various Commonwealth Departments, Statutory Authorities and Agencies is not readily available.

Austraiian Capital Territory: Pensioners’ Land Rents and Rates (Question No. 658) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

When did his predecessor announce that he had approved legislation to provide relief from Australian Capital Territory land rents and rates for pensioners and other persons on fixed incomes.

Why did it take so long to make the Land Rent and Rates (Deferment) Ordinance notified on 26 February 1970.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. In April, 1967.
  2. The primary reason for the substantial period of lime taken to finalise the Land Kent and Rates (Deferment) Ordinance was the solution of a number of complex legal and technical problems involving the protection of the rights of anyone associated with the subject land.

Public Service: Annual Leave (Question No. 713)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that 4 weeks annual leave has now been granted to employees in the stevedoring industry.
  2. If so, will he again consider bringing the annual leave provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service in line wilh those of die New South Wales Public Service and of many sections of the Public Service of South Australia.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been advised by the Minister for Labour and National Service as follows:

As a result of agreement recently reached between the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Waterside Workers’ Federation, employees in the stevedoring industry will receive 4 weeks annual leave which I am informed was on the basis that they can be required to work 3 shifts per day, 7 days a week.

  1. Following my discussions on 1st December 1969 wilh a joint deputation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, the Government decided that having regard to existing relevant circumstances it would be inappropriate to grant an extra week’s leave to the Commonwealth Public Service at that time. This is still the Government’s view.

Causes of War (Question No. 702)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does he support the principles of the Australian Parliamentary Group for World Government namely, that unbridled national sovereignty is an essential factor in war and that governments should give a lead in fostering the rule of law at world level.
  2. Will he make an early announcement on Australia’s attitude to the proposed United Nations Charter reforms to be considered this year, including modification of the veto and other moves towards democratic control of international causes of war.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. I assume that the reference in this question is to the principles of the Australian Parliamentary Group of the World Association of World Federalists. lt is my understanding that this Association’s principles are based on the view that problems of war and hunger and disease can no longer be handled within national boundaries. The Government agrees with this view, as is demonstrated by its active participation in international organisations set up to deal with these problems. Insofar as the association seeks the establishment of a world government, however, it is clear that most states are not yet prepared to surrender their sovereignty to a supranational authority.
  2. I refer the honourable member to the reply given by the Minister for External Affairs to question No. 391 (Hansard, House of Representatives. ‘17th March 1970, page 525).

Mekong River Project (Question No. 636)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What amount has Australia contributed to the Mekong River project in each year since its inception.
  2. What Australian personnel have worked on the project
  3. What ecological studies for the project have been undertaken by Australia.
  4. How advanced is the project.
  5. When is the project expected to be finished.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Australia has been involved in four of the many Mekong River projects. These are the Sambor Dam in Cambodia, the Pa Along Dam on the Laos/Thailand border, the Prek Thno Dam in Cambodia and the Nam Ngum Dam project in Laos.

Details of Australia’s expenditure on these projects are:

  1. The numbers of Australian experts who have been engaged on these projects are -

Sambor and Pa Mong . . . . 18

Prek Thnot . . 33

  1. Australia has not undertaken any ecological studies in connection with these projects.
  2. Australian participation in the Sambor and Pa Mong projects (geological investigations) was completed in 1962 and 1963 respectively. Construction of the Prek Thnot Dam began in November 1969. Construction of the Nam Ngum Dam commenced in November 1968.
  3. Construction of the main works at Prek Thnot is expected to be completed by the end of 1972. Work at Nam Ngum is scheduled to be completed in late 1971, although it is possible that the Nam Ngum project may not be completed before 1972.

Laos: Foreign Exchange Operation Fund (Question No. 635) Mr Barnard asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

How much has Australia contributed to the Laos Currency Stabilisation Fund in each year since its inception.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Australia’s contributions to the Laos Foreign Exchange Operation Fund (F.E.O.F.) have been:

Estimated expenditure in 1969-70 is $643,000. The figures above relate to financial year disbursements, not to calendar year pledges. Australia has undertaken to contribute $643,000 in calendar year 1970.

Department of External Affairs (Question No. 793)

Mr Brown:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many officers of the career diplomatic service (a) are presently employed in each classification in the service, (b) were employed in each classification on 1st January 1969 and (c) resigned from the service between 1st January 1969 and 30th March 1970.
  2. How many persons (a) applied to be admitted to the career diplomatic service and (b) were appointed to this service during the period 1st January 1970 to date.
  3. How many officers of the career diplomatic service in each classification in the service are presently employed in the South East Asia Branch of Division 1 of his Department.
  4. Of these officers how many are employed in (a) the mainland section and (b) the Malaysian and Indonesian section, and what is the classification of each of these officers.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. The present career diplomatic staff of the Department of External Affairs number 288, divided into the following classifications:

The comparable figure at 1st January 1969 was 259, as follows:

Ten officers resigned from the service between 1st January 1969 and 30th March 1970.

  1. Two hundred and four persons applied for entry to the career diplomatic staff in 1970 and 26 were appointed.
  2. Eight diplomatic staff are at present assigned to the South East Asia Branch of the Department. They comprise the following:
  1. The Mainland Section comprises 4 officers (1 External Affairs Officer, Class 4, 1 External Affairs Officer, Class 3 and 2 External Affairs Officers, Class 1); the Malaysia and Indonesia Section comprises 3 officers (1 External Affairs Officer, Class 4 and 2 External Affairs Officers, Class 2).

Maphilindo and Melanesian Areas (Question No. 650)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Min:ster for External Affairs, upon notice:

What opportunities has the Government taken to promote co-operation between countries in the Maphilindo and Melanesian areas.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Most of the countries of the Maphilindo area are already co-operating together both bilaterally and in the context of such organisations as ASEAN, ASPAC and ECAFE. Promotion of co-operation is a matter for the countries themselves. The Australian Government has publicly welcomed such co-operation.

There are no independent Melanesian countries. The metropolitan governments responsible for Melanesian territories promote co-operation between them in the fields of health and economic and social development through the South Pacific Commission which was established in 1947 on the initiative of Australia and New Zealand.

Border liaison arrangements are in force between Papua-New Guinea and the Indonesian Province of West Irian, and the administrative authorities of the two territories co-operate in such practical fields as health and quarantine procedures.

Members of the TPNG House of Assembly have visited Malaysia to examine Malaysian national and rural development policies, and exchange visits have been facilitated between Papua-New Guinea and Malaysian officials concerned with land development.

Arbitration: Professional Engineers Case (Question No. 210)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: (!) ls he able to state the estimated total cost of transcript, legal representation, witnesses’ fares and other expenses to all parties appearing before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Professional Engineers 1968-1969 case.

  1. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of transcript, witnesses, legal representation, fares and other expenses involved in the Commonwealth’s appearance and/or intervention in this case.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am informed $65,460.

Trade Union Rules: Resignations of Members (Question No. 217)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Industrial Court has ruled that a union rule cannot lawfully require a member to give written notice of his resignation.

  2. Docs he see any merit in amending section 145 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by

    1. adding a sub-paragraph to permit trade_ unions to require that resignations shall be in writing and
    2. stipulating that where a member has paid his contributions for more than 3 months in advance of the date of his resignation, such excess contributions shall be refunded to him.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The case was Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Commonwealth Public Service, and Henry Lester (22 I.I.B., 1734).
  2. Amendment of the section is under consideration in the light of the Court’s judgment.

Employment Officers (Question No. 605)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Do employment officers of his Department undertake special courses to equip them to fulfil more adequately their duties as employment placement officers.
  2. If so, (a) where arc the courses undertaken, (b) what is the length of the course, (c) what subjects are covered by the course, (d) how many full-time instructors are on the training staff for these courses and (e) what are the qualifications of the instructors.
  3. How many members of the employment section of his Department have undertaken these courses in each of the past 5 years.
  4. Is an examination or some other form of test part of the course; if so, how many officers (a) passed and (b) failed in these examinations in each of the past 5 years.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Most courses are conducted hi the

Department’s Regional Offices, each located in a State Capital.

  1. Courses vary in length according to subject matter, but are usually of 3 or 4 days* duration.

  2. Regular courses cover -

    1. introduction to District Employment Office work;
    2. techniques of counselling in relation to employment;
    3. interviewing in relation to employment;
    4. professional employment;
    5. youth employment;
    6. employment of handicapped persons;
    7. vacancy raising and promotional work;
    8. supervision and training.

To meet particular needs, courses are also conducted o’n matters such as report writing, work planning, the reestablishment of ex-servicemen, and the employment rehabilitation of exprisoners.

  1. There are 4 full-time training officers, 1 in each Region other than Western Australia and Tasmania which each has 1 officer part-time. Their duties are to plan and organise courses and to stimulate on-the-job training. Much of the actual instruction, however, is done by senior specialist officers.

  2. Of the 4 full-time training officers, 3 had teacher training prior to their entry into the Department. The other has partially completed a Diploma in Business Administration. Specialist officers who instruct on the courses are experienced officers of the Department with considerable experience in training.

    1. Attendance at formal training courses conducted for Employment Branch officers during the past 5 years was of the following order:

Some officers attend more than 1 course in a year.

  1. No.

Non-Governmental Work Force: Over-award Payments (Question No. 684)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What percentage of the non-governmental work force in Australia receives over-award payments.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

There are no statistics available which would enable an answer to be provided.

Post Office: Equal Pay Case (Question No. 710)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government approve of the action of the Public Service Board in appearing as a party in the Joint Bench hearing of the Amalga- mated Postal Workers’ Union’s case for equal pay.
  2. Does the Government agree that where a female worker, such as a trained nurse or the like, is required to have special skills or adaptabilities not possessed by normal males, such a worker should not be disqualified for equal pay merely because the work is essentially or usually performed by females.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. The Public Service Board’s appearance in this case arose out of it being a respondent to the matters before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission involving the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and other unions.
  2. The principles laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission arc applied in determining whether equal pay is appropriate.

Minimum Wage (Question No. 716)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to add to his answer to my Question No. 29S (Hansard, 7th April 1970, pages 794-5) and in particular state whether the minimum wage fixed by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is a wage designed to meet ‘needs’ as distinct from circumstances’.
  2. Will he also look, again at paragraph (2) of my Question No. 295 and give an answer to that paragraph instead of giving an answer to a question that was not asked.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) 1 have nothing to add to my answer to the honourable member’s Question No. 295.

Coalminers’ Output (Question No. 717)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Has the per man output of coalminers increased since 1959.
  2. If so, what was the output per man-year in 1969 compared with the output in 1959.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes.

  1. The output of coal per man-year for Australia for 1969 was 2.770 tons as compared with 1,062 tons for 1959.

Trade Unions: Eligibility for Membership (Question No. 812)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: ls it a fact that the Industrial Registries clearly mark the precise changes “sought in the wording of conditions of eligibility for union membership, or in the description of the industry in connection with which a union is registered; if so, why cannot such ‘ changes be similarly set out in the notice which must be advertised in the Gazette.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

I would refer the honourable member to my answer to his Question No. 462. As indicated in that answer, I am having looked into the proposal embodied in the honourable member’s question.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Question No. (76)

Mr Griffiths:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee have been tabled in the House by the Minister for External Affairs each year since the Committee’s formation.
  2. What subject or subjects were referred to in each report.
  3. How many meetings of the Committee have been held in each year.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee have been tabled in the House:

    1. 1 11th September, 1952 - Report relating to the Peking Peace Conference.
    2. 25th November, .1953 - Report relating to the Committee’s Activities and functions.
    3. 24th October, 1956 - Report relating to Extradition.
    4. 22nd May, 1963 - Report relating to the status of Berlin as it affects the relationship between the Major Powers and Australia as an integral part of the Western World.
    5. 13th May, 1966- Paper on the United Nations, dated May, 1966.
    6. 28th May, 1969- Report on the Middle East

  2. The number of meetings held by the Committee in each year, and totalling 401 meetings, is shown hereunder:

United Nations Charter: Review (Question No. 722)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What reasons did Australia give for abstaining from voting in favour of considering suggestions for review of the United Nations Charter in the Sixth Committee of the 24th General Assembly.
  2. Did 52 nations, including Yugoslavia, support the motion and all other Communist countries oppose it.
  3. Does Australia support moves by Japan and Italy to have repealed Charter provisions allowing members to act against them as enemies without United Nations sanction.
  4. Has Australia (a) supported or (b) opposed (i) the view of Japan and others in the First Committee that the voting system and veto are outdated, (ii) the Philippines view that a fundamental review of structure, powers and procedure should proceed, (iii) the call of Ceylon and others for a review conference as provided for in Article 109, (iv) the criticisms by Guinea of the selfdefeating, self-imposed restrictions of the United Nations Organisation and (v) the allegation of Trinidad and Tobago that the great powers are using such restrictions to retain their veto and other advantages.
  5. How did Australia respond to (a) Colombia’s resolution to refer the matter of Charter review to the Sixth Committee which was supported by seventy-four nations and (b) the Assembly acceptance of the item for next year’s agenda supported by sixty-nine nations.
  6. Did Australia support (a) the view of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and France that there would be unavoidable complexities which could mean weakening the Charter, (b) the United States’ view that decisions should not be hasty or (c) Brazil’s view that the fullest deliberations are overdue.
  7. Will the Government consider calling for public suggestions for review of the Charter and inform the public of (a) the main relevant issues raised in the General Assembly, (b) where copies of the Charter can be obtained and (c) the price of a copy of the Charter.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Australia did not give reasons for its abstention on the vote referred to in (2) below. However, shortly before this vote was taken Australia supported an amendment by Ghana which would have had the question referred to the Committee for the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations. This committee, which had been requested, among other things, to consider proposals ‘for increasing the effectiveness of the United Nations’ would have been requested to report ‘as appropriate’ to the Twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly. The Ghanaian amendment was defeated.
  2. Yes, except Albania, whose vote was not recorded.
  3. We are not aware of any formal proposals to this effect.
  4. Australia is aware of these and other views expressed during debates of the Twenty-fourth General Assembly. These views were stated in general debate and the Australian delegation did not indicate either support or opposition.

  5. (a) Australia voted in support of the recommendation of the General Committee to include the Colombian item on the agenda of the Twentyfourth General Assembly. The vote was 74 in favour, ill against and 16 abstentions. The item was allocated to the Sixth Committee without objection.

    1. Australia abstained on the vote in plenary session of the Assembly where the resolution recommended by the Sixth Committee was adopted with 69 in favour, 11 against and 22 abstentions.
  6. Australia did not express its views in these debates. Australia was not a member of the General Committee where the question of placing the item on the agenda was considered initially.
  7. Official records of the United Nations are available at the Australian National Library, in public libraries of the State capitals and in some University libraries. These records would offer the best source of material for those who are interested in the study of this subject. Copies of the United Nations Charter are obtainable on request from the United Nations Information Centre at 20 Bridge Street, Sydney, or the United Nations Association at 126 Phillip Street, Sydney.

International Duties of Individuals (Question No. 771)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government acknowledged the principle of international law recognised in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by an individual state.
  2. Will the Government review the law which punishes those who refuse to be conscripted because they claim that their participation in the Viet-Nam war involves them in war crimes as defined by Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal being, inter alia, unjust war, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In substance the question is the same as Question on Notice No. 1241 addressed by the honourable member to the then Minister for Labour and National Service. I have nothing to add to the answer given to mal question (Ilansard’ 29th and 30th May 1969. page 2, 607).

South Pacific Islands: Plantation Workers’ Wages (Question No. 168)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Will he obtain statistics of the wages paid to plantation workers in each of the territories within the competence of the South Pacific Commission.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The information given below in response to the honourable member’s question has been supplied by the authorities in the countries and territories concerned. Where figures for wage rates are available they have been converted to Australian currency at prevailing rates of exchange:

American Samoa, Guam and Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

There are no minimum cash wages for plantation (farm) workers. The plantations, or farms, in these areas are worked as family projects by family groups and there are no contracts as such. Medical treatment is provided by the respective territorial governments on a nominal basis or at no cost if the patient is unable to pay. There are no prescribed hours of work. Crops grown are mainly copra and taro.

British Solomon Islands Protectorate

There is no legal minimum agricultural wage. Take home pay for copra cutters in 25 plantations in 1969 averaged $19.32 per month ranging from $13.20 to $27.60. Other plantation workers had a minimum wage of $15.60 per month and a predominant rate of $18.00.

A standard 45 hour week is worked on most plantations but cutters on piece rates work a 5 day week and probably average an 8 hour day.

Accommodation is provided in all cases as required by law.

Rations are provided in some cases but only on repayment at rates restricted by statute.

Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelaus

Almost all plantations are owned and worked on a family basis. Plots are small, averaging H acres, and hiring of paid employment is unusual (non-existent in Tokelaus) and not covered by any awards. If required, additional labour would be recruited on a daily basis at an average rate of S2.00-S3.00 per day, plus food. No transport or accommodation is provided. Crops are citrus, pineapple and copra. Medical treatment is provided free by the territorial governments.

Fiji

There is no prescribed minimum cash wage. Current rates are approximately $1.03 per day but vary from plantation to plantation. Free accommodation is generally provided and also a certain amount of free food but not full subsistence. Workers are sometimes given land for their own cultivation.

French Polynesia

The prescribed minimum cash wage (from March 1970) for adult males Ls 30.35 per hour. Most wages are settled by private agreement and an average salary is approximately $4.46 per day. Deductions of 35 cents per meal and 5% of total salary for accommodation may be made. In practice, however, meals and accommodation are normally free. Working hours are 48 per week.

Gilbert and Ellice Islands

The only plantations in the colony are in the northern Line Islands. At the government owned Christmas Island plantation workers are paid $1.20 per day plus free accommodation.

Nauru

There are no plantations.

New Caledonia

Copra is not grown on a formal plantation basis but is harvested by tribes on their own reserves.

Coffee is grown on a similar basis or on small plantations where casual labour is used and rates are negotiated between owner and workers.

Minimum monthly wage for a full-time agricultural labourer is $120. If accommodation and meals are provided deductions of $9 per month and $31 per month respectively are made.

New Hebrides

There are no standard rates. Casual piece rates average $2.41-$3 per day. Permanent local labour averages $34-$60 per month with free accommodation and meat.

Papua and New Guinea

The latest statistics of the wages paid to plantation workers in Papua and New Guinea are given in the Labour Information Bulletin No. 6, published by the Papua and New Guinea Department of Labour in December 1969. A copy of the document has been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

The statistics contained in that bulletin show in Table No. lOd under occupational codes 330. 331, 332, 333, 337 and 338: fit) The total numbers of Papuans and New Guineans employed by private enterprise at 30th June 1968 in each of the following plantation industries: cocoa, coconut, coffee, rubber and tea.

  1. The number in each wage group.
  2. The range of wages paid to plantation workers in each of these industries.

Pitcairn

There are no plantations.

Tonga

Most farms are held by peasant proprietors who cultivate their own 8J- acre statutory holdings. The few owners of larger leaseholds obtain labour from those who offer their services. There is no labour legislation or labour department. The Constitution provides that all men may dispose of their labour as they will and wages are determined by practice.

Copra plantation labourers average $20-$24 per month in addition to rent-free accommodation and rations.

Wallis and Futuna Islands There are no plantations.

Western Samoa

There is no prescribed minimum weekly wage. The Western Samoan Trust Estates Corporation, the largest employer of casual plantation labour, employs workers on contract rates, paying per 100 lbs (net weight) $0.25 for copra, $0.54 for cocoa and $0.50 for coffee. It also pays females $0.75-$ 1 per day and non-staff foremen $1-51 .50 per day.

All employees provide their own food. Free accommodation and return transport from village once a week are provided. Working hours are 0700 to 1500 5 days a week, and overtime is paid.

Non-military Aid to Asian Countries (Question No. 597)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice: What was the value of non-military aid to:

  1. all Asian countries
  2. all Asian countries excluding Japan and
  3. all Asian countries excluding Japan and Mainland China for the latest year for which information is available.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

In 1968-69, the latest year for which figures are available, Australia provided $35,012,000 in non-military aid to Asian countries. No aid is given to Japan or Mainland China, although there is a programme of reciprocal fellowships with Japan under the cultural relations programme.

According to information available to the OECD Development Assistance Committee, Western donors provided $2,750m in non-military aid to Asia in 1968, the latest full year for which such information is available. Japan was a net aid donor. No figures are available for Mainland China, but Mainland China is believed not to be a recipient of aid from any source.

Vietnam: Civil Medical Aid (Question No. 637)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Which recommendations of the Sunderland Report on Australian Civil Medical Aid to Vietnam have been accepted and adopted.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The recommendations of the Sunderland Report on Medical Aid to Vietnam have been accepted and adopted as listed:

As recommended by Professor Sunderland the main emphasis of the Australian medical aid effort in Vietnam continues to be the provision of a patient care service with a surgical bias.

The scale of the medical aid programme has been reduced and modified. At the lime of Professor Sunderland’s visit, the Australian Surgical Teams in Vietnam comprised:

Vung Tau - 7 members Ba Ria - 4 members Long Xuyen - 8 members Bien Hoa - 17 members These have been reduced to: Bien Hoa - 17 members

Long Xuyen - 2 members (now a subsidiary of the Bien Hoa team).

As recommended, the Surgical Team pro-‘ gramme has been concentrated at Bien Hoa.

In the light of the recommendations against indefinite commitments for medical aid projects, time limits for the surgical teams have been accepted as follows:

Bien Hoa - 1974

Long Xuyen - reviewed at 6-monthly intervals.

Along the lines recommended by Professor Sunderland Australian medical staff at Bien Hoa Hospital now consists of five surgeons and two paediatric doctors supported by an anaesthetist, a laboratory technologist and nursing staff. Radiographic support is provided by Vietnamese staff trained by Australian radiographers.

Professor Sunderland’s recommendation against any substantial involvement by Australia in the Public Health field has been accepted.

With regard to the recommendation for assistance with rebuilding the Bien Hoa hospital, a substantial renovation programme has been completed since Professor Sunderland’s visit. Consideration is being given to an expansion of this building renovation programme.

Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 682)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What were the combined outstanding claims provisions of the registered health insurance funds as at 30th June 1969.

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

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

The combined outstanding claims provisions of the registered health insurance funds as at 30th June 1969 were as follows:

Note - The above figures are preliminary only, and are subject to alteration.

National Health Service (Question No. 505)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Will the commoner surgical and obstetric procedures performed usually by general practitioners in many parts of Australia attract higher rebates when performed by specialists after referral from other specialists, even when there has been no consultation with the patient’s personal physician.
  2. If so, will this tend to accelerate the relative decay of general practice and needlessly inflate the cost of the national health service.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) lt is proposed that higher benefits will be payable in respect of a number of services specified in the First Schedule to the National Health Act when they are carried out by a specialist in the practice of his speciality to whom a patient has been referred by another medical practitioner. In accordance with the practices ordinarily followed within the medical profession, the referring doctor will usually be the patient’s family doctor, lt is the Government’s objective that this proposal, which has been developed in the interests of patients, will be operated in such a way that it docs not have an adverse effect on general practice, or needlessly inflate the cost of the national health service.

Pensioners: Free Supply of Oxygen (Question No. 680)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the National Health and Medical Research Council made any recommendations relating to the free supply of oxygen to pensioners when required for medical reasons.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The National Health and Medical Research Council has not made any recommendations relating to the free supply of oxygen to pensioners when required for medical reasons.

Cigarette Smoking (Question No. 506)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a comment in The Medical Journal of Australia of 21st February 1970 that cigarette smoking is regrettably common and the chief avoidable cause of premature death from coronary disease and chronic bronchial and lung diseases, including bronchitis and cancer, and that this has been confirmed by similar disorders produced, in proportion to numbers of cigarettes smoked, in dogs trained to smoke them and given varying rations of cigarettes.
  2. How long is it since his predecessors were first advised to seek restriction of tobacco advertising.
  3. What advertising restrictions have been adopted, when and by whom were they adopted, and to what extent was advertising restricted in each case.
  4. What other steps has he taken to expedite discouragement or detoxification of this greatest preventable cause of non-violent deaths.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In (960, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended restrictions on television, press and radio advertising of cigarettes and tobacco, directed towards the younger age groups.
  3. A Voluntary Code of Cigarette Advertising, the main aim of which was to ‘prevent cigarette advertising being directed towards young people’, was introduced by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations on 1st January 1966.

The text of the Code, which resulted from discussions between the then Minister for Health, the Federation and the cigarette manufacturing industry is as follows:

  1. Cigarette advertising must not be aimed at any non-smoker but must be intended to effect a change of brand among smokers.
  2. Principal characters shown smoking cigarettes in any advertisement should not be under 25 years of age.
  3. No cigarette advertising may be placed on television in children’s programmes or immediately before or after such programmes.
  4. No family scenes of father and/or mother smoking cigarettes in front of children may be shown.
  5. No advertising for cigarettes may appear containing testimonials from persons who have special appeal to young people.
  6. No advertising may claim special health properties for, or reduction of any ingredient from smoke of any cigarette unless backed by scientific authority.
  7. Cigarette advertising may use attractive, healthy looking models, or illustrations or drawings of persons who appear to be attractive and healthy, provided that there is no suggestion that their attractive appearance or good health is due to cigarette smoking.
  8. Advertisements shall not show well-known past or present athletes or sportsmen smoking cigarettes nor anyone who just participated in physical activity requiring stamina or athletic conditioning beyond that of normal recreation.

  9. Cigarette advertising must not show or imply habitual or excessive smoking.

    1. A sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council has been established at the request of the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference lo consider methods of analysis of cigarette smoke, for ‘tar’ and nicotine content.

However, the National Health and Medical Research Council has stated that health education is probably the most effective way to attack the smoking problem. Education is generally the responsibility of State Governments, but the Commonwealth is co-operating in the provision of health education within Commonwealth internal Territories.

Other action is under consideration by the Government al the present time.

Student Nurses (Question No. 303)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Can he say whether student nurses receive less remuneration and carry more responsibility than unqualified nursing aides of the same age.

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

In some instances the student general nurse does receive less remuneration than unqualified nursing aides of the same age. However, the student general nurse carries different responsibilities to those of the nursing aide, and is in the process of receiving an education which leads to a professional career in nursing.

War Service Homes: Waiting Period (Question No. 751) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. When was the waiting period re-introduced in respect of applications for assistance to purchase existing houses under the War Service Homes Act.
  2. How long is the waiting period.
  3. Will the War Service Homes Division make any checks of interest rates charged on temporary finance as it did in June 1958, October 1959, June 1960 and October 1962 when waiting periods were formerly imposed (Hansard 19th November 1959, pages 2986; 29th August 1963, page 725, and 23rd September 1965, page 1291).
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. On 18th March 1970.
  2. Six months, which includes the processing period.
  3. lt is not considered that there are any circumstances at present which suggest a need to carry out checks of interest rates charged on temporary finance.

War Service Homes (Question No. 781)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Will the Minister state a case to the Government for a’n amendment lo the War Service Homes Act to enable similar relief from the payment of instalments to be extended to widowers as is now available to widows.

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

This question which is directly related lo Question No. 527 asked by the Honourable Member on 9th April 1970, involves a question of future Government policy, and as indicated in the reply given on that occasion it is impracticable to provide an answer to a question of this nature.

Vietnam (Question No. 10)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that Australia is participating in an undeclared war in Vietnam.
  2. If so, what other nations are associated with Australia in participation in this undeclared war.
  3. Has Australia, o’n any other occasions in its history, used military forces abroad for one reason or another in an undeclared war.
  4. If so, in what circumstances.
  5. Is participation by Australia in an undeclared war overseas contrary to the accepted rules of international conduct.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. At the request of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, Australia is participating in military operations in defence of the Republic of

Vietnam. No declaration of war has been made in respect of these operations.

  1. The other Troop Contributing Countries supporting the Republic of Vietnam are the United States of America,. New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Thailand.
  2. and (4) Australian Forces served in Korea from 19S0 to 19S3 as part of the United Nations force formed in order to restore international peace and security in Korea. The Government found it unnecessary to make a legal characterisation of the hostilities -in Korea.
  3. No. . Cockburn Sound: Report (Question No. 71)
Mr Whitlam:

, asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. When will he publish the report on Cockburn Sound which Maunsell and Partners made in January 1968.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The report is confidential to the Government, and will ‘not be published at this stage.

Rhodesian Diplomatic Representatives: Australian Passports (Question No. 149) Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is it .in accordance with the Government’s policy for. persons described as Rhodesia’s diplomatic representatives in South Africa and Portugal to hold Australian passports. (Hansard, 22nd May 1969, page 2228, questions 1419 and 1420).

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

Holders of Australian passports engage in a wide variety of activities throughout the world. It is not the policy of the Australian Government to cancel passports issued to Australian citizens of good character.

Operation and Servicing of Aircraft: Training of New Guineans (Question No. 180)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What steps have been taken to train New Guineans to operate and service aircraft.

Mr Killen:
Minister for the Navy · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No steps have been taken to train New Guineans to operate and service Air Force aircraft.
  2. The Department of Civil Aviation administers the Australian Flying Scholarship scheme, which is designed to produce career pilots for civil aviation in Australia and Papua-New Guinea, for the training of suitably qualified young people to at least Commercial Pilot Licence standard. To be eligible for selection, applicants must meet qualifications required in respect of age and education and .have a minimum of 20 hours flying training. They must also be medically fit to the standards prescribed for the issue of Commercial Pilot Licences. The financial assistance provided is designed to meet approximately 70% of the cost of flying training.
  3. Nine New Guineans have been selected foi scholarships - five in 1966-67 and four in 1968-69. Of those selected in 1966-67, only two completed their training and they are employed by Papuan Airlines Pty Ltd. The four present scholarship holders commenced training in February 1969 and their awards are still current.

Vietnam (Question No. 196)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Have any investigations been conducted into alleged black market dealings, manipulations of currency or smuggling of arms to the Viet Cong by members of the Australian Forces in Vietnam.
  2. If so, (a) how many of these investigations were made, (b) what was the offence under investigation, (c) what was the finding in each case and (d) what action was taken against the offending serviceman or servicemen.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes. Minor infringements concerning black marketing and currency dealings have been detected and investigated. There is no evidence of large scale or organised activities by Australian servicemen in these crimes. An investigation into the one case of alleged smuggling of arms failed to produce any evidence of an offence having been committed.
  2. (a) Offences involving 66 members of the

Army and RAAF have been investigated.

  1. The offences generally related to the sale of cigarettes, canteen items and minor currency dealings.
  2. and (d) In 42 cases, the serviceman involved was found guilty of the charges laid against him and suffered punishment and fines or detention or both.

Television (Question No. 227)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

When is it expected that national television will be extended to (a) Carnarvon, (b) Dampier, and (c) Port Hedland.

Mr Hulme:
LP

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

Carnarvon, Dampier and Port Hedland are among 36 areas for which low powered television stations were authorised last year. Preliminary work associated with the establishment of these stations, which includes technical surveys in each of the areas concerned, is proceeding as expeditiously as possible. I am not yet able to provide details of the completion dates of the various stations but as soon as a firm timetable for the completion of the stations can be arrived at I intend to make a statement.

Armed Services: Re-engagement of Servicemen (Question No. 288)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Will he bring up to date the tables of reengagement for (a) each Service and (b) each mustering in his predecessor’s answer to me on 16th October 1968.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The overall percentage rates of reengagement on completion of initial periods of engagement in each of the three Services for the year 1968-69 are:

This figure represents the overall percentage of reengagements at the end of 9 and 12 year engagemeats. On this basis the percentage was 21% for 1966-67 and 1967-68.

  1. (i) NAVY

Re-engagement rates by specialisation are:

  1. ARMY

Detailed statistics are not maintained in respect of re-engagements in each of some 500 trades or employments in the Army.

  1. RAAF

Vietnam: Australian Casualties (Question No. 289)

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many Australians have (a) been killed, (b) been wounded and (c) died of wounds incurred in Vietnam or in operations in relation to the war in Vietnam.
  2. How many Australians who were casualties in these operations are now (a) in hospital and (b) disabled in any way.
  3. Can he say how many Americans have been (a) killed and (b) wounded in Vietnam or in operations in relation to the war in Vietnam.
  4. Can he say how many military personnel of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam have been (a) killed and (b) wounded in Vietnam or in operations in relation to the war in Vietnam.
  5. Can he say how many Vietnamese civilians have been (a) killed and (b) wounded. in Vietnam during the war.
  6. Can he say how many personnel claimed to be (a) Viet Cong and (b) of the Republic of North Vietnam have been (i) killed and (ii) wounded in Vietnam or in operations in relation to the war in Vietnam.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Australian casualties in Vietnam at 3rd April 1970:

  1. (a) At the beginning of March, 1970 there were 89 Australian servicemen in hospital as a result of service in Vietnam.

    1. At the end of 1969 there were 2,112 war pensions payable to members in respect of incapacities accepted as being due to service in Vietnam.

  2. to (6) The United States Department of Defense Statistical Summary of South East Asian casualties includes the following figures for the period 1st January 1961 to 14th March 1970:

    1. Total United States deaths from action by hostile forces were 40,947.
    2. 269,719 U.S. servicemen have been wounded.
    3. Combat deaths of members of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam totalled 103,507.
    4. Enemy combat deaths are estimated at 610,308.

Vietnam: Shell Attacks (Question 308)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle of 31st March 1969, quoting Major Borgman of the Special Forces Fifth Mobile Strike Force as saying, he and others attacked human beings with white phosphorus and napalm shells.
  2. Has he any evidence to confirm or deny that napalm or white phosphorus is used as an antipersonnel chemical by allied forces.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. I have read the newspaper report but believe there is room for considerable divergence of opinion as to its implications, and 1 would require to be given much more precise and detailed information on the matters reported by this newspaper before I could make ‘any reliable assessment of them.
  2. Australian Forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as anti-personnel weapons. My understanding is that these materials are used by allied forces only against military structural targets. White phosphorus has particular application to target marking and the creation of smoke screens. Napalm finds application in conventional attacks against structures. I am not informed of the extent to which United States policy prohibits the use of these weapons in the anti-personnel role but I have seen no authentic evidence to suggest that they have been used deliberately against troops in the open.

Vietnam: Airborne Gas Attacks (Question No. 309)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Can he say whether airborne gas attacks have been used to flush troops from shelter prior to antipersonnel bombing in Vietnam.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

No operations of the type described in the question have been conducted by Australian Forces. I have no reliable information to confirm or rebut any report of the conduct of such operations by the Forces of other countries.

Vietnam (Question No. 310)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a medical report quoted by Professor J. B. Nielands of the Chair of Bio-chemistry, University of California, that, in Vietnam, about 10% of adults and 90% of children who are flushed out of tunnels, bunkers or shelters by gas cylinders and who survive to reach medical care, die.
  2. If so, has he any information which would confirm or deny the figures.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.

Vietnam: Napalm (Question No. 313)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. ls the atmospheric concentration of carbon monoxide produced by napalm combustion higher than that produced by other military incendiary substances.
  2. Is he able to say whether the concentration of carbon monoxide is comparable to concentrations produced in vehicle exhaust gases by an equal weight of motor fuel.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. I am advised the proportion of carbon monoxide in the combustion products of a given weight of napalm burning in the open is similar to that produced from the same weight of other organic materials burning under like conditions. Other military incendiary substances are inorganic in nature and do not themselves produce carbon monoxide: however, ignition of natural combustibles resulting from the use of these incendiary substances will produce some carbon monoxide, the amount depending on the conditions of combustion and the nature of the combustible material.
  2. 1 am advised as the combustion of motor fuel in an engine is normally incomplete, carbon monoxide is formed, the amounts varying with conditions in the engine. Much work has been done on this subject in relation to its contribution to air pollution. For example, one typical investigation has shown that the concentrations of carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases of 100 randomly selected cars ranged from 1 to 12%, the average figure being 7%, viz. 70,000 parts per million. On the other hand, such a concentration is only achieved within the flame, and one inch from the surface, of napalm burning in the open; immediately beyond the flame the concentration falls to less than 10 parts per million. (The maximum allowable concentration for prolonged human exposure is 50 parts per million).

It is evident therefore that the amount of carbon monoxide produced from the combustion of motor fuel in an average engine would in normal circumstances be very much greater (roughly 1,000 times greater even for good engines) than the amount produced by combustion of the same weight of fuel in the form of napalm.

Vietnam: Use of Herbicides (Question No. 314)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Can he say if Operation Ranch Hand involved aerial spraying over 5 million acres of Vietnam up to 1968, including over 600,000 acres of crops using over $163m worth of herbicides.
  2. Can he say what acreages and amounts of herbicide have since been similarly sprayed.
  3. Can he say whether the entire United States’ production in 1967 and 1968 of some 14 million pounds of the defoliant or weedkiller 2,4,5-T was bought by the United States Department of Defence.
  4. Is this quantity of herbicides enough to kill 97% of above-ground vegetation over 10 million acres.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The figures quoted are generally consistent with information published in various reports. I am inclined, however, to think that the cost figure quoted is high.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.

Vietnam: Effect of Chemicals (Question No. 315)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: ls he able to provide any reports of long-term plant, animal and human ecology studies of the effects of chemicals used in the Vietnam war.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Two detailed studies on this subject have beer undertaken and reported. These are:

‘Assessment of Ecological Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides: Fina Report’ prepared by Midwest Research Institute foi the Advanced Research Projects Agency (AD824314);

‘Defoliation in Vietnam’ by Fred H Tschirley, published in ‘Science’, Volume 163. 21st February 1969, pages 779-785. These reports are readily available.

Defence Research and Development Policy Committee (Question No. 364)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Defence Research and Development Policy Committee.
  2. Do the present functions of the Committee differ from those listed in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, pages 66-67.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Chairman -

  1. A. Wills, O.B.E., Chief Defence Scientist Members -

Professor S. Sunderland, C.M.G.

Professor Sir Ernest Titterton, C.M.G.

Professor J. W. Roderick

Rear-Admiral B. J. Castles, Third Naval Member

Rear-Admiral D. C. Wells, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff

Major-General T. F. Cape, C.B.E., D.S.O., Master General of the Ordnance

Major-General S. C. Graham, D.S.O., O.B.E., M.C., Deputy Chief of the General Staff

Air Vice-Marshal E. Hey, CB., C.B.E., Air Member for Technical Services

Air Vice-Marshal C. F. Read, C.B.E., D.F.C., A.F.C., Deputy Chief of the Air Staff

  1. F. C. Lawrence, Deputy Secretary (Research and Engineering), Department of Supply
  2. J. O’Connor, Deputy Secretary (Management and Supply), Department of Supply
  3. Sharpe, Controller Research and Development Division, Department of Supply
  4. E. Blakers. O.B.E., Deputy Secretary, Department of Defence
  5. R. G. Prowse, Assistant Secretary (Defence and Works Division), Department of the Treasury
  6. W. Buckham, (Acting) Director of Scientific Services, Department of the Navy
  7. W. Hynes, (Acting) Scientific Adviser to the Military Board, Department of the Army
  8. Cartwright. Scientific Adviser to the Air Board. Department of Air
  9. P. Lonergan, (Acting) Head. Programmes and Operations Branch, Defence Science Division, Department of Defence

  10. G. Salisbury. I.S.O., First Assistant Secretary (Programme and Budget) Department of Defence.

    1. The functions of the DR & DPC are substantially as shown in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory. However, they are at present under scrutiny as pan of an examination to determine whether any changes in the modus operandi of the Committee are desirable now that the Defence

Science Division of the Department of Defence has become established.

Vietnam: Australian Forces (Question No. 429)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) Army, (b) Royal Australian Air Force and (c) Royal Australian Navy personnel are at present stationed in Vietnam.
  2. What are the relative figures for each year since Australia became involved in Vietnam.
  3. What has been the estimated cost of Vietnam involvement each year since our entry into the war.
  4. How many Australians have lost their lives in Vietnam or as the result of fighting there, and how many of these were conscripts.
  5. How many Australians (a) have been wounded and (b) suffered permanent disability as a result of wounding, and how many of these were conscripts.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. At the end of February there were 371 members of the Navy, 6,882 members of the Army and 736 members of the Air Force serving in Vietnam.
  2. The numbers of Australian servicemen in Vietnam al the end of February each year are:
  3. The cost of the involvement in Vietnam each year is:

These costs represent the excess over normal costs in Australia of the Services.

  1. Fatal casualties in Vietnam at 3 April 1970 are: 238* Regular servicemen 168 National servicemen

One regular soldier and one national serviceman have been posted as missing and for official purposes presumed dead, and are included in these figures.

  1. (a) Other casualties at 3rd April 1970 are: Wounded in action 1,134* Regular Servicemen (includes injured in action) S27 National Servicemen

Non battle casualties 400t Regular Servicemen i.e. injured or ill 200 National Servicemen

  1. As at 31st December 1969, 2,112 servicemen who have served in Vietnam were receiving war pensions in respect of incapacity accepted as due to special service in Vietnam. This figure includes 12 in receipt of the special rate (T.P.I.) and 217 on the maximum general rate (100% disablement) and 947 on the minimum or 10% disablement. Repatriation pension figures are not maintained to distinguish between regular servicemen and national servicemen.

Department of Defence: Special Studies Branch (Question No. 553)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many officers have been appointed to the Special Studies Branch of his Department.
  2. What are the classifications of these officers.
  3. What are the functions of the Branch.
  4. What projects are being undertaken by the Branch.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Special Studies Branch is part of the Secretariat Division, and is controlled by the head of that Division. Two other officers have been appointed to the Special Studies Branch.
  2. The head of the Secretariat Division is a Level 2, Second Division officer. The other 2 officers are officers of the Third Division, their classifications being Class 11 and Class 8.
  3. The functions of the Branch are broadly as I described them in my statement to the House on 10th March- to study functions, organisations and activities within the Defence Croup of Departments and the Services with a view to developing, where appropriate, proposals for rationalisation through integration, co-location, single managership or standardisation of equipment, methods and procedures. The aim of such studies is to achieve the most effective use of existing resources.

  4. Major rationalisation studies in which the head of the Division and the staff of the Special Studies Branch are participating include the following:

    1. a review of the overall command and organisational structure of the Army in Australia;
    2. a review of the organisations, functions, and activities of the 3 Service Departments and the Department of Supply in relation to procurement matters generally, both in Australia and overseas;
    3. a review of the communications systems of the 3 Services and the Departments of Defence Group;
    4. an examination of the requirement for and the location of additional Army barrack accommodation after Vietnam;
    5. a review of the activities and organisations of the 3 Services and the Department of Supply, in the Melbourne area, in the fields of motor transport, rations, and fuels. This could lead to rationalisation of these activities in areas other than in Melbourne; and
    6. a review of both fixed wing piston engined flying training and rotary wing flying training arrangements in the Services.

Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee (Question No. 556)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Who arc the members of the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee.
  2. What are the functions of the Committee.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee is under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the other members being the Permanent Heads of the Departments of Navy, Army and Air and a senior representative of Treasury.
  2. The functions of the Committee are to consider and make recommendations to the Minister for Defence and, in the case of major proposals, to the Treasurer concerning rates of pay and financial conditions of service of personnel of the Defence Forces.

Papua and New Guinea: Literary Censorship (Question No. 574)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What are the grounds upon which (a) the importation of books and periodicals into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and (b) the sale of books and periodicals in the Territory can be (i) prohibited and (ii) restricted.
  2. Who are the officials and the members of boards or tribunals empowered to censor books and periodicals in the Territory.
  3. Since he became Minister, which books and periodicals (a) printed in Australia or (b) admitted into Australia have been banned in the Territory.
  4. Since he became Minister, which books and periodicals (a) printed in Australia or (b) admitted into Australia have been admitted into the Territory subject to excisions not required in Australia.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. (a) The Papua and New Guinea Customs

Ordinance makes it an offence to bring prohibited imports into the Territory. Under the Ordinance, prohibited imports include any works or articles which are blasphemous, indecent or obscene. The Ordinance authorises prohibition of imports subject to any specified condition or restriction, (b) Under the Discriminatory Practices Ordinance ii is an offence to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, insulting, provocative or offensive with intent to stir up hatred, ridicule or contempt against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race or ethnic, tribal or national origin.

Under the Territory Criminal Code it is an offence to sell, display or advertise any printed matter which is obscene or tends to corrupt morals. The same applies to the carrying on of a business dealing with such matters or assisting in the carrying out of such activities.

The Defamation Ordinance provides that a person shall not unlawfully publish defamatory matter concerning another.

The Commonwealth Crimes Act which places certain restrictions on publishing extends to the Territory.

Under the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Ordinance it is an offence, unless the House of Assembly so directs, to print or publish outside the House any words or matter published in the House, lt is also an offence to publish any words or any cartoon which tends to bring the House into hatred or contempt.

The Postal Regulations provide for the registration of certain publications and periodicals. The Director of Posts and Telegraphs may remove from the Register any such material which in his opinion is profane, blasphemous, indecent, obscene, immoral or seditious and may refuse to accept for transmission through the post or confiscate parcels containing any such material.

  1. The Comptroller of Customs has responsibility for determining which imported books and periodicals should be prohibited.

The Director of Posts and Telegraphs carries out the functions under the Postal Regulations mentioned in the last paragraph of (1) (b) above.

  1. Since November 1963 no books printed in Australia have been banned in the Territory. The publications ‘A Time Too Soon’ and ‘Playboy’ Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 12, have been admitted into Australia but banned in the Territory.
  2. No books or periodicals printed in Australia or admitted into Australia have been subject to excisions before being admitted into the Territory in the period mentioned.

Panguna Copper Project: Landslide (Question No. 586) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: (0 What is the name of each married worker killed in the landslide at the Panguna Copper Project.

  1. What is the amount of workmen’s compensation that is or will be paid to the wife and/or children of each of these workers.
  2. What is the name of the mining warden at Bougainville and what are the names of the independent assessors who inquired into the Panguna tragedy.
  3. Has a finding as to the employer’s negligence or incompetence been published.
  4. When is it anticipated that the Public Solicitor of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea wilt be able to finalise and determine whether a common law action will lie against the employer.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. John Floyd Lemon was the only married worker killed in the accident.
  2. The amount of workmen’s compensation to be paid has not been determined. The Public Solicitor of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is handling the claim for Mrs Lemon.
  3. The name of the Mining Warden, Bougainville Gold and Mineral Field, is Hector James McKenzie. The assessors were Neil Robert Collier, B.E. (Civil), M.I.E. (Australia), and Edwin Keith Carter, B.S., Ph.D., Assoc. Member A.I.M.M. and Member Geol. Soc.
  4. It is expected that the findings of the court of inquiry held by the Mining Warden will be published shortly.
  5. The Public Solicitor is examining the transcript of evidence and finding of the Court of Enquiry held by the Mining Warden’s Court on 11th February 1970, and of the coronial enquiry and depositions by Coroner M. L. MacKellar. He is considering whether a common law action should be initiated against the employer in the light of the evidence.

Papua and New Guinea: Plantation Workers (Question No. 666)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many plantation workers are employed in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. How many of these were recruited (a) by licensed native employment agents, (b) by officers of the Administration, (c) by unlicensed agents and (d) otherwise.
  3. How many are accompanied by their families.
  4. How many of those not accompanied by their families entered into contracts of employment for (a) 12 months, (b) 2 years and (c) any other period.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. 42,083 as at 30th June 1968. This is the latest year for which plantation worker statistics are available.

  2. Available figures do not show by whom plantation workers are recruited. The following figures give a breakdown for 1968, in the form requested for plantation workers, of the channels of recruitment of agreement workers, most of whom would be employed on plantations.

    1. 6,627 Cb) 807
    2. Nil
    3. Nil

The remaining 14,877 agreement workers offered themselves for employment.

  1. Of 12,145 agreement workers engaged in 1969 25 were accompanied by their families.
  2. The employment agreements entered into by the 12,120 workers in 1969 who were not accompanied by their families were almost in all cases for two years. Only 12 workers are known to have entered into agreements for one year.

Parliamentary Broadcasts (Question No. 683)

Mr Berinson:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Are audience ratings similar to those covering television available for radio stations and radio programmes.
  2. If so, what is the estimated audience for Parliamentary broadcasts.
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The size of the audience varies in accordance with public interest in the subjects being discussed and! in the time of broadcast. The latest audience ratings indicate however that the maximum regular audience for Parliamentary broadcasts is less than 1% of the adult population in the areas in which these broadcasts are received, i.e. approximately 60,000 people.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 695)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Article 62 of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 110 prohibits a public authority from any interference which would restrict the right of a’ workers’ organisation from organising its own administration, activities or programmes.
  2. Is it also a fact that Article 62 of the Convention provides that no such organisation shall be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. _ (3) Is it a fact that Article 67 of the Convention provides for acquisition of legal personality but such an organisation shall not be subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Article 62.
  3. Is it a fact that the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Ordinance No. 38 of 1962 as amended (a) makes it compulsory for a workers’ organisation to be registered under the Ordinance, (b) gives the Industrial Registrar power to dissolve a workers’ organisation, (c) gives the Registrar power to remove from his office the secretary of a workers’ organisation, (d) prohibits a workers’ organisation from using its funds to support the political party of its choice and (e) proscribes strike action by a workers’ organisation unless such action is first approved in a secret ballot in which all members of the organisation are entitled to vote.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Article 62 of Convention 110 provides as follows: ‘62. Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.’
  2. Article 64 provides as follows: ‘64. Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.’
  3. Article 67 provides as follows: ‘67. The acquisition of legal personality by workers’ and employers’ organisations, federations and confederations, shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles- 62, 63 and 64.’

  4. (a) Section 11 of the Ordinance requires an industrial organisation consisting of not less than twenty employees or four employers to register under the Ordinance. Section 28 prescribes penalties for persons acting on behalf of an organisation to which Section 11 applies and which is not registered.

    1. Section 26 of the Ordinance gives the Registrar power on grounds stated in the Ordinance to cancel the registration of an industrial organisation.
    2. Section 41 (4) states that the Registrar may, by order, remove from office the secretary or treasurer of an industrial organisation who is, in his opinion, not capable of performing effectively the duties of his office.
    3. Section 56(1) of the Ordinance states the objects for which funds of an industrial organisation may be expended; these do not include support of a political party. Section 56(2) states that the provisions of Section 56 (1) do not apply to prevent an industrial organisation from accepting and expending for a special purpose donations made voluntarily for that purpose, (e) It is specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance that the rules of an industrial organisation must provide for the taking of decisions by a secret ballot in respect of strikes or lockouts.

Papua and New Guinea: Housing Commission (Question No. 732)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister tor External Territories, upon notice:

  1. When was the Housing Commission established in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. What are the names and positions of the persons who constitute the Commission.
  3. How many applications by (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates were (i) lodged with the Commission in each year since it was established and (ii) outstanding at the end of each of those years.
  4. How many houses were (a) built for and (b) allocated to (i) indigenes and (ii) expatriates in each of those years.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. (3) and (4) The Housing Commission was established on 1st July 1968 and by 30th June 1969 had completed 279 dwellings, 159 of which had been allocated to tenants. In addition the Commission allocated 13 dwellings built by the Administration but made available to the Commission.

Records do not distinguish between indigenous and expatriate applicants for housing. Applicants whose weekly income exceeds $60 per week are ineligible to rent a dwelling and those earning more than $4,000 a year are Ineligible to purchase a Housing Commission home.

At 30th June 1969 1,499 applications were outstanding. These included applications by Local Officers of the Administration who are on the waiting list for Administration houses that are being built in the centres concerned.

  1. Housing Commissioner - G. E. Stolz. Associate Commissioners -

    1. W. D. Stedman, General Manager, Ansett Airlines of Papua and New Guinea.
    2. Sicklinger, Managing Director, Morobe

Constructions Pty Ltd. T. Tobunbun, School Teacher.

J. E. Ritchie, Treasurer, Papua and New

Guinea Administration.

Learmonth Airfield (Question No. 758)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. When is construction work on extensions to the Learmonth airfield expected to start.
  2. When is the work expected to be completed.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. An advance party of No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron, RAAF was established at Learmonth on 26th March 1970 and commenced preliminary works associated with development of the airfield.
  2. On current planning it is anticipated that the development will be completed in December 1972.

Royal Australian Air Force Jet Training Aircraft (Question No. 760) Mr Barnard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. How many Macchi aircraft have been delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force.
  2. How many remain to be delivered.
  3. When will the delivery programme be completed.
  4. Are any Vampire aircraft still in use as jet trainers by the RAAF.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. As at 21st April 1970, 69 Macchi aircraft have been delivered.
  2. 18 RAAF and 10 RAN aircraft remain to be delivered.
  3. It is expected that the delivery programme will be completed by June 1972.
  4. There are still 7 Vampire aircraft in use as jet trainers, but it is expected that they will be phased out of service towards the end of this year.

Papua and New Guinea: Salaries and Allowances (Question No. 816)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What are the respective salaries and allowances paid to (a) Europeans and (b) indigenes employed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the positions of (i) Education Officer, Grade 1, (ii) Assistant Magistrate, (iii) Cooperative Officer, Grade I (iv) Patrol Officer, (v) first-class tradesmen and (vi) medical technologists.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The respective salaries and allowances of local and overseas officers of the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea employed in the positions referred to are:

Papua and New Guinea: Public Servants Family Needs Allowance (Question No. 817) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is the ‘Family Needs Allowance’ now paid to indigenous public servants employed by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Is the allowance based upon the cost of living in the particular locality in which it applies.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Family Needs Allowance is an allowance paid to a married indigenous public servant if the salary he receives is less than assessed minimum living needs.
  2. The allowance is based on the costs in different parts of the Territory of a regimen of minimum living needs for family units of

Man and wife;

Man and wife and one child;

Man and wife and two children; and

Man and wife and three children.

Papua and New Guinea: Arbitration Tribunal (Question No. 818) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Who are the two members of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Public Service Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal who are not holders of an office of profit under the Crown.
  2. Are any members of the Tribunal bona fide members of (a) an organisation of employees or (b) an organisation of employers.
  3. If so, who are they.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Mr Gavera Rea and Mr To Meriba Tomalaka.
  2. (a) Yes. (b) No.

Papua and New Guinea: Workers* Compensation (Question No. 819)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What criteria determine whether the widow of a New Guinean worker who is killed during or in the course of bis employment, is either wholly or in part dependent upon his earnings before his death.
  2. In how many cases have the widow ot dependants of a New Guinean worker in the abovementioned class been (a) granted the full amount of compensation specified under the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance 1958-69, (b) granted less than the full amount, and (c) refused compensation.
  3. In how many cases have the widow or dependants of a European worker killed during or in the course of his employment been refused compensation on the ground that she or they were not wholly or partially dependent on his earnings before death.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The Workers’ Compensation Ordinance 1958-1969 of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea does not define the criteria to be used in assessing dependency upon the earnings of a deceased worker. Whether or not a widow was dependent upon the earnings of a deceased worker before his death is a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of each case.

  2. In the 5 years ended 31st March 1970. widows or dependants of New Guinean workers who were killed during or in the course of employment, have been awarded compensation as follows:

    1. Full compensation in 42 cases (including 22 cases of compensation as dependants under native custom).
    2. Less than full compensation in 21 cases (including 10 cases of compensation as dependants under native custom).
    3. There has been no case in which a claim for compensation has been refused on the ground that the person concerned was not dependent on the earnings of the worker at the time of death. There have been 59 cases in respect of which the Court has refused compensation on the grounds that the worker’s death was not the result of his employment.
  3. Not known. In cases of compensation for widows and dependants of European workers the parties concerned make claims and take action for recovery of compensation through their legal representatives or if they are financially unable to do so, through the Public Solicitor.

Papua and New Guinea: Case of Mr D. Kereku (Question No. 826)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. On what days, before what magistrates and judges, on what matters and with what results (a) has Damien Kereku appeared before the courts in Rabaul or (b) have persons appeared on his behalf before those courts since 7th December 1969.
  2. When did he first (a) seek and (b) receive legal aid.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. (a) (b) Mr Kereku has appeared before the courts at Rabaul in connection with seven criminal charges since 7th December 1969. On 8th and 9th December when the first charges were brought before the District Court Mr Kereku was represented by the Public Solicitor’s Office in applications for bail.

    1. On 8th December he appeared before Mr K. Wallers, R.M. in the District Court charged with behaving in a riotous manner on 7th December 1969 at Rapindik, contrary to section 30 (e) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1925-1966. He was remanded in custody until 22nd December. The charge was heard by Mr Wallers on 22nd and 23rd December. He was not represented at this hearing. On 23rd December he was convicted of the offence and fined $20.00 in default 2 months imprisonment. The fine was paid on 20th February 1970.
    2. On 9th December, he appeared before Mr Wallers in the District Court charged with behaving in an offensive manner at Rapindik on 7th December 1969, contrary to section 30 (d) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1.925-1966. This charge was based upon the same facts as the charge referred to above, to which it was an alternative. The hearing of the charge was adjourned to 22nd December. No evidence was called in respect of this alternative charge, and the charge was therefore dismissed. He was not represented in these proceedings.
    3. On 8th December 1969 Mr Kereku also appeared before Mr Walters in the District Court on a charge of escaping from lawful custody on the same day (8th December 1969) at Matupit, contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Law (Escapes) Ordinance 1968. The hearing of the charge was adjourned by Mr Walters first until 22nd December, then to 24th December, and again until 7th January 1970. On each occasion Mr Kereku was remanded in custody. Finally, the hearing was brought forward to 30th December and at the conclusion of the hearing Mr Walters convicted him of the offence and sentenced him to 1 month’s imprisonment cumulative on a sentence imposed upon him on 22nd

December. (See (vi) below.) He was not represented at this hearing. An appeal was lodged against the conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by Mr Justice Minogue in the Supreme Court on 14th April 1970. He was represented in the appeal proceedings by the Public Solicitor. His Honour quashed the conviction.

  1. On 9lh December Mr Kereku appeared before Mr Walters in the District Court charged with assaulting Mr Martin Tovadek, thereby occasioning him bodily harm on 7th December 1969 at Kokopo, contrary to section 339 of the Queensland Criminal Code in its application to the Territory of New Guinea. The hearing of this charge was adjourned by Mr Walters first to 22nd December and then to 5th January 1970. Mr R. N. Desailly, R.M. then adjourned the hearing until 12th January 1970. On each occasion, Mr Kereku was remanded in custody. On 12th, 13lh and 14th January, the charge was heard by Mr Desailly who then committed Mr Kereku for trial upon the charge before the Supreme Court. Bail was granted pending trial. He was not represented at these committal proceedings.
  2. Also on 9th December, Mr Kereku appeared before Mr Walters in the District Court charged with assaulting Mr Vin Tobaining, thereby occasioning him bodily harm on 7th December 1969 at Vunanami contrary to section 339 of the Queensland Criminal Code in its application lo the Territory of New Guinea. The hearing was adjourned, and Mr Kereku remanded in custody until 22nd December. The prosecution then elected to proceed on the alternative charge of unlawfully striking Mr Tobaining and Mr Walters dismissed the assault charge. He was not represented at this hearing.
  3. On 18th December, Mr Kereku appeared before Mr Walters in the District Court charged with assaulting Mr Vin Tobaining al Vunanami on 7th December 1969, contrary to section 30 (a) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1925-1966. The hearing of the charge lasted until 22nd December, when Mr Waiters convicted Mr Kereku of the offence and sentenced him (o 6 months’ imprisonment. Mr Kereku was not represented at these proceedings. An appeal was lodged against the conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by Mr Justice Minogue in the Supreme Court on 14th April 1970 and, on 15th April 1970, His Honour quashed the conviction. He was represented in the appeal proceedings by the Public Solicitor.
  4. On 6th January 1970, Mr Kereku appeared before Mr Desailly in the District Court charged with assaulting Mr Damien Tokurapa, thereby occasioning him bodily barm on 7th December 1969 at Matalau contrary to section 339 of the Queensland Criminal Code in its application to the Territory of New Guinea. Mr Desailly adjourned the hearing and remanded Mr Kereku in custody on the charge until 14th

January. Mr Desailly heard the charges on 14th, 15th and 16th January and then committed Mr Kereku for trial before the Supreme Court. Mr Kereku was not represented in the committal proceedings. On 17th February, the Crown announced in the Supreme Court that no evidence would be led against Mr Kereku on this charge in the Supreme Court. He was represented by the Public Solicitor in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

  1. Mr Kereku made no application for legal aid until 11th January, when he requested legal aid in the Supreme Court. The earlier appearances by the Public Solicitor’s Office on 8th and 9lh December were made in response to a request by Mr Oscar Tammur. The first formal granting of legal aid occurred when Mr Kereku was interviewed by the Public Solicitor on 12th February.

Devaluation Compensation (Question No. 839)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What manufacturers have received devaluation compensation payments since the introduction of the devaluation compensation scheme.

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

page 1668

RECIPIENTS OF DEVALUATION COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURED EXPORTS

Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd, Melbourne Avon Export & Import Co., Sydney Century Storage Battery Co. Ltd, Sydney Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd, Newcastle Cyclone K-M Products Pty Ltd, Melbourne Elliott & Magill Pty Ltd, Ballarat Fotek Corporation Pty Ltd, Sydney Grimwood Electrical Products Pty Ltd, Sydney Harvest Foods Ltd, Melbourne

James Hood & Co. Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Johnson & Sons Pty Ltd, Sydney

Lilly Industries Pty Ltd, Sydney

John Lysaght (Aust.) Ltd, Sydney

Macnaught Pty Ltd, Sydney

Maize Products Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Marein Leathers Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Monsanto Chemicals (Aust.) Ltd, Melbourne

K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty Ltd, Sydney

National Springs Pty Ltd, Sydney

Tom Piper Ltd, Melbourne

Simpson Pope Ltd, Adelaide

Smith Mitchell & Co. Ltd, Melbourne

A. G. Thompson Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Joe White Malting Ltd, Melbourne

Shipbuilding: Fire Fighting and Prevention Procedures (Question No. 840)

Mr Whitlam:

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

On what occasions has the Commonwealth Fire Board inspected the fire fighting and prevention procedures and equipment in shipyards building ships with Commonwealth subsidies.

Mr Chipp:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Works has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

At no time has the Commonwealth Fire Board inspected the fire fighting and prevention procedures and equipment in non-Government shipyards where vessels are being built with Commonwealth subsidies.

Recently the Commonwealth Fire Board carried out an inspection at the Commonwealth owned Cockatoo Island (N.S.W.) Dockyard, and reported to the Department of the Navy on the principles and minimum standards of fire protection which should be adopted to safeguard Commonwealth works, machinery and equipment.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 May 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700505_reps_27_hor67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant