House of Representatives
20 August 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
- Education
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Social Services
- Kangaroos
- Kangaroos
- Education
- Social Services
- Education
- Social Services
- Interest Rates
- Interest Rates
- Education
- Social Services
- Education
- Education
- Perth Airport
- Schools Television Programmes
- Interest Rates
QUESTION
- EXPORT FINANCE
QUESTION
- MR FRANCIS JAMES
QUESTION
- MEAT INSPECTORS
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S PORTRAIT
QUESTION
- CAMBODIA
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGE
QUESTION
- CAMBODIA
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN DETAINED IN GREECE
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS
TERRITORY SENATORS BILL 1970
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES MEASUREMENT) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1970
- Second Reading
UREA BOUNTY BILL 1970
- Second Reading
SULPHATE OF AMMONIA BOUNTY BILL 1970
- Second Reading
SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1970
- Second Reading
PYRITES BOUNTY BULL 1970
- Second Reading
CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1970
- Second Reading
DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS LEGISLATION
- Appointment of Joint Select Committee
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEME TO ASSIST MARRIED AND SINGLE WOMEN
- Ministerial Statement
- Scope and Eligibility
- Nature of Training
- Length of Training
- Applications for Training
- Financial Aspects
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
- Report
AUSTRALIA AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
- Ministerial Statement
QUESTION
- STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
ADJOURNMENT
- War Service Homes - Memorial to Former Prime Minister - Repatriation - Parliament House
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
- Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television (Question No. 599)
- Prison Officers (Question No. 1100)
- Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Runway Approach (Question No. 1152)
- Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Aircraft Movements (Question No. 1153)
- Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Instrument Landing System (Question No. 1.154)
- Airline Industry: Employment (Question No. 1212)
- Aviation Facilities - Maintenance Costs (Question No. 1266)
- DC9 Aircraft: Safety Measures (Question No. 1267)
- Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: International Terminal (Question No. 1368)
- Radio Stations: Refusal to Play Records (Question No. 1369)

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

page 257

PETITIONS

Education

Mr ARMITAGE presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system; a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all; 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968; and Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives make legal provision for the allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction for income tax purposes; removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students; increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses; increase in the maintenance allowance for students; an exemption of non-bonded scholarships for part-time students from income tax.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr ENDERBY presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that due to higher living costs, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of average weekly male wage earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with Australian Council of Trades Unions policy and by so doing give a reasonably moderate pension. The average weekly earnings for adult male unit wage and salary earner means the figures issued from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

The petitioners pray that the Senate and House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received.

Social Services

Kangaroos

Mr HOWSON 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 of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist.

As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent 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.

Education

Perth Airport

Mr BENNETT presented from certain residents of the State of Western Australia a petition showing that the present site of the Perth Airport is unsuitable because of (a) the morning fogs; (b) its proximity to the Darling Ranges; (c) its lack of planning, prior to construction; (d) the loss to the local authority in rates and loss to the community in acreage of development area and assets: (e) the restriction placed on the development of surrounding shires due to existing flight paths and proposed flight paths; and If) the adjacent areas to the airport are suffering loss of value due to their unsuitability for high density development.

The petitioners pray that action be taken to remove the Perth Airport from its present site to the site planned by Professor Stephenson’s overall plan for the city of Perth, that is at Lake Gnangarra or some other suitable site.

Petition received and read.

Schools Television Programmes

Mr FitzPATRICK presented from certain citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that they believe that students who reside in Broken Hill are at a disadvantage compared with the rest of New South Wales; the reason for this disadvantage is the isolation of Broken Hill; and that this isolation may be partially overcome by the provision of New South Wales school television programmes in Broken Hill.

The petitioners pray that steps be taken to have New South Wales schools television programmes relayed to the Broken Hill television station.

Petition received and read.

Interest Rates

Mr KIRWAN presented from certain citizens of Western Australia a petition showing that the recent increase in the interest rate on Government bonds has caused hardship to the thousands of home buyers throughout this State due to the subsequent increase in interest rates on mortgage contracts by home lending institutions.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

Petition received.

page 263

QUESTION

EXPORT FINANCE

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that a serious deficiency exists in the area of export finance for high value transactions and that the terms and rates of interest normally available through commercial organisations in Australia disadvantage our exporters when they are competing against exporters in other countries who enjoy the benefits of government export credit bank finance at comparatively low interest rates over extended periods of time? Will the Government set up an export credit facility to provide finance at better than commercial terms to assist the export sales of Australian manufactured military equipment and other high value commercial exports?

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

– The Government has for years been conscious of the need for adequate assured finance for legitimate exports and it has made arrangements with the trading banks and the Commonwealth

Bank to provide special facilities to ensure that funds are available for exports. In addition, of course, it established some time ago the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. The cover issued by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation is normal legitimate collateral looked for by banks in respect of exports and particularly exports where substantial long term payments are part of the transaction. Indeed, I am informed constantly that parties requiring finance to support exports in respect of which terms are given, on approaching banks are told by the banks to go to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and to take out cover which the banks will then recognise as acceptable collateral. Therefore, in the broad the Government has been conscious of this need and has taken quit special steps to service the need.

It is true that lower interest rates are provided by the governments of some countries that are competitive with us. It is quite clear that certain governments from time to time seek to give their exporters a competitive advantage by providing funds at lower interest rates. I have never felt that this Government could engage in an interest rate war in these circumstances. What we have done is to be guided by the actual experience of our exporters. I can say that, to the best of my knowledge, we have had no experience of exporters coming to us and saying that they were unable to secure finance to service exports, even exports repayable by the purchasing parties over several years. There is no experience to my knowledge of parties coming and saying that they are at a disadvantage. But there are occasions - they are exceptional occasions and are intended to be exceptional occasions - when for some reason the Government is persuaded that terms longer than normal commercial terms should be given in respect of an export transaction which the Export Payments Insurance Corporation feels is outside its normal transactions. In those circumstances the Government is prepared to consider an underwriting by the Government to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. Although this is an exceptional transaction it is by no means a completely rare one. Export transactions of a very substantial nature have been underwritten by the Government in the terms that I have described.

page 264

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs a question which relates to the Australian journalist Francis James. The right honourable gentleman will recall that I raised this matter with him in correspondence recently. I ask whether all avenues have been explored to discover the whereabouts of Mr Francis James and to restore him if possible to his family and his country. In particular 1 ask whether inquiries have been made of the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Republic of China, Hong Kong and even some tracking and labour organisations in this country which have contacts with China? In any event, I ask, whether or not all of these avenues have been explored, that efforts be redoubled to discover his whereabouts and to restore him to his country.

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

– Every Australian citizen proceeding overseas is entitled to the maximum protection that the Australian embassies are capable of giving to him. This applies as much in the case of Mr Francis James as it does to any other person. When last heard of, Mx James was travelling between Canton and the border of the Free Territories and Communist China. We thought then that he was about to move into the Free Territories and then go on to Hong Kong and return home. For some reason unknown to us Mr James was intercepted and he has not been heard of since. We have no representatives in Peking but we have asked the British authorities to do the maximum in their capacity to try to find out whether he is under supervision or what the Chinese authorities are doing with him. The British have advised us that the Chinese are particularly careful about giving any kind of information at all. They refuse to divulge the whereabouts of Mr James or to indicate what has happened to him.

On several occasions we have asked the British representatives in Peking to continue their investigations, and they have done so. We have also received information from various international organisations in London about Mr Francis James, but no precise information has been forthcoming. Because of the honourable gentleman’s request, I will again ensure that further investigations are made now to see whether we can find out what has happened to Mr James. But I regret to inform him and the House that it is highly improbable that the Communist Chinese will give us any information whatsoever.

page 264

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTORS

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

– My only knowledge of disruption to meatworks in Victoria is the information that the honourable member has supplied to me and his expression of great concern about the effect that the proposal which has been agreed to by the industry to try to enable meat inspectors to have their recreation leave is having on the rate of killing and inspections. I am aware of the difficulty. I regret that I do not have a solution to it. As the honourable member will be aware, for some considerable time we have had a problem in providing sufficient meat inspectors to enable these works to operate and kill for the export market and to meet the very high requirements that are being demanded of us today, while at the same time enabling the meat inspectors to have their recreation leave. If we had given them recreation leave we would not have had sufficient meat inspectors and works would have had to be closed down completely.

The position is that we have been unable to give some inspectors leave for periods extending from 3 to 5 years. This is an intolerable situation for these fellows. We have done everything possible to improve their conditions. Recently there were useful discussions between representatives of the meat inspectors and the Public Service Board. The establishment was increased quite considerably. Meat inspectors were upgraded. All meat inspectors now become permanent Commonwealth employees. These measures were greatly welcomed by the inspectors, but still we are unable to recruit sufficient people and hold them in the industry. However, we still have the problem of being able to give them their recreation leave. It seemed to be a problem to which we could not find an answer. Yet, these men rightly were demanding their leave and said that there would be a strike of meat inspectors right across Australia if something was not done about the situation.

My Department bad consultations with the industry on behalf of meat inspectors to see whether we could find a solution to the problem. The meat industry agreed that this was a problem and that it should be rectified, lt accepted that some rostering of meat inspectors to go on leave ought to be introduced, that meatworks would have to slow down their rate of killing, and that this would cause some disruption to some plants and some unemployment. But this was the only way of tackling the problem; otherwise we would have a complete breakdown of the inspection service and all meatworks, for export purposes at any rate, would have to close down. We have come to this solution by agreement with the meat industry. If it is causing some difficulties, I regret it and say that I am sorry. But it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.

page 265

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence: What arrangements have been made for the projected withdrawal of the 8th Battalion from Vietnam and the training of Vietnamese troops to replace this Battalion?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Earlier, the House will remember, the Prime Minister announced that the 8th Battalion and some supporting elements would be withdrawn in November, or before if circumstances made it possible, and that the 8th Battalion would not be replaced. The 8th Battalion, in total about 900 men, will be withdrawn in November, as the Prime Minister indicated. The Battalion will be returning to Brisbane, its home base, and a march will be arranged through Brisbane on, I think, 12th November.

The Prime Minister announced also the development of training assistance for the South Vietnamese armed forces. This is to be in 2 parts. The first will be mobile advisory training teams of about 7 men who will work with regional force or popular force companies in the location of those companies to help them and to assist in raising their standards. The teams will not stay permanently with the companies but will stay with them for a period of training. Also, with the South Vietnamese, we have agreed to help establish a jungle warfare training centre which is likely to be established on the site vacated by the 8th Battalion. A pilot course for Vietnamese instructors will be conducted by a cadre of from 28 to 30 personnel from the Australian Army before Christmas and the first full course should take place early in the new year. Ultimately, about 500 junior leaders will be passing through this school at any one time.

page 265

QUESTION

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question concerning the Tariff Board’s annual report. The right honourable gentleman will remember that in its 1969 report the Tariff Board devoted a chapter to its survey of the profitability and capital structure of Australian manufacturing industry and announced that in 1969-70 it would expand its survey to cover the profitability of further industries including the petroleum industry. I ask the Minister whether, since the Board must give its 1970 report to him by the end of next week but he himself has 15 sitting days within which to table it, he will table the report as soon as possible so as to avoid any impression that the Government is withholding such expert evidence from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the parties to the current profitability case in which the Commonwealth has intervened.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I think I have on previous occasions informed the House that it is a statutory requirement that, upon receipt of the annual report of the Tariff Board, it shall be presented to the Parliament within a stipulated time.

Mr Whitlam:

– Fifteen sitting days.

Mr McEWEN:

– You say 15 days. I do not remember.

Mr Whitlam:

– Fifteen sitting days.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not question that at all. I have said that this shall be done, and in recent years it has been done. I remember that on one occasion some years ago - I cannot put my finger on the timefor some reason that I do not recall the Board’s report was not presented within the time. My memory inclines me to think that the receipt of the Board’s report was late. Since that occasion, which was an incident to be regretted, I have made it perfectly clear that the statutory requirements relating to the presentation of the Board’s report to the House will be strictly observed.

page 266

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S PORTRAIT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether a decision has been made on the commissioning of an artist to paint the official portrait of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, Sir Paul Hasluck? In making the decision as to who shall paint the portrait of this most famous Western Australian will the Prime Minister extend further recognition and honour to Western Australia by commissioning that State’s internationally famous portrait painter, Mr Owen Garde? Finally, as portraits by Garde of notable people are hanging in many national collections abroad, will the Prime Minister endeavour to use this unique opportunity to give visitors to Canberra the opportunity to appreciate the remarkable artistic gift of Owen Garde?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Answering the last part of the question first, should the artist of whom the honourable member spoke paint the portrait of Sir Paul Hasluck, the portrait would automatically hang in Kings Hall. Answering the other parts of the question, I have made no decision on an artist to paint Sir Paul Hasluck nor do I think the decision is a Prime Minister’s to make. Sir Paul Hasluck would no doubt select from a panel of names suggested to him by the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board that artist whom he thought would best paint his portrait. Sir Paul, being, as has been stated, a very distinguished Western Australian, would no doubt take into consideration, not to overweight artistic merit, areas from which a proposed painter might come. It would be a matter for the Governor-General himself to select the artist who would paint his portrait.

page 266

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether foreign forces are operating illegally in Cambodia? If so, what new steps is the Government taking to protect the Cambodian people from involvement in the war in Vietnam? Why does the Government hold to one principle in Vietnam and a different one in Cambodia?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As the honourable gentlemen knows better than anyone else on the other side of the House, there has been blatant violation of Cambodian territory by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, both Communist forces. I think the honourable gentlemen knows too that it is the wish of the Government that the neutrality and independence of Cambodia be maintained. Apart from the honourable gentlemen, who I know shares that view, I do not know of any other honourable member on the Opposition side who is prepared to support him or the Government. As for the Government’s actions in Cambodia, we have informed the Cambodian Government that we are prepared to make special assistance of $l.lm available this year in the Budget. This has been done. Of that, $500,000 is in specialist equipment and very nearly the whole of that amount has been committed. We have already provided a large number of field telephone sets which the honourable gentlemen himself would know are one of the most urgent requirements. We have agreed to provide another 90. We have provided 40 4 x 4 trucks. We have been advised by the Cambodian Government that these fill a desperately felt need.

At present - I am sure that this will be of great interest to the honourable gentleman and particularly to members of my own Party who recently visited Phnom Penh - we are making inquiries to see whether we can improve radio facilities for the whole of Cambodia. A representative of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has now advised us that without a great deal of expense - far less than was thought previously - we can increase substantially the power of the Phnom Penh radio station and that the stations in the north of South Vietnam and 1 other station, the locale of which I cannot name, will give, we hope, ever so much wider coverage than was previously thought to be possible. We are doing what we think is right. We have not given direct military assistance for the time being and no decision has been made about it. As members of the Djakarta Conference, anxious to move to a negotiated settlement and with a wish that we can continue our present activities, we feel that it is better for us to give multi-purpose aid and aid of a kind that I have just mentioned than to give military equipment.

page 267

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has called a nationwide 3-hour stoppage involving 2.5 million Australian workers on next Tuesday as a protest against the Budget? Is this strike being called for purely political reasons or is there perhaps some way in which such a stoppage may help the Australian economy?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I have seen reports to which the honourable member has referred that the ACTU has decided to use industrial action for political purposes. There is no doubt in my mind that the reasons for calling this strike are political reasons designed to further the hopes of the Opposition. I think it is another indication of a willingness on the part of those who support the Opposition to see that nonelected persons outside the Parliament direct or influence elected persons inside the Parliament who are charged with responsibility for the economy of this country. There can be no question that action of this kind can in no way advance the interests of the community in general or of that section of the community which the ACTU purports to represent, but can only cause loss and damage in a senseless way.

page 267

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for External Affairs in a television interview on 15 August in commenting on Australia’s attitude towards military aid to Cambodia state:

People wouldn’t believe us if we said we want a negotiated settlement and at the same time we gave military aid, so we gave civil aid instead.

How does the Minister relate that statement to the course the Government has pursued in Vietnam? What steps does the Minister intend to take to make people believe in the Government’s reported interest in a negotiated settlement in Vietnam?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– This is a somewhat inconsistent question. I did make the statement on television that it was the Government’s intention to provide civil aid and aid of a multi-purpose character, and that is exactly what we have done. The trucks can be used for several purposes. Radio communication facilities, if they are given, can also be used for several purposes.

Mr Morrison:

– That is not the question.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am trying to point out-

Mr Bryant:

– Why do you not-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. This is the second time that the Minister, when endeavouring to answer an important question, has been defeated in his efforts. 1 suggest that the House come to order.

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service concerning the announcement by the President crf the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, to the effect that bc intends to call a nation wide strike next Tuesday. Is the Minister in a position to say how many people will be compelled to go on strike and for what purposes it is being called? Do the people involved stand to gain anything? Can the Minister inform the House of how many strikes have been called since Mr Hawke was appointed President of the ACTU? Will the Minister make inquiries as to the approximate cost of such strikes to both the workers and the economy as well as the inconvenience caused to housewives and industry us a whole?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I read in the Press that a nation wide strike has been proposed for next week in protest against the Budget. A report of the resolution which was passed by the ACTU has been made available to me. There seems to be an extraordinary difference of opinion on it. The resolution of the Executive of the ACTU called for combined protest rallies of the workers and pensioners of Australia. It then called upon certain organisations to do all that they could to ensure that their members would be present at the protest rallies, lt has been suggested that the protest rallies will be held between 12 noon and 3 p.m. Two possibilities emerge from this proposal. One is that the people could go along to a protest rally in their lunch hour if they are workers or in their free time if they are pensioners and protest. If they were to do that they would be exercising a democratic right and no issue could be really raised. But it is perfectly obvious that leading officials of the ACTU Executive have allowed it to be thought, and by allowing it to be thought they have given encouragement, that the call is for strike action throughout the entire 3 hours with the possibility of extending it beyond that period.

I cannot recall a national strike since a Labor government sent troops onto the coalfields. No more irresponsible action could be taken by the ACTU Executive than to call a national strike. The ACTU Executive is composed of men many of whom I have thought to be responsible trade unionists who were interested in the future of Australia. I think that is why the resolution was couched in terms which called for protest rallies. Certain other people have taken advantage of the situation to convert the call for a protest rally into a demand for a national stoppage. I expect that the responsible men on the ACTU Executive will make perfectly clear what they want, because I am sure they recognise that if there is to be a strike the basis of the strike will be that workmen are complaining about costs or something of that kind. All that can result from the strike is the loss of their own wages while they are on strike. The community will lose the production of goods and services. That will add to the cost pressures and the inflationary pressures which the Budget is directed against. To exacerbate pressures which the economic thrust of trie Budget seeks to overcome seems an odd way to proceed.

T can only regard the stoppage as a display of want of confidence in the Opposition. The Opposition is going to oppose the Budget, but the trade union movement has decided that the Opposition is incapable of offering effective opposition and has decided to do so itself by taking direct strike action. Before it can develop into a national strike, action will have to be taken by individuals at a personal level and by trade union leaders in individual trade unions. Decisions have yet to be taken for it to be translated into a national stoppage. Now is the time for responsible people to intervene and to prevent that from occurring. If a national stoppage occurs, it will start a bad trend of strikes for sheer political motives. How does an employer react when a trade union organiser puts a claim that there will be a stoppage unless the Government does something or unless the Government changes its Budget? An individual employer is powerless to respond. That would be a straight out political strike. We have just seen a stoppage by one union because of confused claims as to what happened to a man in Greece. As a result of that the community of Australia was subjected to the wtihdrawal of services and the added costs for a sheer political motive. The worst thing that can happen to this country is for the control of the country to be put onto the streets or into the factory yards. We elect members of parliament and have the parliamentary institution to allow us to pursue our political aims here. This is the forum for it and this is where it ought to occur.

page 270

TERRITORY SENATORS BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is in the same form as that of which J gave notice on 20th March 1968 and to which I gave a second reading on 7th November 1968. On this occasion I need not repeat all the history or all the arguments that I advanced on that occasion. In particular I want to give an opportunity to the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) to make his maiden speech in seconding my motion, after he has had the advantage of hearing the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) declare the Government’s attitude upon it. which the Minister declined to do or was unable to do 2 years ago. I hope that on this occasion time will be given to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) to express his view and to cast a vote on the Bill.

The long title of the Bill expresses its intention, namely, to provide for the representation in the Senate of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory respectively. Honourable members will note that there are some differences between the extent and nature of the representation which the Bill provides for each Territory and those which the Constitution requires for the States. In particular honourable members will note that instead of having 10 senators for each Territory, as there are for each State, there will be 2 senators. The term provided for is not 6 years, as it must be except in the case of a double dissolution for every senator representing a State. The term will be the period between House of Representatives elections.

Perhaps 1 should explain why 1 have suggested provisions which are different from those appertaining to the States. 1 believe that the Australian public and honourable members would hold the view that it would be quite disproportionate to have 10 senators for each mainland Territory. The Australian Capital Territory with 2 senators might be under-represented when compared with Tasmania which would have 5 times that number of senators but less than 4 times its population. Nevertheless I do not believe that anybody would seriously contend that the mainland Territories should have the same number of senators as the States. I have suggested 2 senators because I believe it proper to have an even number of senators representing the Territories. If one senator alone represented each Territory almost certainly one Party would be represented for long periods. It is very probable that both senators would belong to the same Party. From 1949 to 1966 the member in this chamber representing each Territory belonged to my Party. Accordingly I believe that it would be proper to have an even number elected each time for each Territory. Then each of the major parties would represent each Territory in the Senate just as each of the major parties represents each State in the Senate.

The other difference in representation which the Bill suggests for the Territories as distinct from the States is the term of office. The Constitution lays down requirements as to the term of senators representing the States. The Constitution (eaves it to this Parliament to determine the terms of senators representing the Territories. Accordingly I have adapted the method which was unanimously agreed to 12 years ago by the Constitutional Review Committee upon which both sides of both Houses were represented. The Committee recommended that the Constitution should be amended to provide for an election for half the senators every time there was an election for the House of Representatives. That. Committee believed that this would cut down the number of elections, that it would avoid the situation which has obtained ever since the premature election for the House of Representatives in 1963. that it would also promote concentration on the same issues for elections for both Houses, and that it would minimise the distraction of elections and the differences between the Houses. The Parliament can make such a provision as regards the Territories. Accordingly the Bill provides that both senators for each Territory should be elected every time there is a general election for the House of Representatives. The Acts which give representation to each Territory in this chamber provide that there shall be an election for the member for each Territory if there is a general election for members of the House of Representatives for the States. Under this Bill in the 2 Territories at least there would be an election for both Houses of the Parliament, at the same time. If it is suggested that there may not be an election for the House of Representatives at the same time as there must be an election for half of the Senate at some time during this present financial year T would very happily accept an amendment to provide that the first 2 senators for each of the Territories should be elected at the first election for either House.

I should give the history of representation of the Territories in Parliament. Before the Commonwealth accepted these Territories from South Australia and New South Wales both of them were represented in the same way as all other parts of those States were represented in the Parliaments of those States. Both Territories were incorporated in electorates for the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales and the House of

Assembly of South Australia respectively. The Northern Territory was included in a province for the Legislative Council of South Australia. Citizens of the Australian Capital Territory areas, like citizens of any other area of New South Wales, were elegible for appointment to the Legislative Council of New South Wales. It was only after the two Territories were surrendered to the Commonwealth that their citizens were denied parliamentary representation of their choice.

In 1922 the Northern Territory was given representation in the Australian Parliament by I member in this chamber. He was not entitled to vote on any matter. In 1936 he was given the right to vote on a motion to disallow an ordinance affecting the Northern Territory. In 1959 he was given the further right to vote on any Bill which related solely to the Northern Territory. The question of whether a Bill related solely to the Northern Territory was determined by the Presiding Officer or, if objection was taken to a ruling by the Presiding Officer, by the House itself. In 1968 a Bill was introduced to give the member for the Northern Territory a vote on any matter after the next ensuing elections. In the light of a notice of motion which I put down on the first sitting day that Bill was amended by the Government to give the member for the Northern Territory the right to vole on any matter as soon as the Bill received the Royal Assent.

The Australian Capital Territory was not given representation in the Australian Parliament until 1948. It was then given a member in this chamber who had the same voting rights as the member for the Northern Territory had at that time - that is, he could vote only on a motion to disallow an ordinance affecting the ACI’. In 1959 he was given the same additional right as was given in that year to the member for the Northern Territory to vote on any Bill which related solely to his Territory. In 1966 the member for the Australian Capital Territory was given the right to vote on any matter after the next general election for this House.

It will be remembered that the Constitution provides in section 122 as follows:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, . t. . and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of die Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

Honourable members will notice that this section is subsequent to and more specific than the general section 7 relating to the Senate, which provides as follows:

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State. . . .

It might be thought, looking at section 7 in isolation, that the Senate could never be other than a States’ House. Section 122 however, being later and more specific, would override it to the extent of any representation of the Territories in the Senate. It will be noted that this Parliament determines the extent and the terms of Territory representation in either chamber. I have detailed the history of that representation in this chamber. Similarly, however, both Houses of this Parliament can determine the extent and terms of representation of all the Territories in the Senate.

I would not want to raise any false hopes as to the range of matters which could be initiated or determined by any senator for a Territory. It is true that in one respect - money matters; the public sector - the Constitution deprives the Senate of initiative. The Prime Minister as a matter of practice and the Treasurer, one would think, as a matter of constitutional requirement, must belong to the House of Representatives. The Senate as a whole or individual senators cannot originate or transpose any appropriations. The Senate can only reject or reduce. A senator can only propose that an appropriation be rejected or reduced. This is the case with regard to taxation measures, social service measures, bounties, tariffs, Commonwealth expenditure, State grants and developmental projects. It is the case with expenditure and projects in the Territories. It would be wrong to mislead residents and electors of the Territories into believing that by having representatives in the Senate those representatives could initiate particular developmental projects for the Territories. They could not. Having acknowledged this - and my Party endorses these limitations which our Constitution places upon the Senate - one should also acknowledge that in all other matters the powers of the Senate are equal to those of this chamber. Every senator has the same rights as every member of this chamber in matters of Commonwealth legislation or investigation or supervision. The Senate has as much right to initiate matters outside the public financial sector as has this chamber, and in our view rightly so.

There have been committees of this House dealing with the Northern Territory in particular. Honourable members will remember the committee which in 1961 investigated the voting rights of Aboriginals. Its investigations were concerned as much with the Northern Territory as with all the rest of Australia. Honourable members will also remember the committee which in 1963 investigated the grievances of Aboriginals at Yirrkala. Those committees comprised members of this chamber alone. They concerned the Northern Territory principally or solely. The honourable member for the Northern Territory who was a member of the Labor Party, Mr Jock Nelson, was properly a member of each committee. The committees covered subjects on which it would have been perfectly proper, one would think, for senators to express their views as well, but they were not joint committees. There is a joint committee of the two Houses on the Australian Capital Territory. So senators must sit on a committee concerned with the Australian Capital Territory. Naturally the honourable members for the Austraiian Capital Territory - the late Mr J. R. Fraser and his successor who will be making his maiden speech on this P.ill - have been members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. As things stand, however, the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory cannot have a Senate colleague from the Australian Capital Territory sitting on the committee or discussing its findings. There are 2 other joint committees which have frequently dealt with matters concerning the Territories. The Public Works Committee has considered many matters concerning the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The Public Accounts Committee has considered scores of matters concerning the 2 Territories. So senators sitting on the Public Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee may investigate matters concerning the 2 Territories but at present senators from those Territories cannot sit on the committees or express views on the committees’ reports.

Since I introduced a similar Bill 2 years ago there have been further instances where the Senate has concerned itself with the 2 Territories covered by this Bill. I should like to acknowledge the courtesy and efficiency of the Clerk of the Senate and his staff in providing me with the information I shall now give honourable members. Already this year there has been an urgency motion in the Senate concerning the need for the Commonwealth to exercise powers granted to it by the Aboriginal affairs referendum of 1967 to uplift the Aboriginal people and to protect their culture and interests. In 1968 there was another urgency motion in the Senate on the failure of the Government to police, control and conserve the resources of the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Half of the Gulf is covered by the laws of the Northern Territory except insofar as the Gulf may be covered totally by laws of the Commonwealth Parliament as the national government of our country.

A ministerial statement on the Yuendumu Aboriginal Settlement was made in the Senate this year. There have been several motions in the Senate to disallow ordinances concerning the territories. Last year there was a motion to disallow the ACT Legal Practitioners Ordinance. The year before there was a motion to disallow the ACT Sewerage Rates Ordinance. In 1967 there was a motion to disallow the ACT Freehold Land (Subdivision and Use) Ordinance, the Canberra Community Hospital Ordinance and the Canberra Community Hospital Ordinance (No. 2). In 1968 the Death Penalty Abolition Bill was carried in the Senate but, as honourable members in this chamber will remember to their shame, it was not brought to a vote here in that year or again this year, when I introduced it in this place. Also, last year there was a Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances reported in 1968 on the Companies (Life Insurance Holding Companies) Ordinance and the Sewerage Rates Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. I might mention with regret at this stage that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is not empowered to consider Northern Territory legislation. In 1967 the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances reported on the City Area Leases Ordinance and the Freehold Land (Sub-division and Use) Ordinance. Again in 1968 - the year I moved this Bill the first time - petitions were received and read by the Senate, firstly on Aboriginal rights seeking that the Parliament should make legal provision for certain land ownership and development rights for Aboriginals living on reserves; secondly on the lack of medical facilities and qualified medical practitioners for Groote Eylandt; and thirdly, for an inquiry into the cost of living in the Australian Capital Territory.

I have dealt with matters which have been raised in the Senate by way of petition, statement, motion and Bill since I read this Bill 2 years ago. If one likes to go back further, of course, one will remember the Senate Select Committee on the Development of Canberra in 1954-55, the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on the Advisory Council Ordinance 1966, the Dentists Registration Regulations 1963, the Lake Burley Griffin (Temporary Control) Ordinance 1963, the Medical Practitioners Registration Regulations of 1963, the Building Regulations 1959 and the Companies Regulations 1955. It will be seen that the Senate is frequently and closely concerned with matters concerning the 2 mainland territories. However until both chambers of the Parliament exercise their constitutional power to give representation in the Senate to the 2 territories there can be no participation in the Senate by any representative of either of the territories.

There have been for reasons which honourable members will well recall many occasions on which honourable members - my colleagues and I not the least - have raised matters concerning the 2 territories.

There is continuing trouble concerning the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. This was a matter to which the Parliament scarcely gave a thought during the whole of the months of this year when the dispute was raging. I have placed a great number of questions concerning the 2 territories before the Minister for the Interior. It would be too ungracious for me to go over his answers in detail. Perhaps I can summarise them or refer to them in passing. The honourable gentleman gave me an answer to a question on 21st April of this year. In this question I had asked him to bring up to date the tables on

Northern Territory ordinances which he gave in his answer to me on 6th June 1968. It transpired from his answer that the Northern Territory Administration had processed 36 ordinances passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Council. The average delay in processing 28 of the ordinances which received the GovernorGeneral’s assent was 3i months and the delay in processing 8 ordinances which were refused the Governor-General’s assent was 12 months. In addition, 9 ordinances at the time of the Minister’s reply to me were classified as ‘action pending’ and had been so classified for an average of 18 months. I believe there would be an outcry - even from the honourable gentlemen on your right, Mr Deputy Speaker - if the Governor-General had to wait so long before the Bills passed by this Parliament were presented for his signature as has been the case with Northern Territory ordinances.

One cannot wonder that MLC’s in the Northern Territory are restive at the treatment which has been given to them by the officials appointed by the Government and by Minister’s who must instruct those officials or who must tender advice to the Governor-General. Perhaps I might mention the position as disclosed by the Minister’s reply to me concerning housing in Darwin. Persons who choose or are obliged to live in Darwin must wait 11 months for an Administration house, 19 months for a Housing Commission house or 16 months for a Housing Commission flat. In other centres the waiting periods for a Housing Commission house is 14 months and 9 months for a flat. Is it any wonder that there are 505 caravans on residential properties and 890 caravans in caravan parks? Darwin is, in fact, the caravan capital of Australia, and it is one of the 2 capitals in Australia where the Commonwealth alone has jurisdiction. Is this any way to encourage qualified persons to settle in the Territory or to raise families there under proper conditions?

At the time when the interest rate was being put up on housing loans in Canberra I asked the Minister whether similar increases would apply in the Northern Territory. He told me that he was not sure about the Northern Territory but that he would obtain the information. I do not recollect him having given it to me in the intervening 3 months and i week.

I come to education. Only 42.5% of eligible children attend pre-school centres in the Northern Territory whereas in the Australian Capital Territory 48.8% do so. One would think-

Mr Nixon:

– What about coming back to the Bill? This is all very interesting and I am interested to hear you recounting figures, but I should like you to explain your Bill.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thank the Minister for his tribute and for acknowledging that 1 raise matters concerning the Northern Territory more than anybody else in the Chamber. The fact that things are better in the Australian Capital Territory than in the Northern Territory may be due to the difference in characteristics of the representatives in this Chamber.

Mr Calder:

– I think that you had better

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am happy that on this occasion the honourable member for the Northern Territory even takes the trouble to interject because when I introduced a similar Bill on the last occasion he did not even do that. His Ministerial masters did not allow a vote to be taken. I myself will move that sufficient time be given - if time runs out - for the honourable gentleman from the Northern Territory, who interjects, to have the full time of the Standing Orders to express his views on this Bill, repeated after 2 years as it is, and to have the opportunity to vote on it. We want the honourable gentleman to have the assistance for the rest of this Parliament of 2 colleagues in the Senate, I from my party and 1 from his party, if he can get him up, or from the Liberal Party if the Government parties are divided on this matter too.

Perhaps the honourable gentleman will explain, when we facilitate his speech, why pre-school education is not as readily available in the Northern Territory as in the Australian Capital Territory, although we would all acknowledge that pre-school education is more required in areas where there is a large Aboriginal population in order that our fellow citizens can have an equal opportunity in life. Perhaps also the honourable gentleman can explain why it is that the provision of tertiary and technical education in the Northern Territory lags so far behind that in the Australian Capital Territory. He might also explain why it is that in the Northern Territory there are only .85% doctors per 1,000 of population whereas in Victoria there are 1.18%, in New South Wales 1.28% and in the Australian Capital Territory 1.41%. He might also explain why it is that the Northern Territory has to make to with .21% dentists per 1,000 of population whereas New South Wales has .32%, Queensland .36% and the Australian Capital Territory .53%.

But more recently in honourable gentlemen’s minds is the position of the Australian Capital Territory. The Government, of course, was very much embarrassed, and particularly was the Government candidate embarrassed, at the recent Australian Capital Territory by-election by the position disclosed in relation to housing, consumer protection and other matters concerning the population of the Australian Capital Territory - the fastest growing, the youngest and, in many ways, the most affluent and best qualified electorate in Australia. It is an electorate which, incidentally, should now have 2 representatives in this place as well as in the Senate, because there are many instances in this Chamber where 2 members of the Country Party together represent no more persons, no more residents, than the Labor member of the Australian Capital Territory has to represent singlehanded.

Perhaps it is sufficient for me to give an instance in the housing field in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister had to confess to me that at the time he suspended the registration of applications for bed-sitting rooms and 1 -bedroom flats by certain persons the waiting periods were 53 and 62 months respectively and by May, which was 3 months later, the waiting times were 53 and 67 months respectively. Hansard bristles with instances where the Territories, for which this Parliament is totally responsible and for which we cannot pass the buck to any State Parliament or to any State-created authority, experience conditions which are an affront to proper aspirations and a discredit to the Parliament.

It is true that there may be arguments concerning the nature and degree of representational institutions in the 2 Terri tories corresponding to municipal or what one might call State governments. One Territory is in a developmental stage; one has particular national characteristics. Accordingly there may well be differences of opinion among honourable members as to the extent to which there should be State-type or municipal-type institutions within the 2 mainland Territories. I would believe, however, that there can be no difference of opinion among honourable members on the question of representation of both Territories in the Australian Parliament. This Parliament passes laws concerning both of them. Both Houses of this Parliament must approve any such laws. Accordingly one would believe that the residents and the electors of the Territories could choose their law givers. Furthermore, in matters corresponding to municipal and State functions, the Australian Government has particular powers or reserved powers over the Territories. Accordingly the Government should be answerable to both Houses of the Parliament in such matters as concern the Territories.

This Bill represents the culmination and the consummation of the process of representation of the 2 mainland Territories in the national Parliament. For as long as the Australian Parliament is bi-cameral it is in accordance with our political tenets and instincts that all portions of Australia and all people in Australia should be represented in both Houses of the Australian Parliament. It is proper that the governed should have a share in choosing their governors and in calling them to account. The Constitution requires this as regards the States; it permits it as regards the Territories. We should not permit the position to continue any longer where residents and electors of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory can choose representatives in 1 alone of the 2 chambers of this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is the motion seconded?

Mr Enderby:

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

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– At the outset I must confess at being somewhat surprised at the way the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) dealt with this very important measure. I am sure that Hansard had no difficulty in taking down his speech because if one looks at Hansard of 7th November 1968 one can trace very accurately the speech that has been made here today. 1 refer to page 2583 of Hansard of 7th November 1968. ] am doing this only to assist Hansard, of course. At the bottom left hand side of page 2583 the Leader of the Opposition is recorded as having said what he said today. He quoted accurately from that previous speech with hardly any interpolation. Perhaps I may trace his speech because it was rather garbled in its presentation on this occasion. He next quoted from page 2584. He proceeded to give a further run down. The Leader of the Opposition then swung back to page 2582 for his next little excerpt. He went then to page 2585 for the next part of his speech.

Mr Reynolds:

– What does that prove? lt was a good speech.

Mr NIXON:

– lt proves that the Leader of the Opposition has come in here and quite glibly has recounted a speech that he made 2 years ago with a few additions, including taking a sideswipe at the answers that I have given to him over a period in reply to questions on notice.It proves also the rather insincere approach of the Leader of the Opposition to a very serious question which ought to be looked at in some depth by this Parliament.I must confess thatI have a great deal of regret at the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition, who came in here so blatantly unprepared to speak on a matter such as this.

I spoke in 1968 when this matter was before the Parliament. I followed the Leader of the Opposition. He misled me somewhat about the policy of the Australian Labor Party on this subject. I think that I said to him at the time:I do not understand why it is that you are pressing for senators when the policy of the Australian Labor Party is to abolish the Senate’. But the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Oh, it is in the Labor Party platform’. I asked: ‘ls it?’ He replied: ‘Yes, at page 31’. Well,I have had a look at the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I can really understand why it is that the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party has difficulty in interpreting the platform, constitution and rules of the Federal Conference of the ALP. 1 say that, having read this document which sets out the platform, constitution and rules of the Labor Party and having heard the Leader of the Opposition give an interpretation of Federal Conference policy in respect of the abolition of the Senate. It is quite clear.

I wish to check with the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that I am dealing with the results of the last Federal Conference, because these things happen to change so frequently, and I do not want to be caught in that way. I am quoting this time from the ‘Platform, Constitution and Rules’ as approved by the Federal Conference in Melbourne in 1969. I am not sure whether this section has been changed, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to bear with me if it has been changed. The position concerning the abolition of the Senate is quite clear. Referring to the amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution, section IV3 (a) (ii) uses the words: to abolish the Senate.

We could not get anything less ambiguous. It is perfectly direct and clear. I do not think that anybody in this House would argue about its meaning.

When I told the Leader of the Opposition 2 years ago that I could not find provision for the appointment of senators in ALP policy, he said: ‘Oh, but it is on page 31 or something like that.I read some words. I said: ‘I beg your pardon. I apologise for my misunderstanding’. After I left the House on that occasion, I had a closer look at page 31. I say that the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted certain words clearly to his own advantage on this occasion, unless the words were changed at the last Federal Conference. Following the 1969 Conference the words remained the same as they were at the time of the 1968 occasion. I refer to page 33 of this document. I ask honourable members to listen to the words because a clear distinction is made. Section XXVII. sub-section 5, states:

Full voting rights for the representative of the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives -

That is clear; it admits that there is a member for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives and that he ought to have full voting rights. It goes on to say: . . and full voting rights for the representatives of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate.

It does not admit that the Labor Party says that there ought to be Senate candidates at all. What it says, in effect, is ‘if there are senators for the Northern Territory’. I can understand why the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party has had difficulties with the Federal Executive if that is the interpretation that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to place on that section now. No doubt exists about what it means. What it suggests is not that the Australian Labor Party will make sure that there are Senate representatives for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory but that if there are Senate representatives for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory they ought to have full voting rights. One can say only that the Leader of the Opposition misled me 2 years ago. I am disappointed that that happened because I thought that he was a man of greater stature and would not want to fall to the use of those sorts of tricks. I have pointed this out because it shows the complete difficulty that the Australian Labor Party has in interpreting Federal Conference policy.

I am delighted to know that the member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) is to make his maiden speech on this occasion when he follows me. I do wish him the best when that time comes. I know that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is desirous of speaking. His name is on the list of speakers. He supports the view, which he has expressed, that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. We are fully conscious that the present member for the Northern Territory has somewhat outmanoeuvred the Leader of the Opposition concerning the political advancement of the Northern Territory since he entered this House. I know that the people of the Northern Territory are delighted to have him here; they returned him with a resounding victory as recently as last October.

wish to deal with this question at some length. I do not wish to deal with it glibly or slickly. I believe that it is a question of some importance that ought to be dealt with in some depth and that I should take some time about it. I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will rest with patience while he listens to me. I have done a great deal of work on the subject, because the question is very important. It bears heavily on quite a few matters relating to CommonwealthState relations and also the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I wish to say something about the Commonwealth Constitution and the Senate in the fi rst place. Section 7 of the Constitution provides:

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State. . . .

The Constitution provides further that, initially, there should be 6 senators for each original State but, by virtue of section 7, the Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State but so that equal representation of the several original States shall be maintained and that no original State shall have less than 6 senators. The Senate is probably the most important federal feature of the Constitution in the sense of uniting several co-equal political communities under a common system of government. It is not only a House of review, as it has often been termed, but also a chamber in which the States, as separate entities, are endowed with a parity of representation designed to enable them at the legislative stage to protect those rights reserved for the States. The composition of the Senate provides a visible demonstration of the independence and autonomy of the States, together forming an integral part of the federal union. Thus it may be said that, although the senators for a State are chosen by the people of that State, representation in the Senate is based upon representation of the States, not numbers of people.

As I have indicated already, the functions of the Senate are basically of a dual nature - firstly, as a House of revision and review in general legislation matters and, secondly, as a guardian of the interests and rights of the States. A principle of representation in the Senate is therefore State representation. In the Senate chamber of the Federal Parliament, each of the States, although not equal in territory or population, maintains its political status and relative equality. The Constitution ensures this equality in respect of the original States. Honourable members will know that an original State is defined as a State which was part of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

By virtue of section 121 of the Constitution, the Federal Parliament:

may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

It is a particular point of interest to note that, while an original State has a constitutional right to equal representation in the Senate, such right need not necessarily be conceded to any new States, thus indicating that the system is based upon maintaining the status of the original States as a condition precedent to the establishment of the Commonwealth. The admission of any new States and representation for them is accordingly unhampered by considerations of equality with the original States.

I now turn for a moment to the constitutional provisions in respect of Territory representation. Pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent, and on the terms, which it thinks fit. Any such representation accorded is Territorial representation, not representation as a State. Honourable members will have noted the difference in terminology between sections 121 and 122 of the Constitution.

Section 121, dealing with new States, provides:

The Parliament may upon admission or establishment of a new Stale, make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

This wording appears to recognise that representation in the Parliament is a natura] corollary of the formation crf a new State. On the other hand, section 122 dealing with the Government of Territories, by use of the words ‘may allow representation of such Territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit* indicates that the Parliament may not only determine to what extent, if any, a Territory will be represented but also determine - at least in some degree - the character of such representation. Accordingly, in the case of a Territory it seems clear that the Parliament may, if it thinks fit, allow representation in the Senate by a representative or representatives who, although able to take their places and speak in the chamber, would not be senators in the true sense or be entitled to vote, except perhaps in a restricted way.

Alternatively, the Parliament may, of course, under the provisions of section 122 allow Territory representation in the Senate by senators with full voting rights but the number of such representatives is wholly within the discretion of the Parliament. In this connection honourable members may be interested to hear extracts from the National Australasian Convention debates in Adelaide on 20th April 1897 where the Constitution was being framed. The speakers were dealing with an amendment which had been moved by Sir Edward Braddon, Premier of Tasmania, to the effect that Territory representation in the Parliament should be in accordance with the ratio of representation provided in the Constitution - that is, for the States. Those who spoke on this issue were Mr W. McMillan, M.L.A. for New South Wales; Mr Alfred Deakin, M.L.A. for Victoria; Mr N. J. Brown, M.H.A. for Tasmania; Mr Edmund Barton, Q.C., M.L.C. for New South Wales; and Sir Edward Braddon. Finally the proposition was defeated.

I will now refer briefly to a further section of the Constitution which perhaps should be considered in conjunction with this Bill. I refer to section 24 which reads:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators.

The Bill before the House seeks to increase the number of senators by 4, making a total of 64 senators in all. In accordance with section 10 of the Representation Act the Chief Electoral Officer is required to determine the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States in the following manner: A quota is ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth as shown in the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer, prepared in accordance with the Representation Act, by twice the number of senators. The number of members chosen in each State is, subject to the provision of the Constitution - which incidentally requires a minimum of 5 members for each original State - determined by dividing the number of people in the State as shown in the certificcate by the quota. If on such division there is a remainder, as there invariably is, one more member shall be chosen in that State. Where this results in an alteration in the number of members for any State, such shall take effect for any general election after a redistribution.

In practice, at the present time, this involves dividing the combined population of the 6 States by 120 - that is, twice the number of senators for the States - to obtain the quota and it is probable that the same would apply even if senatorial representation for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory was provided. This being so, the addition of Territory senators should not affect representation in the House of Representatives for the States.

Although I have indicated that Senate representation is based upon representation of the States rather than the number of people in each State I will, for the purposes of comparison, now give the electoral population of each State and Territory on the latest available figures and at the same time indicate the average number of electors per senator in each State. They are as follows:

New South Wales - 2,468,181 electors.

Average number of electors per senator- 246,818.

Victoria - 1,852,332 electors.

Average number of electors per senator- 185,233.

Queensland - 958,795 electors.

Average number of electors per senator- 95,880.

South Australia - 641,061 electors.

Average number of electors per senator - 64,106.

Western Australia - 496,595 electors.

Average number of electors per senator - 49,660.

Tasmania - 212,620 electors.

Average number of electors per senator - 21,262.

Australian Capital Territory - 65,385 electors.

Northern Territory - 22,953 electors.

While the electoral population of the Australian Capital Territory is appreciably below the average number of electors per senator for the Commonwealth, namely 110,493, it is in excess of the average per senator in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The electoral population of the Northern Territory is higher than the average per senator in Tasmania. However, it may be argued that Tasmania has 5 members of the House of Representatives as compared with 1 each for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Perhaps therefore it will be of interest to have a look at the proportion of Federal representatives to electoral population in the States and Territories. New South Wales has 45 members of the House of Representatives and 10 senators making a total of 55 Federal representatives for an electoral population of 2,468,181. The ratio is therefore 1 member of this Parliament to 44,876 electors. Similarly, the ratio in each other State is:

Victoria- 1 : 42,098

Queensland - 1 : 34,243

South Australia- 1 : 29,139

Western Australia - 1 : 26,137

Tasmania - 1 : 14,175

In total the proportion of Federal representatives for the States - 183 - to electoral population of the States - 6,629,584 - is 1 : 36,227. If these figures were a basis for gauging representation for the Territories, the Australian Capital Territory with 65,385 electors would be entitled to 2 representatives in the Parliament. During the past 10 years the annual enrolment increase in the Australian Capital Territory has been in the nature of 10.5% per annum. During the twelve months from 1st August 1969 to 31st July 1970 enrolment in the Australian Capital Territory increased by 6,981. These figures do not bear out the clairThe Leader of the Opposition regarding ties in housing and other thingsinAustralian Capital Territory. lt was interesting to hear him quote figures for the Northern Territory and claim that it compares badly with the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)As it is now 2 hours passed the time fixed for the meeting of the House the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Nixon) agreed to:

That the lime for the discussion of notices be extended to 12.45 p.m.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, I am. That is what the Bill suggests.

Mr NIXON:

– ThenI must confess that I would regard them as being second class senators. Every other senator faces a term of 6 years to provide continuity of representation yet the Leader of the Opposition is asking for Territory senators to go out every 3 years. He is classing them already as second class senators, and I think that they would object strongly to that. These are all matters which must be carefully considered and weighed before any decision is taken. Honourable members will be fully aware of publicity which has been given to suggestions for an additional member of the House of Representatives for the Australian Capital Territory. The proposition that the time is not appropriate to introduce senatorial representation by way of 2 senators for each Territory and that additional representation in the House of Representatives should be the first step is not without some justification. Certainly when one has regard to the rapidly expanding electoral population of the Australian Capital Territory it appears that the time is fast approaching when some additional representation for this Territory may be justified on the basis of the number of electors involved.

I would now like to say a few words about the 1-vote 1 -value doctrine that we have heard so much about in the past, from the Leader of the Opposition and others, when it suits the occasion. It is quite apparent that today is not such an occasion. It does not suit the occasion today so we do not hear about it. It is a matter of changing one’s clothes to suit the weather. Earlier in my remarks I gave to the House figures in relation to the average number of electors per senators in each State and the proportion of Federal representatives to electoral population. Let me repeat just a few of these figures to demonstrate once again that Senate representation has no regard to the 1-vote 1 -value doctrine. How could it when we have an equal number of senators for States but a considerable variance in the population between States?

Mr Whitlam:

– That is why I object to the Senate.

Mr NIXON:

– If the Leader of the Opposition had brought in a Bill that follows the Labor policy to abolish the Senate I would have had some sympathy for him. But when he brings in a Bill to provide senators for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and it does not follow clearly and precisely what the Labor Federal Executive says is Labor policy in respect of the Senate, I have no sympathy for him on that score alone. I have less sympathy for him when he makes a speech now by reading from Hansard the speech he made 2 years ago. The average number of electors per senator in Tasmania is 21,262; yet in New South Wales the average is 246,818, or nearly 12 times as many. Again, let us look at the proportion of Federal representatives to electoral population in the States. In New South Wales with 2,468,181 electors there are 45 members of the House of Representatives and 10 senators. That is, 1 Federal representative for each 44,876 electors on an average. In Tasmania the proportion is 1 to 14,175. If there were 2 senators each for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in addition to the present member of the House of Representatives for each such Territory, the proportion of representatives to electoral population on the latest enrolment figures would be 1 to 21,795 in the Australian Capital Territory and 1 to 7,651 in the Northern Territory. Surely no-one would seriously suggest that these figures reflect the sacred cow policy of the Australian Labor Party of a 1-vote 1-value. Nor do I suggest that they should. I reiterate that the Senate is based on equal representation for the States and while ever that situation obtains there can be no good grounds for arguing about the value of votes between States in Senate elections.

While no formal decision has been taken in the matter it can be said that the Government, bearing in mind the provisions of section 122 of the Constitution, favours the principle of providing representation for a Territory commensurate with its development and its population growth, but it considers that the present time is not appropriate to introduce senatorial representation for each Territory as proposed by the Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition has challenged me because on the last occasion this subject was debated, in 1968, I do not think I had time actually to reach that conclusion. The Government believes that we may well have reached the time when there is a need for extra representation for the Australian Capital Territory. I trust that if the Leader of the Opposition brings in such a Bill again he will do himself better justice and he might well have a look at the words I have offered today as a basis for consideration. I think it is true to say that when I last spoke on a similar measure to this 2 years ago I did not have time to reach that conclusion. Similarly the Leader of the Opposition teased - I think that is a polite word to use - the honourable member for the Northern Territory who did not get a chance to speak on the previous Bill. As I said earlier the honourable member for the Northern Territory in my presence on a public platform in Darwin proposed this proposition long before the Leader of the Opposition ever brought into the House a Bill dealing with this matter. The honourable member’s position is quite clear. He has heard my speech and he understands the reasons why the Government cannot proceed at this time.

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

– Order! The time allotted for consideration of general business has expired.

Mr Snedden:

– I would ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable consideration of notice of motion No. 1 General Business being continued until the conclusion of the maiden speech of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes. I will seek leave to move an amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of notice of motion No. I General Business being continued until the conclusion of the speech of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 p.m.

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– WhenI spoke to a similar Bill on 7th November 1968 I was followed immediately by my seconder. On that occasion the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) said:

There has been some discourtesy ; about the whole of the approach of the Labor Party to this Bill in not allowing a Government speaker to follow the Leader of the Opposition, who introduced the measure. The Opposition had 2 speakers in a row, which is a most unusual course and one which is not usually followed by the Government when introducing measures.

In the light of those remarks, this time I was scrupulous to observe the Minister’s sensibilities and let him follow me. I stated that my motion would be seconded by the speaker who followed the Minister:

Motion (by Mr Nixon) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Mr Whitlam’s amendment) be so added.

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 55

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question relating to the suspension of standing orders resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– Mr Speaker, I speak in support of the Bill. May I first of all thank the Leader of the House (Mr

Snedden) for the indulgence he showed to me when he spoke a little while ago. Shortly after I came into this House 1, like every new member, began to consider what subject I would talk about in my maiden speech. I received a lot of advice, as I am sure everyone does, as to the topic I should choose. Most of the advice was from people in the Australian Capital Territory. They said that I should deal with a national matter such as education. I inclined towards accepting that advice as I have had no experience in the House, but the experience I gained during the recess convinced me that there was a more appropriate subject on which the member for the Australian Capital Territory should talk in his maiden speech. That is the extent to which the Australian Capital Territory is unrepresented. When the opportunity came to speak on this Bill I welcomed it. Although at first sight it might occur to some people that the Bill is rather narrow and concerns a local topic, when we really think about it and pause for a moment we see that the Bill reflects a matter of the greatest importance. It reflects the extent to which the people of this country - particularly the people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory - are to be represented in their national Parliament. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) - I nearly said the ‘learned Minister for the Interior’, a throwback to my old days - said that there is a conflict in the sense that this Bill comes forward from the Labor side of the House. But really there is no conflict at all. It is true that a long term policy of the Australian Labor Party is not to encourage the long future of the Senate but here one has to grasp the facts of political life. We have a bicameral system of government in Australia in which functions are given to the House of Representatives and functions are given to the other place. As far as the Territories are concerned, and in particular the Australian Capital Territory, we have no territorial government at all. If we pause for a moment and think just how the Territory is governed we are driven to this conclusion: It is governed by public servants, by a bureaucracy - a good bureaucracy, but a bureacracy none the less. This bureaucracy is a very large one. It is made up of highly trained, highly skilled and highly educated people. These people make the laws by way of ordinances which are a form of delegated legislation. But there is no way in which the people of the Australian Capital Territory can influence the way in which ordinances are made. This can only be done by members of Parliament in this chamber and in another place. Senators and honourable members have an opportunity to be heard on such ordinances and if necessary to bring about their disallowance. So long as the Australian Capital Territory remains under-represented in this House and in the Senate - it is hopelessly underrepresented at the moment as is the Northern Territory - the electoral service that the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are entitled to is being denied to them.

I was reminded, when I began to think about what I was going to say, of much that was said last night. The general feeling was that one thing that is important in this House is that the quality of representation should be continually improved and increased. But such an objective requires facilities. It requires the time to use those facilities. In the present situation in the Australian Capital Territory there is not just time for that.

I would now like to say something more about the role, as I see it, that the Senate plays in the Government of the Territories. Honourable members are probably more familiar with this process than I am. But the system provides that ordinances are laid on the table of the House. As I understand the position there have been very few examples of ordinances being disallowed in this House. This is probably due to pressure of business. There are some examples of ordinances being disallowed in the other place. But this is not because there has been an Australian Capital Territory representative there. This is the terrible thing that is wrong with the present system. When an ordinance is disallowed in the other place - and a number of examples were given this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) - it is done by people who are not directly responsible to the Australian Capital Territory. The disallowance is effected by good meaning people who come from outside the Australian Capital Territory. Surely that is wrong. I speak, of course, with the strong belief that the Australian Capital Territory should have 2 members in this place as well as Senate representation.

The main point is that section 12 of the Seat of Government Administration Act makes provision for Australian Capital Territory representation. Another thing is very important to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It is this: People who live in the Australian Capital Territory probably live in the most planned seat of Government and the most planned environment that the world has ever seen. The planning of the Territory is controlled by the National Capital Development Commission and we all know the wonderful job that it has done. But it is part of the law of the Territory that all changes and all variations to the plan for development have to be laid before this House and the other place. So long as there is no Senate representation the people of the Australian Capital Territory have no say at all in what happens in the deliberations of the Senate as to changing the plan of Canberra.

The Minister for the Interior made some points about the comparative size of electorates and the number of persons who elect senators to the other place. But he overlooked completely the special circumstances that exist in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. As 1 understood the Minister, he did concede that already the Australian Capital Territory at least was entitled to 2 representatives in this House. I personally thank him for that concession. But the principal fact that has been overlooked by the Minister for the Interior is that the system of government for the Territories requires that all manner of subjects for law making be considered by both this House and the other place. This, of course, means that ordinarily senators are not concerned with road making, garbage collection, town planning, bus services, the state of the courts and all manner of little things such as the registration of plumbers, the standard of workmanship, and disputes by the Building Branch of the Department of the Interior. Ordinarily senators are not concerned with these things.

I have heard it said that a member of a national parliament should not be concerned with them. However, the fact is that under the system of government for the Territories as it exists at the moment the Senate is given a very very important part to play, lt is given the power of disallowance. Yet, it denies the right to the people who make up the Territories to play a part in the deliberations and the debate that might lead to disallowance.

One can illustrate the position in this way: A number of ordinances have been disallowed in the Senate. This action may not necessarily have been a good thing; it is a matter for conjecture. But if it was a bad thing that an ordinance was disallowed the people of the Australian Capital Territory would have had something done to them that they did not want to have done. They have no representative in the other place. If it was good, then the people of the Australian Capital Territory have been lucky that the disallowance was a good and not a bad decision. But as a matter of ordinary democratic principle, they had no say in the decision. There is an old saying that there should be no taxation without representation. This saying is so old it is almost trite. Our American friends fought a war over this principle. Yet, the matters that are of vital concern to the people of the Australian Capital Territory in their everyday life are the subject of delegated legislation over which they have no control in at least one of the chambers of the national Parliament.

In this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ honourable members may have read that there was a question of the police taking photographs outside Parliament House of Australian Capital Territory citizens. It was suggested in the other place that this action was wrong. This, of course, directly concerns the people of the Austraiian Capital Territory. One may not agree that the action by the police was wrong - or right. But it directly concerns the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The matter remained for an alien outside senator to bring before the other place. There should be 2 senators - if this Bill goes through there will be 2 senators - from the Australian Capital Territory to take these points up.

I now want to say something about the bureaucracy - the public servants of Canberra who exercise such enormous power and who continually confront the people of Canberra. If one sits outside my door on any day one would see a number of people who have real or imagined grievancesthey all believe them to be real - against bureaucracy, its administration, and the various ways in which it makes the laws. One can see all the evidence in the world which amply demonstrates that there is a great need for a senator or 2 senators to represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, in one sense I find myself in a strange situation. 1 am trying in one breath to be an advocate for a certain point of view. I also find myself a witness for that point of view because 1 am actually a party to what happens. In one way, I suppose, it should add weight to my words. But on all the issues I have mentioned there is no representation in one of the 2 chambers that the present Government relies on to govern the Territories. You can call that a constitution for the Territories if you like. Yet the people of the Australian Capital Territory have no representation at all in the other place. They are denied a right. In old fashioned jargon it could be called a denial of natural justice.

It is interesting to compare the situation in the Australian Capital Territory with the situation in Tasmania. 1 have chosen Tasmania because it is the best example although some other States could be mentioned. Tasmania is at one end of the scale and New South Wales is at the other end. The Minister for the Interior quoted figures this morning, and I will not repeat them. But as far as Tasmania is concerned, it has approximately 3 times the population of the Australian Capital Territory. In terms of numbers on the electoral roll the proportion is probably the same. Of course, the comparison will become worse if the voting age is reduced to 18 years. Tasmania has 10 senators, 5 members of the House of Representatives, 19 members of its Legislative Council and 35 members of its Legislative Assembly, making a total of 69 politicians representing Tasmania as compared with 1 member representing the Australian Capital Territory, an electorate approximately one-third its size. In addition Tasmania has a system of local government. There is no local government or territorial government in the Australian Capital Territory. Territorial government in the Australian Capital Territory comes directly from and is the law making power of the public servants and, beyond the public servants, of this House and of the Senate by way of review. This is all the more reason for adequate and proper representation in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. There is no local government or State government equivalent in the Australian Capital Territory. However all of the activities of local government and State government are undertaken in the Australian Capital Territory. We probably do them a lot better here in many ways than does local government or State government in Tasmania. To cope with the problem Tasmania has 49 local government bodies dealing with matters that in the Australian Capital Territory are directly the concern of and subject to review by this House or the other House. In Tasmania each of the local government bodies has a warden, a deputy warden and a treasurer to whom the constituents can turn if they have a complaint or want to make a representation. In addition the local government bodies have between 3 and 12 councillors to whom a person can turn if his bus service does not work properly or if there is a dispute over some building matter. One could say that the present situation in the Australian Capital Territory is due to Government indifference. I am sorely tempted to say that it is, but this is not the direct point of my remarks.

The system that applies in the Australian Capital Territory operates on delegated legislation made by public servants to be checked by and to be subject to review in this House and in the Senate. This delegated legislation covers an enormous range of topics. In Tasmania there is a total of about 294 local government representatives over and above the 69 politicians. The Australian Capital Territory has no local government representatives of that sort. This only proves, if honourable members accept what I am putting to them, that the people of Canberra - virtually the people of the Australian Capital Territory, because the population of Jervis Bay is the only substantial addition - arc grossly and hopelessly under-represented. If honourable members adopt the test that I heard spoken about with fervour and passion here last night - that members of this House and of the Senate should have proper facilities and fu!l opportunity to prepare themselves to give the proper service to which their constituents are entitled - something better has to be done for the Australian

Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. If the present proposal is not accepted there are only two ways to meet the existing situation - either we depart from the present system and create a local government set-up of some sort, which is inevitable in any event, or we continue with the present system but make it work properly. At the moment it is not working properly.

If Territory ordinances are to be debated properly in the Senate then the people of the Australian Capital Territory and of the Northern Territory must have representatives there. They must have representatives whom they can ring and to whom they can say: ‘Look, this is wrong. Do something about it’, or: T think this is wrong and I want to see you about it*. At the moment there is no representative. All they can do is go to some State senator and hope that he will talk to them. Usually out of goodwill he does, although most senators have enough on their hands. The fact that the Australian Capital Territory is hopelessly under-represented was conceded by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) during the recent by-election when he said that the Australian Capital Territory would have a second member in this House in no time at all. He stated also that the second member would represent a separate electorate. The Minister for the Interior was consistent and agreed with the Prime Minister when he spoke this morning.

However, is this the way forward? Is the way forward a second member in the House of Representatives? I would agree with the Minister for the Interior that there are obvious political difficulties of which the Government would be fully aware. My predecessor held the seat with 67% of the vote. I held it with about 57% of the vote. If I were on the other side of the House I could understand that there was no great hurry to create a second seat in the Australian Capital Territory. One can appreciate the difficulty the Government has in trying to draw a line. I give full recognition to that line of thought but there is no such difficulty in electing 2 senators for the Australian Capital Territory, which is where the present need is, because under the existing procedures the Government and the Opposition would each have one senator. We could easily use 4 more representatives, 2 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. There is no problem at all, as has virtually been conceded, legally or otherwise in electing 2 senators for the Australian Capital Territory and 2 for the Northern Territory, so enabling the people of the Territories to be properly represented. Their election would meet many of the existing problems of under representation in the Territories.

The strength of the feeling in the Australian Capital Territory about the fact that it is under-represented has been proven amply from time to time. The Advisory Council, which does its very best, had to resign as a gesture to try to force the Government’s hand and to make it realise that something would have to be done. Similar actions have occurred in the Northern Territory Legislative Council over the years. It seems that it is only when such things happen that the Government’s hand is forced. An odd feature of this debate is that the Country Party, which enjoys some of the most favourable constituency-member ratios in Australia, should be reluctant to grant Senate representation to the Northern Territory. One must look for reasons and the most likely reason must be a sheer, low-level, political reason based upon fear that it would not return members acceptable to the Part)’.

When a similar Bill was debated in this House in 1.968 no attempt was made to answer the arguments put forward then by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Hansard shows this. The Government, through its spokesman at that time, contented itself with rather flippant remarks about the apparent inconsistencies between the Labor Party’s long term policy of no additional senators and of abolishing the Senate and its attitude to the pressing need to give some kind of representation somewhere - the Senate being the natural and obvious choice - to the people of the Territories. That is all the Government relied upon. If honourable members look at the Hansard report they will not see one point directed at the basic proposal. Its attitude is like saying to someone: ‘You are not serious’. Not a single argument was directed to the merits of the case. Of course, on this occasion there has been a complete change. This morning the Minister for the Interior stressed over and over again that this was fundamentally an important problem. He did not say that it was 2 years ago. Of course there have been increases in population since then both in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory. However, the fundamental problem was stressed hard in 1968 by my predecessor and the facts are well known. It is not unreal to say that the member for the Northern Territory was given full voting rights only when that member came from a party more acceptable to the Government. If I remember the figures correctly it was not until the Australian Capital Territory had an enrolment of almost 50,000 that the member for the Australian Capital Territory was given full voting rights, but with the change to Country Party membership the Northern Territory was given full voting rights when that Territory’s population reached 17,000.

There is not a great deal more that I want to say in support of this Bill, lt is an old maxim that there should be no taxation without representation, but the residents of both Territories pay taxation. The Northern Territory has interests of its own which are peculiar to itself, lt can be accepted that it is vitally concerned with the income it earns from exports and from other sources. On matters of that sort it would want to be heard in the Senate. On matters of defence it would want its representative in the Senate to be heard, lt has no representative there. The same can be said for the Australian Capital Territory. Once can imagine conflicts arising. One can imagine a senator from the Northern Territory saying: ‘Too much money is being spent on Canberra; do something about it’. However this cannot be said because the Northern Territory has no senator. It is not impossible to conceive of a senator from the Australian Capital Territory saying something similar about the Northern Territory, although that is less likely.

As the Leader of the Opposition, I think, said this morning, the Senate does have full powers of debate and review, lt is an important House in the sense that it plays this part in this system of government of the Territories. It seems to me that most of the remarks of the Minister for the Interior were quoted from the old Commonwealth debates at the turn of the century when one talked loosely and freely about matters of passion at the time - State Houses and things of that sort. If one reads and thinks about most of the views on the other House, I suggest that one gets the overwhelming impression that because of the development of party government the Senate no longer plays that role. It is that thinking which lies behind the Australian Labor Party policy to do something about it ultimately.

That can be said and understood, but it should not be used as a red herring to detract from the fundamental importance of the matter that we are considering today - this is, that under the present system, with no local government and no territorial government, the Senate is given and is pledged to play a fundamental and important part in territorial government. The people of the Australian Capital Territory and, indeed, the people of the Northern Territory are denied a right to say anything about these matters or to have any representation in the Senate.

The only point that I wish to make in conclusion is this: It is well known, but it bears repeating, that when the member for the Northern Territory made his maiden speech some years ago he demanded - he did not request; he did not suggest; he demanded - that the Northern Territory have Senate representation. He is not to speak in this debate. It is an interesting thought that he will not be speaking in this debate even though, in making his maiden speech, he thought it sufficiently important to demand Senate representation for the Northern Territory. My final thought is this: Let the Government do the right thing by the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Let them have Senate representation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The further time allotted for Notice of Motion No. 1, General Business, has expired. The House will proceed to Government Business.

page 293

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Notice of Motion No. 1, General Business, being continued.

I think the House will agree that we have listened to excellent advocacy by the hon ourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby). No doubt can exist that he has put the case clearly. The first reason why I have moved the suspension of Standing Orders is the obvious vital importance of this question. It concerns the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the people of the Northern Territory getting a voice, which they are denied now, in the Senate.

The other reason why I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders is the vote, 55 to 54, which defeated the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The person who is most concerned in this matter is the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). If he had voted in support of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, his action would have meant that he was supporting at least further debate on the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Dawson that the motion that he has moved is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I do not wish him to develop a debate that will cover the subject matter of the General Business debate which has just concluded.

Dr PATTERSON:

Dr PATTERSON:

– I accept your ruling. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am being benevolent and even quite humble in defending the right of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to take part in this debate. I say to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that I will defend the rights of the people of the Northern Territory, if he likes. But, after all, he is the member for the Northern Territory. Surely, as the elected member, he will rise after I have concluded and state what he believes regarding Senate representation for the Northern Territory.

Mr CALDER (Northern Territory)May I thank honourable members on my right for the rousing reception-

He voted to end that debate and to gag himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The remarks made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory were not relevant to the subject matter before the House at the present time. The question now before the House is:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Notice of MotionNo. 1, General Business, being continued.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 57

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Division

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 298

STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES MEASUREMENT) BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill concerns financial grants to the States over the next 3 financial years to accelerate the measurement of the flow of rivers and the investigation and measurement of underground water resources. Honourable members will know that, as a result of a recommendation by the Australian Water Resources Council, the Commonwealth and State Governments in 1964 adopted an accelerated programme of surface and underground water investigations. The aim of the programme is to achieve a comprehensive basic network of stream gauging stations and to improve knowledge of underground water resources. Besides implementing its own accelerated programme in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth has assisted State programmes by making available grants totalling up to $2.75m over the 3-year period 1964-65 to 1966-67 and up to $4.5m over the 3-year period 1967-68 to 1969-70.

With regard to surface water, during the 3-year period of the States Grants (Water Resources) Act 1964, programmes submitted by the States for stream gauging activities provided for the improvement of 163 existing stations and the construction of 368 new stations, and annual expenditure increased from less than$1m in 1962-63 to$1.8m in 1966-67. Of the latter figure, the Commonwealth provided over one- third. Total expenditure by Commonwealth and States in the 3-year period was approximately $4.9m. During the next 3-year period, 1967-68 to 1969-70, over 470 existing stations were upgraded and about 500 new stations were constructed. Total expenditure during this period increased to approximately $7.4m of which the Commonwealth contributed $2.5m. There are now about 2,100 stations operating and useful records are available from a further 460 which have been discontinued since 1960 for a variety of reasons. With regard to investigation of underground water, annual expenditure increased from approximately$1m to about $2.2m during the first 3-year period. Of the latter figure, the Commonwealth provided $350,000. Total expenditure in the 3-year period was approximately $5. 8m. Corresponding expenditures for the 3-year period 1967-68 to 1969-70 were approximately $7.9m of which the Commonwealth provided $2m.

Rapid progress has been made with the work of underground water assessment, and the value of this was strikingly demonstrated in several regions during recent severe droughts. The success of the overall programme is exemplified by the fact that the States have in the last few years undertaken programmes considerably in excess of requirements to attract the full Commonwealth subsidy. This has been particularly so in the case of underground water. The governments involved have reason to be well satisfied with the progress made so far. However, it was apparent to the Water Resources Council that, if the objectives of the programme as envisaged were to be achieved, a further expansion of effort was needed, and this is reflected in the programmes planned by the States for this and the next 2 years. The surface water programmes total $8. 5m, which is an increase of$1.1m on the programmes for the period just completed. Apart from a general increase in the cost of materials and labour which has occurred since the original estimates were made, the State authorities are experiencing a rise in the unit cost of establishing and operating each stream gauging station as these activities extend into the more remote areas and involve the more difficult streams.

The underground water programmes total $ 10.3m, which is an increase of $2. 4m on the programmes covered by the 1967 Act. The Government now proposes to make available a total of over S8.2m by way of grants to the States to assist in achieving the planned programmes in the next 3 years. This figure represents an increase of 80% over the level of Commonwealth aid in the past 3 years and a three-fold increase in assistance from the first 3-year programme. In making this increased contribution, the Commonwealth contemplates that the States will increase their own contributions, in order that the objectives endorsed by the Water Resources Council may bc achieved. The current legislation does not, of course, cover the Northern Territory. Arrangements will be considered by my colleague, the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), for an appropriate programme of water resources measurement to be continued in the Northern Territory. The distribution of Commonwealth funds over the 3 years is set out in the Schedules to the Bill, but for the convenience of members, I give the figures briefly now. For surface wa er, the totals are in 1970-71,$1.17m; in 1971-72, $1.2m; and in 1972-73,$1.26m. For underground water, the totals are:$1. 45m, $l.54m and $1.6m respectively.

I turn now to the Bill itself, the provisions of which arc similar to the 1964 Act which it is designed to follow. Provision for grants in respect of expenditure by the States on stream gauging is contained in clause 4. Commonwealth grants will be provided in accordance with the details specified in the First Schedule to assist the States to attain the programme of expenditure necessary for the achievement of the aims of the accelerated programme. In respect of each State, the Commonwealth grant will be the amount by which the expenditure exceeds the base year figure, until the base expenditure is doubled, after which the grant is on a $1 for $1 basis up to the ceiling set out in the Schedule.

When the 1967 Act was drafted, the administration of the surface water programme was simplified, compared with the first 3 years, by combining the grants for capital and operational expenditures. In this Bill a further simplification is being made in that the formula for calculation of grants for underground water investigations has been made the same as for surface water as outlined above. The Commonwealth grants have been allocated between the States on the basis of the State’s own proposed programmes for both surface and underground water. The Bill also contains a number of machinery provisions which remain the same as in the previous Bills relating to this programme. These include provision for approval of the proposed programmes by the Minister, provision for the making of advance payments to the States, and provision for submission of progress reports.

With regard to this programme generally, I should mention that, whereas it was originally envisaged as covering a 10-year period, the Government has agreed in principle that it should be extended for a further 3-year period beyond the one covered by this Bill, making a total of 12 years. I would envisage that the whole concept of the programme would be reviewed before the end of that period.I should also point out that, in accordance with the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in October last year, this programme has been brought within the compass of the national water resources development programme. Thus, the grants provided for in this Bill are part of the total allocation to be made to the States in the national water programme. The provision of works to conserve and use our water resources must be preceded by thorough investigations of the resources involved, so that adequate basic data for rational development are available. The programme of water resources assessment which all governments are undertaking has been devised with this end in view.I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 299

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1970

Bill presented by Dr Forbes, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the borrowing of moneys not exceeding $142,550,000 to be advanced to the States during 1970-71 for housing in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. At its meeting last June, the Australian Loan Council approved a government borrowing programme for 1970-71, of which §823,000,000 was for the financing of State works and housing. Within this total, each State nominated the amount it wished to receive as advances under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In aggregate, housing advances in 1970-71 will amount to $142,530,000, which is an increase of $10,320,000 or about 8% over last year. The amounts requested by the States are as follows:

Advances made to the States under the agreement are repayable over a period of 53 years and bear interest at 1% per annum below the long term bond rate. This is the concluding year of the period covered by the present housing agreement. During this 5-year period, the Commonwealth will have advanced almost $644m to the States for housing purposes. Of this amount, it is expected that almost $42 6m will have been used by State housing authorities, together with supplementary advances from the Commonwealth for the housing of servicemen, to construct some 54,400 dwellings. The remaining $2 18m will have been advanced through the home builders accounts and, together with moneys accruing from earlier advances, will have assisted some 39,600 persons to acquire their own homes. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 300

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Immigration and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I move:

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill now before the House extends the operation of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954-1969 for a further maximum period of 6 months to 31st December 1970, unless an earlier date of cessation is specified by proclamation. Under the existing Act bounty ceased to be payable after 30th June 1970. The Pyrites Bounty Act 1960-1969 also expired on 30th June 1970 and I shall shortly introduce a similar Bill to extend that Act for a further period of 6 months.

The sulphuric acid and pyrites industries are closely allied. Bounty is paid in certain circumstances on iron pyrites received into a sulphuric acid manufacturer’s premises for the purpose of being used in that manufacture and is also paid on the sulphuric acid produced from the pyrites. In addition, sulphuric acid bounty is paid on the acid produced from lead sinter gas. Because of this close alliance, 1 shall deal with the reason for the extension ofboth Acts in this speech. The Tariff Board has recently completed a review of the sulphuric acid and pyrites industries and has forwarded its report to the Minister for Trade and Industry. The Government considers that the present level of assistance to the industry should be maintained until it has completed its examination of the report. Accordingly the sulphuric acid bounty legislation is being extended to 31st December1 970 or to an earlier proclaimed date.

I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 302

PYRITES BOUNTY BULL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is proposed to extend the operation of the Pyrites Bounty Act 1960-1969 for a further maximum period of 6 months to 31st December 1970 unless an earlier date of cessation is specified by Proclamation. The purpose of this Bill is to implement this proposal. I have already outlined the reasons for this extension in my speech concerning the extension of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act.

I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 302

CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill now before the House extends the operation of the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1 956-1969 for a maximum period of 6 months from 1st July 1970 to 31st December 1970 unless an earlier date of cessation is specified by proclamation. Under present legislation the bounty period expired on 30th June 1970. The Tariff Board has reviewed the industry and has submitted its report to the Minister for Trade and Industry. The Government considers that the present level of assistance to the industry should be maintained until it has completed its examination of the Tariff Board’s report. Accordingly the operation of the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty legislation is being extended to 31st December 1970 or an earlier proclaimed date.

I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 302

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Mr SNEDDEN:
‘Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business, in addition to the days fixed by standing order 40, on each Friday at half-past ten o’clock a.m. commencing on Friday, 21st August, and continuing until the end of this year.

I should make it clear that I wrote a letter to honourable members on the Opposition side of the House and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) about sitting times for this session. I indicated that we should sit for 6 weeks on the old basis of 3 weeks on, 1 week off, and that we should continue in that way until the week’s recess in early October. Obviously I could not anticipate that the House would agree to the change that the Standing Orders Committee has recommended, so I had to programme for a 3 weeks sitting and 1 week’s recess. That could have allowed me to programme for 2 weeks on and a week’s recess if the House did adopt the change, as in fact it did. But I had a problem about that because there is a requirement for us to be in recess for that week so that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association may hold a conference. It will be using this chamber. So if I changed the arrangement from 3 weeks sitting and I week’s recess to a 2 weeks sitting and 1 week’s recess, we would have to have a recess of 2 weeks instead of 1 week because we have to be in recess for that second week when the CPA meets. Therefore I programmed for 2 periods of 3 weeks with a week’s recess, but after that the will of the House which was expressed last night shall operate.

Mr BARNARD:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Bass

– Perhaps I should point out to the House that the Opposition would have opposed the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) for the House to sit on Fridays had it not been for the decision made in this House last night in relation to the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee of the Parliament. In view of the decision taken last night by the House to give effect to the recommendation relating to the sitting days of the Parliament, the Opposition now has no objection to the Minister’s proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 303

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce - Minister for

Labour and National Service) [4.8] - I move:

If I may have the indulgence of the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has indicated to me that he proposes to move an amendment in this matter. 1 would like the opportunity to examine the amendment, and therefore I seek this deferment. I do not expect the debate to come on today. I would expect it to come on next week, but the deferment will enable me to look at the text of the proposed amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 303

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Appointment of Joint Select Committee

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits legislation in relation to -
1. its aims and objectives;
2. the complexities of the legislation and any means by which the legislation might be simplified and improved;
3. the rates of contribution by members;
4. any differences, as between members, in the benefits provided;
5. any anomalies and inequities that might exist;
6. the frequency of and delays in actuarial investigations on the state and sufficiency of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, and
7. administration of the Fund.
That the committee consist of three Members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Prime Minister, two Members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one Senator to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be appointed by the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.
That every appointment of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
That the Chairman be nominated by the Prime Minister from one of the members to be appointed by bim.
That the Chairman of the committee may from time to time appoint another member of the committee to be Deputy Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
That the committee have potter to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament and duringthe sittings of either House of the Parliament.
That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
That three members of the committee, includingthe Chairman or Deputy Chairman, constitute a quorum of the committee, and two members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of the sub-committee.
That the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman presiding at a meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, also have a casting vote.
That the committee report to the Parliament as soon as possible.
That (he foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution : md requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

I should remind the House of how this matter arose. On 9th June the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill was before the House. At that time an amendment was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). To put into perspective why this select committee is being set up, I will quote from the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury) as reported in Hansard at that time. He said:

I turn now to the amendment that was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Government does see a great deal of virtue in having a thorough inquiry into the DFRB legislation. However, we do find it difficult to accept . . the amendment in its present form which, if carried . . .

The Treasurer went on to say that he would agree to the appointment of a select committee and that after the necessary preliminary discussions had taken place the Leader of the House would introduce a motion guided by the conversations. There have been conversations not only with the Opposition but also with the Senate, and the Senate has agreed to the appointment of a select committee. We know that this resolution provides that the membership be shared by both sides of this House and tha 3 sides of the Senate.

Mr BARNARD:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Bass

– The Opposition welcomes the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee to look at the operation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. This committee derives from an amendment moved by the Opposition in this House on June 9th to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1970. It was supported by several Government supporters, including the late Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes, and the honourable members for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and Isaacs (Mr Hamer). The amendment was designed to set up a joint committee to investigate and report upon the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. This motion provides the machinery for the establishment and operation of the committee.

When the initial amendment proposing the committee was debated in the House, I pointed to widespread dissatisfaction among members of the Services about the operation and application of the Fund. On the criteria of participant satisfaction there is no doubt that Fund rates are extremely low. it is one of the principal sources of discontent among servicemen. Although some improvements have been made in recent years the scheme is shot through with anomalies and inequities. The areas of criticism indicated by the Opposition have in large measure been incorporated in this motion. The joint committee is empowered to make a wide-ranging inquiry into the existing scheme and how it might be simplified and improved. The work of this committee should result in the evolution of a much simpler and a much fairer pension scheme for servicemen and the Opposition warmly supports it. However, the Opposition feels that now this committee has been established, its functions should be extended to have a look at the whole range of service pay and conditions. Certainly the DFRB Fund is perhaps the main gripe servicemen have about their conditions and entitlements.

But there are many other sources of dissatisfaction which are being reflected in lower recruiting and re-engagement rates. This was dramatised effectively in the protests on Monday by sailors against pay conditions at Garden Island in Sydney. About 200 sailors held a stop-work meeting and walked off 5 Navy ships to protest at delays in granting flow-on of allowances made more than a year ago to equivalent civilian personnel. These increases were granted on the following day by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) after a lengthy examination by the Conditions of Service Committee of the Defence Department. Such incidents are likely to recur while service members feel they are being treated unfairly in comparison with comparable civilian workers. This was an example of swift Government action to head off severe industrial trouble developing in one of the services. It may not be possible to damp down future flare-ups.

The fact is that little significant improvement has been made in conditions of service in the armed forces over the past 20 years. Servicemen have shown remarkable patience and forbearance. There are signs that antagonism to existing conditions is growing and that the services could be faced with industrial action and agitation. It has often been claimed that industrial action on conventional lines could never be effective in a disciplined service. In the light of recent events it seems that reliance on traditional concepts of discipline and service dedication is becoming less valid as unrest increases in the services. For a number of reasons the career serviceman is finding his longterm prospects very dismal indeed. It may be possible for such a career serviceman to accept without demur the peculiar penalties and disabilities of service life which affect only himself. But it is increasingly difficult for him to see his family lagging badly behind his civilian counterparts in living standards and educational opportunities.

Over a whole range of areas the career soldier sees his conditions of service and entitlements deteriorating and his family suffering penalties and inequities. This is the basic reason behind the agitation for a review of the whole range of conditions of service. The Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has pointed to the work of the Defence (Conditions and Service)

Committee. Certainly there may be improvements made in service pay and conditions arising from the work of this committee. But it has the signal disadvantage that it is an internal committee of the Department of Defence; its functions are prescribed by the Department of Defence and this must restrict its effectiveness. It has not the powers to initiate inquiries into specific problem areas or to make comprehensive assessments of conditions in the three individual services. Further, servicemen feel they are not represented on the committee and they do not have access to its work.

The time is appropriate for a comprehensive inquiry not only into the DFRB but into the whole range of conditions of service which are under lire at the moment - into pay, moves and re-posting, re-settlement and re-establishment in civilian life, family separation and disruption, housing, education, in short into the whole social environment of the serviceman and his family. These are all sources of serious complaint which should be examined in a new way for little is known of the impact on servicemen of defects in these crucial conditions. An attempt to take a fresh approach to the pay and service conditions of servicemen has been made in the United Kingdom. A standing committee on pay and conditions of the armed forces has been appointed and has made a series of valuable reports on service pay and conditions and the peculiar disabilities associated with service life. Such a committee could be used as a model for securing the changes in pay and benefits that are urgently needed in Australia. Unfortunately, the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee as it is now constituted does not fill the bill.

In the years ahead there will be dramatic changes in the character of the armed forces. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the services will be much more representative of the Department as a whole in its origins and education. There will be much greater mobility between the Services and the civilian workforce, with soldiers serving shorter terms before returning to civilian life. This will mean much closer links between the Armed Services and the domestic workforce. There will also be a move towards much greater emphasis on civilian values and forms of organisation in the services. Much of the old rigidity of Service discipline and organisation will be relaxed and Service communities will be less isolated. In the seventies much more of the time of servicemen will be spent in Australia. This will be reflected in less emphasis on combat jobs and a trend towards support and technical functions similar to those found in many areas of civilian life. While a soldier will have to retain his skill as a fighting man, he will be trained in an increasingly varied range of skills which are not purely military. His range of skills will be more diversified than those needed for most semi-skilled jobs in industry. There will tend to be a breaking down of the old styles of management and discipline with service life becoming more and more like civilian life. It is against this background that the pay and condtions of servicemen should now be investigated.

A serviceman of any rank is always at a considerable disadvantage compared to his civilian counterpart where his family is concerned. Whatever compensations are given, the nature of the employment and duty of the soldier will always impose considerable strain on family life. The soldier himself accepts this because he knows it is inevitable and because he expects his employer, the Commonwealth, to make proper and equitable compensation for it. However, his wife and family are not in any way dedicated or obligated to the system. It is natural that they feel a sense of deprivation and injustice when they have tomeet excessive expenses and other inconveniences because conditions of Service life have not been modernised. On the question of pay these injustices usually boil down to the complaint that it always seems to be fixed on the basis of equivalent civilian type work. Even here, the flow-on from higher civilian wages is unbearably slow. No serviceman will ever agree that it is possible to equate his work with that of a civilian. Of course there will be a component

Mr Giles:

-I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on this matter. It would seem to me that this should not be a second reading speech involving a future look at the armed forces of Australia. The subject before us is a motion to set up a select committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

My point is: Do you not think that, with respect, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going well beyond the confines of this kind of debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the matter before the House.

Mr BARNARD:

– I thank you for your ruling, Sir, and I thank the honourable member for raising his point of order. I accept that. What I want to say at this stage is that we welcome the opportunity that has been given to this House to consider the ramifications of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and the decision of the Government to set up a Committee to investigate the Fund. I wanted to take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to other matters which I think are equally important as the conditions of servicemen in this country. Unfortunately I have been ruled out of order on this question. Therefore, at this stage I foreshadow an amendment which 1 will move on behalf of the Opposition to give effect to some of the matters that I have just put before the House in relation to the conditions of servicemen, namely education for the children of servicemen and pay and allowances. Surely the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen), who is now sitting at the table, would not disagree when I say to him and to this House that considerable dissatict action has been shown not only by those who serve in his Department on a permanent basis. I quoted the incident of a demonstration by some members of the naval forces which was indeed what one might well describe I believe as a ‘mutiny’. This was caused by a dissatisfaction over pay and allowances. What applies to members serving in the Royal Australian Navy would equally apply to those who are serving in the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force.

It is because of these circumstances that we believe it is necessary to look at the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. The Government acknowledges that there is dissatisfaction in this area. The Minister who proposed this motion acknowledged that it was because of action taken by members of the Opposition in moving an amendment to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill that was then before the

House that the Government decided to accept the arguments that had been advanced and to set up a committee to investigate the whole ramifications of the Fund.

We welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, which provides for the setting up of a joint select committee to investigate this one area of dissatisfaction that has existed for a long time among members of the armed forces. I commend the Government for at least accepting a recommendation that flowed from the Opposition for the establishment of a committee of this kind. I make it perfectly clear that there are other matters of equal importance that we believe should be investigated at the same time. One cannot stress too often the dissatisfaction of members of the armed Services in respect of the matters to which I have referred. Therefore I take the opportunity on behalf of the Opposition to move the following amendment:

At the end of paragraph ((.) add: ‘and in relation to the whole defence force (i) pay and allowances of all personnel, (ii) provision for the retraining of officers and men, (iii) housing and (iv) educational facilities for the children of service men.’

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– ls the amendment seconded?

Mr Berinson:

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

Mr BARNARD:

– Before I moved the amendment I had given a number of reasons why I believe the inquiry should be widened. Not only should the conditions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund be considered but the joint select committee of this Parliament should have the right to investigate the other matters to which 1 have referred, including the pay and allowances of all personnel. There is much discontent in the Services. I referred to the discontent in the Navy which was demonstrated earlier this week when serving members of the Royal Australian Navy, probably for the first time in the living memory of those members now serving in the Navy, saw fit to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with a matter that could have been rectified by the Minister for the Navy or the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) earlier than it was. The Minister for the Navy questioned my description of this conduct. I described it as mutiny, but mutiny that was justified because those concerned had no alternative way of expressing their dissatisfaction with pay and conditions. The omission on the part of the Department of Defence was rectified immediately and the grievances of members of the Navy were met.

In dealing with the motion I was pointing out that there are other aspects of a serviceman’s work which place demands upon him which would never be accepted by a civilian worker. In the United Kingdom it has been suggested that these peculiar aspects of service life should be assessed in terms of a special factor called the X factor. This would take account of the special conditions of service life and provide a compensation factor in Service pay rates. This X factor, as defined by the Standing Committee on the Pay of the Armed Services, takes account of 4 basic elements peculiar to Service life. The first is the serviceman’s commitment to his service and his subjection to a code of discipline which is more far reaching than in any form of civilian service. The second is the serviceman’s exposure to danger on active service. His obligation as part of normal peacetime service to endure bad or uncomfortable conditions while in the field or on board ship is the third element. The final element is the constant upheaval and uncertainty imposed by the need for high mobility in a military force - the so-called turbulence of Service life. These constitute the X factor for which an additional increment should be incorporated into Service pay. This seems eminently reasonable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Dury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not relevant to the motion, which relates only to a joint select committee on benefits payable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, and is out of order.

MR KILLEN:
Minister for the Navy · Moreton · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I would hope that you would incline your generous sense of indulgence to me to enable me to correct one or two observation made by my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). I do not wish to involve myself in any battle of semantics wilh the honourable gentleman, who has referred to an incident which took place at Garden Island on Monday as being a mutiny. I say this to the honourable gentleman: He cannot meet successfully an argument by indulging in hyperbole. The term mutiny is a term of art. It has a very precise meaning indeed. In short it is an open revolt against constituted authority. To describe what took place at Garden Island as an open revolt against constituted authority prevails on me to describe that allegation as nonsense in the most refined sense. I shall give some point to the honourable gentleman. If we were to consider the position of the Victorian Executive of the Australian Labor Party we could say that that is in a state of mutiny because there has been a revolt against constituted authority.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, noone has contested your ruling that the amendment moved by my Deputy was out of order. If your ruling is correct then what the Minister is saying does not relate to anything which is before you.

MR KILLEN:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said this before he moved the amendment.

Mr Whitlam:

– But a ruling had not been given then.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! A brief reference is in order.

MR KILLEN:

– I want to make a final point. The honourable member said that crews from 5 ships, I think it was, walked off. That is simply not true. I would like the honourable gentleman and the House to know that the crews of the ‘Perth’, the Anzac’ and the ‘Yarra’ resent intensely any suggestion that they walked off. I have always had a preference for complete frankness and neither my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) nor I is going to make any pretence about the fact that there had been a delay. The honourable gentleman may care to give somebody the most highly derogatory order of the irremovable digit in this matter. We are quite determined that there will be no more delay, but the honourable gentleman must appreciate that no Service is completely autonomous unto itself. The sailors concerned had a genuine grievance.

Mr Barnard:

– I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that.

Mr KILLEN:

– I acknowledge it completely and utterly. There is no humbug about it at all. Their sense of grievance was recognised. The decision, to put it in the vernacular, was in the pipeline and it came out, regrettably, in the juxtaposition that it did, and wrong inferences were drawn. I would like the honourable gentlemen and the House to know that where there exists a grievance the Minister for Defence, my other colleagues responsible for the Services and myself take the view that the case should be stated and that wherever possible we will try to see that the grievance is removed with all practical speed. The honourable gentleman shows no goodwill to the Services by simply identifying the problem and not posing any practical solution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BARNARD:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Bass

– I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour say aye. All those to the contrary say no. 1 think the ‘ayes’ have it.

Government supporters - The ‘noes’ have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I have no desire at this stage to repeat what I have already said to the House because I had an opportunity before the amendment was ruled out of order to put to the House some of the reasons why I believe that the powers of the proposed joint select committee ought io be widened to enable it to investigate not only the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act itself but also the pay and allowances of servicemen, which are causing great dissatisfaction amongst servicemen. Again I do not want to repeat all of the arguments that I have already put to the House which would justify a select committee being established to investigate pay and allowances for serving members of the forces.

Mr Killen:

– I take a point of order. I do not want to quibble but I suggest that the honourable gentleman is not in order in referring to any of the substantive arguments that may be advanced in a consideration of his proposal. I submit that the honourable gentleman should be restricted in the course of his argument to dealing with what merits may exist in relation to the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– I uphold the point of order. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr BARNARD:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I certainly do not want to canvass your ruling but may I, with respect, put it that I am now speaking to a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The reason for the proposed suspension of Standing Orders is to enable me to move an amendment which 1 have put to this House. While I have no desire to disagree with your ruling, the fact of the matter is that I should have the opportunity to explain to the House the reason for moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. I can understand the concern of the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) because he was given an opportunity, without recourse to the Standing Orders, to reply to certain statements that 1 had made. One can understand that he now wants to stifle debate on the amendment. I believe therefore that this House should carry this motion because it will give to the members of the House an opportunity to consider the wider ramifications of Service life and will give power to the proposed joint select committee to look not only at the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act but at those other matters to which I have referred - matters we believe are of extreme importance to the serving members of the forces of this country. Those matters have been brought to the attention of this House not only by honourable members on this side of the House but also on some occasions by honourable members on the other side of the House such as the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). I know he appreciates that there are many matters that ought to be looked at.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I take a point of order. As I understand it, the motion before the Chair is that Standing Orders be suspended because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to move an amendment. lt would seem to me that he is now speaking to the amendment he wishes to move subsequently if he has the numbers, which he will not have, to carry the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. At the moment he should confine his remarks to the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. T suggest that he is not doing this.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– I have already asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks to the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. He is now going a little beyond that. I ask him again to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr BARNARD:

– I accept your ruling on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have made my position quite clear. All I want to say in relation to the point of order raised by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is that what I said about the Minister for the Navy applies equally to the Minister for Defence. He wants to stifle the debate. I am satisfied, having made my point. I have moved for the suspension of the standing orders in order to be able to-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I rise to order. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, having said that he respected your ruling, has immediately proceeded to defy it. He is doing this because he knows quite well that he is incapable of speaking for the remaining 12 to 15 minutes on the matter of the suspension of the standing orders and is only filling in time by referring to the substantive debate.

Mr Jess:

– T wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

House, not with a view to destroying the Minister or discrediting the Government

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member is getting a little wide of a speech seconding the motion.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– … but because there is a situation which needs to be discussed. All I am making is the case that the news that has been emanating from the Navy does seem to indicate that these things need to be discussed. We need to create conditions in the Services that will stop the flow of news which suggests that people are resigning from the Services. We need to discuss the situation referred to in part (ii) of the motion, namely, provision for retraining of officers and men. We should consider the housing of Service personnel, which is part (iii) of the motion, because this, together with the transfer of personnel, is a real grievance. We should discuss part (iv) of the motion relating to educational facilities for the children of servicemen. Education at the high school stage for these children has become a major cause of resignations.

I feel that the setting up of this committee to look into these matters is not a question of trying to embarrass someone in the House but is a question of trying to rectify grievances which appear to be present. I urge the Minister responsible to widen the scope of the inquiry. I ask that the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the scope of the inquiry to be widened.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– 1 wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr JESS:

– I do. During his remarks, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), after mentioning the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) - the 2 Ministers concerned with defence who are in the House - referred to the honourable member for La Trobe as one who had raised the question of Service conditions and who had spoken in support of the matter. I wish to make my position clear because the inference was that I supported the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition in this case. I wish to make only one point clear. I think justification exists in what the Opposition suggests but to relate this to the joint select committee that is to inquire into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund is ridiculous. Not only would this impede any decision on the DFRB Fund for a long time but it would also cause nothing but harm. The issue should be a separate one.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– I have listened for some time to this debate wilh growing impatience. Perhaps, for a few moments, the House might bear with me. What is the motion before us now? The motion is that the Standing Orders should be suspended to permit the discussion of a certain matter arising from a motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden). The whole of this morning was given over to a Bill brought in by the Opposition to provide for representation in the Senate of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Debate on the Bill proceeded throughout the morning and, at the instance of the Opposition, was continued for some time this afternoon. Then, after a number of second reading speeches - poorly read - we moved on to the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

What was the motion? The motion was:

That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits legislation . . . in relation to a number of sub-headings outlined by the Minister. The Committee was to deal with the DFRB legislation - a clearly defined field, all to itself. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) moved an amendment to extend the inquiry by that committee into the DFRB legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks an inquiry: . . in relation to the whole defence forces (i) pay and allowances for all personnel, (ii) provision for retraining of officers and men, (iii) housing and (iv) educational facilities for the children of servicemen.

That is another field completely. It is a very important field and nobody denies this. The Opposition, having spent the whole morning and part of the afternoon dealing with a Bill which it was quite entitled to bring forward, now seeks to foist another debate which is totally unrelated to defence forces retirement benefits onto this House and so occupy the whole day with

Mr Barnard:

– I thought you always spoke up for the rights of members.

Mr TURNER:

– Do not try to put words into my mouth. This is a most important matter but this is not the time for it to be debated in association with something which has nothing whatever to do with it. The Opposition has taken up the time of the House this day. By some little cooperation, if that is ever possible in this place - and without that the place must fall into chaos and decay - it might have been possible to arrange a suitable time, not necessarily today but early next week, when this most important matter could have been properly debated, maybe on a statement from the Minister, maybe on a motion from the Opposition. By some means under the forms of the House we could have had a proper debate at a proper time instead of fiddling around wasting time with all kinds of points of order taken, disagreement with the Speaker’s rulings and all this, which is merely a waste of the time of this House. It is the very kind of thing about which we were talking last night and we fall into this very chaos again today. This has nothing to do with the merits of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has to put. lt is purely concerned with a proper, orderly time and place for dealing with an important matter. That is all. f watch with growing concern and impatience a House simply falling in to chaos and decay.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– A great deal of what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) has said is technically correct. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition did not challenge your ruling that the amendment which was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) to the motion to set up the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Select Committee could not be extended to cover the amendment he moved. We did not challenge that ruling. However, we did take the procedure which is open to us under the Standing Orders to move, immediately that matter was disposed of, for Standing Orders to be

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! 1 ask the honourable member to confine himself to the particular point of the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am pointing out that this is now an urgent matter. The honourable member for Bradfield says, in effect, that wc are wasting the time of the House or of honourable members by trying to have this matter dealt with. I would have thought that as we are setting up a select committee to deal with one aspect of the Services now was the time to have the same select committee consider other matters concerning the Services.

Mr Turner:

– You need 2 select committes. One select committee would take a year to do those 2 jobs.

Mr WHITLAM:

– With respect, I disagree with the honourable gentleman. We do not have very many select committees in this House and the men who have particular competence in Service matters might well wish to serve on 2 such committees. Why should not they consider related matters in the course of the deliberations of 1 committee? Why should we separate the committees? lt is true that in terms of the motion one could not deal with pay and allowances, housing, retraining and children’s education. But a committee which both sides of both Houses thought was competent to deal with DFRB would presumably be just the sort of committee that both sides of both Houses would deem to be competent to deal with pay and allowances, housing, re-training and children’s education. In the light of the urgent situation which has arisen the sensible thing is to accept this motion to enlarge the terms of the committee which has been set up to deal with associated cognate matters. No one can dispute that it is an urgent matter when sailors do not present themselves at their posts, when senior RAAF officers presumably release confidential documents, when the Services are not building up their numbers and officers are resigning in record numbers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I rule again that the honourable member is going beyond the point of supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. It cannot be said that this matter has taken up too much of the attention of the House. Two honourable members spoke to the previous motion on the DFRB committee and it went through unopposed. You gave a ruling which was not contested. In those circumstances it is not unreasonable that the debate to set up the associated matters which are now urgent should be dealt with. While I never underrate the capacity of the honourable member for Bradfield to show impatience and choler I think in this case his characteristics are singularly misplaced. In fact, we all ought to take it as a matter of urgency that this competent committee which we have all agreed to set up should deal with these urgent relevant matters.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Defence · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The criticism by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) is very misplaced. Examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and the operations of the retirement provisions for servicemen will be a large and complex task and will take up a good deal of time of the members who will be on the committee. To enlarge that committee to embrace these other matters would give it a task which would cause impossible delays and would result in no benefit to servicemen because of the delays. I want to challenge one of the matters specifically mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Hansard record will show that he said that the numbers of servicemen are not increasing. I want to refute that. Since 1967 the number of officers in the Navy has increased from 1,583 to 1,827 and in the Army from 3,550 to well over 4,000.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! 1 point out to the Minister that the House is debating the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Leader of the Opposition was allowed to make a direct allegation. I cannot refute that allegation without giving the House some facts. Because the allegation went unchallenged I believe I should be able lo make that answer. If I could complete this part of my answer refuting the point made by the Leader of the Opposition I would be content.

Mr Stewart:

Mr Hayden:

– Can you advise me what Standing Orders apply?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is not the function of the Chair to advise the honourable member on the interpretation of the Standing Orders. The question is that the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Barnard’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 315

EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEME TO ASSIST MARRIED AND SINGLE WOMEN

Ministerial Statement

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Minister for

Labour and National Service) - by leave - Honourable members will recall that in his policy speech of 8th October 1969 the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said:

We shall introduce, under the control of the Department of Labour and National Service, vocational training schemes for married women and single women who have been restricted by domestic responsibilities but who have now reached a stage where they may wish to enter employment.

My colleague, the Treasurer (Mr Bury), announced the introduction of this scheme in the current financial year in his Budget Speech on 18th August. Its concern is to provide opportunity, especially for the growing number of married women entering or re-entering the work force to gain necessary vocational skills. There is no doubt that more married women would like to take up employment and that some are diffident about initiating the move because they fear the work situation may have changed too much for them to handle. Some may be interested only in selected occupations for which they once had skills or for which they had related qualifications. There may be other women for whom the available employment opportunities are in occupations for which they lack both skill and experience.

Not all married women, of course, wishing to get jobs or return to work do so for purely financial reasons, whatever their income bracket. Some may have, as their main reason, a desire to find broader interests and social contacts offered by parttime or full-time employment to replace an absorption previously provided by the family. Some may wish to pick up again the threads of a career interrupted by marriage or the care of ageing parents. Some may wish to work regularly to supplement a family income to raise their living standards. This scheme is broad enough to meet all these possibilities.

In addition to meeting the social needs of some people the schemewillnaturally also make some contribution to relieving pressures in the labour market forsome categories of workers. It will do this because people will be accepted for train- ing only for available employment and for occupations in which there is a known continuing demand. It is not proposed to approve training without regard to resultant employment opportunities. The principal features of the scheme are set out under the following headings.

Scope and Eligibility

Applications for training will be invited from married and adult single women who wish to take up regular paid employment and who have been restricted from so doing by domestic responsibilities. These responsibilities could have become restrictive at some time in the past, recently, or still be restrictive to some extent. The aim is to help all women who wish to take advantage of employment opportunities that are available to them.

There will be an unrestricted choice of occupations for which eligible persons can seek training. This recognises that, for a variety of possible reasons, some women may not wish to return to, and some may no longer be suited to, their original occupations. Subject to limitations on the length of courses, therefore, the scheme will enable women to seek retraining in occupations different from those in which they had been regularly engaged before domestic responsibilities caused their withdrawal from the work force.

There will be certain qualifications attaching to eligibility to participate in the scheme. Thus, at least 2 years’ residence in the country is required to avoid short term visitors from benefiting. Again, at least a 2-year withdrawal from the work force is the minimum to preserve the intention of helping women who have withdrawn from employment. One example of someone not eligible would be a young woman who withdrew from work for three or four months after marriage and then proposed to return. Another example would be a young married women who had never been in employment because she had been engaged continuously in full time education. ‘Adult single women’ is an allembracing phrase which, in addition to unmarried women 21 years of age and over, includes also and without age qualification, divorcees, widows, single mothers, women who have been deserted by their husbands for more than 6 months or whose husbands are in mental or penal institutions.

Previous temporary or seasonal employment in which some married women engage annually to earn a little extra, however, will not be permitted to cause ineligibility, so long as, during the previous 2 years, it has not involved more than 12 weeks’ continuous employment or 26 weeks in broken periods. Neither will it be relevant whether a woman is seeking full time or part time employment or self employment. Some women with continuing domestic responsibilities and others whose reasons for working are not wholly financial may prefer or be restricted to part time work or may change from full time to part time workers according to personal circumstances. They have no less need of the benefits of training than women available immediately to work full time. To avoid duplication, women eligible for training under any other Government training scheme, e.g. widow pensioners, widows of ex-servicemen, and so on, will not be eligible for training under this scheme. My Department will advise inquirers of alternative training schemes.

Nature of Training

Two forms of training are proposed. The first is short term training or refresher courses available from Government educational and training institutions and from various private competent training schools or colleges. The second is in-plant training whereby job training and practice are provided by business concerns. The reason for the second kind of training is that it is the only means by which some forms of training can be given, for example, semiskilled work.

Length of Training

It is expected that most re-training will require about 3 months for each person, but the scheme provides for a period of up to 12 months’ training. However, provision has been made for training to be extended for up to a further 12 months in special circumstances. These might occur, for example, where a longer period of training would help a woman to qualify in an occupation or profession, or where attendance at an approved training course has been temporarily interrupted by ill-health or a recurrence of restrictive domestic responsibility.

Applications for Training

Applications for training can be expected from women in country areas in all parts of Australia, as well as from women in the capital cities and large provincial centres. To provide for adequate national coverage, including the remoter areas, it is proposed that application forms can be sought through a variety of sources, including professional and community bodies such as women’s associations and, of course, the very wide network of the Department’s employment offices and agencies. Training costs will be borne by the Government and various other financial provisions will be available.

Financial Aspects

Generally speaking, the married women who could enter training under the scheme are presently not depending on a separate income and, for this reason, acceptance fo.- training will not attract income during training. Accordingly, the scheme makes no provision for a training allowance to married women in training. The circumstances of some adult single women as described earlier may, however, be quite different, and provision has been made for this. For example, an unmarried woman, who has previously been prevented from entering paid employment by domestic responsibilities such as caring for an aged parent, might simultaneously be deprived of her means of parental or like support when freed of these responsibilities. A similar set of circumstances might face a single mother, a widow not eligible for pension, a deserted wife or a woman whose husband is in a mental institution or is a long term inmate of a gaol. If instead of entering into training under this scheme, they registered for employment, they could be eligible for unemployment benefit until placed in employment. Women will not be worse off financially because of this scheme. For such a person who takes up a full time course at an approved training institution under this scheme, a maintenance allowance of $10 weekly will be paid less any income in excess of $6 weekly, income being defined as for unemployment benefit calculations, plus an allowance for dependent children on the scale applying under unemployment benefit. In other words, the person would be eligible to receive the equivalent of unemployment benefit.

The financial assistance in respect of courses at educational and training institutions will cover costs of fees, fares or postage, essential books and equipment. There will also be an incidental expenses allowance of $4 weekly for full time students to cover extra out of pocket expenditure inevitably incurred by students, such as writing materials, contributions to college activities, teas, lunches, etc. A contribution of $5 weekly towards living away from home expenses will be available to women in country towns who may have to live away from home for a while because the training they want is not available locally. This allowance is a contribution towards expenses and is not set to meet actual cost of living.

One form of training will bc what is known as training on the job. It envisages training circumstances where the kind of training suited to the applicant’s preferred occupation can only be obtained by guided experience on the job. Employers asked by the Department to take on trainees will be offered wage reimbursement, calculated as a proportion of the award wage for age and job classification, in respect of each trainee who must be paid at not less than award rates throughout.

The reimbursement will be 30% of the award wage for a 3-month training period; 25% for a further 3 months; 20% for the third 3 months, and 10% of the award wage for the fourth 3 months of an approved training period. These wage reimbursements will be available only to employers requested by the Department to accept trainees, and training approved will have regard to employment opportunities offering in the particular area. The reimbursement arrangement is not available for employee training which is a normal business expense and which is inevitable when new staff is recruited. There is. therefore, no provision for employers to seek approval to take on trainees under this scheme.

This scheme will give confidence to people who wish to enter employment but have been diffident about doing so because of doubts about their capacity and adaptability. Women interested in the scheme can get advice from my Department about training available to eligible persons, the procedures for applying for and enrolling > for courses, and payment of fees and allowfances. The Department’s vocational counselling services are available to all who wish to take advantage of them. Leaflets describing these details will be available as from 14th September from district employment offices and their agents, women’s organisations and municipal authorities, or can be obtained by writing to the Regional Director of the Department in each State capital, and to the OfficerinCharge in Canberra. I might add that if an individual wishes to inquire about this scheme prior to 14th September he or she may do so at any employment office or by writing to my Department or to myself. I present the following paper: Employment Training Scheme to Assist Married and Single Women - Ministerial Statement, 20 August 1970.

I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron) adjourned.

page 318

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report

Debate resumed from 19 August (vide page 210), on sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of motion by Mr Snedden

That the Report of the Standing Orders Committee in its relation to the general matters of (a) sitting days, (b) a reduction in time limits for debates and speeches and (c) a reduction in the quorum of the House, be endorsed in principle and
That Standing Orders 72 and £50 be amended as recommended by the Committee, such amendments to come into operation on Tuesday, 25 th August 1970.

Question put:

That sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) relating to time limits for debates and speeches, be endorsed in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

The question now is:

That sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) relating to a reduction in the quorum of the House, be endorsed in principle.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

-In recent times I think there has been a marked diminution in the interest of honourable members in the debates in this House. A similar trend is to be observed among the public. It is suggested that this proposal to reduce the quorum will facili tate the business of the House by enabling members to attend to other matters within their sphere of responsibility, such as sitting on committees and carrying out research in the Library. But I am moved to wonder whether this diminution in interest, both on the part of members and the public, is not a deep seated ailment in our parliamentary institution. I take this opportunity to offer some observations on this matter because I believe it goes to the very root of the problems that confront us.

Some people think that the archaic forms of the House are to blame. There are many forms that could well be dispensed with in the interests of despatch. There are others that I believe should not be discarded merely because they derive from the past. I for one regret very much that on the representations of one honourable member of this House the name Strangers Gallery’ was altered to ‘Visitors Gallery’. The term ‘Strangers Gallery* reminds us that there was a time when the King’s friends were regarded with apprehension and suspicion when they appeared in the Parliament and observed who was inimical to the interests of the Crown because by carrying their message to the King they might bring about a situation where the hostile member was dealt with, perhaps on the gibbet. Well, the King is now in the House - that is to say, the Government and its Ministers have usurped the position of the King. The King is with us; the strangers are right here in the chamber. There is something to be said for retaining a little custom like that in order to remind us of something fundamental in our institution.

The more important reason for lack of interest in debates is machine politics. We have a caucus on each side of the House and there is no doubt, generally speaking, as to the result of any division. There is no doubt as to what members on each side of the House will say and where there is no suspense or expectancy. Where there is nothing unexpected, then naturally public interest wanes. It is the same with drama and it is true of Parliament. Lack of interest is also due to the quality of debates. For example, little information is offered by the Government to the House and there is no real machinery whereby honourable members can obtain this information for themselves.

I might at this stage just mention 2 matters. Soon we shall be voting on the Budget which includes a large expenditure by way of grants to the States. We have had no information given to us about the Premiers’ conference that dealt with these matters. The Government has appointed no committee, as I have urged, to look into this vexed question of Federal-State relations. We shall be voting in the dark on any amount allocated to the States. The debate will be utterly uninformed and of no value whatsoever because we have been given no information. Again, we have seen the various references in the Press about the report of some wool committee. My guess is that one day a Minister will come into the Government party room and in IS minutes explain a little bill involving the expenditure of $100m. Then, after a desultory debate in the party room, he will come into the House, read a second reading speech rather badly, taking perhaps 20 minutes, and the matter will then come up for debate in the following week on the basis of what he said in that speech.

In these circumstances, where we have a totally uninformed House, is it any wonder that there is not much interest either among members or among the public as to what is happening in this place? Debates are uninformed. They are not worth listening to, either by members themselves or by the public.

We never know what is coming on for debate from week to week, from day to day or even from hour to hour. For example, let us consider today’s proceedings. We commenced at 10.30 a.m. but nobody had the slightest idea of what was going to happen, even from hour to hour. Yet as soon as the House rises we see statements made by Ministers outside the House which are reported in the Press, either in part or in whole. Because the House is not sitting there is no possibility of questioning Ministers about the matters mentioned in such statements. There is no idea that the Parliament is the place in which a Minister should make a statement. This used to be so once but the custom has fallen into desuetude. Therefore it is not surprising that the public and members are not interested in what happens here; it all happens in the Press.

I refer now to Federal-State conferences. A few minutes ago I mentioned the Pre miers’ conference. In addition to those conferences there are conferences of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General, Agricultural Ministers, Health Ministers and Education Ministers. Then the responsible Minister comes back to this House and produces a Bill designed to implement something or other that was decided at such a conference. Of course then the House is expected to vote for the Bill in toto, lt cannot possibly be altered because its contents have been agreed upon between sovereign powers. As a result the debates in the House on these matters are not of very great value. The debate took place previously in the Press when the conference decisions were reported.

There is a lack of co-operation behind the Chair, if I may use that phrase. We saw an example of that this afternoon. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), brought up an important matter which should have been debated. The question was whether it should have been debated this afternoon. We wasted a very large part of the day talking about when a debate could be held in an orderly fashion. This matter could have been settled behind the Chair.

There is lack of discipline on the part of members themselves. Supposing there is before the House a Bill dealing with Meals on Wheels, or wheat or what have you. Every honourable member who happens to have old people or wheat growers in his electorate has to say his piece so that his words can be reported in the local newspaper in his electorate. Very well; we must accept the realities. However with a little bit of discipline honourable members might say their piece in 5 minutes and we might be able to get on with the business of the House. This would provide a fair deal for them and would be reasonable for the House. But no; each honourable member will spend all his time, 30 minutes, on such a matter.

But there are more fundamental reasons why nobody is very interested in what happens in the House. There is one other reason which is perfectly obvious. 1 refer to the elimination of the standing order which stated that members might not read their speeches. Now they can read their speeches. Every honourable member knows what is said about speeches that are read: More often than not they were not worth making and were badly read as well.

Mr Turnbull:

– They are not worth reading.

Mr TURNER:

– They are not worth reading and usually they are badly read. That is what has happened in this place. The cut and thrust of debate has gone because honourable members read little essays propped up in front of them on lecterns. The reasons I have given are obvious. There are more fundamental reasons. Australian parliaments never have been the great forums of the nation, attracting the best people and the most influential people in the country, such as happens, for example, in the House of Commons in England. This is due to our rural and colonial past. What was required was roads and bridges and some lobbying to get them built. This is part of our history. Because of our history the quality of our parliaments has suffered. Because of geography, because people have to spend their time in Canberra, busy men cannot afford to be members of this Parliament and spend all their time here. Busy and influential men can spend part of their time in the House of Commons at Westminster and give of their expertise and at the same time attend to their business. Indeed, they are the better informed for doing so. But we have a bush capital in Australia and therefore a bush parliament.

Certain social factors are involved as well. For example, everybody is educated today and more people are better educated than ever before. They are reading newspapers, books, paperbacks and so on. The forum for debate, for the various reasons I have given, has moved from this chamber into other areas altogether. It has moved into newspapers, books and, in particular, television. There is more real debate in a television programme like This Day Tonight’ or ‘Four Corners’ on things which really matter than ever happens in this House. Tha Commonwealth Public Service has also changed. It now contains very able people who are called upon to perform practically a political role these days. In the middle of the last century they were clerks, but today they are very able men who are also politicians assisting their Ministers. The result is that the Ministry and the Public Service are running the country and the Parliament has become perhaps one of the least important forums in which great matters are debated.

This fact has been completely and fully recognised in Canada. I was very interested to speak with members of the Canadian Parliament on this subject towards the end of last year. They recognised that all these things were happening and that, above all, the situation had arisen where there was, on the one hand, the Prime Minister - a charismatic man like Pierre Trudeau - and, on the other band, the public at large and the Parliament, which used to be the representative of the people - this intermediary - was ceasing to matter. They were very conscious of this situation. We here do not appear to be awake to it yet. I should point out that I understood from members of the Canadian Parliament that Mr Trudeau himself was as conscious of this as anybody else and that he was as anxious as any other member of the Canadian Parliament to see the establishment of a system of committees which makes even our widest proposals seem exceedingly narrow. The situation is arising in Australia from the picture and there is a direct relationship between a Prime Minister and the public at large. I think this is the emerging pattern. The question is what is to be done about it. The Canadians have their answer. I understand that shortly an amendment will be moved to the motion which is at present before the House which may give us part of the answer along the lines followed by the Canadians. There is one other matter I might mention if we are thinking that Parliament is sinking into oblivion and is worth rescuing - some of us think it is.

Mr Duthie:

– I do not know why the honourable member does not resign from the place.

Mr TURNER:

– If I could afford to do so I think I would do it today or tomorrow. As it is I look forward to resigning at the time of the next general election, which cannot come too soon. Let me make it clear to honourable members that that is the extent of the depth of my despair about this place. From this honourable members may understand that I really mean what I am saying now. I think I should draw the attention of the House to one thing which was discussed in the House of Commons in the last 3 or 4 years. This is the question, not of televising the whole of the proceedings of Parliament - God forbid - but to-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I would point out to the honourable member for Bradfield that the only subject matter the House is discussing at the moment is the question of a reduction in what constitutes a quorum of the House. Perhaps the honourable member thinks that the matters to which he is referring are pertinent, but they are not strictly related to an actual reduction in what constitutes a quorum of the House.

Mr TURNER:

– I was attempting in my own poor way to indicate why I thought there was a lack of interest in the proceedings of the House. I began by saying that for some time before this proposal was introduced there has been a decline in the interest of honourable members in the proceedings of the chamber. This might have something to do with the motion which is now before the House. I was seeking to analyse the reasons for this decline. For example, from time to time I receive on my desk from the Government Whip a list indicating the hours when I should be sitting in the chamber looking as though I am interested. I always put it in the wastepaper basket because I believe it is impertinent for the Government Whip or anybody else to tell me what time I should spend in the House. These messages that I receive indicate a lack of interest in the proceedings, although the people in the gallery of the House may think that honourable members are interested even when they are not. An intelligent member of Parliament would not be in the House listening to repetitive speeches or wrangles which are of no significance whatsoever. 1 look to the real reasons behind the decline in interest in the proceedings. If we were to have a reduced quorum the decline in interest would become even more apparent than it is now. I would rather cure the real evils, the real reasons, why people do not attend in their places in the Parliament than reduce or alter in any way what constitutes a quorum. The way to get people into this House is to have some reality in its proceedings, for the House to matter. But if we continue to conduct our affairs in the way that we do the House will not matter and we will always have to ring the bells and enforce a quorum in order to get the minimum number of honourable members to come in here to pretend that they are interested. I suggest that another approach might be so to order our affairs that there was a genuine interest in the proceedings. There would then be no need to reduce the quorum because the question of a quorum would be irrelevant. I believe that this is germane to the matter before the House, but, Sir, as you have ruled that it is not I resume my seat.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not happy with the recommendation as it now stands. I do not object to the proposal to reduce the number of members forming a quorum during the sitting if attention is drawn to the fact that a quorum is not present. I agree with that because living in this electronic age, we now have ways and means of listening to the debate in our rooms while it is in progress. It is now possible to listen to a debate - not in a very intense way but in a casual kind of way - while one is working. Of course, one would listen intensely when a speaker comes on who is making a point which appears to be of great validity. I do the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) the honour of mentioning that he is among those whose speeches always arrest my attention while I am working in my room and cause me to put down my work momentarily to hear what he has to say. Even the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is at the table, is a person to whom I always listen except when he talks about Communism although that is humorous enough sometimes to listen to. But I do my listening in my room while I am doing other work, such as reading, preparing speeches and the other things which one can only do properly in one’s room away from the special atmosphere which exists in this place.

However, I do agree with the honourable member for Bradfield in his general criticism of the reduction in the size of a quorum insofar as the reduction relates to the number of honourable members required for the election of an Acting Speaker, for the meeting of the House and for a division. I am not concerned very much about the first 2 points because I could not possibly imagine, although it would be a terrible thing if it did happen, a Speaker being elected in circumstances in which there was not at least a quorum present. So 1 pass over that as being of no material significance because, although in theory it could happen, in practice it would never happen as this always occurs at the commencement of a new parliament. One perhaps can dismiss that defect in the proposal. lt would be almost inconceivable that the Parliament would meet for the first time with less than a quorum. 1 could not possibly imagine Parliament meeting without all members or at least the present quorum being present.

At the end of the last sessional period divisions were being taken in circumstances in . which had members on my side refrained from voting the House would have been left without a quorum, so short and so narrow were the numbers. I think that no law should be put on the statute book unless at least the present number required for a quorum are present and vote. To allow laws, which are binding on the citizens of this country, to be passed when less than the present quorum was present would be quite extraordinary and something to which we ought not readily agree. 1 must agree in passing - I cannot do more than make a passing reference to it because the honourable member for Bradfield was a bit wide of the Standing Orders when he referred to this matter - that it would be far better for us to cure the cause of the lack of interest in parliamentary proceedings by members. I say no more than that I agree with the reason why there is a lack of interest here. The reason why we cannot get members to sit and listen to other parliamentarians speaking is that Parliament has become a mere rubber stamp of the Executive. After one has been here as long as the honourable member for Bradfield and I have been here, one soon feels that it is just a waste of time and that one is only beating the air when one rises to speak. It would be far better and more effective if one were to look to the advisers of the Government over in the advisers desks and find out their names. One could arrange for them to come over and have dinner at one’s place or, even better, for one to have dinner at their place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! 1 think the honourable member is passing too slowly.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, 1 know, but I want to finish the sentence. We should put our views to the advisers of the Government. In that way we would probably be far better with our case. 1 will have to vote against the proposal as it now stands. I may, if 1 am able in the time at my disposal, devise and propose an amendment to permit the recommendation being adopted in its present form insofar as it relates to the number required while the House is sitting.

I agree with that part of the report which stales that far too often quorums have been called for their nuisance value only. It is the old story of abuse of power leading to loss of power. 1 see very good grounds for calling quorums sometimes. I very often think that it is a pity that persons such as myself and others who spend a great deal of time preparing speeches should have to talk to an empty House, lt is proper for us to call a quorum so that at least a reasonable number of people can have the benefit of our research and of our endeavours to present something worthwhile to Parliament. To dispense with the present quorum in respect of the other 3 occasions would be, T, think, a retrograde step and one that T could not support.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 322

AUSTRALIA AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Recently 1 have visited a number of countries, including most of our major trading partners, for investigations and discussions on Australia’s future trade prospects. My prime purpose was to assess the possible consequences for Australian trade in agricultural exports if Britain succeeds in her application to join the European Common Market. I wanted to make sure that the problems likely to face Australia as a result of enlargement of the Common Market were fully comprehended, and to form views on the best course of action for Australia in its own interests. In addition, there were a number of bilateral issues of some importance to Australia’s trade which also required attention.

On no occasion has the Australian Government argued that Britain should not join the Common Market because of the problems for Australian industries which might be created. The real crux of this matter is the operation of the Common Market tariffs and other regulations in relation to the importation of agricultural products which Australia exports, and upon which some of our most important industries are based. My greatest concern is with the operation of the variable levy system in its application to agricultural products which Australia normally exports in bulk to Britain. The variable levy system does not apply to wool, which is regarded as an industrial raw material and is admitted free. Among the items which would be affected by variable levies are wheat and other agricultural grains, dairy products, sugar, frozen beef and eggs. They are items which the Common Market countries in Europe can themselves produce. Under the Common Agricultural Policy, the Community decides what shall be the price for locally produced foodstuffs such as butter, or sugar, or wheat of a certain grade. Then the Common Agricultural Policy operates automatically to impose customs import duties, called variable levies, at whatever level is necessary from day to day to ensure that an import would not be competitive with the local product sold at the determined price. Wherever the Community itself, under the incentive of high support prices, produces sufficient for its own requirements, importation of these items is not possible. This is the end purpose for which the system was devised.

As Australia has never had an important trade with the present Six countries of the Community, this system has not hurt us significantly up to the present. The United States, which did have a significant trade in some of these items with the Six, has been hurt very significantly. The whole purpose of my observations is to deal with the situation if Britain, our biggest and historic market for foodstuffs, were to be admitted to the Common Market with the same

Common Agricultural Policy preserved, with the obvious consequence that our sales to Britain of many of our most important and historic items of trade would be brought to a complete end.

There are other objectionable aspects of the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is generally spoken of as CAP, to which I will refer. Some processed primary products where Britain has constituted a principal market and which are threatened by having applied to them the existing tariffs of the Common Market are also of great importance to Australia; indeed, some manufactures are also important. For example, fresh, canned and dried fruits and jam, and aluminium, at present enter the United Kingdom duty free. But if Britain were to join the Common Market on terms which meant that the present common external tariff of the Common Market applied to Britain, these duties would be raised to such a level as would put Australian exports at a very serious disadvantage compared with exports to Britain from elsewhere in the Common Market and from other areas which would receive preferred treatment. To inform the House and the country of what I think might be done by Australia to safeguard our trade as much as possible, in the event of British entry to the European Economic Community, is the purpose of this statement.

The history of the operation of the CAP makes it incontrovertibly clear that if the variable levy mechanisms of the Common Market are applied to ensure that the existing EEC domestic prices apply also to agricultural imports into Britain, Ireland. Denmark and Norway - the present applicant countries for membership - the results will be fatal for exporters of many of our agricultural products. I found no-one in London or Brussels, the headquarters of the EEC, who seriously denied this or attempted to argue to the contrary.

In the decade since Britain first applied to join the EEC, this Government, marketing boards and producers have actively pursued a policy of diversifying markets for the agricultural commodities threatened. Despite these endeavours, Britain still takes almost 70% of our butter exports, 60% of our canned fruit and about a third of our fresh fruit, dried fruit and sugar exports. The cold hard fact is that there are just no alternative markets for some of our products. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy upon the prices of exports we can expect in markets outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, should Britain enter the EEC on anything like the existing terms and conditions for agriculture. Australia will face the possibility of serious economic and social difficulties in significant areas because producers will be unable to dispose of their goods. In other words, although we have had considerable success in diversifying our export trade and although, as a consequence, our dependence on the United Kingdom market in balance of payments- terms has declined, the loss of the British market for certain major primary commodities would threaten the very existence of major sectors of Australia’s primary industry and major sources of foreign exchange earning.

When the European Common Market was formed it had the support of all the free world as a major step in the unification of Europe. We were told - and we hoped, although with some misgivings - that the Common Market would not prove to be self-centred but would take its place in world trade in a manner designed to be beneficial to the development of freer world trading. In the event, it can now be seen that, in the first of EEC agricultural production, where Australia and other important agricultural exporters are particularly interested, the adoption by the Common Market countries of the present Common Agricultural Policy has led to radical increases in the barriers to agricultural trade and the creation of a virtually impenetrable barrier around the Six countries of Europe for many products.

The agricultural policies of the European Common Market are so designed as not to allow imports of any commodity which can be produced within the Six unless there is a deficit between production and demand. Effectively, the variable import levy system has meant that, no matter how efficient the external producer and no matter at what price commodities might be offered to the Common Market by more efficient producers, a levy is placed on those goods large enough to ensure that imports do not compete with them below the floor price. Under the application of these policies, which operate automatically, production has increased rapidly in volume in the Market. The floor prices to Community producers bear no relationship to the cost of production by more competitive producers elsewhere in the world. For instance, the floor price for wheat is approximately 70% above the world price. Similarly, the floor price of frozen beef is over 60% higher than the world price and in the case of butter over 250% higher. Moreover, these guaranteed floor prices are not limited to production sufficient to supply domestic requirements.

These very high guaranteed floor prices have so stimulated production within the Common Market and have so depressed consumer demand that surpluses have been built up in butter, in wheat and in sugar, as examples.

At this point the so-called Common Agricultural Policy of the Six operates a system of export subsidies designed to enable the surpluses to be dumped in other markets at whatever price it is necessary to quote in order to achieve a sale. The level of export subsidy necessary to sell the surplus can be extraordinarily high - well over 100% in some cases. This subsidy is paid for collectively by the Community in a manner that does not reduce in any way the return to the farmer. Because it is paid from a common purse, there are few pressures for any reduction in the level of support within the Market. I do not wish to say that the conduct of the Common Market countries in export sales of agricultural products is completely reckless. I do not know exactly how to describe it.

Where sufficient export sales of surplus production can be made in normal competition with other exporters without distortion of world prices, I believe this is done and, of course, can be justified. But there is no general willingness of the Community countries to confine themselves to normal competition. For example, 1 am told that Community butter is being offered, delivered in Hong Kong, at as low as 20 Australian cents per lb - a price which would represent about 17 Australian cents at the point of export in Europe. This would be butter which had been paid for under the Common Agricultural Policy at. I am told, the equivalent of about 70 Australian cents. This is what is called ‘predatory dumping’ at its unbridled worst - predatory because it forces the traditional supplier out of his historic market.

The operation of this policy in agriculture means that traditional suppliers, excluded from the Common Market by the levy system, have to face the increased competition amongst themselves when trying to sell in the residual markets outside Europe. Even more importantly, they then face aggressive dumping, subsidised by the financial strength of the Common Market, which could drive the prices down and ultimately force them out of the residual markets, or to sell at disaster prices. This process of disruption is already in evidence and is gathering momentum. Furthermore, the Community has not shown any great willingness to contribute to stability of international trade in agriculture by participation in international commodity arrangements.

The Community sat in throughout the negotiations of the world Sugar Agreement but the EEC, alone of all participants - if my memory serves me correctly, about 70 - declined at the final point to commit itself to the concept of any limitation or quota as to the quantity that it would sell on world markets - and this notwithstanding that the quantity which each country committed itself not to exceed in world markets was the whole central point of achieving price stability in sugar. Similarly, when, a year ago, the International Grains Arrangement was close to failure in providing stability of competition in wheat in world markets, the Community was the only exporter member which sent a representative to a conference without any authority to enter into commitments.

This has been the experience with the agricultural policy of the Common Market. Many countries have found their trade with the EEC seriously affected. Australia’s trade has been traditionally with Britain, not with the Six of the present European Community. But, as long as Britain, the largest world market for many agricultural products, has provided a reasonably open market, the damage to world trade in agricultural products, due to Common Market policies, has been tolerable to us. If Great Britain, the largest free market for food in the world today, is successful in its application to join the Common Market, with the present Common Agricultural Policy, the position could become disastrous for many agricultural products. Australia’s trade would be seriously hurt, as would that of every other exporter of the kind of agricultural foodstuff products which we export. The countries of the enlarged Common Market would then account for over 40 % of international trade - surrounded by the present Common Market’s virtually unscaleable wall for many agricultural products, and capable, with .a seemingly unlimited purse, of driving others out of the residual markets with predatory export subsidies.

However, the Common Market does not stop with 6 countries, or even with 10 countries, including the 4 which at the moment are applicants. Already what are called ‘association agreements’ have been concluded with former French colonies in Africa, and other countries are likewise negotiating arrangements involving preferential import treatment with this trading giant - Spain, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Austria, even Yugoslavia. Ultimately the whole of Europe and vast areas of Africa threaten to come within the restrictive sphere of this massive new trading bloc. Indeed, I was told overseas that if the present total applications for association and special arrangements were to succeed there would be some 70 nations involved within the Community trading orbit. This is done by means of special arrangements for association and preferential arrangements - new preferences established contrary to the principles of absolutely equal trading opportunity set forth in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the jargon, this is spoken of as multilateralism.

There are 3 elements which we must oppose: Firstly, a variable levy system amounting to virtual embargoes on some agricultural products which are produced in the European Common Market; secondly, predatory subsidised dumping in residual markets; and thirdly, establishment of new preferences by bringing additional countries within the Market as associates. All these, in my view, are contrary to the principles of GATT and the international principles of fair trading.

There is the even more basic contravention of the essence of GATT, in my view - the disposition of the Common

Market ro erect around the borders of the enlarged Common Market the same virtually unscaleable walls of protection for certain agricultural products as already exist in the Common Market itself. This seems completely incompatible with the principle enunciated in GATT that common markets should not be formed at the expense of increasing the barriers to trade against third countries. That is the essential point in my succeeding statements. These developments have not gone unnoticed elsewhere in the world. Australia is not alone in facing the threat of serious damage to its agricultural trade if the Common Market is enlarged without modification of the present levels of protection. So far, Australia, because she has never been a major traditional supplier to the EEC, has not felt the same brunt of Common Market agricultural policies as have some other countries. The United States, for instance, has already suffered in 3 years a drop of 20% in her exports to the EEC of certain agricultural commodities subject to variable levies. This trend seems certain to continue and the scope of damage to enlarge. For this reason, the EEC restrictions in agricultural products have contributed to a new counter-protectionist attitude within the United States Congress, which now has before it a new measure, the Mills Bill, which could incorporate quite significant further restrictions on world trade. This reflects also a confrontation which has developed bilaterally between the United States and Japan on the question of imports of textiles.

Clearly the EEC’s denial of trade opportunities by its CAP is seen by other countries as discriminatory and inconsistent with the principles and objectives of GATT. Judging the situation as I have seen it from the vantage point of my recent visit, unless effective action is taken soon, this could lead to confrontations, acts of retaliation and threats of further restrictions. Looking ahead, this could mean that we face the prospect of a retreat into trade blocs, with snowballing restrictions on trade, with clear economic loss to every country in the long run, with the little nations no longer able to look to the rule of law to obtain their trade rights. In this type of trade confrontation countries like Australia cannot fail to be adversely affected. Following the kind of develop ment which I now see in the course of taking shape, Australia would be outside any of the major trading blocs.

The Comecon countries, that is the term for the economic linkage of the Communist countries, represent one giant trading bloc within the world which, in respect of agricultural products, does not import $1 worth that it does not actually require unless it is for a purely political motive. The EEC as it now stands, and more so with its proposed enlargement, constitutes an even more formidable bloc so far as our agricultural exports are concerned. If the Ten countries join it would represent a trading community of 250 million people. So 1 say to the House: This is the moment of time, not a moment later, when wc and others should visualise what the European Economic Community could grow into as a trading bloc: the 6 present countries; the 4 present applicants to join as members: Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway; the associated territories, the former French colonies; the special arrangements with Spain, Greece, Turkey, Israel: the possible addition of Austria; the special arrangements, for example, in meat wilh Yugoslavia. Here is a giant economic bloc whose total trade between nations inside, and with the outside world, would perhaps represent 50% of the total world trade. The central core of this, the EEC, has a policy in respect of the agricultural products we export not to permit the import of $1 worth of an item which could compete with domestic production at prices below the very high floor prices established by the CAP; in effect, to permit no competition at all in the real sense.

But apart from the enlarged EEC and the Comecon countries there are other restrictive trade areas in existence or in the making. There are special trading arrangements at present between the United States and Canada. And, in respect of an item, sugar, in which Australia is the second biggest exporter in the world, the United Stales has special arrangements with the Latin American countries. Here is a third bloc, less complete but with many of the elements of favouring trade with those within the area as against the rest of the world.

Our future - more than that of the large, developed countries - depends on external trading arid particularly trade in agriculture. This is the most difficult area. Australia’s interest and, we believe, the world’s interest is to try to ensure that trading blocs, where they exist, and countries outside such blocs, return to principles and rules laid down in the GATT. Only by the rule of law can small countries hope to receive a fair deal in world trade. Only by the observance of the rule of law can the big prevent or avoid serious disruption and loss to themselves as well as to others, of all the gains made since World War II in the field of international trade.

Clearly one of the key elements in any move to a return to order in world trade must be the EEC itself. Already a giant in world trade terms, it now threatens to become a super-giant. Yet although it is the largest single world trader, it lacks cohesiveness in its attitude to, and ability to formulate, external trade policies. There is no single definable source of power within the Community to whom third parties can appeal. The very structure of the Community - composed as it is of 6 - and perhaps 10 - different governments - means that it develops a policy only out of compromise. Experience is that once developed its policies are not susceptible to any change. Furthermore, because of its structure, and I suspect because of its recent formation, there is as yet no sign of a realisation in the member States of the EEC that being an economic giant in the world brings with it responsibilities just as much as it brings advantages - responsibility to support and strengthen GATT as the only international institution governing world trade; responsibility to ensure that there are livable opportunities for the smaller countries of the world; responsibilities which should derive from an understanding that even the big will suffer from trade confrontations.

Equally clearly, the United States is another key element in the liberalisation of world trade. Therefore in the United States I put it to the leaders of the Administration and to leaders of Congress that it was for them to consider whether their responsibilities of world leadership should not require them to take the initiative in seeking to have restored to world trade a real sense of order - a return to the principles which the USA itself first sponsored and which were so carefully built up in GATT and elsewhere. In putting this, I pledged Australian participation in a move towards having the major international trade problems facing the world today examined as a matter of urgency in the GATT. I said that while this would of course be in Australia’s interests, it would more importantly be in the interest of the world in relieving the tensions which must inevitably develop if there is violent conflict in the field or trade.

There are grave dangers in bilateral confrontations to settle major issues. In the first place, this attitude inevitably invites erosion of the GATT. If the machinery of GATT is not to be the instrument used for settling the issues it was devised to deal with, inevitably GATT as an international authority must become outmoded, ineffective. If important differences are to be settled by major bilateral confrontations and not by GATT, then the little infractions of trade rules will go by default, and there will be a growing disregard for the GATT. If great trade differences are to be dealt with by major bilateral confrontations, this is the course which will regenerate the heat and international tensions that we saw in the 1930s, which the world sought to avoid by providing GATT as the rule of law alternative to the rule of economic force. If we and others seek to have the major problems caused by enlargement of the EEC considered in GATT, we must similarly be prepared to submit our own problems to international scrutiny.

I do not suggest that we should seek internationally to dictate to any country whether or not it can take action to meet its own domestic problems. GATT itself does not do this. But we should seek to ensure that the contractual rights of other countries to fair treatment are recognised and the principles of trade liberalism survive. I use the word ‘contractual’ deliberately. The member nations of GATT are known as and spoken of in the GATT as contracting parties, because they contract as members of GATT to forgo certain freedoms in trade. These are balanced by certain contractual rights that are required by their membership. ‘ This I regard as the most important issue in international trade today. I spoke of this in Ottawa, Washington, London and Brussels, the headquarters of the EEC.

Of course it was a major part of the mission to London and Brussels to explain as clearly as I could the implications for Australia, in particular, should the Common Market be enlarged on terms which applied to our trade with Britain the same restrictions as at present apply in respect of the Common Market. It is imperative that potential damage to Australian interests should be explained before, rather than after the terms and conditions of any enlargement are finally determined by the parties now negotiating.

In London, I saw to it that the Prime Minister and other Ministers directly concerned were fully aware of the real problems which could be caused to a number of important Australian industries - the dairy, wheat, sugar, meat, and fruit industries and a number of others. I did not find in Britain any evidence that the British Government was prepared to stipulate conditions of her entry which would give a protection to the interests of her Commonwealth trading partners, except perhaps in relation to sugar and to the very special problem of New Zealand. I said that while 1 was not in London as a supplicant, Australia strongly expected that Britain would ensure that our interests were not overlooked. This was because of our historic association with Britain in all fields, but particularly in trade. I reminded the British that up until 3 years ago Britain was Australia’s largest single supplier and also our biggest customer.

As I have already said, 1 made it clear that the Australian Government is not opposing the enlargement of the Common Market to include Britain and the other applicant countries. But, equally, I made it clear that if the terms and conditions of such entry offend the basic objectives and principles expressed in GATT, Australia would have no alternative but to join with others similarly affected, to require terms and conditions consistent with GATT.

Australia did not enter GATT nor remain a member without a clear understanding that those countries which contract to membership surrender some of their freedom in trade matters in the general interest. The GATT embraces rules to protect the interests of all members against damaging action by other members. We have observed our obligations loyally. We will insist on our protective rights. This I have made clear in each country where I have had discussions about the policies and practices of the Community.

I went to Brussels to make clear to the President and members of the European Economic Commission the Australian trade interest as at present affected by predatory dumping of Community surpluses in our markets, and by the progressive extension of what are, in effect, new preferences to those countries which have been given, or may be given, an association with the Community. Most particularly I spelt out in clear terms the consequences for Australia’s historic trade with Britain if the present Common Agricultural Policy were applied in its present terms in the Community enlarged by Britain’s entry. ] was not encouraged by the reaction there to believe that, in respect of agriculture, third countries can expect from the Commission any initiative for a major departure from the current Common Agricultural Policy.

The Commission as such has no power or interest in altering the Common Agricultural Policy. It merely carries out its responsibilities to the letter of the existing Common Agricultural Policy regulations as devised and adopted by the Council of Ministers of the six nations compromising the Community. If there is to be any change in these regulations, to accord with the spirit and intentions of GATT, the changes will have to be initiated in, and supported by, the individual members in the capitals of the six countries. Accordingly, as a first step, I left with the Commission an aide-memoire, setting out in forthright terms the Australian position and our belief that third countries have the right to expect protection of their trading opportunities in accordance with GAIT. But in addition I also had representations made in the same strong terms to all the governments of the Six. I fully acquainted the Government of Britain with what I had done.

In all the representations 1 made in Europe and elsewhere, I made special mention of the serious implications which the proposed enlargement of the EEC could have for the developing Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Britain at present is the market for 30% of the exports of the Territory. These products would lose the preferential entry into the UK which most now enjoy and face restrictions on entry into the EEC, while comparable products of the African countries associated with the EEC would be given a preference. I therefore asked that the products of Papua and New Guinea should not be placed at a disadvantage compared with the products of other developing countries. I am bound to say 1 was not encouraged by the reaction I received.

In Brussels 1 was the guest of the Belgian Government and, apart from discussion of our bilateral trade, 1 took the opportunity personally to put squarely before the Belgian Government the serious effects of the Common Agricultural Policy of the Common Market, particularly if enlarged, on Australia’s trading prospects. It was as a result of the worrying impressions I gained in London and in Europe that I decided that before returning to Australia I should visit the Governments of Canada and the United States of America. These two nations are similarly interested in the problems raised by the EEC agricultural policies and its prospective enlargement. I stated to their leaders my assessment of the seriousness of the problems, the likely consequences to world trade, and my thinking on an initiative by third countries to ensure that some balance should be brought back into GATT. While GATT has been successful in freeing trade in industrial goods, it has been largely ineffective in the field of agricultural trade. Unless there are some modifications of the restrictions on agricultural products, some countries affected may feel they must no longer be bound by GATT obligations preventing increases in industrial tariffs. I was received at the highest level in both Canada and the United States. I am sure that the Governments of those two countries are seriously concerned at the situation confronting all of the agricultural exporters which could be affected. I am sure that my visit and the discussions it provided were quite valuable in focussing thought on their future courses of action.

There are a number of other countries which could similarly be concerned about the whole future of world trade. The establishment of new preferences with various developing countries must be of concern to a country like India, which is outside the EEC’s new preferential areas. The threatened exclusion of agricultural products must be tremendously damaging to Argentina and other developing countries which are relying heavily on agricultural trade. I am most strongly of the view that persuasive arguments pointing out the damage to Australia and other agricultural exporters are absolutely ineffective if directed, as I did direct them, to the members of the European Economic Commission. The policies and practices of the Common Agricultural Policy are too well entrenched within the Six to be susceptible to alteration by persuasion from outside. For this reason I could not hold any hope of achieving effective alterations in these policies even by addressing persuasive arguments one by one to the six governments responsible for the development of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Therefore, any stand Australia takes must be on the ground of impairment or threatened impairment of our rights under GATT. 1 believe our rights have already been impaired by the policies of the EEC in respect of both predatory dumping and the proliferation of special preferential deals with many other countries not really part of the Common Market or members of its customs union. Furthermore, our rights are threatened with even more serious impairment from the likely terms and conditions of the proposed enlargement of the Common Market. It is this that has brought me to the conclusions which I most strongly hold: Only by a confrontation in GATT where we and other third countries similarly affected have clear rights could there be any chance of getting such modifications of the Common Agricultural Policy and other practices as would preserve fair trading opportunities. In accordance with GATT, the barriers to trade which determine trade opportunities must be comparable with those which we faced when the Community was created, and before the Common Agricultural Policy was devised. We must make it clear that those of us who have submitted ourselves to obligations within GATT are determined not to have our trade rights eroded away. This attitude is most validly based both upon the spirit and upon the actual Articles of GATT. 1 have reached the conclusion that recourse to GATT provides the only prospect of avoiding serious damage to the trade of Australia and many other countries, should the EEC be enlarged to include Britain and other applicant countries. Recourse to GATT of course may not be successful. But GATT was designed to be the international instrument to achieve fair trading opportunities. Whatever the outcome, I believe we and others must try and put GATT to the use to which it was intended, even if this stretches GATT to breaking point. Therefore, Australia’s course of action in regard to the proposed enlargement of the Common Market must be to do all it can to obtain the co-operation of countries outside the enlarged Common Market, as well as individual members of the Common Market, to ensure these points:

Adherence to the principle, laid down in the GATT, that neither the formation nor the enlargement of a customs union should increase barriers to the trade of third countries.
Recognition of the need so to modify the restrictive elements of the Common Agricultural Policy that agricultural trade is not obstructed and exporters of agricultural products denied the benefits of trade liberalism which have been obtained by exporters of industrial products.
Support the negotiation of practical commodity arrangements, perhaps of the kind put forward for beef during the Kennedy Round, to ensure reasonable access to the markets of the EEC for products subject to the vagaries and restrictions of variable levies.
Support for international commodity arrangements where these can assist orderly marketing of bulk agricultural commodities.
Agreement on action to ensure that the interests of third countries will be protected against predatory dumping of surpluses arising from within the enlarged Community.
Action to ensure that exports from the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are not placed at a disadvantage relative to imports into the expanded Community from other developing countries receiving preferential treatment
Action to ensure that the EEC, having formed a Common Market, does not expand its sphere of trade influence by various means, such as the creation of new preference areas or entering into various discriminatory associational arrangements based on either political or economic grounds.
The need for a special very high level ministerial session of GATT to be held to consider these matters before the negotiations for the enlargement of the Common Market have reached a definitive stage.

These are the conclusions I have reached from my visits and my discussions in the various countries that I have mentioned. I present the following paper:

Consequences for Australian Trade of British Entry to the European Economic Community - Ministerial Statement, 20th August 1970.

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The House has listened with attention to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) giving a resume of his approach to the problem while he was overseas and the consequences of Britain joining the European Common Market. When he returned to Australia he made a Press statement which was virtually a precis of what he has said tonight. There can be little doubt that he depicts the European Economic Community as a villian and believes that if Britain joins the Common Market she will also become a villain. I do not think anybody will deny that he paints a picture of despair, certainly of gloom, for those primary products whose future, or much of it, depends on the consequences of Britain joining the Common Market.

I feel that the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement is one which has been designed for political rhetoric, for local consumption, and in fact that virtually was the comment made by one of the British newspapers. One can visualise tonight listeners who have their radio sets turned on listening to the Deputy Prime Minister feeling a large measure of despair, particularly people in Tasmania - the apple and pear producers, the dairy people and the butter producers - but saying: ‘Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is going to take action to save us. He is going to take the problem to

GATT,’ One of the principal safeguards in the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is that it was designed to stop the trade of countries being seriously damaged by the action of other countries and by the formulation of a common market such as the European Common Market. 1 think that the Deputy Prime Minister summed up the position by saying towards the end of his statement:

I have reached the conclusion that recourse to GATT provides the only prospect of avoiding serious damage to the trade of Australia and many other countries, should the EEC be enlarged to include Britain and other applicant countries.

This is all very well but the principal purpose of the statement by the Minister for Trade and Industry was to enlighten us as to what has happened overseas and the results of his approaches to important governments. Then he comes up with the conclusion that things look very bad and that all we can do, in his opinion, is to go to GATT. I have no disagreement with that approach, nor I am certain has anybody in this House, but there are some questions that must be asked. For almost a decade we have known or we have been warned of the possibility of Britain and other countries joining this super economic power which, if Britain joins it, will become a super, super economic power. As far as world trade goes it will be a power greater than the United States of America or Russia. In fact, it now has over 25% of the total world trade.

Mr McEwen:

– It will be 40% .

Dr PATTERSON:

– lt will be 40% if Britain joins. I come now to the deficiency in the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement. He named certain commodities in Australia’s agricultural industries which will be affected, some seriously. But what Australia wants to know and has been wanting to know for a number of years is what will happen in Australian agriculture if Britain does join the Common Market, as also do Denmark, Ireland and other applicant countries. What is the Government going to do? All of Australia’s hopes are pinned on one thing and one thing only according to the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As he quite rightly pointed out, GATT is the supreme or ruling body in the determination of policy regarding world trade. But does he seriously believe that he will succeed? After all. the Common Market countries have been hurting world trade, including that of Australia, for a number of years already by dumping products on the world market. They have even been damaging the mighty America. I think the figure that was used was a burden of something like 20% .

What chance has Australia against the Common Market? As 1 said before, and as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, wo must go to GATT and at least try. All I can say on behalf of the Opposition is tha’ 1 wish him luck, but 1 say also that I dc not think that we have very much chance of succeeding. I believe that the die is cast. The pattern is there and the Deputy Prime Minister is wasting his time talking to the European Common Market. 1 do not think Britain will have very rauch say in regard to the Australian position. Certainly it will in regard to New Zealand butter and Caribbean sugar, but Australia is wasting time in talking to the European Common Market. Perhaps if some pressure can be put on the United States of America and some other countries to show what this super giant is doing to the trade of Australia and other countries we may have a chance but I feel, and I regret the pessimistic view, that Australia has very little chance.

Then we come to the important issue. What happens if GATT fails? 1 will deal in detail later with some of the industries and some of the areas which could be damaged. We want to try to prevent such damage if possible. I am not certain whether the Deputy Prime Minister really believes he can win. He did not really say that. Hr said that we may win or we may not.

Mr McEwen:

– If America gives us a lead we can win.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes, if we can put pressure on America. But can we? After all, America has been hurt, and seriously hurt, over the years as well. The reaction of the British Government to the Press statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister was, to say the least, rather coot. It is there for honourable members to read. The spokesmen for the British Government regarded it rather as a prophesy of doom, one might say, and a mild criticism of Britain itself. As far as Australia is concerned it does not matter who we criticise as Jong as we get some positive action. It seems to me that in the field of trade there is no place for gentlemen because when one looks at the policies and the attitudes of the European Common Market one can see the cut throat competition that occurs.

The Deputy Prime Minister did not say how imports into Australia will be affected. Briefly, on balance, it would seem that we could actually gain in this respect despite the fact that we might have to pay more for British products because I should think that the Australian Government would alter the tariff preferences for Britain. We can also expect a greater interest from the’ Common Market countries when the British preferences go. So on balance, as far as imports into Australia are concerned we can expect little change.

Let us consider on the export side the products which will be affected. I propose to mention butter, but first I shall deal with the products in total. Approximately 8300m is involved in agriculture, minerals and manufactured goods. The value of the vulnerable agricultural products would be about $200m. We must face the fact that we will get no sympathy at all from Britain and no preferential treatment because the image of Australia in Britain is of a country with a booming economy, a country fabulously rich in minerals. It is quite different from the image of the Carribbean or New Zealand which have decided balance of payments problems. Britain could argue: What is $200m - to take the worst figure, although it might be less than that - out of a total export income of $4,000m? Is Britain concerned that almost the whole of Tasmania will be affected if the apple and pear industry collapses? Is Britain concerned that major areas of Australia which rely on dairy production will most certainly be phased out of dairy production? I do not think so. I think that Britain, like the European Common Market, will take the view that Australia can afford her entry and she will look to the Common Market countries for the supply of products that she now obtains from Australia. In my view the greatest threat of the European Economic Community to Australia, and to world trade for that matter, is the crazy agricultural policies which are being followed by the Common Market countries. These policies are devoid of any economic logic. Australia is one of the countries which are vitally dependent on agricultural export earnings and we will be one of the countries which suffer greatly because of this crazy method of agricultural marketing. About 20 million farmers in the Common Market area today are living on a highly protected industry. We could supply member countries in that area with food at half the price they pay. It is a pity in a world of strikes that the housewives of the Common Market countries and Britain cannot rise up and express their opinion of the crazy method of agricultural marketing and consumer buying in the Common Market.

Let us consider the Australian agricultural exports which would be affected by Britain’s entry to the Common Market. The effect on our butter exports would be something like $3 Om, on soft wheats S40m, on sugar $40m, on canned fruits $2Sm, fresh fruits $12m, dried fruits $7m and coarse grains $10m. Those items with miscellaneous exports make up a figure of about $200m for agriculture. Exports of lead and zinc to the value of $50m are involved, but it seems likely that Britain will insist that she still wants Australian minerals because of her investment in mining in Australia. Therefore we can classify minerals as one area of production where perhaps there is little risk. The greatest risk, of course, is to the agricultural industries. Who will supply the deficiency in the butter market if Britain joins the Common Market? There will be a deficiency of 400,000 tons in Britain to be met, but there is an almost permanent surplus of 200,000 tons in the EEC. There will be an incentive immediately for the European Common Market to be self sufficient in this production, and with Denmark and Ireland going into the Common Market - they have applied to do so - the needs for butter will be supplied with some consideration from New Zealand. Of course, over a period it could easily happen that New Zealand will find herself getting the boot also, because as the Common Market expands its butter production the reliance on New Zealand will lessen. The view must be taken that Australia has no chance whatever of breaking into the butter market and the Government must tell the people of Australia what it intends to do about the situation.

I refer next to wheat. I suggest that we will lose the market for soft wheat to the value of about $43m quicker than we will lose the market for butter. Because of world trading conditions there seems to be little hope of us finding a market for soft wheat in the European Common Market. One industry which will be affected vitally is the Tasmanian apple and pear industry in respect of which the Government must act quickly. I believe that the apple and pear industry in Tasmania is more vulnerable than any other Australian export industry. That is not an exaggeration. It must be remembered that 96% of the average gross returns of apple and pear producers in Tasmania comes from export markets and most of the market is in Britain. If it were not for devaluation compensation the apple and pear industry in Tasmania today would be bankrupt. If I may give an example, the latest information shows that in the south of Tasmania 37% of apple and pear producers are earning a net farm income of less than $2,000, and in the north of tasmania 68% of producers are earning a net farm income of less than $2,000. These figures take into account devaluation compensation, so there is no need to emphasise how vulnerable the apple and pear industy will be if Britain joins the European Common Market.

The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned sugar. I am one who believes that the sugar industry will face the situation and beat it. for a number of reasons. The Government should from time to time look very closely at the sugar industry as a model to apply to other Australian export industries, lt is without doubt the best organised primary industry in Australia. Now that the International Sugar Agreement has been negotiated the Australian sugar industry has been cushioned to take the shocks which can occur. The industry could not lake the shock of losing immediately a market for more than 330,000 tons of sugar, but with consumption rising and production controlled 1 feel that with good and sound negotiation the sugar industry will weather’ this problem. Let us not live in false hope. There is no chance of Australian sugar getting preferential treatment in the European Common Market. The Caribbean would be given preferential treatment because there the balance of payments position is critically dependent on sugar. The same argument is put forward for New Zealand with regard to butter. But the Australian sugar industry is controlled. I do not care whether it is referred to as a Socialist control or what it is called, but it is a model of which Australian agriculture will have to take more heed. Each farm has a peak and each mill area has a peak. There is a domestic agreement, a Sugar Industry Act, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement - the one we are concerned with - and the influence of the International Sugar Agreement. Every ton of sugar ;s controlled, with a degree of flexibility, and if a grower produces above his quota as in a good season, he does so at his own risk. This is an organisation at which the wheat industry will have to look very closely because it seems that this could be a model for reconstruction which we in Australia will have to follow more closely.

I do not believe that we will get any sympathy from the rest of the world because of our problems. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister was right when he said that we could stir America into some action against the Common Market, which is a super giant even bigger than America in terms of world trade. The Government should be working on the premise that we will fail to persuade Britain to remain outside the Common Market and should immediately tell the farmers of Australia, particularly those engaged in the production of butter and apples and pears, what it intends to do to cushion the situation. It is no good waiting until the crisis comes.

Mr Adermann:

– What should it do?

Dr PATTERSON:

– If the right honourable member had been listening he would have heard what I said. As an example, the Tasmanian apple and peaT industry needs a price stabilisation scheme and a single marketing authority immediately. The industry has asked the Government for this, but why has there been no action? If a portion of this industry and the butter industry has to be phased out, for goodness sake tell the people of Tasmania and the butter producers of Australia that this is to hap* pen. It is high time that the Commonwealth took the big stick to the States in respect, of butter, production. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we are facing a crisis with butter and yet this nation is continuing to increase its butter production.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 334

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report

Debate resumed (vide page 322).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is that sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1.) relating to a reduction in the quorum, being part of the motion moved by the Leader of the House, be endorsed in principle.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I hope that the House will not endorse a reduction in the quorum. I believe that we have to ask ourselves what the quorum is about. We have to ask ourselves what its significance or symbolic value might be. Then we have to ask ourselves what we are doing here anyhow. The present quorum is one-third of the total members of the House, which makes the quorum 42 or 43. This is small enough in a House of 125 members. It may be that members opposite and members generally will say: ‘Yes, but you call a quorum in the middle of somebody’s speech and you are using this procedure as nuisance value’. It is true that on occasions members on this side have felt that this is a means of retaliation and the only protection we have. But that is not the issue tonight: It is the kind of symbolic value we give to the deliberations of this Parliament. If we reduce the quorum to one-fifth of the 125 members of this House the quorum will be 25 members. I believe that, if we adopted this proposal we would be casting a vote of no confidence in the value of our own deliberations.

How can we, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said earlier, justify having a system in which legislation could pass the House with only 25 members present, 13 voting for it and 12 against it? Members may say that this will not occur. The assumptions that these things will not occur have been made in so many democratic institutions which in the end have seen their demise because people have said: ‘It cannot happen here’. Frankly, I ask myself why there should be a quorum for the passage of legislation. Why should not everybody be present on that particular day or an absolute minimum number present, that number being somewhere near the maximum number of members of the Parliament?

Members are sent here to deliberate on the affairs of the nation. Every one of us is a full time member. It is true that there is probably a larger attendance in this Parliament than there is in most other parliaments. I am not persuaded at all by the instances of other parliaments. I do not care what quorums are provided in the Parliaments of India, Ceylon, New Zealand or Tasmania. This is something we have to determine for ourselves. We must evaluate our own work. 1 believe that a reduction in the quorum for the pure symbolic value of the act is a vote of no confidence in ourselves, in our deliberations, in the value of debate and in the importance of what we decide. We must not tolerate a reduction in the quorum. What is the mystical value of it, I wonder? In any other group we ask: What number of people are we prepared to tolerate as making a decision for us when we cannot turn up?’ If it is the local cricket club or a board of directors we say: There are 15 of us here. How many am I prepared to let make a decision representing the decision of all of us?’ Currently in most places people are inclined to say onethird of the members.

There are some things that require unanimity and there are some things that require an absolute majority, but we are deliberating on the kind of values we are to impose on the legislation passed by this Parliament. Frankly I do not see how we can justify a piece of legislation as being the law of Australia if it is passed by only 45 people being present, 25 for it and 20 against it, or some such figures. 1 do not believe that that is law. I do not believe that it is legal. I do not believe that it is ethical. We ought to impose much higher demands upon ourselves when it comes to contentious legislation.

Just prior to the last recess the voting on very controversial and important legislation was of such an order that I believe it had no right to pass into law. What we have done, of course, is to allow the party system to prevail over the common sense, ethics or legality of representative government. Therefore 1 hope that the House will not reduce the quorum. This proposal has come up because people have on occasions - and 1 am one who would plead guilty to this - called a quorum to bring members into the House when something is being discussed or when somebody is doing something to which one objects. That is a misfortune imposed upon us by the manner in which deliberations of the House are conducted.

Earlier the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) said that we cannot anticipate what is happening. That is true enough. I have paid fairly close attention to the deliberations of this Parliament, particularly with respect to anything that has to do with the Parliament itself. I sat here most of this afternoon and most of yesterday when this motion was being discussed. We are to have a free vote on this matter in which everybody is interested. Usually when the bells are rung members arrive and ask: ‘Which way do I vote’, if they do not know what the subject is. This afternoon one matter was passed by the Parliament and those who had shown a close interest in it happened to be absent from the chamber for 3 or 4 minutes. That is no way to conduct the affairs of the Parliament or of the nation. I suppose I should come in when the bells start to ring and sit here until the matter under discussion is decided. That is fair enough, but nobody does that. No member is able to, in fact. The point is that we have no machinery for letting members know exactly what is happening in the chamber if they are elsewhere in the House. The House of Commons introduced a system almost a century ago - a ticker system on the walls - which indicated who was speaking and on what subject. It indicated also which matters were to be considered. It is time that we considered such a system.

It is true that in this House fewer members sit here all day or every day during discussions than in most other places, but there are many reasons for this. We are isolated from our communities. We have inadequate services and we cannot leave it to somebody else to collect all our messages and make our telephone calls. The general structure of the House itself is not comfortable. No-one can say that these benches were designed for people to sit at and work, as I should like to do. Last year I watched the New Zealand Parliament in session. Nearly all members remained in the chamber all the time. They had adequate facilities for their papers and they could work comfortably. The seats could be arranged more comfortably. These are matters to which we should turn our attention.

I am not saying that it is our duty to sit here all day listening to what is going on, but it is reasonable to expect a fair proportion of the members to be in the chamber when something is being deliberated; firstly, as a courtesy to the people who send us here and, secondly, as a courtesy to the members who speak.

Presently the bells will be rung ami we will vote on this motion, but I propose to oppose this provision. I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee but after having given this matter further consideration I intend to oppose a reduction in the quorum. A number of members will come into the chamber not knowing what they are to vote on but on this occasion they have to make up their own minds, lt is no good in this instance looking to see which way the party leaders are voting. Members have to make up their own minds. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) is listening carefully and I know it is doing him good.

Mr Foster:

– Thank God something is, Gordon.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. Nobody is a totally lost cause. What is a quorum? The dictionary tells me that it is the minimum number of persons required to be present at a meeting of a legislative or deliberative body before business can be validly transacted. Is anybody prepared to stand up in the Australian Parliament and say that 25 members of this House - that is one-fifth of the 125 members - can pass valid legislation? I hope the House will reject the proposal, not for the retaliatory measures that it may produce on various occasions, but simply because I believe that if we reduce the quorum to that insignificant number we may as well have no quorum at all. A reduction in the quorum would be a vote of no confidence in the deliberations of this Parliament.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I support this motion for the reduction of the quorum for much the same reasons as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has decided to oppose it. I think that in discussing any one of these Standing Orders it is only right that we should set the background, the context, in which we are making our decisions. That context must be the role in which we see ourselves as parliamentarians and the functions, as we see them, of this House. I want to discuss this matter in such a way and to mention that I think there are three or four aims that we should be achieving. One of them is that our activities should be not only more meaningful in arriving at better decisions but more meaningful so that the people may understand what we are doing and why we are trying to improve the methods by which we operate.

I am one who believes that we have to bring our forms much more up to date than is suggested in the proposed amendment to the Standing Orders. Phrases such as ‘participatory democracy’ are being used in the community. These phrases are important and it behoves us all to think about them very clearly. In this context, of course, we have to think in terms of building up the committee system. The honourable member for Wills himself has already given notice of an amendment in this area. If we are thinking in terms of a committee system which will enable people outside this Parliament to participate in the decisions we are making we will have to reorder not only the times we sit and the days on which we sit - we took a decision on that last night - but also such matters as what constitutes a quorum in this House. I believe it is an archaic practice, when someone is deliberating in a committee room somewhere else, for a quorum to be called and for that more purposeful activity to be interrupted. I believe that if we reduce the numbers that are required for a quorum this practice will not continue.

Mr Cope:

– Members would still have to come into the chamber.

Mr HURFORD:

– In answer to that interjection I would point out that there would more likely be the number of members required to form a quorum in the House if the number required to form a quorum were reduced. This would eliminate the practice to which I have referred. The honourable member for Wills pointed out some of the things that are needed in this House, such as a knowledge of what is going on in the House, when there is so much work that each one of us must carry out outside the chamber. A case in point is sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1. of the motion, which was carried without any discussion before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. So much needed to be said about the times for which we sit and why we should have more mornings available for these extra activities I hope we will carry out. But at least I have been given an opportunity now to show that the forms of the House need to be brought up to date so that we can carry out functions which are more meaningful and so that we can be seen to be carrying out those functions.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– I, like my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), support the recommendation for a reduction in the number of members required to form a quorum. I find myself at variance with 3 gentlemen in this chamber for whom I have the greatest respect. I refer to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). 1 respect them for different reasons, of course.

Let me first of all deal with the point that was made by the honourable member for Adelaide. I think what we have decided in this Parliament - the word ‘dynamism’ was used last night in this debate - is that we have to play a more meaningful part in the discussions in this chamber. How best can we do this? The honourable member for Wills over-emphasised - I do not under-emphasise it - the importance of being here to vote on an issue. It seems to me as a new member of this Parliament that the more important function of a member is to be in possession of -the facts of particular legislation, to have digested that legislation intelligently, to have researched it and to have worked on it. This seems to me to be the most important thing. Do not let us fool ourselves. Many of us come into this chamber to vote when we do not have a clue in the world about what we are to vote on. This is very true.

If we are to spend more time in the pursuit of digesting the legislation, in doing research work and in doing the hundred and one other things that are necessary in conducting the affairs of this House, surely this can be better achieved by the committee system that we are proposing and are in favour of. We would be doing a much better job working in the committees away from the chamber than we would be by traipsing in and out of the chamber all the time when somebody decided it would be rather amusing to call for a quorum and have the bells rung. The point I am making is that if we are to get down to the brass tacks of legislation and to develop the expertise that we need in contemporary politics we have to devote ourselves to a greater amount of research. With all due respect I suggest that only a committee system will enable us to bring that expertise into this chamber.

I would like to turn to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Bradfield prior to dinner. He referred to the mystical and magical qualities of the quorum. It is a traditional number but nobody has ever proved effectively that a particular number is desirable. The number is one-third of the members of this House. What is so mystical and magical about one-third? Why not one-fifth, which is the proposition before us? The honourable member for Bradfield said that there were certain historical and legendary associations of the Parliament. With that I agree. I have no argument with the romantic, legendary or historical side of this Parliament, but we are in the 1970s and because of the requirements of the 1970s we must bring ourselves into line with contemporary thinking and problems. We can do this only if we are prepared to change our approach to those problems. I have no argument with the statement that the House of Commons functions extraordinarily well, but that is not the point. But it has different problems and a different approach in its set-up and legislative process.

The honourable member for Bradfield - again I do not criticise a gentleman for whom I have the greatest admiration - said that the House of Commons attracts candidates of greater calibre than we do in this Parliament because many of its candidates are what he termed part time candidates. The inference I draw from that is that most of the members in the House of Commons have a nice cushy job in the City of London and can afford to traipse into the House of Commons every now and again and devote a little bit of time to the affairs of the nation and of course, in consequence, the affairs of the world. My own view is that a parliamentarian in this chamber, because of the demands that are made on his time, must of necessity be a full time member. A man cannot be a part time representative in this Parliament, and no-one can be a part time representative in any other parliament, if he is to do his job effectively.

You know as well as 1 do, Mr Deputy Speaker, that today one has to have a knowledge of economics and of the vast spectrum of the requirements of contemporary politics. If anybody can perform the duties of a parliamentarian on a part time basis I have yet to see him do it effectively. This is the essence of all the arrangements that we would like to see. We would like to see the establishment of a committee system to enable us to devote more time to our research and to bring more expertise into this chamber. But we cannot do this if we are to be continually interrupted by what I would describe as the fatuous ringing of the bells to form a quorum.

I refer now to a point made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. This is the interpretation that I put on his remarks: He pointed out that if he or some other honourable member was making a very fine speech - a speech that was a great contribution - it was terribly disappointing if nobody was present in the House to hear that speech. I do not say that a basic requirement for a good speech is that the speaker must have a packed house to hear that speech. I have heard very good speeches in empty halls. No doubt I will hear such speeches again. I have heard very good speeches in this chamber when it has been almost totally devoid of any interested parties. But I do not say that an audience must be present and that the basic requirement of a quorum is to enable members to be called b here to hear what some member believes will be a very delightful, amusing and diverting contribution. This I do not think is relevant to the issue.

I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Adelaide. I can only regret thatI am at variance with the honourable member for Bradfield, the honourable member for Wills and the honourable member for Hindmarsh. ButI do feel that these reforms, if they can be called reforms accurately, are necessary for the better government of the Parliament, for better representation and for a better contribution by representatives in this Parliament. I support the recommendation.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to oppose the proposal to reduce the size of the quorum. I do so for the very sound and good reason that if we have a Parliament and a place of national debate we should spend as much time as we possibly can in that Parliament participating in the debates of the nation.I know that we cannot do that all the time.I think that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) spelt out the difficulties. ButI would agree entirely with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) that it would be to denigrate the institution to say that it is not really necessary to bother about that matter very much. After all, this is what we are saying.

I agree with my good friend from Franklin (Mr Sherry) that there are difficulties confronting the member of the Australian Parliament.I agree with him entirely that the British concept of the gentleman versus the players has no place in the sophisticated modern society of 1970. It is not good enough to be just a player, and a part time one at that. What it is necessary to do Ls to be fulltime, to be skilled and to be a specialist as far as it is possible to become just that.

Having said that, I would suggest that here is a place where not only great decisions are made. A tremendous deal of data and information is available. A member, I submit, can get that data and information in the way that it is of best use to him only by being here. Tonight I came into the chamber at 8 o’clock to listen to a long detailed statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen). It could be said that I did not really need to be here at 8 o’clock because I have before me a 27 page document which I will be able to peruse to catch up on just what the Deputy Prime Minister said. But that is not quite good enough, because one gets the emphasis from the man himself. This document is at best second hand.

The other point that I wish to make concerns what may happen here. I think someone said earlier today that anything can happen in the Parliament. It is a very unpredictable place. This is how it ought to be. It should not be staid and dead; it should be alive and lively. What happened following the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister? We heard a reply by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Now, at that stage, it was not clear as to what would happen from then on. It was not clear as to whether, for example, I would have the opportunity to say something on behalf of communities which are threatened. I came in here because there was that offchance and that possibility. If I had lost that opportunity I would not have been doing my job either as a member of this national Parliament or as a member representing the particular communities that 1 have the privilege to represent here.

So it is important to spend as much time here as we can. We can learn greatly. We can participate more. If it is suggested that 22 people can manage the affairs of the chamber, that it is to become a form of ritualism to observe the present quorum requirement, I suggest that the institution needs completely overhauling. My good friend, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), has referred to the committee system.I may say that I am a fervent supporter of this system. I believe that the time when we should have it is overdue. I think that those of us who at least have a taste and a zeal for reform would all like to see that system introduced as quickly as it possibly can be introduced. I believe this very sincerely and passionately. This does not mean that because we have our committees we have our places of special debate; surely it does not mean that the greater debates of the Parliament can be left, can be ignored and denigrated. 1 submit that this is what this recommendation will do. There is a point-

MrHurford - Nonsense! There are 22 members in here now.

Mr GRASSBY:

– That is quite true. The honourable member for Adelaide says: Nonsense! There are 22 members in here now.’ That is quite right. What it is proposed to do is to reduce the number required for a quorum and so to cut back the importance of being here at all. We will find a smaller and smaller number of members here. The honourable member for Franklin showed great courage when he said that he could make a good speech addressing you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would not like to feel that you were the only one to whom 1 was talking.

Mr Bryant:

– We could reduce it to the stage where they just write to us.

Mr GRASSBY:

It has been suggested that if people are engaged in this chamber they will not have time to participate in the committees which I wish to see established. I do not believe that that will happen at all. We have to be here and, on the major issues, I think we should be here. I have a personal regret that in fact more opportunity has not been available for me to be in the chamber and that there has not been more opportunity for me to speak here. I know it has been said that I have had adequate opportunities to speak. This may well be so. The maximum opportunity should be made available for every honourable member to participate in the affairs of the nation through this forum. 1 want to see extended facilities. 1 do not want to see a contraction of the affairs of this chamber. 1 recognise that there are great disadvantages in the way we work now. The honourable member for Franklin pointed them out rather dramatically. He said that we have to inform ourselves in a detailed way on all sorts of subjects, that we have to apply ourselves to research and that we have to deal with electorate correspondence. We have to deal with one thousand and one personal problems. We all have to do this. We find the task increasingly difficult. I recognise this. But the answer to the problem is not to say: ‘Do not come to Parliament’. The answer to the problem is that every legislator in this nation needs an upgrading of his facilities so that he may do a better job. This is very much overdue. It does not mean just a desk and a more comfortable seat here so that we can do some work. The need is to assess our role as members of Parliament. First of all, we are servants of our own people in .our own electorates. They have to be dealt with, cherished and serviced. That is basic. Then one has some time over to play one’s part in the ritual of Parliament. A great deal of ritual is about Parliament - far too much.

Mr Sherry:

– That is what 1 said.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I agree. But you do not change it by not coming here and requiring honourable members to be here. It is my ambition to see ‘better facilities provided in this House. With better facilities we would be better members, because we would not have to tolerate some of the nonsense that goes on. We would be more impatient and more critical. I make a plea for this to be done. The standard of debate in the greatest forum of the nation will not be upgraded by leaving it and saying Mt is a dull old place’. I submit, with the greatest respect, that there is a tremendous need to improve the status of Parliament as a national forum. This will not be done by accepting this proposition to reduce the quorum.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– lt would suit the honourable member for Mallee to have the quorum reduced so that he could stop out more often.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has a whimsical turn <tf phrase which I always enjoy. As a matter of fact he is one of the reasons why I do not want the quorum reduced. We should all have the opportunity to hear him. This Parliament will be like a dying dinosaur if we denigrate it any further. I appeal to honourable members not to do it. Do not cut the quorum. Leave it as it is. If we are to have reform let us have a reform of facilities and lei us even double the quorum.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for the Navy · Moreton · LP

– If 1 may take a few minutes of the time of the House I would like to make a comment. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) has made a lively and entertaining speech. He has argued that the quorum should not be cut because the character and quality of the Parliament would be denigrated. That is not a sound argument. 1 shall illustrate to the honourable gentleman how unsound it is. This Parliament has approximately the same number in its quorum as has the House of Commons. No compulsion is placed upon honourable members of this chamber to be here. N’o compulsion is placed on members of the House of Commons to be there when a debate is taking place. Basically I think honourable members attend the chamber if the debate is interesting. That is my basic proposition. I arn open to persuasion to the contrary but that is my argument. Frequently 1 have heard the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) make the observation that what has deadened the Parliament has been the fact that a speech has been prepared and simply read to an audience outside. This is my own view. This is an untrammelled argument in terms of Party allegiance.

I have always been completely opposed to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament. 1 concede that in this view I am desperately in a minority. It is my view that it is this Parliament, this House, this institution to which honourable members should direct their remarks. After 15 years in this place one picks up a few ideas. I suppose one also picks up a lot of bad habits. I do not know whether I have failed ignominiously in one respect and succeeded eminently on the other. That is a matter for the charity of judgment of my colleagues opposite. But I think what has killed Parliament has been the talking to an unseen audience outside. Some of the best debates I have listened to in this place have been in the Committee stage where there is no prepared speech in the sense that a member comes in with a half hour or 25-minute speech which he has timed on the ticker and reads it off. In the Committee stage there is a little of the cut, thrust and parry of debate. One of the best debates I can recall in this Parliament was on the Matrimonial Causes Bill. Admittedly there was a free vote. The Committee debate on that Bill was of a high standard indeed. I recall the late Colonel Bowden, the distinguished predecessor of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), who sat as Chairman of Committees, saying: ‘Looking back on my long association with Parliament I think this has been one of the best debates I have ever heard.’

Dr Klugman:

– What are you getting at?

Mr KILLEN:

The legislation passing through this House covers a great number of subjects. We spend less time in the chamber listening to debates on subjects in which we are not interested. It is a matter of horses for courses in that we try to specialise in certain subjects. We cannot specialise in every subject covered by debates in this Parliament. If we can cover some of those subjects we do a mighty good job. It is not possible to be a specialist in every subject covered by legislation. That is physically and mentally impossible. The fact that the attendance in the chamber is sometimes disappointing does not indicate that this Parliament is headed for destruction, or that what it stands for is to be destroyed. It is simply a reflection of the priority accorded by honourable members to the debate in progress.

The honourable member for Wills has said that if the quorum is reduced legislation could be passed by only a handful of members on one side of the chamber. This has hardly ever happened. It happened on the last day of the last session because pairs had been allotted up to 4 o’clock in the afternoon. The debate proceeded until 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock at night - a Friday night. That is why the numbers in attendance were very low at that hour. This is a most unfair illustration. It happens only once in a blue moon. I suppose 90% of the legislation that goes through this place is unopposed, in the sense that it is agreed to on the voices. Not many people outside the Parliament realise this. I repeat that 90% of the legislation is approved by members on this side of the House as well as on the Government side. We of the Opposition may move amendments in the Committee stage to clauses of a certain Bill but then the Bil) as a whole is agreed to. The legislation that is given publicity in the Press is the 10% on which we violently disagree with the Government and which we dispute with division after division, clause after clause.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) gave some figures at a Party meeting last session when he said, I think, that only 1 1 % of the Bills that go through this place are violently opposed by the Opposition while 89% are unanimously agreed to in that they encounter no Opposition other than perhaps disagreement with certain clauses in the Committee stage. It is obvious that this kind of noncontroversial legislation can be put through with only 20 members in the House, because it is accepted on the voices. Why, then, are honourable members suggesting that the House would fall to pieces if we reduced the quorum to one-fifth of the membership? They bemoan the fact that legislation can be passed in this place when only a handful of members are present. Of course legislation is passed in those circumstances, but only when it is legislation with which the Opposition is substantially in agreement. When a Bill is brought forward with which we disagree we call for divisions at every opportunity. Everybody votes.

Mr Scholes:

– The whole 17 of them.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Do not be ridiculous. We get everybody in, everybody on both sides of the House. We round up everybody who is not absent because of illness or who is not attending an outside appointment somewhere and has arranged a pair. The whole membership of the House, or at least all the members who are here, vole in those divisions. Therefore it is complete humbug to say that it will be a tragedy if we are to pass legislation with only a handful of people here. If the Opposition disagrees with legislation it presses for divisions at every opportunity. Legislation that is not opposed is allowed to go through on the voices, In such a case there could be 10 on one side and 20 on the other - and so what?

I have put the situation that obtains in actual practice. 1 have in mind the examples of other parliaments in other parts of the world, and 1 remind the House that if it wants the Committee system to work it must have more time for Committee procedures. We must not be harassed, annoyed and pin-pricked by members constantly calling for quorums. For these reasons I believe we would be a more efficient Parliament if we were to reduce the quorum to one-fifth of the membership.

Mr Bryant:

– There might be nobody here at all.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is utterly ridiculous too. For these reasons I believe that we should reduce the quorum to one-fifth of the membership of the House.

MR TURNBULL:
Mallee

– The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) was quite correct when be said that one cannot be in 2 places at once, At times a member has to decide whether to attend a committee meeting or to present himself in the House. Of course a member might at any time be in Kings Hall. But my point is that a member cannot be here and at a committee meeting at the same time. This is perhaps the crux of the whole argument. I have always maintained that when the House is sitting this is the most important place in Australia. I was in good company years ago when the late Mr Ben Chifley said to me: This is the most important place in Australia when Parliament is sitting. I cannot understand why members want to get away to some small show or to open some small function when Parliament is in session.’

I have listened to this debate and have been greatly amused by what has been said by some honourable members. They said that you must be here in the House. 1 know that some honourable members who have spoken have been away for a fortnight at a time. I will not name them so they need not get frightened. Some of them are seldom in the chamber. Sometimes they are not even within call of the bells. Yet from the way they stood and spoke tonight one would think they attended regularly. This is completely wrong.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This is the first time I have seen you in the last fortnight.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh who has just interjected remarked a little while ago, by way of interjection also, that members know what the position is. The people outside this Parliament who read Hansard would think that I, as the honourable member for Mallee, rarely attend the Parliament. That is what the honourable member for Hindmarsh wants them to think. He misrepresented me by his interjection. People reading the cold print in Hansard would think: “This Turnbull does not attend very often. He must be away in the Mallee all the time.’ Interjections of that kind are tremendously unfair and do not do much for the prestige of the man who makes them. I have always tried to extend goodwill to the honourable member for Hindmarsh and I am trying to do so now. Why he tries to stab me in the back in that way is beyond my comprehension. [ cannot understand him.

I want to develop my general thought about what honourable members have said in this debate. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said that members should be present in the chamber at major moments. I ask: How are we to know when the major moments will occur? If I were away in the Mallee electorate or the Riverina electorate and something happened here and the bells were rung, then naturally I could not hear them. Therefore we have to be here all the time. There is no doubt about that and everybody should realise it. As for major moments, if a constituent said to me: *I want to come to Canberra and hear a good debate. Will you let me know when one is coming on?’ 1 would not attempt to advise him. One might expect a good debate and it could turn out to be one of the driest ever heard. lt would be different if I met a constituent outside this chamber in Kings’s Hall and he said: ‘What is going on in the House? Is there anything interesting going on?’ I could say: ‘No, it is very dull in there but if you want to go inside I will get you a ticket and you can have a look’. He could then come inside this chamber and by chance hear the best debate of the whole year. In the twinkling of an eye some remark could bring up a good debate. Therefore you must be on the spot all the time.

Referring to the point about committee meetings, the honourable member for Hindmarsh said that when he is not present in the chamber he sits in his office and casually listens to the debate. That may be all right. He may pick up some points and decide to come into the chamber if there is a matter about which he wishes to speak. But the point is that you cannot be at a committee meeting or at a meeting with heads of departments and listen in to the debate here at the same time. It is impossible. Therefore, a member must decide either to go to his office and listen, like the honourable member for Hindmarsh, or he must be present in the chamber. He must do one thing or the other. The course followed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh may be second best but being present in the chamber is the best. That is the way things work out.

As far as the quorum is concerned it is my opinion that a quorum is called only when attention is drawn to the state of the House. The honourable member for Hindmarsh said that the House was being pinpricked all the time by the calling of quorums, yet I heard him say tonight that he has never heard of a member of the Government parties call a quorum. Who is doing the pinpricking? It must be members of the Opposition.

Mr Grassby:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr TURNBULL:

Mr SCHOLES:

– It might be contested if they were here. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was passed during the last sessional period 51 members were present. Had the number required for a quorum been lower, it could as easily have been passed with 31 members present.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about the Government trying to maintain the quorum on its own?

Mr SCHOLES:

– That is bad luck. It is one of the penalties of having 26 Ministers who do not want to come in. I am not worried about that. Ministers have other responsibilities and problems, but I do not think that is a reason for reducing the quorum. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was passed 51 members of this House were present. Under the Standing Orders as they exist at the moment and with the contingent notices of motion on the notice paper, with 51 members present - it could as easily be 31 - a Bill could be brought into this House and passed. That would be legal under the Standing Orders. The danger is that the situation could easily be reached where the inability to attain an absolute majority could be overcome by Ministers moving contingent motions. Someone will always be found who is prepared to manipulate the Standing Orders or a situation. The contingency motions are an example of this. Such action is very convenient but it completely by-passes the meaning and spirit of the Standing Orders.

If this proposal is adopted the situation may be reached where on an important piece of legislation someone may wish to by-pass the Standing Orders. It may well be that all the members who were absent were paired, and they may have good reasons for being absent. It was only by an accident of fate that I happened to be here to vote on the last night of the last sitting period. So, I do not claim to be pure in respect of that matter. 1 could not obtain a pair, so I was here. That was all there was to it. I was one of those who did stay. By the time I obtained a pair I had missed my aircraft; so I had to stay. That is just a fact of life. But the facts also are that members have obtained pairs and left and that under the present Standing Orders it is possible to pass legislation with barely a quorum present, ft is possible to bring in legislation and pass it through ali stages in this chamber under those conditions.

I believe that it would be wrong to consider this matter purely on the basis of the personal inconvenience that is caused by calling honourable members into the chamber occasionally, when someone decides that he will annoy the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) or someone else. 1 do not think that is a relevant matter. I do not think it is a very important matter in the life span of this Parliament or any other parliament. The important point is that the Parliament must retain at least a semblance of responsibility. I believe that one-third of the members is not too many to demand be present to pass important legislation or to open and operate the Parliament.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 had intended to let all the remarks made tonight pass because many of them are inaccurate. But the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has made one or two comments that are so grossly inaccurate that the Hansard record should not be allowed to carry them unchallenged. Firstly, 1 take this opportunity to remind him that it is in the interests of the government of the day itself to field a quorum. We have beard in this chamber tonight how the Opposition Whip has stood outside the chamber - I have even seen him do this - and said: ‘Go back, boys. Get the members of the Government parties in. This is only a call for a quorum.’ This has been a tactic of frustration. At times members of the Government parties have been hurting certain members of the Opposition who have resorted to this tactic in order to sit the members of the Government parties down, to shut them- up and to reduce the time available to them. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in particular have used this tactic to effect in years gone by.

I am one who over the years has become imbued with some of the ideals of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) in relation to the Parliament and what it stands for. But I still believe that the quorum provision has been abused and breached so blatantly in the past that it is high time we looked at it closely and considered whether we are here just to annoy each other and play politics by asking the Chair to form a quorum at any time or to get on with the business of the Parliament. My friend the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen), whose electorate adjoins mine in Brisbane, has carefully and clearly made the point that this quorum business has iittle to do with government today. 1 know that quite a number of the new members of the Opposition, who have come here with perfectly clear minds in relation to parliamentary procedure, although their politics might be a little muddy, see that it is time we had change. As I said last night, I hope that we will not fritter the night away talking about these matters when, If we took a vote now, the numbers would be clearly in favour of this proposed change and we could then get home to bed and arrive here bright tomorrow morning.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I am amazed to think that tonight we have taken up almost 2 hours in discussing this matter when a number of other matters arise from the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee in regard to reforms that might be made in the procedures of this place, lt is true, as has been said - but I intend to reiterate it - -that it makes no difference whatsoever whether we change the quorum from the number that is in the Standing Orders at the moment to even 1, because when the bells ring we all have to leave the committee rooms or wherever we are and we all experience the interruption. 1 am much more interested in what can be done to the Standing Orders and the business procedures of the House in order to save some time. I am quite confident that, if we put all the information into a computer, what it would spit back would be a request to confirm the source or origin of the information - whether it was Callan Park, Disneyland or the twilight zone. The factor that wasted the time of this chamber most in the last session was i >e continual argument. Censure motions were moved by the Opposition against a Minister and against the Government. It is one of the principal rights of an Opposition to move such motions. The Minister or a Government supporter moved an amendment naming the person on this side of the House who had moved a motion censuring the Government or a Minister. We had continual arguments, did we not, as to interpretation, as to whether in fact the amendment ought to be accepted. We heard that it was an expanded negative and all sorts of stupid arguments that would not be accepted in a kindergarten form where children were just starting, to learn to speak and perhaps to debate. It is to these matters, rather than to quorums that this House could look to save time.

It is all right to talk about what happens in the House of Commons. We all know or ought to know that only about 50% of the elected members in the House of Commons can crowd into the place. When there is a division in the House of Commons they have to throw the doors open, not lock them, because members have to keep filing through, in one end and out the other. It is of no use to make a comparison with the House of Commons; it is just too stupid for words. I suggest that we have spent enough time on this. 1 wanted to make those few small points. I will not take up any further the time of the House. Reduction of the number that constitutes a quorum will not save any time. I for one will vote that the number remain unaltered.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– The first comment I would like to make is that it has been a matter of some interest to hear over the last 2 days the matters under discussion described as matters of parliamentary reform. I draw attention to the fact that we have not scratched the surface of that question. All we are dealing with are matters of mechanics and convenience, and I think we’ should be realistic enough to know that those are the limitations within which we are operating at the moment. I draw attention to that point for the particular purpose of reminding the House that there are other matters in the Standing Orders Committee report which I hope will not be overlooked but which I feel might be. In particular my remarks relate to clause 5 of the report which deals with the possibility of committees.

To stick to the item immediately under discussion though, I think that it is fair to say that only 2 reasons have been advanced against the proposition. The first one I think it would be fair to say that this summarises what the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) was putting to the House - is that the higher number of the quorum the better the attendance in the chamber. The second reason advanced against the proposition, which I think was probably summarised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), was that the higher number in the quorum would prevent legislation being passed by an unconscionably low number of members. I think that both of these arguments are wrong. I think they are both fallacious. I am afraid that both engage in selfdeception. It should not be part of our job to deceive ourselves.

Now look at this question as to whether a higher requirement for a quorum will increase the attendance in the chamber. I deny that proposition. So far as I can see the only result of a. smaller quorum will not be lower attendance but fewer quorum calls. I would regard that as entirely desirable. The honourble member for Sturt (Mr Foster) made the point a moment ago, which has been made by others, that it really does not matter what the numbers are because when the quorum bells ring honourable members have to come into the chamber, anyway. This ignores the fact that the quorum bells will ring less often when the numbers required for the quorum are lower.

It is no good saying that changing the number required for a quorum will not make a difference. It will make a difference. 1 took the opportunity to take a count before I stood to speak just now, and it would make a difference right now. If I were to draw attention to the state of the House now, the bells would ring. If we passed this proposition and the same number of members were present in the chamber and if I were to draw attention to the state of the House, the bells would not ring. In other words, we are now at a stage where the number of members in the House is lower than 43, or whatever the number is, and higher than 25. So it does make a difference. 1 will go on in a few moments to try to indicate why I. think, that a change is desirable. But before I do that, let me draw attention also to the argument raised by the honourable member for Mallee in opposing the present proposition. In support of his argument he said: ‘This is the most important place in Australia’.

Mr Turnbull:

– When the House is sitting.

Mr BERINSON:

– He said that when the House is sitting this chamber is the most important place in Australia.

Mr Turnbull:

– Chifley said that.

Mr BERINSON:

– If Chifley said that it would certainly be true. But what I want to add to that is that while this chamber is indeed the most important place in the nation, that is for only some of the time, not for all of the time. 1 will not speak about the importance of other members’ contributions to discussion in this chamber. 1 will speak about my own contribution. 1 cannot bring myself to believe that the fact that I am speaking in this chamber now or on the other matters in which I have taken an interest in the short time I have been here has made this chamber the most important place in the nation at the times at which I have spoken, demanding the presence of all members. Of course, that would be absurd. There are times when it is the most important place in the nation. When we are passing important Bills or when we are listening to important statements, particularly from the Government and from Opposition leaders, it is the most important place in the nation. But to be honest, at many other times it is not the most important place in the nation because what is being produced by way of debate is a repetition of what has been said previously.

Mr Turnbull:

– What is the most important place at that time.

Mr BERINSON:

– At that time the most important place for individual members is the place where they can be doing the most valuable work, and that is not necessarily inside this chamber. I think I should spend a moment dealing with the argument raised by the honourable member for Corio. He said that a lower quorum would result in legislation being passed by a disgracefully low number of members. To that I want to say that in practice it does not happen. The fact that he was able to bring forward one example of legislation being passed by only 51 members is itself an indication of how few examples there are, because he would most certainly have produced many more examples than that if they were available. But even if it were typical, I think that arguments of this nature deny the realities of the way in which this chamber operates. The truth of the matter is that whatever is going to be passed in this chamber on matters of Government policy will be passed because it is Government policy, and it will be passed whether the total attendance in the House at that time is 101 or 51 or I . It will be passed because the Government has decided it will be passed, and only those members on the Government side who know that they have been paired will refrain from attending. That argument, like the first argument, raises fallacies which we should not allow to distract us.

So this brings us to the question: If there is no disadvantage in changing the numbers, is there an advantage? I think that there is. I can only agree with the speakers who have gone before me. I say this as an Opposition member who well recognises that quorums are almost exclusively called by the Opposition. The role of quorums in this chamber is not to secure a larger attendance in the chamber, as some speakers have attempted to suggest. As we well know the common experience is that as soon as an honourable member has arrived in the House during a debate which he does not intend to listen to and has made up the quorum number he then disappears again. Therefore, the justification for calling a quorum is not to increase the numbers listening to the debate. The calling of a quorum is very often largely a matter of mere harassment, as it has been called, and of parliamentary tactics, of annoying the Government by bringing Ministers out of their offices on relatively unimportant occasions without any great profit, so far as I. have been able to discern, either to the business of the Government or to the business of the Parliament.

We have heard of the numbers of committees which operate within both Government and Opposition parties. I have been at a number of meetings when quorums have been called. I have also been at meetings with Ministers making representations on behalf of my constituents and at times we have got up 3 times in the course of 10 minutes because that happened to be the day when someone decided to call quorums. Quite frankly, I have never been able to see the value of such a practice. If the Opposition is fed up with the way in which it is being treated by the Government and wishes to make its protest perhaps by taking up the time of the House, this can be done by adopting other procedures. I think one does not have to be here all that long to realise that other procedures are available. In short, I think it can be realistically said that throughout this debate there have been only 2 arguments raised against the change in the quorum. Neither stands proper examination and neither in any way answers the arguments which have gone the other way. I hope the House will support the proposition.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I wish to rise and, with some brevity, oppose the suggestion for a reduction in the quorum. It seems to me that there have been 3 general areas of discussion in this matter. An excuse for a reduction in the quorum has been the proposed introduction of the committee system. I have been rather disturbed at the way in which this argument has been used in the discussions for a proposed reduction in the quorum. I am disturbed because I have supported the committee system concept. I see it as something that will change the sort of Parliament we have. I do not believe, like many of the supporters of the reduction in the quorum, that if this scheme is introduced we will only divide our labour in different ways and that the Parliament will not change fundamentally at all. I see the committee system as a real hope for this Parliament to function once again as the most important national institution. The committee system will have a controlling effect on the executive and we will no longer be able to say that measures are passed just because governments have the numbers. Where all members are well informed and know the full impact of the legislation many governments will be fearful of imposing policy.

I was shocked to hear the argument that because the committees and the House would be sitting at the same time this was a reason for a reduction of the quorum. If this is to be so I would have to change my support for the proposed committee system because such a system would be a weak and hollow weapon and would not bring about the change we want at all. Surely committees are meant to give us well informed membership, aware of the impact of the legislation that is to come before the House, so that members will have the opportunity to present some ideas of their own? If committees are to function in this way they must function separately from the House. The House will then serve as the place of national importance for serious political debate and decisions with as many informed members taking part as is necessary. It may mean that with the functioning of the House and committees separately we will have to be here for many more days. It may mean that with a better informed membership we will eventually have fewer sitting days of the House. If we have to run them separately and we have to spend more time away from home that is just too bad. I am one of those who enjoy electorate work. I do not mind being a sort of social welfare worker.

But if these committees and the House are to function properly it is obvious that with the growing commitments we have, with the growth of the nation and with the greater volume of legislation coming forward, we are going to have to wake up to the fact that this is the most important national institution and that we will have to spend more time here. Indeed, we will have to realise that even the ordinary back bencher is going to need adequate staff to carry out these duties. So let us not use the committee system as an excuse for reducing the quorum. Let us see the proposal in its proper perspective. Let us not just explain it as another way to divide the hours we spend here. Let us accept it as something that is going to cause a real change in how Parliament functions. Then I think we will have to realise that members will want to take a more active part in the sittings of the House and in the matters that come before it. The second argument for the reduction of the quorum has been based on comparison with other parliaments. If we are trying to develop our own system these arguments are to me invalid and should be ignored.

Finally, much has been said about the reduced quorum allowing decisions to be made by an extremely small group in this House. This is tossed aside as insignificant. I do not believe it is insignificant. 1 believe it is most important that when legislation is carried it should be carried by the deliberate vote of as many members of this Parliament as possible. We cannot shrug off our responsibilities and leave it to the few. If we do this then indeed the Parliament is in grave danger of very great reform because it will no longer exist as a democratic institution. If this general attitude is allowed to develop, the Parliament will be just a small group doing what it will. I trust the House will defeat this recommendation.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Snedden:

– Before the honourable member for Chifley speaks, perhaps I may have the indulgence of the House to interrupt for a moment. This is a debate on which there is a free vote and because it is a free vote I would not want to move the closure. Yet I would like to have some indication of the will of the House as to whether we should have a vote fairly soon. A number of honourable members have spoken. The issues are in our minds and I think we are all able to cast a vote at this stage. I need an indication from the House as to whether or not the matter should be adjourned. I suggest that after the honourable member has spoken, if anybody else should want to speak he may be able to confine his remarks to a very short compass so that we can have a vote in a short time. I apologise to the honourable member for interrupting him.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I accept the apology. I also will be quite brief on this matter. I think that the question the House has to look at is whether this proposal is a reform or a retrograde step. We have heard a lot to the effect that this report which has been brought in covers proposals for reform of the Standing Orders and reform of all the conditions under which this House meets to consider the important legislation and proposals which come before it Any proposal which tends to encourage fewer members to be present in the House at any time during any debate cannot on any interpretation be considered to be a reform. If it were a reform, the proposal brought before us for an amendment ot

Standing Orders would be designed to encourage more members to be in the House at any particular time. For this reason one cannot help wondering whether this proposal has been introduced for the convenience of individuals so that they may spend as little time as possible in ‘.he House.

One of the best ways to illustrate what 1 am saying is to refer to something which happened in the latter part of the last session when we had very late sittings into the early hours of the morning. On one occasion in the last couple of weeks of the session it was freely rumoured that had a quorum been called at 2 o’clock in the morning there would not have been enough members present in the House to form a quorum. Whether that was correct or not, it was freely rumoured about the House at that time. So the situation was tested, but the test came fairly early in the evening - at about 11.45 p.m. or 12 o’clock - because it was known that once again we were going to have an all-nighter. I speak subject to correction as to the number of members who were present on that occasion, but my recollection is that 48 members were present. All others had gone home. If there had been fewer than the 42 members required for a quorum the House would have been counted out.

If we reduce a quorum to 21 members we will encourage honourable members to take French leave and to arrange unauthorised pairs. I suggest that it would be a retrograde step which would encourage fewer members to be present in the chamber at any one time. For these reasons I cannot help wondering whether the proposal now before us has been introduced to suit the convenience of some honourable members. Will it be a reform if it encourages fewer members to be ^resent? Although 1 doubt that we would have more members present if we maintained the present quorum. I am certain that with a smaller quorum fewer members would be present at a particular time. I think it could be argued that this proposal could be considered to be an excuse for more Executive control of this House and the workings of government and to provide less opportunity for the Parliament to act as a watchdog over Government and the Executive. If carried it would certainly reduce the capacity and importance of the Parliament.

If we carry this proposition tonight we will leave the people with the impression that from now on we will need only half the number of members for the Parliament to function according to law and in accordance with the Standing Orders. Is this a good image for the Parliament to project when we have been stressing the authority and importance of Parliament and deploring the tendency for the Executive to take more control of the functions of Parliament? Every day in the week we hear honourable members saying that this is happening. Yet at the same time there is an endeavour to reduce the quorum to half its present number and to encourage members to stay away from sittings of this House. For these reasons I must oppose the proposition. I hope the Parliament will ensure that the proposal does not become a reality.

Question put:

That sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1.) relating to a reduction in the quorum, being part of the motion moved by the Leader of the House, be endorsed in principle.

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

AYES: 66

NOES: 39

Majority 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am unable to discern who was the member or person who just now made a noise within the chamber. I suggest that all honourable members endeavour to restrain themselves from making unseemly noises within the chamber. It is unfortunate that this should occur in the House, so many honourable members having spoken tonight about its traditions and dignity.

Honourable members - Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That standing order 72 be amended as recommended by the Standing Orders Committee, to come into operation on Tuesday, 25th August 1970’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That standing order 250 be amended as recommended by the Standing Orders Committee, to come into operation on Tuesday, 25lh August. 1970’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Giles) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– Mr Speaker, I see the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) rising to ask for an explanation. I will offer an explanation immediately. I have asked that the debate be adjourned so that I may move the adjournment of the House. I propose tomorrow to relist this matter so that the honourable member for Wills may move the motion that he has circulated. No doubt he will wish to speak to it. I now indicate to the House that after he has moved his motion and spoken to it, I will move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr Turner:

– May I ask this question: Until when will the debate be adjourned? Will it be adjourned sine die or will it come on again within measureable time?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I can make no statement as to when it will come on because I have not worked out the programme as to when it will come on. But it is a matter of major importance. Obviously it cannot come on again until all honourable members have had an opportunity to consider the implications of it. I would expect that it would be necessary to have a further report from the Standing Orders Committee as to standing committees because it is out of the report of the Standing Orders Committee that it becomes in order for the honourable gentleman to move his motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 355

ADJOURNMENT

War Service Homes - Memorial to Former Prime Minister - Repatriation - Parliament House

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

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

– I want to draw the attention of the appropriate Minister to what is obviously a defect in the War Service Homes Act. Under that Act there is a definition of what is termed ‘holding’ as a security. Under the Act ‘holding’ has been defined as owning the fee simple or a Crown lease in perpetuity. In New South Wales a number of land tenures come under different categories and many returned servicemen hold land on what might be termed suburban holdings or special leases. These have been accepted as satisfactory from the point of view of war service homes security. In my electorate many returned soldiers have obtained war service home loans and erected substantial dwellings on security of land tenure from the New South Wales Government which is, within the meaning of the Act, virtually a holding but nevertheless is a leasehold type of holding.

The Government of New South Wales in its wisdom has decided to reappraise the value of all the holdings. This means that the rental paid by returned servicemen has substantially increased. One of my constituents, Mr Kupke of Anzac Parade. Little Bay, who holds a special lease has a war service home loan. His previous rental on a yearly basis paid to the Lands Department was $46. Because of the reappraisal his rental has been increased to $330 per year. This means that this man has to find some other method of converting this tenure into freehold. The proposition was submitted to the War Service Homes Division that if he was prepared to buy the land from the New South Wales Government on what is termed conditional purchase the Division should agree to transfer the title. In other words the security would still be the same but the method of land tenure would be different. The Director of War Service Homes has advised Mr Kupke that this is not acceptable.

At the present time the ridiculous situation exists that the War Service Homes Division will accept a leasehold title but will not accept a conditional purchase title. Any lawyer will tell you that if you have a leasehold title and you are not able to pay the lease rental the lease is forfeited. The position of the War Service Homes Division would be rather weak if Mr Kupke were ever in such financial straits that he could not pay this substantial increase in rental. It would have no real security at ail. He has asked to convert this lease into a conditional purchase. By doing so he would build up his equity in the land and indirectly give the Director of War Service Homes even greater security. The value of the home erected on the land would be $20,000 but it would go for nought if, on the legal fiction, he could not afford to pay the yearly rental which has now been substantially increased from a mere $40 to S330. He can convert to a conditional purchase for a reasonable amount of money. In fact he could probably convert to conditional purchase for perhaps a mere 4 or 5 years’ rental. It is a good proposition for him. Why should hp not avail himself of it? By converting he would avoid having to pay the substantial rental.

Another case in my electorate on the same principle involves Mr Gow. He has a suburban holding which is again an acceptable security. This suburban holding could be reappraised from a rental point of view. He could convert to a conditional purchase for a mere $1,500 which would make it a cheap block of land. The value of the land now would be at least $5,000 to $6,000 but unless he converts it will never acquire that value. In this case there is also the chance that the New South Wales Government will reappraise that value and make him pay substantially more by way of rental. He also asked the Director of War Service Homes whether he could convert. He was told no, that this was not possible because the War Service Homes Act defines ‘holding’ as being a Crown lease or an estate in fee simple, but not a conditional purchase.

That is a basic weakness in the Act. We cannot really say the refusal has been due to any bureaucratic action. But I received a letter from the appropriate Minister indicating to me that the question of whether the War Service Homes Act should be amended to extend the definition of holding’ to include conditional purchase involved a matter of future Government policy. It was stated that at some stage - it was not indicated when - perhaps it would be considered when the Act is next amended. This is a matter of extreme urgency. Mr Kupke has to pay this substantially increased rental now because there is no opportunity to amend the War Services Homes Act. It would only require a very minor amendment.

My suggestion to the House is that the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) who represents the Minister for Housing might as a matter of urgency look at the situation. It would only require a very minor amendment to be introduced in this session of the Parliament to redefine ‘holding* in the War Service Homes Act to include conditional purchase. There has been correspondence by my colleague, Mr Haigh, the member for Maroubra in the New South Wales Parliament, to the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis. Mr Lewis has said: T do not propose to amend the New South Wales Crown Lands Consolidation Act. In fact it would not be possible to do so. The obvious solution is for an appropriate amendment to be made to the War Service Homes Act.’

I could not agree more completely. Returned servicemen are entitled to all the benefits and privileges the country can bestow on them. It is obvious that this was intended because a war service homes loan is on advantageous terms. It nullifies the whole concept of the Act if because the New South Wales Government decides to reappraise lease rentals and substantially increases them by 400% or more that in itself weakens the security. It would be no problem for the War Service Homes Director to acquire the title of the conditional purchase as he does a lease in perpetuity. Should default be made he would still be able to exercise his powers of sale, recover the moneys due to him and also liquidate any indebtedness to the New South Wales Government.

I made these representations as far back as November last. I received a reply recently. In other words almost 12 months have gone and the only suggestion given to my unfortunate constituents is that if and when the Government gets an opportunity in the future to consider amendments to the War Service Homes Act, this will be done. They should be considered now. I have raised this matter on the adjournment, the first opportunity I have had, as a matter of urgency. If it is not dealt with 1. cannot see any reason why all the exservicemen in my electorate would not say: This is a penalty on us. We had a concession given to us because we were able to acquire this land on a leasehold basis. That concession has virtually been removed because of the New South Wales Government’s attitude of trying to get more money by a reappraisal of leasehold rental but we can still obtain a concession because they will allow us to purchase the land on terms.’ All the War Service Homes Director has to do to enable them to do it is to consent to amend the Act.

I will concede the Act is defective in its definition of the word ‘holding’ but if the Director were to submit an amendment to the Act to say that ‘holding’ includes the words ‘conditional purchase’, it could be done within 1 week in this Parliament. It would be a very minor alteration. It would overcome the problems of these constituents I have mentioned and the many others in the same position. Unless this is done they will suffer financial hardship, have to go to money lenders and other people and borrow substantial sums of money not only to buy the land but also to liquidate the indebtedness to the War Service Homes Commission. This nullifies the whole concept of trying to help them. It is for those reasons that I sincerely ask the Minister to deal with this as a matter of urgency.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– As the honourable member for Curtin I think it is appropriate for me to refer to the unveiling of a memorial bust of the wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin, in my electorate last Friday. I am sure the House would be interested in the circumstances. It was unveiled by His Excellency, the Governor in the presence of Mrs Curtin, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). The memorial is a bronze bust, one and a half times life size in three-dimensional shape, not simply in relief. It stands in the grounds of the Cottesloe civic centre in front of the War Memorial Hall on a 7-foot granite plinth in the centre of an ornamental pool which is floodlit, a fountain playing to the base of the statue. The memorial bust faces the house where John Curtin lived in Cottesloe, only a quarter of a mile away. The house overlooks the Indian Ocean. The bust was commissioned and produced in clay and was carefully assessed before work proceeded. It was successfully cast in bronze on 24th April of this year. Casting is, of course, a delicate art, no less than other arts and it was done by Peter Gelencser, a Perth sculptor and artist. The bust is agreed by all to be an excellent likeness. This is a high quality memorial.

Mrs Curtin still lives with her family in Cottesloe. Honourable members will be aware that she was recently made a Commander of the British Empire. She attended the unveiling ceremony with her son John Curtin and her grandson of the same name. The former Prime Minister is buried in Karrakatta cementery, only 3 miles away. Although John Curtin died 25 years ago last July few memorials to him have been erected in Australia. Perhaps the most notable of them is the John Curtin School of Medicine. To my knowledge the memorial bust at Cottesloe is the only one erected solely for the purpose of honouring John Curtin. A district fund was initiated by the Claremont and Cottesloe Rotary Club and the town of Cottesloe. When I last heard of the fund’s progress about SI, 000 had been raised. The inscription on the base of the statue is the tribute paid to John Curtin by General Douglas MacArthur. It reads:

The man I called the heart and soul of Australia.

The people of the Cottesloe region felt the need to associate John Curtin with the area in which he had lived for so many years. This fine memorial preserves his fame and the people’s memory of him. Party politics are laid aside in honouring John Curtin. He is accepted as a man who strove mightily for the welfare of all Australians as he viewed that welfare. He believed deeply in truth and justice and mercy among men. Politics was to him a conflict of ideas and not a sordid struggle by personalities for cheap gains. His political views and administration could be challenged by his opponents but it was unthinkable to attack the man, his ideals, sincerity jnd integrity.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I think the House is grateful to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) for the generous comments he has made about the late John Curtin, a great Australian. Tomorrow I celebrate my 27th anniversary as a member of this Parliament. I believe I am one of the few members of this House who served with the late John Curtin. I was elected with his Government in 1943. I thank the honourable member for his speech about the late John Curtin and the contribution that he made to the salvation of Australia. The House is very graceful to the people responsible for the erection of the memorial. Tonight a Liberal member has spoken of a very great Australian, in a non-political way. Honourable members on this side of the chamber appreciate that as much as will the people of Australia. I join in endorsing the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Curtin. In the grimmest days that Australia has faced, when the Japanese were in the Coral Sea and this country was threatened, the man to whom the honourable member has paid tribute tonight stood as a symbol of our salvation. 1 thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the attention of this Parliament. In my way I add my contribution to what he said and I endorse the sentiments he expressed.

My purpose in speaking tonight is a strange one. Earlier today I had occasion to have some difference with a member of the Australian Country Party, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). He is not present in the House at the moment. I hope that he did not take my remarks in a personal sense. You know, Mr Speaker, as a follower of the greatest game of all, that when you stand up in a rugby league scrum and get in the road you expect to get knocked out. As I said, earlier today I had occasion to differ with the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I hope that he takes my remarks in the spirit of combat that goes with sport or with politics.

Tonight I want to pay tribute to, if not to praise, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) who is a member of the Country Party. On 24th October 1967 I raised in this Parliament a matter which I considered to be one of the greatest injustices to an ex-serviceman that I had seen in my time in this Parliament. The person concerned is Mr Maxwell Matthew Medlyn, formerly of 51 West Street, Petersham and now living at Sussex Inlet. Mr Medlyn brought to my attention this matter which he considered to be an injustice in the nongranting of a pension. He had served in the Services and to my mind had suffered grievously but had been denied repatriation benefits. Since 1 2th July 1944 he had been appealing for a military pension. He is now totally blind. He has a wife and 2 children. A sinus operation, he said, led to his blindness. For years he had been existing on an invalid pension.

I have raised this matter in the House many times. Mr Medlyn had continually appealed and his appeals had been rejected by the Repatriation Department. Honourable members might recollect that not very long ago when the present Minister for Repatriation was appointed I again raised the case of Mr Medlyn. At that stage Mr Medlyn could not get a guide dog because he could not afford to feed it. I said that this was a tragic case and one which should receive the attention of the Government and the Minister. It is to the credit of the Minister that on that night he rose in bis place and said that he would personally investigate the case. He was impressed by what 1 had said. He said that he would explore every avenue open to him short of intervention, which is not possible for a Minister in such cases, to see whether justice could be done in this case. I am happy to say that on 10th July 1970 I received advice that Mr Medlyn’s claim had been accepted and that the TPI pension had been back dated to 7th May 1966. On 18th August I received the following letter from the Minister for Repatriation:

I refer to your telegram in which you requested details of the present rates of pensions, and the amount of areas paid to Mr Maxwell Matthew Medlyn and his dependants.

Mr Medlyn now receives a fortnightly payment of $89.85 which comprises War Pension, Clothing Allowance and Attendant’s Allowance. Mrs Medlyn receives a fortnightly pension of $10.85 which incorporates the pension payable to the Medlyn’s remaining dependent child.

Gross arrears payable amounted to $9,713.30. As you will appreciate, the amount of Social Service payments received by the Medlyn family during the period which was subsequently covered by Repatriation benefits, had to be deducted from the gross arrears.

The net arrears of War Pensious, Attendant’s Allowance and Clothing Allowance in respect of Mr Medlyn, his wife and his children, amounted to $6,924.30. This amount tas been paid to the Medlyn family by a series of cheques. The last of these cheques was forwarded on 12th August 1970.

I place on record tonight my personal appreciation and that of the Medlyn family for the justice - no doubt delayed justice - which has been received by the suffering Medlyn family because of war injuries sustained by this man. The fact that be received SI 0,000 in back money - a net amount of just on $7,000 - indicates at least that at this stage the Repatriation Department has rectified what I considered to be a grievous injustice.

The Minister took a personal interest in this case. 1 do not intend to go over it again but it was one of the most tragic 1 have seen. This man looks robust enough to play in any football match but is totally blind. To me it seemed most unjust that he should have been denied a pension. 1 am extremely grateful to the Minister for

Repatriation for his personal interest. He could not intervene but I know that he spent endless time studying the files covering this case. Now we know the result. We know that $10,000 in back money has been paid.

I received a very touching telegram from the person concerned saying that at long last his pension had been granted. All honourable members must be gratified to know that justice, although somewhat delayed, has been done. This proves 2 things. Firstly, parliamentary representation does not go unnoticed. If there is a Minister who is prepared to take notice of the representation made in the Parliament, justice can be won. I hope tonight that Mr Medlyn, although he is suffering greatly from his disabilities, at least takes some satisfaction from the fact that democracy has been served. He has been granted a certain pension. It was very delayed and probably he should have received it earlier. But at least now he has received justice and it came to him only through the democratic process.

I thank the Minister for the unlimited time that I know he spent on this case. I also wish to pay my tribute to Mr Russo of the Legal Service Bureau and to certain medical practitioners who tendered submissions on behalf of this man. I share the Minister’s satisfaction at knowing that justice has been done to a man who served his country well and who, despite the great payment made to him, is still suffering great and serious disabilities. However it must give him great satisfaction to know that his pension has been backdated for 4 years and that $10,000 has been paid. At least he can endeavour, with some security other than the invalid pension, to enjoy the life that is before him despite the suffering caused by his war disabilities. Tonight I pay my personal tribute to the Minister for Repatriation and to his Department for a very splendid effort to give justice to an ex-serviceman.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– There is not much I can add to what the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) most graciously said. The facts of the case, as he briefly outlined them, are quite correct. 1 must admit that when the honourable member raised this case, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House, it certainly made one feel concerned and worried about the condition of Mr Medlyn. I want to express my appreciation to the honourable member for Grayndler for the kind words he said about my interest in the case and also that of the Repatriation Department. I know that the result gives the honourable member a great deal of personal satisfaction, as it would any honourable member who took up the cudgels on behalf of a person who he thought was not receiving a fair deal. I know every honourable member feels the same way when a case looks as though it is finished, is hopeless and final but then finds that the desired result is achieved.

I want to thank the honourable member for his co-operation throughout the investigation of this matter. A lot of time was spent on it. I am sure that Mr Medlyn and his family greatly appreciate the honourable member’s persistence and determination in pressing their case. The honourable member fought this case on their behalf for a very long time but he now has a very satisfying reward for his long struggle. That is all I wish to say on behalf of the Repatriation Department in relation to the Medlyn case.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– Mr Speaker, I wish to raise 2 matters which I think concern you as custodian of the House. Firstly, on Tuesday of this week, the day on which the Budget was introduced, deputations of pensioner groups from various States were present as usual. At some stage during the day they were excluded from entry into the House. It was a cold day, but they had to stand outside and present cards through the door to their various representatives. As a result of representations to you by my colleague, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor), they were ultimately admitted to Kings Hall. I would like to know why these citizens of the Commonwealth were excluded from access to the House.

The second matter I wish to raise relates to the various air conditioned rooms in which attendants of the House sit. I refer mainly to level U in the House, the floor on which I have my office. In the last few weeks - certainly since this session commenced - somebody has been sitting on a chair outside the chamber. Apparently this enables him to have a long view of the corridor. I do not know why this is being done. If you know about it, Mr Speaker, will you tell us why it is being done? It seems to me to be a very curious situation to have somebody sitting outside the air conditioned offices on these cold days. Everyone working in the House is entitled to work in an air conditioned office. I have great pride in the people who work in this House and I would like to know why someone has to sit in a corner under such circumstances. Apparently it is because such a person has a long view of the corridor. I would like some explanation, Mr Speaker, if you know of this practice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall make some inquiries into why somebody has to sit out in the cold, and will let the honourable member know the result The question of the non-admittance of pensioners was raised in the other place last night by an honourable senator and I have given him a written reply. I will make a copy of the reply available to the honourable member for Melbournes Ports (Mr Crean). I might say that a small number of people had to wait outside the Parliament for admission. They were not excluded. I understand that Kings Hall was very crowded at the time because a large number of visitors and trade unionists was present

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.43 p.m.

page 361

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television (Question No. 599)

Mr Hayden:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What action has been taken with respect to each of therecommendations made by the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television in its report submitted in 1962-63.
Where action has not been taken, is any action proposed; if so, when is it likely to be taken.

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

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

and (2) 1 refer the honourable member to pages 3673 and 3674 of Hansard of 12 June 1970, containing a reply by the Prime Minister to a question bythe Leader of the Opposition as to action taken on the recommendations of a number of Senate Select Committees, including that on Australian Productions on Television. As the Prime Minister’s reply indicates action has been taken which is relevant to a wide range of the Committees’ recommendations. Only about one quarter of the Committees’ recommendations concerned broadcasting and television. There are no present further proposals for action in the broadcasting and television field flowing out of the recommendations of the Committee, except that the requirements of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board regarding Australian content in television programmes, which was the basic concern of the Committee are kept under regular review. A further such review is to be made shortly. The recommendations of the Committee will be borne in mind by myself and the Board in the normal administration of the broadcasting and television services.

Prison Officers (Question No. 1100)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Is he able to say how many (a) male prison officers, (b) female prison officers and (c) civilian staff employed in administration, are attached to the prison services of each State and Territory.
Can he also state the amount provided for each of these prison services for (a) salaries and (b) other recurrent expenditures for the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

I am unable to state the position in respect of the States.

No prison services are provided in the Australian Capital Territory. In respect of the Northern Territory the following information is provided.

(a) 54 male prison officers - 32 in Darwin, 22 in Alice Springs.

4 female prison officers - 2 in Darwin, 2 in Alice Springs.

Civilian prison staff NIL. Administrative services are provided by the Northern Territory Administration.

(a) Expenditure on salaries, including overtime for the year ended 30th June 1969- $134,903.

Expenditure other than salaries for the year ended 30th June 1969- 894,997.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Runway Approach (Question No. 1152)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is it a fact that aircraft landing on and taking off from runway 16 at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport pass over heavily populated suburbs in the electoral division of Grayndler causing distress and suffering to pensioners, families, and shift workers, and to persons in hospitals, schools, colleges, churches and industry.
If so, will he give instructions that this runway is to be used only in emergency and that aircraft captains be advised accordingly: if not, why not.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Aircraft using the north/south runway pass over heavily populated areas in the Grayndler Electoral Division and complaints have been received about aircraft noise from individuals and a number of community organisations. Without attempting to minimise the problem, I doubt that the description ‘distress and suffering’ applies as generally tothe community as fa implied in the question. Be that as it may, there is a problem of noise nuisance to the north of the airport which has been recognised for some time and every effort is made to alleviate it to the extent possible. (2)I would not be prepared to issue instructions that runway 16 (for landings) and runway 34 (for take-offs) be used only In an emergency. If ‘emergency’ is defined as ‘essential forthe safety of crews and passengers’ then in the fullest sense this could involve the diversion of arriving aircraft to other airports or the withholding of departures in some conditions of wind and weather at Sydney which would normally demand the use of the north/south runway. If the term emergency’ is extended to mean ‘essential for the safety of crews and passengers when operating to and from Sydney Airport’ then already in the control of air traffic and the application of preferred runways for noise abatement, runway 34 is rarely, if ever, used for take-offs in other than the circumstances of such emergencies. This of course does not apply to landings on runway 16 which are the main cause of annoyance to people to the north of the airport

Therefore describing the operational procedures governing the use of landing runways, it is appropriate to first mention that there are limitations in the tola] use of the airport. That is, the ‘curfew’ period for scheduled jet operations between 11.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. and the limitation on training movements.

From 10.00 p.m. to 6.45 a.m. runway 16 is equal last priority for landings. The other runway for last priority is runway 07 (approaches from the west). Only safety conditions ever require landings on runway 16 in these hours.

A similar concept of operation also applies in the evening hours between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. but the use of runway 16 for landings is not precluded in the event of the build-up of excessive traffic delays and controller work load. Nevertheless, in practice, and even accepting that wind and weather conditions sometimes demand its use, runway 16 has a low percentage use for landings in these hours. The noise abatement procedures make good use of landing over Botany Bay or from the east as second alternative in these hours.

From 6.4S a.m. to 7.00 p.m. are the busiest hours of traffic. Since the use of landings over Botany Bay is in direct conflict to preferred departures taking off over Botany Bay and also since wind conditions rarely permit landings towards the north in these hours, alternative runways are used for landings.

The procedures split and distrubute the landing traffic flow to make use of all directions where possible during these hours. That is, landings on runway 16, landings on runway 07 from the west and landings on runway 25 from the east. All these directions involve sensitive areas. Partly because of prevailing winds and partly because of the need for safety in the control of traffic, landing aircraft make more use of runways 16 and 07 than runway 25. The extent of use of runways 16 and 07 for landings is normally very similar but runway works may upset this balance at times.

It will be appreciated that the safety factor, more than any other, determines the noise abatement procedures to be used. Whilst it may be true that runway 16 could be used to a lesser degree for landings, without compromising safety, by making greater use of runway 07 for landings, an extensive study of noise sensitive areas around the airport has shown that the western section is also very sensitive. The effect of the higher terrain contributes to this, lt is my view that the present procedures, which have been developed after careful consideration, are justified.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Aircraft Movements (Question No. 1153)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What was the number of (a) landings on and (b) take-offs from runway 16 at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport each day from 1st October 1969 to the present date.
What was the total number of (a) landings and (b) take-offs at this airport in the same period.
In each case how many of these (a) landings and (b) take-offs occurred after 11 p.m.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

In the past it has been possible to supply aircraft movement information requested because it was confined to late night/early morning operations for which reasonably accurate records are maintained.

Such is not the case for all movements over the prolonged period involved because, as a matter of policy, flight records are retained for only 3 months. In the circumstances, the following information, which has been derived from samples of movements for a 2-month period (November/ December 1969) and over 4 days (14th to 17th March 1970) when works on taxiways and the east/west runway caused an unusually high percentage use of the north/south runway, may satisfy this inquiry:

Calendar Months November/December 1969

Landings on runway 16 - 3,787 Daily average - 62 (approx.)
Take-offs from runway 16 (over Botany Bay- 7,167

Daily average - 1 17 (approx.)

Note: Take-offs from runway 34 over northern suburbs)- 159

Daily average - 2.5 (approx.)

(a) Total landings at airport - 10,159

Daily average - 166.5 (approx.)

Total take-offs at airport- 10,136

Daily average - 166 (approx.)

(a) Landings on runway 16 after 11 p.m. - 84

Daily average - 1.4 (approx.)

Total landings at airport after 11 p.m.- 407

Daily average- 6.7 (approx.)

Take-offs from runway 16 (over Botany Bay) after 11 p.m.- 410

Daily average - 6.7 (approx.)

Note: Take-offs from runway 34 (over northern suburbs) after 11 p.m.- 1

Total take-offs at airport after 11 p.m.- 456 14th to 17th March, 1970 (4 days) (l)(a) Landings on runway 16 - 518

Daily average - 129.6

Take-offs from runway 16 (over Botany

Bay)- 670

Daily average - 167.5

Note: Take-offs from runway 34 (over northern suburbs) - 1

(a) Total landings at airport - 678

Daily average - 169.5

Total take-offs at airport - 671

Daily average 168 (approx.)

(a) Landings on runway 16 after 11 p.m. - 1

Total landings at airport after 11 p.m. - 14

Daily average - 3.5

Take-offs from runway 16 after 11 p.m. -25

Daily average - 6.25

Note: Take-offs from runway 34 (over northern suburbs) after 11 p.m. - nil

Total take-offs at airport after 11 p.m. -25

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Instrument Landing System (Question No. 1.154)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is it a fact that the installation of an instrument landing system over Botany Bay would obviate the need for aircraft to fly over heavily populated suburbs when landing or taking off from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
Is there any reason why the instrument landing system should not be installed without delay to relieve the distress caused by aircraft noise. If not, when is it proposed to install the system.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Approaches and departures are conducted over Botany Bay as often as traffic and weather conditions allow. The big majority of take-offs are already from runway 16 towards the south with initial climb out over the Bay, and this limits the number of landings which can be made in the reciprocal direction. This means, in effect, that approaches over the Bay can only be authorised during low density traffic periods such as the night hours.

The installation of an instrument landing system (ILS) would not change this situation to any significant degree. Runway 34 (for landings into the north) can be used without ILS whenever the wind component does not exceedthe maximum permitted for the aircraft type (of the order of 25 knots for ‘he large jets), the cloud base is not below 390 feet above the aerodsome, and the visibility is not less than 1 mile. Studies carried out in my Department show that cloud and visibility conditions worse than the above values are almost invariably associated with winds which would not permit landings on runway 34. Therefore, from the aspect of weather, the installation of ILS on runway 34 would have no appreciable effect on the availability of this runway.

It is intended to provide an instrument landing system for runway 34 in conjunction with the next stage of runway development which has been approved by the Government. Work on extensioninto Botany Bay to 13,000 feet has already commenced and is scheduled for completion early in 1972. Engineering planning for the ILS is aimed at completing the whole installation at the time the extended runway is ready for use.

There are considerable engineering difficulties in installing the facility now. The aerial for the glide path element of an ILS to serve the present runway 34 would need to be placed at least 2,000 feet from the southern sea-wall. The area of ground in front of the aerial must be appropriately smooth and level to achieve acceptable course quality. Even if this ground preparation was carried out at considerable cost, the civil works beyond the southern sea-wall which have now commenced would affect the quality ofthe glide path. This would make it necessary to decommission this facility for lengthy periods, if not for the whole time of construction.

Airline Industry: Employment (Question No. 1212)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is the Minister able to say how many people are employed directly or indirectly in the airline industry.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The question of indirect employment is open to a number of interpretations, and for that reason, you may find details of total employment for the Civil Aviation industry the most appropriate. As at 30th June 1970 the numbers employed were estimated to be:

Aviation Facilities - Maintenance Costs (Question No. 1266)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What was the annual expenditure on
1. new runways, or extensions to runways;
2. maintenance of runways;
3. navigational aids;
4. meteorological services; and
5. buildings during the past 10 years.
What was the return from the use of those assets or services during each of those years.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information requested can best be provided in tabular form. Two tables are provided, one foi capital expenditure on new runways and other assets and one for the costs of maintaining and operating those facilities, including meteorological services to civil aviation. No administration, depreciation or interest charges are included.
Revenue is derived from several sources and is shown in the third table. Aviation fuel tax, which is collected by the Department of Customs and Excise, has been shown because the aviation industry regards these payments as contributions towards the cost of provision of civil aviation facilities by the Government.

DC9 Aircraft: Safety Measures (Question No. 1267)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Did a 6-year old child accidentally pull an exit lever and open an escape window on an Ansett DC9 aircraft at Sydney Airport on 14th May 1970.
If so, did the child or the parent pull the lever as a diversion during an incident on the aircraft.
Are these levers set so that a 6-year old child can open a window.
If an escape window on a DC9 aircraft is accidentally opened whilst the aircraft is in flight, could a fatal accident occur.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Yes.
The exit release was pulled by a child. The child was unaware of any other incident involving the aircraft and it was pure chance that the two happenings were coincident.
Yes. The operation of emergency exits is required to be made simple, rapid and obvious so as to facilitate their use in an emergency.
Both the emergency exits and doors of the DC9 are of the ‘plug type’ and cannot be opened in flight, either accidentally or deliberately, because of the pressure in the cabin.

Emergency exits are designed so that once an exit has been opened it will be obvious and will require skilled persons to replace it Any interference with the exit on the ground therefore would be conspicuous to the flight crew or cabin attendants. Doors also have a warning system to alert the flight crew when they are not properly locked.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: International Terminal (Question No. 1368)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Are procedures covering the arrival of passengers at the new international terminal at Sydney causing some confusion.
Is there any lack of liaison between Customs and airline officials which has resulted in arriving passengers missing families and friends waiting to meet them.
Will the Minister investigate arrival procedures with a view to eliminating any confusion which presently exists and ensure that persons arriving from overseas receive the best possible first impression of Australia.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Health, Immigration and Customs procedures covering passengers arriving at the new international terminal are not causing confusion.
Members of the public greeting passengers may be having some difficulties in contacting business associates and friends, because of the very much larger area involved in the new terminal. This problem was noted shortly after the commissioning of the new terminal and steps have been taken to meet the changed circumstances. This matter does not involve liaison between Customs and airline officers.
The arrival procedures for passengers are under continuous review with the object of anticipating future problems and meeting current ones. For example, my Department, in conjunction with a concessionaire in the International Terminal, Travellers Service Centre, has already implemented a message system on an interim basis pending the provision of a communication facility between the gate positions and the Travellers Service Centre to enable a check to be made with the Centre as to the names of passengers for whom messages are held. It is intended that this information be conveyed to arriving passengers through the aircraft P-A. system. It is felt that this will help to overcome the particular problem to which you have directed my attention.

Radio Stations: Refusal to Play Records (Question No. 1369)

Mr Armitage:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

ls it a fact that, because of amendments made to the Copyright Act last year, recording companies are now demanding from radio stations cash payments of royalties in respect of records played on the air with the result that radio stations are now refusing the play Australian and most English records.
Is he able to say whether this is having a detrimental effect on Australian composers and musicians.
Should Australian musicians and composers receive every assistance from Government legislation instead of being placed at a disadvantage by it.
ls action urgently needed to promote these composers and musicians keeping in mind that the Broadcasting and Television Act provides for a minimum of only 5% of the time to be spent by broadcasting stations in the broadcasting of music by Australian composers.
Will he take whatever steps he can to overcome this situation.

Mr Hulme:
LP

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

According to press reports, certain record manufacturing companies are requiring the payment of royalties by commercial ‘broadcasting stations under the Copyright Act for use of recordings manufactured by them. As a result stations have discontinued the use of British and Australian recordings, the rights of which are held by the manufacturers concerned.
1. I am not able to say at this stage whether the situation is having a detrimental effect on Australian composers and musicians. Press reports indicate that there are a considerable number of independent recording companies which are not involved in the dispute, whose recordings of Australian artists are still available for broadcasting. Press reports also make the point that artists will be able to consider their position when their existing contracts wilh recording companies expire. Some broadcasting enterprises have plans themselves to embark on production of recordings of Australian artists.
2. It will be seen from the foregoing that it appears unlikely that there will be any disadvantage to Australian musicians in the long term, if indeed there is any temporary dislocation of the industry. The amendments to the Copyright Act bring it into conformity with legislation in the United Kingdom. The provisions do not require the payment of a royalty, but make it possible for the record manufacturers to impose one if, in their business judgment, this is wise.
3. and (5) The present dispute between commercial broadcasting stations and record manufacturers has some complex aspects. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene especially as there is provision in the copyright legislation for arbitration on disputes. The matter of ensuring the greatest opportunities for Australian talent in broadcasting is kept under review by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The possibilities of any further development of stations’ activities in this regard has been under discussion by the Board with the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters. The Broadcasting and Television Act provides that broadcasting stations shall devote not less than 5% of music time to Australian compositions. On the average stations exceed the requirement and station operators have told the Board that they will be able to continue to conform with the requirement Prior to the present dispute 11 to 13% of all music broadcast by commercial stations was devoted to Australian performances. The extensive activities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in encouraging Australian talent are well known. The Commission is not involved in the dispute with the recording companies and the dispute does not therefore affect the broadcasting of records of Australian artists on national broadcasting stations.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 August 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700820_reps_27_hor69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 August 1970

PETITIONS

Education

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Mr SPEAKER:

Social Services

Social Services

Social Services

Kangaroos

Kangaroos

Education

Social Services

Education

Social Services

Interest Rates

Interest Rates

Education

Social Services

Education

Education

Perth Airport

Schools Television Programmes

Interest Rates

QUESTION

EXPORT FINANCE

Mr KEATING:BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

Mr TURNER:BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTORS

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

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr McLEAY:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr Malcolm Fraser:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr Whitlam:

Mr McEWEN:

Mr Whitlam:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S PORTRAIT

Mr MAISEY:MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr GORTON:Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr BRYANT:WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGE

Mr JARMAN:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:LP

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Mr MORRISON:ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:LP

Mr Morrison:

Mr McMAHON:

Mr Bryant:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McMAHON:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN DETAINED IN GREECE

Mr GARLAND:CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

House of Representatives
20 August 1970

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

Mr NIXON:
CP

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP