House of Representatives
28 October 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2,30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2837

PETITIONS

Taxation

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members oi the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble Petition of the undersigned members of the Country Women’s Association in Tasmania respectfully sheweth:

That we view with great indignation the fact that cosmetics and grooming aids are the only consumer expendables on which the 25 per cent sales tax is levied and draw your attention to the injustice of the high rates of sales tax on cosmetics and toiletries;

That we fail to understand why dog powder should be tax free whilst baby powder, cream, talc, hand lotion and face powder are taxed;

That the 25 per cent tax was imposed in 1956 as a luxury tax in a Supplementary Budget and that a review of this matter is now overdue.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will impose a small tax on dog powder and non-essential cosmetics and abolish taxation on items which are essential for babies, elderly folk and geriatric patients. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– J present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully sheweth:

That duc to the higher living costs, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Unions policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth:

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earn.ings for ali States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Unions policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of Grey respectfully showeth:

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with Australian Council of Trade Unions policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pension may live their lives in dignity.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the follow ing petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That due to higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with Australian Council of Trade 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.

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, willever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Ipresentthefollowing petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth:

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; more than500,000 children suffer from serious lack of equal opportunity; Australia cannot afford to waste the talents of one sixth of its school children; only the Commonwealth has the financial resources for special programmes to remove inadequacies; and nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have shown that the chief impetus for change and the finance for improvement come from the National Government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives make legal provision for a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities; the immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aboriginal, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children; and the provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Censorship

Tothe Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That they are not gravely concerned that moral standards in the Australian community may be changing, particularly in regard to the Community’s willingness to treat adults within it as reasonable and responsible people who are capable of making up their own minds as to what may be perfectly acceptable or unacceptable material in books, magazines, plays, films and television and radio programmes, and particularly when this material depicts life in human society, including language habits and sex habits and gives warning of the dangers of the uses of violence and narcotic drugs;
  2. That they in fact welcome this change, having regard for the fact that it demonstrates an increasing tolerance of and respect for the rights of individuals to think their own way through their own lives, free from information-withholding restrictions which people of one religion or one standard of morals may seek to impose on either the majority or minority who do not hold the same views;
  3. That they question the simplistic view that nations ‘perish’ because of a so-called ‘internal moral decay’, unless such ‘decay’ is taken to include an increasing unwillingness to face the facts of life in open discussion and freedom of thought;
  4. That they welcome the statement by the Honourable the Minister of Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, that the concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms and that, as a philosophy, it is evil and ought to be condemned–

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to give the maximum freedom to adults to choose what they will watch, read and listen to, even in the face of pressure from those who seek to impose their ideas and morals on others who do not share them.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Censorship

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

  1. That they are not gravely concerned that moral standards in the Australian community may be changing, particularly in regard to the community’s willingness to treat adults within it as reasonable and responsible people who are capable of making up their own minds as to what may be perfectly acceptable or unacceptable material in books, magazines, plays, films and television and radio programmes, and particularly when this material depicts life in human society, .including language habits and sex habits and gives warning of the dangers of the use of violence and narcotic drugs;
  2. That they in fact welcome this change, having regard for the fact that it demonstrates an increasing tolerance of and respect for the rights of individuals to think their own way through their own lives, free from information-withholding restrictions which people of one religion or one standard of morals may seek to impose on either the majority or minority who do not hold the same views;
  3. That they question the simplistic view that nations ‘perish’ because of a so-called ‘internal moral decay’ unless such ‘decay’ is taken to include an increasing unwillingness to face the facts of life in open discussion and freedom of thought;
  4. That they welcome the statement by the honourable the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, that the concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms and that, as a philosophy, it is evil and ought to be condemned -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to give the maximum freedom to adults to choose what they will watch, read and listen to, even in the face of pressure from those who seek to impose their ideas and morals on others who do not share them.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under signed citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and. inadequate teaching aids. te) That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2839

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Treasurer a question about the cost of preschool education. He will remember that a year ago I undertook that a Labor government would ensure that every child would have the opportunity of 1 year’s preschool education, as every child in Canberra already has, and he will also remember that his predecessor promptly produced an estimate that such facilities would entail $160m capital cost and an annual recurrent cost rising to $32m, excluding the cost of training additional pre-school teachers. I ask the honourable gentleman what he himself estimates to be the capital and recurrent cost of the modified kindergartencumchildminding centres which the Prime Minister has now proposed. If he has not yet estimated the costs, will he be able to estimate them before the House rises?

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

– It is most unlikely that 1 could provide any such estimate before the House rises. If the Leader of the Opposition likes to give me the particulars of any scheme, so that it is carefully delineated, I can then have the costs estimated, but unless he produces this, such an exercise is not possible.

page 2840

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for External Affairs a question. He will recall that last Thursday he was asked a question by the honourable member for Kingston in which this honourable gentleman referred to the Vietnam war as a civil war. Is it not a fact that approximately 8 out of 9 people fighting the South Vietnamese Army today are North Vietnamese soldiers? Is it not a fact also that when these soldiers go down the Ho Chi Minh trail into Laos they are regarded by many members of the Opposition as aggressors, and that in Cambodia at least one prominent member of the Labor Party has said that they are the aggressors? Can the right honourable gentleman explain therefore how it is that when these North Vietnamese soldiers reach the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail they suddenly cease, at least in the eyes of the honourable member for Kingston, to be invaders and become patriots fighting a civil war?

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

– I remember the question asked by the honourable gentleman, and I think it can be answered in this way: First of all, approximately 90 per cent of forces fighting in the north of South Vietnam are NVA, and overall between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of forces fighting in South Vietnam are North Vietnamese. I think that disposes of the idea that civil war is involved. As to the second and third questions, I think the appropriate answer is this-

Dr Jenkins:

– What about the free election?

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, and there have been free elections in South Vietnam but none in North Vietnam.

Dr Jenkins:

– The other candidate for the presidency is in gaol.

Mr Cope:

– I think they got the donkey vote.

Mr McMAHON:

– No, you have normally captured most of that yourself - and deserved it. As to the second point involved here - and perhaps I could now answer the interjection - there is nothing in the 1954 Agreements or in the 1962 Accords requiring an election in South Vietnam. The confusion arises in the mind of the honourable member-

Mr Morrison:

– Because it was the Final Declaration.

Mr McMAHON:

– Please let me answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the House that there are far too many interjections.

Mr McMAHON:

– For the first time since I have been here the honourable member for St George has been right - and that is an incredible performance on his part.

But I need go no further because he has made a point that I hope has been heard by every honourable member in this House. It was in the final declaration - and nobody signed the final declaration. So it is difficult to think of either elections, or, for that matter, of civil war.

The last point I make in answer to the honourable member’s question is this: But for the veto of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, South Vietnam would have become a member of the United Nations. It is in fact a member of many of the subsidiary organisations, and that is a clear illustration of world opinion. Tt regards South Vietnam as a State and does not think there is an element of civil war involved there.

As to the other part of the honourable gentleman’s question, there is undoubtedly blatant aggression against Cambodia. The honourable member for Wills once was only too willing to admit that this was a fact, but lately, obviously under pressure from organisations like the Trade Union Defence Committee, he has become intimidated and no longer has the courage to express his thoughts.

page 2841

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

Mr BARNARD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Science. It is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Minister: Has he been consulted by the Prime Minister about the establishment of kindergarten-cum-childminding centres? Will the institutions that are envisaged in fact be pre-school centres or childminding centres? Are they to be staffed by qualified pre-school teachers? Is he aware that 240,000 children will have priority for admission within the terms suggested by the Prime Minister? How does the Minister propose to provide teachers for this great influx, representing 4 times the present enrolment of the entire Australian pre-school system? Finally, can he assure me that there will be no reduction in the standards of our pre-school education which at present enjoy international recognition?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I propose to answer that question since it seeks to deal with a matter I have already raised and stated as an objective of the Government: - and it is an objective of the Government. The details of it are matters of policy and will not be disclosed in answer to questions in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Capricornia will cease interjectiinng. In fact I will not issue any more warnings for continual interjections.

page 2841

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, ls the Minister aware of a news item which recently appeared in Western Australia stating, firstly, that the Commonwealth Government was negotiating to buy a group of town houses for Aboriginals at Guildford near Perth, and secondly, that the Minister visited the site when in Perth 2 weeks ago and was intent on keeping the matter quiet? Will he advise the House of the position?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I was so intent on keeping the matter quiet that [ did not visit the site at all! The newspaper report, which I have seen, is entirely incorrect. It is true that there have been certain discussions about the possible purchase of some houses - J do not know where - by an Aboriginal organisation to house its aged people. This organisation has discussed with me the principle of the proposal but there have been no commitments or negotiations. I am waiting for a proposal to be put to me. I cannot say whether this will be a good or bad proposal because 1 do not know what it is. I can only say that if the proposal is directed towards the proper housing of aged Aboriginals it will be supported by me in the most sympathetic way. However, my attitude on this matter will depend on the merits of the proposal. As I have said, I do not know what is contained in the proposal and the story that I visited the site is entirely untrue, as is the story that the Commonwealth Government has entered into any negotiations whatever in regard to this matter.

page 2841

QUESTION

ARBITRATION SYSTEM

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. 1 refer to his recent speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in which he flew a kite on the productivity geared wages policy and in which he showed an interesting and somewhat intriguing grasp of economic principles. Does the Minister realise that in promoting a particular policy he is recommending a wages policy which would be responsible for slashing by more than half the average of weekly growth in wages and salaries in the community and that such a policy would require fine tuning into economic movements of such a nature as to be beyond the capacity of the present Arbitration Court? Therefore, will he advise the House and the country what he has in mind to replace the Arbitration Court? Finally, will he state explicitly but briefly the effects of terms of trade movement on such a wages policy?

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

– I would advise the honourable gentleman to read the speech again. He paid me the compliment of some knowledge and I would suggest to him with the same courtesy that he elevate his knowledge about what I said to the same level. The point I was making - 1 am certain that it is theoretically correct- was that wages ought not to move beyond the underlying productivity improvement. I then went on to say that in fact I did not see this as an achievable result because wages are given in a variety of different ways and tribunals have been granting wages beyond the productivity improvement. Employers have been granting wages or conditions that have been demanded by unions which have threatened direct action if they are not granted. On many occasions employers have been weak. I therefore said that if the Arbitration Commission was to pursue this policy it would be necessary for it actually to give award rates below the productivity level. Everything that I said was predicated on the basis of the maintenance of the arbitration system, and that remains the policy of this Party and the Government.

The Opposition has a different attitude to the arbitration system. The Opposition would be prepared to strike down the arbitration system. There are plenty of examples of this. For example, in 1969 the Australian Labor Party adopted as a resolution the need for an effective political campaign in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to achieve a 35- hour week. Now, the Leader of the Opposition has a policy directive to him to achieve an effective political campaign. But so far the Leader of the Opposition has refused to say whether he is in favour of a 35-hour week or not. The honourable member for Dawson yesterday refused to say whether he was in favour of a 35-hour week or not. The fact of the matter remains that they do have a policy directive to launch an effective political campaign for a 35-hour week. They have illustrated in the last few months the capacity to combine with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the purpose of political strikes. There is a number of examples of political strikes. One was the late lamented attempt to have the entire work force of Australia go on strike in support of the Opposition Leader’s speech on the Budget and the opposition to it.

Mr Gorton:

– It was a unity ticket.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It was a unity ticket and it failed. Another example, of course, was the call for a national stoppage in support of the Moratorium. That was a blatant use of industrial power to serve political purposes-

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, a point of order-

Mr SNEDDEN:

– … and that is what the policy requires in relation to the 35-hour week.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I call the honourable member for Oxley on a point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, can I have you direct the Minister’s attention to the central point of my question which is the effects of terms of trade movements on-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. You cannot request me to do that.

Mr Hayden:

– Well, can I-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I point out that there would be a loss of wages-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We are entitled to know from the Leader of the Opposition: Does he deny the policy of the conference of the Labor Party? Does he deny it or, on the contrary, does he support it, and if-

Dr Jenkins:

– You answer the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Will I answer it?

Mr SPEAKER:
Dr Jenkins:

– Answer the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Certainly.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will certainly answer it

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Scullin.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker, may I take a point of order on this matter?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will certainly-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the honourable member for Wills on a point of order.

Mr Bryant:

– My point of order is that the Minister has been quite unfair to the House and to everybody on this side and I think he ought to make his speeches some other time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The point of order is without substance.

Mr Hayden:

– Well. Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. How long do we have to watch the abuse of question time in this House?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

-… because the Minister has not answered the question-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I name the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr Hayden:

– The Minister cannot and will not answer the question - because his speech was written for him by an economist and he does not understand it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I name the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr Hayden:

– How much longer do we have to put up with this?

Mir SPEAKER- Order! The honourable member for Oxley will remain silent.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I move-

That the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is: That the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of the House.

Dr Klugman:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no, I think the ayes have it.

Opposition Members - The noes have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is a division required?

Opposition Members - Yes.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Mr Speaker, am I entitled to move an amendment to this motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The House will divide. Ring the bells!

Question put:

That the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of the House.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2844

QUESTION

PROSPECTING: NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Has the Minister for the Interior seen a Press report that solicitors from Melbourne intend to challenge the granting of an authority to prospect to the Union Carbide Exploration Corporation in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory? Have any discussions been held with the Aboriginals in the area concerning this matter and, if so, what were the conclusions?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– Some lime ago when I was in the Northern Territory I went to Croker Island and to Oenpelli. While I was at Croker Island the Aboriginals expressed to me their concern that a large tract of land had been granted to Union Carbide under an authority to prospect. They asked whether they could secure an area to prospect in that total area. I said that I would look at the question when I returned to Canberra, and I have since examined it. The facts are that in 1967 Union Carbide was granted an area of 5,680 square miles in which to prospect, lt was, in fact, an application for a renewal of an authority to prospect which was before the Mines Branch in the Northern Territory that was raised with me. The application for renewal shows that the area of 3,680 square miles has been reduced, under the regulations, to 1,838 square miles. I sent officers of the Mines Branch out to have discussions with the Aboriginals about the whole matter, particularly the application by Union Carbide for renewal of the authority to prospect. I believe that a happy agreement has been reached. The Aboriginals agreed that Union Carbide should have the prospecting authority tenewed. They have sought an area of about 500 square miles for themeslves. This has been approved by the Mines Branch, and the Aboriginals will be able to prospect in the area. I read with some interest in this morning’s Press that a Mr Guiness of Melbourne is getting a solicitor to go to the Northern Territory to challenge this approval in the court. I do not really understand why this is so. I certainly do not believe that it is being done with the knowledge or the agreement of the Aboriginals concerned.

page 2844

QUESTION

ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Mr WHITLAM:

– My question, addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service, concerns an application which already has been lodged with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and which at present is being heard by it. The honourable gentleman will, I have no doubt, have noted that the advocate for the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council has submitted that the Commission should dismiss all the applications at present before it from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the white collar unions in the national wages case and that there should be no increase in Commonwealth awards this year at all. 1 ask the honourable gentleman whether the Commonwealth’s counsel has been instructed to support or to oppose this submission by the Woolgrowers and Graziers Council.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– While this case is before the Commission I will say nothing about it. The instructions that will be given to Commonwealth counsel are being worked out at present. They will be made known when they are delivered by Mr Keely, QC, who appears for the Commonwealth.

page 2844

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any protection for political parties under the Electoral Act when a candidate for a Senate election becomes associated with a breakaway group? I ask this question with compassion, as Senator Brown, an Australian Labor Party candidate, appears to be inextricably involved in a Victorian breakaway meeting to be held in Melbourne shortly.

Mr Reynolds:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I suggest to you that this is a purely hypothetical question and that you should rule it out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Matters in relation to the Electoral Act come within the province of the Prime Minister. Although the Prime Minister is not directly responsible for the Act he may answer a question that has been directed to him. The practice of the House has been to allow the Prime Minister to answer questions addressed to one of his Ministers. However, I would suggest that in view of the fact that nominations for the Senate elections have not yet closed, that part of the question relating to a Senate candidate is completely hypothetical, as the honourable member for Barton has suggested.

Mr Whitlam:

– Speaking to the point of order, I submit there is another ground upon which any such question would be objectionable. One realises that it is possible in an answer to a question to cast aspersions on the Chief Justice of Queensland or the Premier of South Australia. The Prime Minister has done so. I submit that under the Standing Orders it is not permissible to cast aspersions on members of this or the other House. The question obviously invites it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If the question was framed in that way the Leader of the Opposition would be correct, but the Chair has no way of knowing how a Minister will answer a question. Accordingly, I rule the question in order. If the question had related specifically to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, he would be correct.

Mr Bryant:

– Oh the point of order: The Electoral Act, of course, is a ministerial responsibility. Are we to take it that the relevance of the answer to the question asked will also be watched very carefully in this case?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have suggested that the last part of the question may be out of order.

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I believe, though 1 would like to look up the matter more carefully, that there is protection for a political party in a Senate election to prevent unauthorised persons from standing in that party’s name. For example, I understand that political parties group together their endorsed candidates and that some candidate who was not so endorsed would not be in that group. I would believe that there would be opportunity for a political party to take action - probably legal action - against any individual who sought to stand under a party label when he was not endorsed by that party. In the entirely hypothetical case allegedly which has arisen, this is not in fact at issue at this time because the individual mentioned, whom I would not for a moment at this time seek to asperse, was chosen and endorsed by the monolithic and junta-ridden Victorian executive. I use the words of the Leader of the Opposition: It was he who called it a monolithic and junta-ridden body, not me. This representative of the Trade Union Defence Committee and the junta-ridden body will be sitting as an endorsed candidate on the platform with the Leader of the Opposition tonight. Unless some action is taken, which seems most unlikely, to do something about the Victorian executive he would bc endorsed and the question would, therefore, not arise.

page 2845

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr REYNOLDS:

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the Minister for Labour and National Service was able to estimate the likely costs and inflationary effects of wage and salary increases arising from the possible introduction of a shorter working week, can the Treasurer with equal facility and precision inform the Parliament of the cost and likely extent of inflationary effects of the following 6 factors: Current record interest charges; monopolistic private price fixing and collusive tendering arrangements; unbridled land and share speculation; record profiteering, particularly in basic industries; budgetary increases in fuel taxes and postal and telegraphic charges; and the unproductive millions of dollars spent outside the country on such defence items as the Fill?

Mr BURY:
LP

– The nature of the honourable member’s question suggests that he is totally unfamiliar with the statistical process and with what can reasonably be calculated and not calculated. What I would point to, however, is the tremendous danger which threatens Australia from exorbitant wage awards and the various concessions which have been made on the industrial front. These are proceeding at such a rate that they threaten the whole stability of our currency and if they are continued for much longer, particularly in conjunction with serious disruptive strikes which interfere with the course of production, we shall see a quite inordinate rise in prices. The major threat to our economy and stability at the moment is from the cost side. These exorbitant rises in wages and salaries put tremendous pressure on costs which, in turn, will inevitably raise prices. What the ultimate outcome will be really depends on whether the community is prepared to have a little more discipline in its economic arrangements or to succumb to chaos, and it will succumb to chaos if it bows down completely before the systematic policy of the extreme left of the Australian Labor Party and the trade unions which control it and direct its main policy. Until and unless this process is resisted we face a very dubious immediate future.

page 2846

QUESTION

VIETNAM POSTING

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. It follows a question asked yesterday concerning the 3rd Battalion in relation to which the Minister said he would make further inquiries. Did members of that Battalion do as was suggested yesterday and can the Minister indicate what significance these actions have for Australia’s defence forces?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– After question time yesterday my colleague the Minister for the Army made some inquiries and later in the day spoke to LieutenantColonel Scott who had been named by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The allegation implicit in the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was that Lieutenant-Colonel Scott had asked members of the Battalion whether they wished to serve in Vietnam and that 60 to 80 soldiers had said that they did not want to and had therefore been posted somewhere else. The advice of my colleague, after he had spoken with Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, is that the allegation implicit in the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is completely and utterly false. There are in fact, to be quite fair to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, about 60 people who. for medical reasons, because there is not sufficient residual service and on compassionate grounds could be posted out of the Battalion. This is a routine measure which occurs with every battalion in preparation for service overseas, but to mention the lieutenantcolonel in charge of the battalion, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did, was, I believe, a denigration of the officer in the circumstances at the time. He could have sought the information without mentioning the officer’s name. It is quite clear that this was a further attempt by the Opposition in a deliberate campaign to undermine national service and, in- particular, to destroy the discipline of the Australian Army whether in Australia or overseas. There have been a number of instances of efforts in this direction by people from the Leader of the Opposition down. We recall the Leader of the Opposition in a prepared Press statement advising soldiers of the Australian Army to mutiny.

Mr Grassby:

– That is not true.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is true. We have the very words of the Leader of the Opposition. Evidently honouarble members cannot understand the Leader of the Opposition’s own Press statement. He went through a whole rigmarole of advising soldiers that they should give written advice, if they were ordered to go to Vietnam, that they would not obey that order. If a number of soldiers collectively took that advice it would lead to a mutinous situation. Then Senator Wheeldon said - and it is on record in the Senate - that he supports the Vietcong and he claims that he wants the Vietcong to win.

Mr Whitlam:

– I raise a point of order. I have my own remedy at the end of question time. 1 can make an explanation - and once again I will have to make one. Here is an aspersion being cast on a member of another place. That at least is out of order, and one can take it in this way.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Cope:

– I am taking a point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

– So am I.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sydney may not take a point of order while the Leader of the Opposition is making a point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

– If the Minister for Defence proposes to represent Senator Wheeldon as having said something which the Minister represented him as having said on an earlier occasion, he will in fact be misrepresenting the senator.

Dr Mackay:

– He will not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Evans will cease interjecting. I suggest that the House come to order. It has been a fairly noisy question time, not without some provocation, andI suggest that the House come to order and that the Leader of the Opposition be heard.

Mr Whitlam:

– I think I know what the Minister for Defence is going to say about Senator Wheeldon. I heard him say it once on television. I checked in Hansard what Senator Wheeldon said. The Minister for Defence misrepresented him.I do not want him to misrepresent Senator Wheeldon under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition is referring to what Senator Wheeldon said in a debate in another place. He is not claiming yet that the Minister for Defence has misrepresented him. The Leader of the Opposition is rather anticipating that the Minister may misrepresent him in this matter. If he would listen to the Minister for Defence he might have his remedy then.

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 145 dealing with questions. It says:

An answer shall be relevant to the question.

I submit that the answer which the Minister is now giving is not relevant to the question which was asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The answer is relevant to the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-I was saying that what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had done was part of a deliberate campaign to undermine the discipline of the Army. I had mentioned and quoted part of what the Leader of the Opposition had said. So that there may be no possibility of my misrepresenting a member in another place, Senator Wheeldon, I will quote from Hansard of 12th May. Senator Wheeldon said:

A number of people would support the Vietcong. I personally, I do not deny, do support the Vietcong because I believe that the Vietcong represents the great mass of the South Vietnamese people.

That is precisely the sense of what I said in a television debate with the Leader of the Opposition on another occasion. There was no misrepresentation on that occasion. Senator Wheeldon clearly wants the Vietcong to win in this conflict. The honourable member for Lalor-

Mr Kennedy:

– I rise to order. I suggest that the answer of the Minister for Defence is going far beyond the requirements of an answer to the question that was put to him. Over recent days, Mr Speaker, you have made it quite clear that questions and answers are to be brief. This is by no means a brief answer. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you request the Minister for Defence to make his answer far briefer.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest, as I have suggested on many occasions, that at question time the questions that are asked should be short, to the point and based on fact. 1 have requested Ministers on a number of occasions to make their answers as short as possible. If the Minister wants to make a statement after question time, the House has been assured that the Opposition will not refuse that request. I think that the question which has been asked today by the honourable member for Lilley has brought quite a number of questions before the House which have opened up an extremely large field. I suggest to the Minister that the answer he is giving should be as short as possible.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-I will certainly meet with your wishes, Mr Speaker. I would have been finished long before this if the Opposition did not have a keen desire to see that the facts of the matter are kept from the House. The other aspect of this campaign was quite clearly embraced in part of the activities of the honourable member for Lalor, in his invitation to representatives of Hanoi, the National Liberation Front - the Vietcong - to come to Australia. The attitude of the present Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy in these matters differs very greatly from that of his predecessor who, although he also opposed the war in Vietnam, said that he would never do anything to inhibit or harm or hinder Australian forces in Vietnam, and this is a quite different attitude from the deliberate campaign that is now being undertaken to undermine the discipline of the Army.

page 2847

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr LUCHETTI:

– My question to the Prime Minister refers to the plight of a needy section of the Australian people. I ask the Prime Minister: Does he intend to accede to the humanitarian plea made by a responsible group of citizens for the introduction of a little Budget so that a substantial increase may be made to pension payments and thus to remedy a serious injustice to the needy, aged, sick and other pensioners who find it difficult to live on present pension payments?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The Government during its term of office intends to continue with the programme of alleviating social distress. It has a programme which has been more extensive than any other programme in a similar period of time, and it has done more in these fields than I can think has happened at any other time at all - not only in the field of which the honourable member speaks because thai is confined to pensions alone, but also in providing such social services as vastly improved health schemes with which the honourable member who asked the question will, I hope, agree. For example, what we have done in this field is to provide a scheme where the individual pays less than he would have done under an alternative scheme and gets back more than he would have done under an alternative scheme, which must help the whole spectrum of people requiring health benefits. I can say this: We have, as our objectives, the amelioration of the suffering of the old, the sick, the invalid and others in this community, and I believe it fair to say, on the record, that what we specifically promise we perform.

35-HOUR WEEK

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry give the House a reasonably accurate estimate of the additional costs of producing a bushel of wheat should a 35-hour working week be introduced? Has the Minister seen a statement by the honourable member for Dawson which indicates that the cost would be 2ic per bushel? Does the Minister believe that this extraordinary statement was made by the honourable member for Dawson to try to get the Labor Party off the hook of its own making by supporting the introduction of a 35-hour week?

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

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the way in which the honourable member for Dawson and the honourable member for Riverina have been defending the 35-hour week. They have said that it will have a very insignificant impact on the costs of primary producers. Indeed, yesterday the honourable member for Dawson said that it would mean only a one-eighth increase in the cost of farm labour, which would result in an increase of only 2ic per bushel in the price of wheat. The facts are that a I2i per cent or oneeighth decrease in working hours in a week would mean a one-seventh or 14.3 per cent increase in labour costs. I think it is a pity that the honourable member for Dawson did not make his calculations a little more accurately, because a man who has been involved in making a survey of costs in the wheat industry should know that there are more costs than just the costs of hired labour when taking labour costs into account. But this is the only cost which the honourable member took into account in arriving at an increase of 2£c per bushel in the price of wheat. In fact, if one considers total farm labour costs, which include the labour costs of the owner or owners and his or their families, of share farmers and what have you, the increase in the price of a bushel of wheat would be not 2£c but 6c. It is 6c a bushel, and if you take into account the effects of a shorter working week and the consequential increases in rates, freight charges, cost of materials and in many other directions, and consider the full impact of the 14.3 per cent, the increase is shown to be 13c a bushel and the effect on the profitability of the wheat farmer is quite disastrous.

I suggest that honourable members could well look at the labour content of a few other industries to see the effect. If we consider the wool industry in the higher rainfall areas and accept the calculations that have been used in the survey, those involved in that industry would be faced with a 20 per cent reduction in net income. If you make your calculation on the total cost there would be a 40 per cent decline in their net incomes. In the dried vine fruits industry, if we consider again the labour content, there would be a reduction of one-third in net farm income. In the dairying industry there would be a reduction of 37 per cent in net income. It would mean a difference of 4c per lb for commercial butterfat at the farm gate.

page 2849

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Speaker, you may have gained the impression that I would now claim to have been misrepresented during question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I did.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I need not go over the whole facts again but I have to repeat the fact that the Minister for Defence has, iti a well prepared answer, misrepresented me. He said that I had been encouraging mutiny. It is true that if a group of soldiers disobeys an order while they are in the armed forces they can be charged with mutiny. They can, if the facts bear out the charge, be convicted of mutiny. The penalty which flows from such a conviction is very serious. What I have said - and I now say it again - is that if any soldier makes it plain that his conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam is such that he would disobey an order to go there then no order for him to go there has ever been given, or is ever given. Sir, orders have not been disobeyed in respect to this matter because the Army does not give an order to a soldier who it knows will stick by his guns and stand his ground on this matter of conscience.

I now ask leave to quote from Hansard a passage of a speech by Senator Wheeldon who was also mentioned by the Minister for Defence.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will quote this passage from a speech made by Senator Wheeldon.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Where does the passage appear?

Mr WHITLAM:

– lt is the one from which the Minister for Defence was quoting. Senator Wheeldon said:

I do nol come here as an advocate of the Vietcong. My support for the Vietcong is a purely theoretical support. My attitude-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for McMillan will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Reid will cease interjecting. If he interjects again I will name him.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Senator Wheeldon said:

My attitude to the war in Vietnam is that whatever happens inside Vietnam is a matter for settlement by the Vietnamese people and that what is happening in Indo-China is no business of the Australian people, the Australian army or the Australian Government. Young Australians should not be conscripted to be sent to Indo-China to be killed. My policy as far as Australia and Vietnam are concerned is that Australia should noi be intervening in that country.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister made the statement complained of by the Leader of the Opposition. Does he claim to have been misrepresented or does he wish ro make a further statement?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I claim that I was misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister is merely telling lies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will withdraw that remark.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right, under protest.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Leader of the Opposition claimed on 2 counts that 1 had misrepresented him and his colleague. On neither count did 1 do so. In the case of his colleague I merely quoted the words that he used when he mentioned his support for the Vietcong. The record stands in Hansard. As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned 1 need only read again his own statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– On a point of order. The Minister is now going beyond a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat. The Minister will not be allowed to debate what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He will be able to show where he was misrepresented but he shall not be allowed to debate the matter.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– May I ask your guidance, Sir? May f show where I have been misrepresented merely by reading a section of the Leader of the Opposition’s own remarks?

Mr SPEAKER:

-If it applies directly, and it must apply directly to the matter that was complained of by the Leader of the Opposition. If it does not apply directly you will be out of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It applies, I believe, quite specifically to this question of mutany. The Leader of the Opposition said:

I told the Caucus that if I were asked by a man who objected to the Vietnam war as to the course he should take I would give this advice: He should register and at the time of doing so give written advice that if he was inducted and ordered to go to Vietnam he would not obey that order.

That is advice that can lead to a mutinous situation. I have previously said in this

House-

Mr SPEAKER:

– -Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

page 2850

SUPERANNUATION ACT 1922-1969

Mr BURY:
LP

– Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1969, I present the forty-seventh annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30th June 1969.

page 2850

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS ACT 1947-1950

Mr BURY:
LP

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-1950 I present the annual reports of the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund, the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with the reports of the Auditor-General on the books and accounts of the funds.

page 2850

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr NIXON:
CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Northern Territory for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 2850

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL ACT 1962-1966

Mr NIXON:
CP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962-1966 I present the annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 2850

UNITED KINGDOM: LEVIES ON IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the intention of the British Government to introduce a system of levies on the imports of a number of agricultural commodities. I received advance notice of this late on Monday. The products concerned are beef and veal, mutton and lamb, cereals and milk powders, condensed milk and cream. These products now all enter the United Kingdom free of duty as a right under our trade agreement with Britain. The Trade Agreement is terminable by 6 months notice by either side. The British say that the main objective in imposing a levy system on imports is to reduce the claims on public expenditure caused by their present subsidy system for supporting their agricultural industry. It is clear to me that this is a deliberate move to adapt their arrangements in view of their prospective membership of the European Economic Community when they would be adopting the Common Agricultural Policy of the EEC. Indeed the British have said that this is one of the reasons for the introduction of the system of levies.

I need not remind the House of my views on the variable levy system of the Common Agricultural Policy as a disruptive element in international trade. The British have asked us to join with them in talks on the commodities of interest to Australia. I have arranged for a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, suitably supported, to go to London immediately to attend these talks. The British Government will introduce the new measures when their discussions with overseas suppliers have been completed. In any case the objective is to bring them into operation at least by 1st April next year.

The British proposals have very important implications for our future trade and trading relations, so I will briefly describe them as I understand them. The British Government proposes to impose variable levies on imports of fresh, frozen and chilled beef and veal. In the case of mutton and lamb, it is the British intention to impose a specific rate of duty. The final impact of these new levies on trade will, of course, not be known until the details of the British proposals have been worked out and are in operation. In the case of cereals initially it is proposed that the present minimum import prices will be raised as soon as possible by some 25 per cent.

Under the present arrangements any individual country which supplies wheat below the specified minimum prices attracts a levy. However, it is also now proposed by the British that on 1st July next their cereals system will be brought into line with the variable levy mechanism of the EEC Common Agricultural Policy. This will mean that all wheat landed in Britain after that date will attract a levy based on the lowest price on offer for sale in that market irrespective of the country of origin. In other words, our wheat could attract a levy as a result of the marketing policies of countries such as those in Eastern Europe, or other minor producers, which come into the market only periodically to dispose of surplus production. In the case of the powdered and condensed milks and creams, the British intend to set up minimum import prices supported by variable levies. Our present trade in these products is small but the British proposals represent a further restriction on the already difficult dairy produce market.

There is one thing which stands out starkly when looking at the British proposals. This is that for the first time the Australian products concerned will be faced with real barriers to trade in this traditional market outlet. The British action will cut across the trade agreement that Australia has with Britain. This agreement is the very basis of the trade relations between us. Under this agreement, first negotiated in 1932 and reviewed in 1957, the British Government undertakes to give free entry to imports from Australia for these and most other products. As soon as a duty - be it fixed, as will be the case of mutton and lamb, or variable, as will be the case for the other products - is struck against imports from Australia this will be a breach of the undertaking for free entry.

The Australian Government will be carefully studying the implications of the British proposals as we now understand them and as they are elaborated during the forthcoming talks in London. We will, of course, be taking a hard look at the balance of benefits under our trade agreement with Britain. We will assess at the appropriate time what adjustment to Australia’s obligations under the agreement is required to restore the balance of advantage. I present the following paper:

United Kingdom: Levies on Imports of Agricultural Commodities - Ministerial Statement, 28th October 1970.

Motton (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the Mouse take note of the paper.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Trade and industry (Mr McEwen) is again the harbinger of bad news. Recently he told us that what had happened to the price for wool was an international disaster. He has now informed the House that we face a national disaster in respect of a number of other products. The Minister mentioned beef, veal, mutton, lamb, cereals, milk powders, condensed milk and cream. The situation must be causing a great deal of disquiet not only to the Australian Country Party, which is very fully represented in the House at the moment, but also to the Liberal Party, which is hardly represented at all in this place at the moment. The difference between the number of seats occupied at the moment by members of the Country Party and those occupied by members of the Liberal Party is nothing less than astonishing. About 90 per cent of Country Party members are in their seats, like crows in the wind, but the Liberal is hardly represented at all.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has supervised the drift of Australia into this situation. The seriousness of what was happening with our trade with the United Kingdom and Europe first became clear in 1963. I well remember the initial debate and the role taken in that debate by the present Treasurer (Mr Bury). But up to now the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Government with which he is associated have done nothing whatever to prepare Australia for the situation which he has just announced. We are producing more of every commodity. We are now producing more than when we first recognised that we faced this crisis. The right honourable gentleman has refused to take any initiative to protect the Australian farmers from walking into the trap that

Britain’s entry into the European Common Market has represented for six or seven years. The Minister has done nothing to prevent the Australian farmer from walking headlong into the trap of producing more although he well knew that the markets for that increased production would not be available. The Minister wants to get it both ways and has hopes that have no foundation in fact or in the future.

The first thing which is not apparent from the right honourable gentleman’s statement is whether Britain is breaching our trade agreement with that country. He has told us that the trade agreement is terminable by 6 months notice by either side. I would like to know whether we have been given notice. The right honourable gentleman has not told us.

Mr McEwen:

– No, we have not.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– In that case the British cannot bring their system into operation as the Minister has said they intend to do. The right honourable gentleman says at page 4 of his statement:

The British Government will introduce the new measures when its discussions with overseas suppliers have been completed.

The right honourable gentleman adds: la any case, the objective is to bring them into Operation at least by 1st April 1971.

That is less than 6 months from now. So, the British Government is to break the trade agreement with Australia if what the right honourable gentleman says is true, Slid noi a word of protest is heard about ft. What is the use of a trade agreement with a country like Great Britain that is supposed to have been so favourable to Australia if that country is to be allowed to get away with breaking that trade agreement without one word of protest by the responsible Australian Minister.

We turn to the important question of what can be done. The Minister is sending the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry to London. What an utter and complete waste of time. If what the right honourable gentleman says on the second page of his statement is true, he must know that it is a waste of time sending the Deputy Secretary of his Department to London. The Minister states:

It is clear to me that this is a deliberate move to adapt their arrangements-

That is, British arrangements: . . in view of” their prospective membership of the European Economic Community when they would be adopting the Common Agricultural Policy of the EEC.

Of course it is a complete waste of time sending the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry to London for talks. This is the best that the right honourable gentleman can do in the circumstances.

I think that it is appropriate to have a look at what has been happening to Australia’s markets because this situation that we are Witnessing now - the imposition of levies for the first time in history upon the export of these basic commodities to Britain - lead the right honourable gentleman to say:

  1. . for the first time the Australian products concerned will be faced with real barriers to trade in this traditional market outlet.

It is time that we had a look at the market outlets to see what has been happening to them. The right honourable gentleman may be aware of what is happening to our market outlets but he has never informed this House about what is happening to them. He has never invited the House to have a discussion about the trends. He has never raised any of the questions about why the trends are changing and how perhaps they can be made more favourable where they are changing favourably and less so in other places.

There is a decline in our trade particularly with the United Kingdom and with most of the countries in north eastern Europe, in particular, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway but, I emphasise, not with France or Italy. Over the last 10 years our exports to France have risen from about $50m to about SI 20m. Our exports to Italy have risen from $17m to $70m. Our imports from France have risen from $47m to SI 06m. Our imports from Italy have increased from $16m to $78m. Why is it that our trade balance has been much more favourable with France and Italy and less favourable with the other countries? The right honourable gentleman has not asked us in this House to analyse this trade situation and has not suggested what can be the reasons for this situation.

But with our more traditional markets, our exports have decreased. Our exports to the United Kingdom reached their highest figure of $516m in 1964-65 but have declined since then. We have a fantastically high level of goods imported from the United Kingdom. The level of imports 10 years ago was $340m. This has risen to $845m now. Our imports from the United Kingdom are nearly twice the value of the goods that we sell to that market. Is there not some way in which the right honourable gentleman can bargain here? We are taking from the United Kingdom goods worth over $800m. It is taking from us goods worth about $400m. Is not that $800m of goods worth something with which we can bargain in this situation? Will the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade be in a position to be able to bargain?

I think that this is the kind of situation in which the right honourable gentleman himself ought to go to Britain. He ought to be telling Britain that she cannot expect to send forever over $800m in goods to Australia - this figure has been rising constantly over the last 10 years - as though nothing had ever happened. He ought to be there telling Britain that she cannot : expect to have this kind of market in Australia when our best customer, Japan, bought $1,000 in goods from us last year while we were able to buy from Japan goods worth over $400m only. Is it not time that this situation was put into some context? If Japan is to buy from us goods worth $ 1,000m, we will have to face the situation. I should imagine, before long that we will be buying more from Japan and we will be telling Britain that we will be buying less from her.

Mr Robinson:

– You opposed the Japanese arrangement when it first started.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– All right. Well, let mc talk about the future.

Mr Anthony:

– What an easy way out.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There is no easy way out of it. I would suggest to the honourable gentleman who is interjecting that if he would have a little more regard to the mistakes which have been made on his side instead of living in the shadow of them continuously - and the shadow is getting older every day - he would be contributing more to the debate in this House.

In addition to the position that the United Kingdom is in, there is the factor also of our changing markets. Why is it that we have had such a favourable situation with China? Our sales to China 10 years ago were worth $40m. Today our sates to China are over $130m each year. Undoubtedly the figure would be considerably more if it was not for the political prejudice which exists. Our exports to Hong Kong have risen from S20m to $85m in that decade. What is the explanation for this? Could we not make more of it? Our exports to New Zealand in that 1 0-year period have risen from S60m to $199m. In that same period our exports to the Philippines have risen from S12m to $55m. Singapore now imports $99m of our goods compared with (12m a decade ago. Thailand’s imports of Australian goods have risen in that period from $6m to $29m. Our exports to Canada have risen from $17m to $144m in that decade while in the same period our exports to Malaysia have risen from $12m to $68 m. Also in that decade Poland’s imports from Australia have increased from $9m to $20in while Australian goods exported to Yugoslavia have risen from $6m to SI 7m in that decade. These are the countries to which we will have to be selling in the future. These are the countries to which we will need to look for a continuation of the rise in our exports. I do not believe that the Government is doing nearly enough work in those areas.

Finally, even in the face of the market prospects that we have, there will need to be a restructuring of Australian primary industry. It is not much good continuing to expect that we can leave it broadly to a laissez-faire market situation and continue to subsidise primary industry. It is time that this nation decided that we are to have some planning in our primary industrial situation. It is time that we had a department, such as the eDpartment of Trade and Industry, working out future demand for our primary production as the situation will allow us to do so that we will be able to have some anticipation of what the future will hold. Had the Minister done this 6 years or 7 years ago, he must have been able to tell producers in a number of these fields that are so disadvantaged now something about what was going to happen to them and something about what was going to happen to the demand for their products. He would not have had to allow them to walk headlong into this trap that has been laid open for them.

So, in brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, J would say that the situation that we face now has been clear to us for 6 years or 7 years and that the Government has done nothing to prepare for the development that has been announced in such black terms by the Minister this afternoon. It has allowed us to drift into this situation. It has allowed all its supporters in the country to walk into the trap that the declining and disappearing market in the United Kingdom in fact represents for them. Secondly, I would say that the Government has not placed Australia’s interests in England in as strong a position as it could place them. Australia continues to buy goods worth over $800m per annum from the United Kingdom at the same time as our sales to that country have been declining continuously. Obviously the Government has not done enough to press Australia’s interests in that situation. Thirdly, we must expect the Government to explore more thoroughly the changing nature of our markets and to be prepared to tell the nation and the Parliament more about the reasons why markets in different areas of the world are changing favourably and why they are changing unfavourably in other parts of the world. To mention a few of those countries I have listed, Japan, the United Slates of America, China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Canada, Malaysia, Poland and Yugoslavia all have certain discernible characteristics and are all open to further expansion of markets if we are realistic about this.

Mr McEwen:

– Has the honourable member read the success story?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am arguing that it could be much more of a success story if we broke away from the old traditional trading links that have been delaying our development. I am suggesting that it could be more of a success story if there were less reactionary politics in our attitude to these new markets. Finally, I am suggesting that unless we have some planned anticipation of expected demand for Australian primary output in the next 5 years and begin to gear our production to that we will have nothing but an enormous burden falling on the Australian taxpayer, whether it be in assisting wool or the other products involved. Laissez-faire plus subsidies is no substitute for a policy.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 2854

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Seat of Government (Administration) Bill 1970. Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill (No. 2) 1970.

page 2854

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1970.

Income Tax Bill 1970.

Income Tax (Partnerships and Trusts) Bill 1970.

page 2854

REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works.

Development of the Port of Darwin, Northern Territory.

Point Peron - Garden Island Causeway (Naval Support Facility, Cockburn Sound), Western Australia.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 2854

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– As Acting Chairman, I present the One Hundred and Twenty-third Report of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

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

Mr HURFORD:

– As honourable members will be aware, your Committee has, in recent years, conducted combined inquiries relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer and expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but has tabled separate reports on both aspects of these inquiries. The one hundred and twentythird report relates specifically to evidence taken by your Committee in connection with expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in 1969-70. The evidence taken in this inquiry shows cases where, in the opinion of your Committee, departments have been justified in drawing on the Advance to the Treasurer to finance

Unforeseen expenditure late in the financial year. However, the evidence also shows other cases where clerical errors, lack of adequate communications within the administration and misunderstandings between some departments and their clients have affected expenditure adversely. These factors, together with requests made prematurely, in some cases, for funds from the Advance to the Treasurer have resulted in significant proportions of the funds sought from the Advance remaining unspent. The detection by your Committee of these cases has been assisted substantially by the pro-forma developed in 1966 for the guidance of departments in the preparation of evidence.

While defects discovered in administrative arrangements have been drawn to the attention of the departments concerned throughout the report there are some matters to which specific attention should be drawn. As the report shows, there is a need for the basis of practices connected with letters of credit associated with overseas purchases to be examined by the Department of the Treasury and by other departments and authorities concerned. On several occasions in recent years your Committee has encountered the problems, including .staffing losses, that confront departments when transferring their administrations to Canberra. Your Committee believes that a clear responsibility rests with the permanent heads of such departments to recognise the problems that can arise and to ensure that they are minimised in the interests of efficient administration. The evidence shows that departments that provide computer services for other departments and statutory authorities should ensure that adequate training is provided for the staffs of such departments and authorities in the interpretation of output data from computers. Other evidence tendered in our inquiry shows a need for departments to act in such a manner that their image and that of the Public Service generally is protected from public criticism Finally your Committee would draw attention to factually conflicting information tendered by a department in its submission and by its witness in evidence. Your Committee has taken this matter up direct with the department concerned. On the broader issue of the general quality of evidence submitted during inquiries, and to which reference has been made in previous reports, your Committee notes with satisfaction that on 16th October the Secretary to the Treasury issued a circular to all permanent heads indicating the need for witnesses to be properly briefed and for evidence tendered to be of the highest quality. I commend the report to honourable members and move that it be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2855

CONSERVATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The Government’s inaction in preventing the serious damage to the environment which results from noise, from pollution of air and water and from destruction of flora and fauna. 1 call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr UREN:
Reid

– This is not an easy subject to deal with in this chamber. Neither the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) nor any other Minister wants the responsibility of dealing with this aspect of life - the environment in which we are to live and in which our children and our children’s children are to reside. Are we to continue to act so blindly, so stupidly and so negatively because we are fearful that we might offend the State governments or that we may be encroaching on their domain. During the first session of the 27th Parliament 1 placed on the notice paper a number of questions relating to air and water pollution. Many of these questions arose from the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. Not in a single reply did I receive any indication that positive action would be taken to curb, control and rectify the destruction of our environment. The most startling reply, if one could call it that, came from the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes). It is recorded in Hansard of 12th June 1970. I asked the Attorney-General:

  1. Can he say what are the existing laws within each Slate and Commonwealth Territory which control pollution of our (a) atmosphere, (b) waterways and (c) countryside?
  2. If so, what is in each State and Territory the maximum penalty under existing Acts imposed on (a) an individual and (b) a company for violating pollution provisions?
  3. Can he give details of prosecutions launched in each of the last 5 years in each State and Commonwealth Territory?
  4. Has the Government considered the adequacy of existing laws; if so, with what results?

The Attorney-General’s reply, if one can call it that, after several months delay was as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4). In order to supply answers to these questions it would be necessary to conduct extensive research into a variety of Territory, State and municipal laws, none of which is under my administration. My Department does not have the resources to undertake that research. I am not aware what consideration is being given to these laws by the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers.

In every instance I received negative replies from the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen), the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), and the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who represents the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in this House. I received also several negative replies from the Prime Minister.

On 23rd September - only a few weeks ago - I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the view expressed by the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) and reported in the ‘Australian Quarterly’ about pollution and environment, and also why there was no mention in the Budget of proposals to implement the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution and of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. The Prime Minister brushed aside my question about the attitude of the Minister for the Army and passed the buck to the New South Wales Government about air and water pollution control. I question seriously whether any State government, local government or semi-governmental authority can cope with pollution or police or enforce anti-pollution laws unless it has the complete and full co-operation of the Commonwealth Government. The debt to the Commonwealth of other government agencies is enormous. In the last 2 decades the State debt has increased by 320 per cent, local government debt by more than 700 per cent and the semi-governmental debt by over 900 per cent. The cost of servicing these debts during this period has cost the States 570 per cent, local government 1,400 per cent and semi-government over 2,000 per cent more each year.

We need leadership from the Commonwealth. The power and wealth of the Commonwealth are needed to deal with monopolies whose activities extend beyond State borders and beyond national boundaries. To give an example of the type of company with which we have to deal I quote from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 1st May 1970 in which Michael Symons and Gordon Stepto stated:

Shell Oil Refinery at Clyde admit to blowing about 30 to 35 tons of sulphur dioxide and 2i tons of alumina catalyst into the air and leaking about SO gallons of oil into Duck River, a tributary of the Parramatta River, every day.

This area is near my electorate. In fact, it was in my electorate until the last redistribution of electoral boundaries. The article states that Mr F. Hixon, the refinery manager, pointed out that the refinery has spent almost $3m on pollution control since 1966 - almost Sim annually. But still the pollution continues and 50 gallons of oil a day leaks into the Parramatta River. It is worth examining the profits of this company. In the last 3 years the Shell group of companies in Australia has made more than $70m in profits. The profit last year alone was $27m. Earlier this year, as part of a question, I asked the Minister for National Development:

Has his Department made any estimate of the cost of overcoming the problem of pollution in the Sydney area, in particular in the Parramatta River-Duck Creek complex?

The Minister replied:

No. State authorities have the responsibility for such studies.

One may say. what a pathetic attitude. The Commonwealth does not lack authority in its taxing powers. By use of those powers it can persuade these companies to discontinue pollution. One would think that the Parramatta River was on another planet and not the cradle of our nation.

My time is short. I have been able to deal with only some of the aspects of pollution that confront Sydney. The situation can be repeated in Melbourne, in other capital cities and particularly in Newcastle and in the Wollongong-Port Kembla complex. I should have liked to have developed my argument against the destruction of our natural environment - the destruction of our wonderlands, our beautiful bushlands - by the creation of more farm lands. A few moments ago we heard pathetic cries from the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) but in the last 6 years since Britain first made application to join the European Economic Community his Government has encouraged the development of more farm acreage for fruit growing and for the dairying industry. Both of these industries should be restricted, as they are being restricted in other civilised nations. We are at the stage when we should be limiting our farm lands.

A proposed biological survey of Australia is reposing somewhere within the bowels of the Department of Education and Science. This proposal is for a survey of all Australian ecosystems and their distributions. The flora and fauna would be accurately mapped. The proposal would allow for the intelligent design of national parks in terms of flora and fauna and would provide essential information on the ecosystems surrounding new mining enterprises. It would enable the authorities to assess the possible extent of any environmental damage resulting from mining enterprises and urban development. The proposal was submitted in 1965 by the Australian Academy of Science, and an updated version was re-submitted in November 1968. The Government has not acted on it. In fact, it has given it no public consideration at all.

I revert to Sydney’s environment, for I want to deal with the Parramatta Valley. In R. P. Murphy’s ‘Air Pollution and Urban Development’, which was published in the journal of the Australian Planning Institute of July 1970, the following appears:

The State Planning Authority’s publication Sydney Region Outline Plan (1968)’ indicates that extensive industrial development is planned between Parramatta and Penrith. This is despite the fact that this is disastrous from the point of view of air pollution. In the autumn and winter a river of cold air 17 miles wide and 300 to 400 feet deep flows east from the mountains to Sydney at a velocity of 5 miles per hour. This occurs on about 100 days a year and causes a temperature inversion which results in the trapping of air pollutants under the inversion.

  1. P. Murphy suggests that no further industrial expansion should take place on the plains west of Sydney for this reason, although there are short term economic reasons for allowing it. The logic of R. P. Murphy seems to me to be common sense. Let me instance my own experience when I was returning from overseas in 1968. lt was about 8 a.m. and I was keen to take a camera shot of our beautiful harbour, but I was unable to do so. The whole of the Parramatta River Valley from the CamelliaClydeGranvilleSilverwater complex spreading down over the bridge and the harbour was covered by a blanket of low tying cloud or smog. If industries continue to be built west of Parramatta that city, as well as Sydney, is destined to have industrial smog fallout. The challenge must be met in the 1970s. The Commonwealth Government must give the lead not only in Sydney but throughout Australia. We should be guided by a creed. This may not be original, but it is appropriate to the challenge. It may be entitled ‘A Creed to Preserve our National Heritage’ and it reads:

The right to clean water - and the duty not to pollute it.

The right to clean air - and the duty not to befoul it.

The right to surroundings reasonably free from man-made ugliness - and the duty not to blight.

The right of easy access to places of beauty and tranquility where every family can find recreation and serenity - and the duty to preserve such places clean and unspoiled.

The right to enjoy plants and animals in their natural habitat - and the duty not’ to eliminate them from the face of this earth.

This is an ideal, but as practical politicians we can make it a reality. What can be done? What is the best way of applying a thoroughly comprehensive national plan for the environment? First, we must establish a Federal environmental bureau which defines the optimum human environment as a series of goats towards which all Federal and State agencies work. Thus grants of money for research and development, and the choice of how resources - minerals, water, urban and rural land, to name a few - are used, will conform to the highest national priorities-

Secondly, legislation should be passed by the Commonwealth in relation to the ACT and other Territories. These Acts should be comprehensive, cover the whole human, physical and psychological environment and be based on goals already mentioned. These will serve as models for legislation which may be passed by the States. Thirdly, there should be Federal grants to encourage the passage of legislation within the States. The Commonwealth has the power to levy taxes. It can strive for uniformity by levying taxes in accordance with the legislation - for example, special taxes on pollution, tax incentives to encourage pollution control, and if necessary, a tax surcharge to encourage pollution control - and giving grants to States, local and semigovernment authorities, to ensure a system of policing the environmental effort. Fourthly, once legislation has been passed by the Commonwealth and by all the States, a joint Commonwealth and State authority should administer pollution and environment control. Joint co-operation at all levels of government can conquer, control and rectify, and make our Australia beautiful. All I am asking is that this Government, after 2 decades, take some action instead of passing the buck to the States. It is about time this Commonwealth Government gave us some leadership towards these ends.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– It is interesting to see the Opposition, in the form of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), putting forward a definite matter of public importance dealing with environmental pollution because it illustrates once again the Labor Party’s notorious capacity for jumping onto whatever the current political bandwagon happens to be. One of the problems of living in a modern developing society which seems to have escaped the honourable member for Reid is that the very development of that society brings with it problems of environmental pollution. I believe it is one of the heartening features of modern society that concern is being felt to an ever increasing degree and attention is being paid to the causes, extent and solution of the problems of environmental disturbance. There is no doubt that pollution is widespread. It is not, of course, merely a national but an international problem. Within Australia there are many examples of environmental pol lution and to me one of the most fascinating, and probably one of the most disturbing aspects of Thor Heyerdahl’s transAtlantic raft trip was his observation that the Atlantic was so polluted by oil that at various times it was impossible to swim.

We in Australia are fortunate. Because the country is still relatively sparsely populated and less industrialised than most other nations at a similar level of economic development, we can undertake corrective action relatively more easily than many other nations can. But the problem is one of balance because, in fact, we do want and expect the benefits of a modern industrialised society and we cannot have these benefits without some disturbance to the natural environment. Whenever people come together in cities, wherever goods are manufactured and wherever and however people travel, problems of environmental disturbance arise. Of course, the greater the concentration of people, the greater the demand for consumer goods and the greater the development of technology and industry, the greater the amount of environmental disturbance. It is obvious that we cannot live in this world and totally avoid any alteration of our environment. What we must ensure is that in altering this environment we do not destroy our capacity to live healthily or in aesthetically satisfying conditions. To achieve these ends requires an appreciation of the problems involved both by governments and by the population as a whole. In order to achieve the desired results there must be meaningful legislation based on objective criteria, and this is something which the Opposition tends to forget. It is terribly easy to jump on to one of these bandwagons and say we must do something and we must do it quickly. Before any action can be taken this action should be based on some measured criteria.

Mr Uren:

– You have had 7 years to plan.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– You have only just thought of it. It is not enough for governments to legislate in this direction: it really does require the co-operation of the public in carrying out any introduced measures. These things we are speaking of today do not come without any cost. It is pretty easy to say that the Government should be doing this and that, but there is a cost attached to these things and I do not say for a moment that this cost should be avoided.

It costs a heap of money to reduce environmental pollution and these costs must be met by somebody and they must be met out of the taxpayers’ pockets. So before we jump onto this pollution bandwagon let us be quite certain that the people know that any measures taken will cost money and they will have to pay for them. The Opposition today seeks to suggest that the Government is unaware of the problems of environmental pollution. This is patently absurd. In the ‘Australian’ of 26th October 1970 - I do not think anybody would accuse the ‘Australian’ of being a pro-Government newspaper - the editorial reads:

Federal Cabinet is at last turning its attention to the problem of what the national government should do to help in the fight against all forms of pollution. It has taken its time to get round to action after making a promising start.

Here is the crunch:

It showed considerable foresight in recognising pollution as a potential trouble area long before it became a ‘popular’ subject.

This gets back to what I said about jumping on political bandwagons. Already we have seen Senate select committees set up on water pollution and air pollution. We have had select committees of this House set up to inquire into aircraft noise and, this year, into wildlife conservation. I am a member of that committee and can say for all its members, no matter what their party, that the complexity of the problem is only now really starting to be brought out. When we meet and talk to representatives of government, representatives of manufacturing interests and representatives of the public, the complexity of the problem is shown to be immense. Obviously, any precipitate action could only worsen the problem.

This Government is actively co-operating with State governments in investigations aimed at safeguarding the environment. The co-operation between this Government and the Queensland Government in investigating the threat posed by the crown of thorns starfish to the Great Barrier Reef is particular evidence of this. It would be very easy to over-react to questions concerned with environmental disturbance. No-one denies the importance of these for a moment but it is necessary to point to the complexity of the problems involved. This Government, as any responsible govern ment should, recognises both the importance and the complexity of the issues involved and the Government’s performance has been praised. I again refer to the editorial in the ‘Australian’:

What is most significant and praiseworthy about the proposals the Government is to consider is that they do not appear to represent a piecemeal approach. As the air pollution committee reported more than 13 months ago, ‘in any future arrangements for the study of pollution problems, cognisance should be taken of the total environment and the interaction of the different facets of what is virtually one problem’.

I believe that action has been and is being taken to refute the allegation of inaction referred to in the matter before the House and reveals instead a responsible Government’s attitude to problems of great magnitude and lasting importance. Here I would agree with the honourable member for Reid that these problems are of great importance and of deep significance to the future of this country and the people in it. But the point of the whole thing is that we are all, on both sides of the House and in all Parties, agreed that the problems of environmental pollution are great ones which are worthy of deep and close attention. There is a danger that over-reaction could take place and I think that any responsible Government should do as this one has done, investigate the problem, realise that it is part of a total overall environmental problem, and act accordingly.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– Despite some people’s views of the state of Victoria, it still manages to qualify as a fairly advanced industrial State with the pollution problems associated with unmindful development. Some of the criticisms have made national headlines, such as when Prince Charles observed that swimming at one of the Melbourne beaches was rather like swimming in a sewer. The Yarra River, the scenic pride of Melbournians, a muddy creek to foreigners from out of State such as most honourable members, is unlovely in many places.

School children are now acutely aware of the threat to their environment. Recently, the children in my daughter’s class have been engaged in a study of the area in which they live. This has” involved many critical excursions to the Yarra, inspections of rubbish dumps into the river, observation of colour changes in the water due to chemical mixing with drainage from - who knows where? A. D. Hope observed in his poem ‘Australia’: . . her five cities, like five teeming sores Each drains her, . . .

The Yarra for much of ils course through Melbourne is a dead river, simply a large drain for one of the teeming sores on this continent. Articles on the subject now appear at regular intervals in the Melbourne newspapers. They describe factories belching out smoke and soot and sulphur dioxide and discharging waste into waterways, noise and smoke from jet aircraft, the debate on discharge of effluent from the Carrum sewerage works into Port Phillip Bay, industrialisation around Westernport Bay and the threat to the ecology of the area, including the penguins - these and many other examples are discussed frequently.

Dr W. D. Williams, from Monash University, recently described the counts of coliform bacilli as a measure of the pollution of water by human faeces, and indicated some figure ; that the Americans have adopted as standards. Water with less than 50 coliform bacilli per 100 millilitres is good for swimming, with 50 to 1,000 organisms it is doubtful, and if there are over 1.000 per 100 mis the water is unfit for bathing. A limit of 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 mis has been proposed by the Commonwealth Department of Works for Australian streams.

Dr Williams asks:

How do bacterial counts for Australian polluted waters compare with such standards’.’ Unfortunately, few data are published. However, in a recent survey of a creek located in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, E. coli I counts/ 100 ml ranged from 150 in the head-waters to 34,000 in the lower reaches. One does not need to have a medical degree to appreciate the potential health hazard presented by this creek.

A second important form of domestic pollution is detergent pollution. Dr Williams notes:

  1. . water from baths, washing machines, and the kitchen sink in unsewered homes is regarded as ‘stormwater’ and discharged quite untreated into the environment. As a result, creek water in the newer suburbs of Melbourne, for example, is frequently no more than diluted soapy water.

The main effects of domestic and industrial wastes is roughly the same - both lead to deoxygenation. If pollution is bad, all oxygen disappears and the plant and fish life are suffocated. But I do not wish to dwell any longer on these parochial examples. Pollution recognises no state rights, no national boundaries or territorial waters or national air space. Furthermore, pollution is more than inadequate disposal of unwarranted end products or by-products, though perhaps a final comment on this aspect might be of interest. It is claimed that the affluent society of the United States is fast becoming the effluent society - a nation whose pursuit of material wealth pollutes its rivers, fouls its air and creates an urban atmosphere that generates dangerous social tensions, as well as real misery. As John Galbraith has observed:

The penultimate Western man. stalled in the ultimate traffic jam and slowly succumbing to carbon monoxide, will not be cheered to hear from the last survivor that the gro>s national product went up by a record amount.

The problem of pollution confronts us not only as an end product, but also at the beginning, in our efforts to improve our productivity, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar).

In an article titled ‘An Ecological Crisis’ published this year in the ‘Professional Engineer’, it is claimed that the Aswan High Dam in Egypt appears to be an ecological disaster. Water weeds which clog the shoreline of. Lake Nasser behind the dam may speed evaporation through transpiration lo the stage where the lake lacks enough water to drive the generators. The article slates:

In the past, the flow of silt down the Nile offset the natural erosion of the land but this silt flow has been stopped by the dam. Downstream erosion may eliminate as much productive land as is created by the Lake Nasser irrigation system.

In other words, for all that effort the net gain was nil. The article continues:

The Egyptian sardine catch in 1968 was only a fortieth of the 1965 catch, because the nutrient rich silt no longer reaches the Mediterranean. Finally, the irrigation projects on the delta have allowed a moisture-loving snail to thrive. The snail carries schistosomiasis and as a result most of the delta people have now had that agonising liver and intestinal disease.

It is thus important that the physical environment be seen in relation to the social environment and that the psychological, social, cultural and technological variables be considered when analysing the destructive influence of man on bis surroundings.

I think these are things which were also mentioned by the honourable member for Warringah.

In a discussion in ‘Business Week’ of April 1970 on ‘Pollution and the Profit Motive*, it is suggested that economists are at last wondering how to relate the environment to the gross national product. The honourable member for Warringah mentioned that if we are to have progress some changes in the environment are inevitable but it is important to realise that these represent costs. I think the opening paragraph in the article I have just quoted indicates the feeling, at least amongst American and other economists, that:

After a decade spent in the spectacularly successful pursuit of a rising gross national product, the United Stales suddenly has begun to have second thoughts about growth as a goal for national policy. The exceptional growth rates of the sixties are just about taken for granted as a model for the seventies. Yet more and more people are beginning to see economic growth itself as the basic cause of the environmental deterioration which has become one of the nation’s most pressing problems.

That well known social revolutionary, President Nixon, proposed in his State of the Union message:

The price of good? should be made to include the cost of producing and disposing of them without damage to the environment.

As one economist has observed, the philosophy behind the usual view of the gross national product is appropriate to what he calls ‘the cowboy economy’ in which ‘consumption is regarded as a good thing and production likewise’, with success being measured by the amount of ‘throughput’. This ignores the old idea first put by Malthus that resources are exhaustible or in the terms of his 20lh century followers, the capacity of the environment to sustain economic processes is also finite.

As the writer in ‘Business Week’ says:

In the spaceman economy of the future, throughput is something to be minimised rather than maximised. The less consumption it takes to maintain a given state of welfare, the more efficient the economic system.

The significant question is of course, what is to be done? According to Dr Williams:

The extent of basic pollutions! studies overseas is now immense. Unfortunately, unlike other areas of science, (he results arc not directly applicable in Australia; because of our unique biota and environment, we must stand on our own feet in biological investigations.

Any organisation established by the Commonwealth - and it can be effective only if it is a Commonwealth body - must have a strong, financially well endowed research wing, working with other research institutions in the country. It is not a question of States rights, or national prowess compared to other nations. It is a question of the survival of life, including man, on this planet. Man, by his rapid increase in population, and his rapid advances in technology, has upset the delicate balance of nature. Mian must help nature to restore the balance or else nature will wreak a terrible revenge by destroying man.

Mr ROBINSON:
Cowper

– Environmental problems arc complex and their solution calls for programmes of research, planning, education, legislation, the fixing of standards which require enforcement, and of course public information so that the general public will be informed. This afternoon the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) described certain aspects of the pollution problem as matters of public importance. He completely destroyed his own claims when he set about putting forth his views on this matter. He completely disregarded the action that has been taken by State and Federal governments, and has lost sight of the progress that has taken place and the very remarkable avoidance of pollution that has been achieved in Australia. 1 think he mentioned that he came through Sydney Heads 20 odd years ago, or some considerable time ago.

Mr Uren:

– You are dreaming. You did nol even listen. It was in 196S.

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honourable member referred to 1968. I take that point. At that time he observed considerable pollution. He referred to the early morning period. Of course, he fails to recognise that over the years tremendous changes have taken place in the metropolis of Sydney. No longer are there coal-fired locomotives. No longer are there coal-fired furnaces. No longer are many of the causes of smog to which the honourable member referred part of the scene of Sydney. In its stead there has been progression to a modern system of electrification, a very modern approach in the provision of power and the expansion and development of the city of Sydney.

I am by no means here to advocate the development of Sydney, but I want to point out very clearly that the economic approach of this Government has been responsible for the lifting of living standards in all parts of Australia, which has contributed greatly to the avoidance of the effects of pollution. It can be said quite clearly that in this day and age in Australia hygiene has reached a high point which would not otherwise have been attained. The honourable member for Marybyrnong (Dr Cass) told us about the problems of the Yarra. A long time ago someone described that little stream as a river that runs upside down. Historically, it was a muddy stream. Certainly there are pollution problems. That is not denied. It could be said, of course, that the Tank Stream, of Sydney fame, is polluted. No-one mentions it very much these days. As a matter of progress, the Tank Stream disappeared, making way for drainage.

This brings to mind that, in metropolitan development and the general development of the countryside, drainage of vile swamps and the removal of hazards to life have been achieved. In the process care has been taken for the protection of the environment. Regard which has not been observed in other countries has been had to the aspects of pollution. The Aswan High Dam on the Nile can be taken to demonstrate the difference between the Australian technological approach and the approach that was made in relation to this project. I do not intend to dwell upon that point, but let me say that the record of governments in Australia in this field has been singularly outstanding compared with that of other parts of the world.

The honourable member for Reid referred to devastation of the countryside. He spoke of increasing farm acreages. He has completely denied the facts in relation to the great conservation programme which was sponsored by. Australian Country Party and Liberal Party enthusiasts back in the 1930s and which has been promoted since that time by Labor and Liberal governments in the States and the Commonwealth to the point where our protection of flora and fauna, as well our care for the conservation of natural resources such as soil and waterways, and the development of good pastures compared with those that, environmentally, would not sustain the natural life of the country, have been achievements to the credit of those who have toiled in this field. And yet today we hear a complete denial of all these things by a few academic enthusiasts who would have everyone believe that pollution in this country is at a comparable level to that of New York or Tokyo. That is complete and utter rot. Nothing like that is occurring in this nation.

On the other hand, this Government and each of the State governments has cooperated very fully in a proper approach to this problem. Governmental activities in these fields have resulted in steps being taken to ensure that there is protection in the various categories that can be described as pollution problems and where there is a possibility of adverse affects from pollution. The National Health and Medical Research Council has for some time been concerned with many aspects of this problem. The Council is an advisory body to both the Commonwealth and the State governments. It recommendations have no legal standing. The Commonwealth Parliament does not have the constitutional power to intrude into many of these fields which come within State laws. The action of the Council has been positive and in the right direction. In particular, a number of the committees of the Council have pointed out problems to manufacturers of pesticides and agricultural chemicals and have requested them to take into account the dangerous effects of their products on the environment, on life and so on.

Of major importance has been the contribution of the liaison sub-committees created following recommendations from a conference of Health Ministers as far back as 1968. One sub-committee was asked to investigate the problem of the use of certain detergents. Following discussions with industry, a voluntary changeover from particular chemical base used in detergents has been agreed to and will be effective from 31st December 1971. That is as a result of a proper approach by both the Commonwealth and State governments. There has been no requirement for a law to deal with this matter. This i.% the kind of co-operation that can achieve much more in the protection from pollution than any other approach.

Consequently, this debate breaks down on the point that ali that has been put to the Government by the Opposition is without basic evidence of failure on the part of this Government or the State governments. It breaks down on the point that there is no recognition of some of the recent statements made on these important matters. Let me quote a reference to pesticides. This is of importance as far as the waterways of this nation are concerned. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) stated officially last week that available evidence did not indicate any threat to local environments from the use of pesticides in Australia. This is the consequence of testing. For exmple, fish taken from parts of the Murray were found to contain remarkably little pesticide residue - in view of the extent to which chemicals were used in the intensive agriculture of the Murray Valley. This is a proper approach and one designed to ensure that harmful and continuing harmful effects will not result from the use of pesticides. Then again, a very careful check of pesticide residue in food has revealed a similar result. The constant inspections which are made by Commonwealth and State inspectors show that gradually over the years residual levels in meat and other foods have continued to decrease.

In conclusion, I point out that a very remarkable job has been done in Australia regarding the matter of pollution. There is complete recognition of the problem and there is an acceptance of it. I am satisfied, as I am sure most thinking people are, that a positive approach is being made and that scare tactics have been adopted by honourable members opposite in speaking as they have this afternoon.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to enter this debate because of the speech which has just been made by the honourable member for Cowper-

Motion (by Mr Chipp) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 2863

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That Government Business shall take precedence over General Business tomorrow.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I can only raise again the still small voice of those who think that the Parliament belongs not only to the Ministry but also to the members of the Parliament as a body. We have just seen, a few moments ago, the collapse of a debate on pollution because we want to get other things through, so we are told. During question time today we saw the continuing misuse of question time by Government supporters. I have just had a look through some of the copies of Hansard in front of me, and there are a number of consistent offenders on the other side of the House. The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) and other Ministers take 3 to 4 minutes to answer questions. I have no doubt that we now will be asked to continue every night - perhaps through the night - day after day in order to deal with major issues of national importance so that we can get everything finished by the end of this week.

One of the few privileges available to the honourable members on both sides of the chamber, but particularly to those on the Opposition side, is to enter into the debate on General Business, but that privilege is now being surrendered on this occasion. One can only hope that eventually honourable members opposite will remember that the rights of minorities, the right to free discussion and the opportunity to debate matters of national importance are what the Parliament is all about. I resent the way this is happening. I resent that it is happening at all. I resent the pressures - moral, psychological and otherwise - which are being applied to try to get the business through so that we can vanish into the limbo to fight Senate elections or whatever else is going to happen. I only hope that eventually we will get to the stage where the conscience of honourable members opposite will seep to the surface.

I want to say one other thing that I resent about the management of the affairs which brings this motion forward. Last Thursday there was a vote in this House to suspend the II o’clock rule. Fifteen honourable members opposite voted that we should continue to sit after 11 o’clock at night, and then they went home and were not here for the vote which was taken at 11 o’clock or thereabouts. 1 propose to prepare a list of their names and circulate it to the people and indicate that these honourable members opposite cannot even stand for a simple principle like that. What they impose upon others they are not prepared to do themselves. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who is the principal gagger in this institution, gagged the previous debate and then went home himself before 11 o’clock. I cannot understand why we should give pairs to people like that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2864

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, HOBART

Approval of Work- Public Works Committee Act

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Commonwealth Offices, Stage 1, Hobart.

The proposal involves construction of a J5-storey office building on a site bounded by Collins and Harrington Streets to provide some 152,000 square feet of office space as the first stage of an office complex ultimately to accommodate some 4,500 officers of the various Commonwealth departments located in Hobart. The estimated cost is $4.6m.

In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee concluded that expenditure on a work of art should be limited to $3,000. The form of this provision has not yet been decided. The Committee also concluded that, if economically possible, carpet should be used as a floor covering in office areas. The present arrangement is that in accordance with normal practice, vinyl tiles will be used but in view of current considerations of whether carpet should be used in all major Commonwealth office buildings, the final choice of floor covering for this proposal will be deferred for as long as possible.

The matter of providing car parking facilities at Commonwealth buildings is being examined separately with the view to determining guidelines for the future. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I speak briefly to this motion? The building in question is in my electorate, and 1 should like to say a few words about it. This building is much needed for the consolidation of Government offices in Hobart. That of course has been recognised by the Public Works Committee. The building will stand on a site which is little more than a block from the centre of the business area of the city of Hobart, lt is in the centre of my electorate. In having to build on this site the Public Works Committee, and the Commonwealth thereby, has run into the problem which recurs in city areas - that of having to demolish standing buildings. In this particular case there have had to be demolished, amongst other things, 2 old stone Georgian cottages, one of which was occupied by one of my constituents, a Mr Bullimore, who had a long standing discussion with the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), and finally was able to achieve suitable compensation for the loss of his building and site.

This is a convenient site. But it raises the problem of city renewal and development in the manner which I have just mentioned and the problem of construction as against conservation. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) in speaking to the motion made the point that car parking facilities are being considered, and 1 should like to reinforce that point, because it appears to me, on the face of it, that the facilities will certainly be no more than adequate. I am not one of those who believe in giving over city centres totally to the motor car, but this is a case in point in a small city. If we are going to abide by current practice, we need to make sure that adequate provision for parking is made within the building site itself, or if we are going to get on to some new policy in urban development, we can think about not having any provision at all for parking, or very little.

Finally, I notice that there Ls to be expenditure on a work of art to the extent of some $3,000. The Committee, in its report, mentioned that this amount already has been reduced from $20,000. Might I suggest that as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) and the honourable member for Denison fondly hope to be occupants of this building, it may be possible to combine the well known artistic temperament of the honourable member for Franklin with the rugged good looks of the honourable member for Denison under the relevant classification of native works of art, thereby to save the residual $3,000.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I desire to enter this debate briefly. I am not opposing what is proposed. I merely want to draw attention to the fact that the construction of a similar Commonwealth office block in Adelaide has been the subject of discussion and has been raised over the years by South Australian governments of different political complexion, but as yet we do not know of anything being done regarding this matter. Of course, the Commonwealth must be paying what would be regarded as high and exorbitant rents for buildings and office space generally in Adelaide. The Commonwealth offices in which the various departments are housed are somewhat more concentrated now than ‘:hey used to be a few years ago.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr FOSTER:

– I think the honourable member is a bit rough when he wants to have a go all the time and I will tell him so too. I will be very brief in my remarks. I think that I ought to command some respect in this place. I will not take up a great deal of the time of the House. However, if the honourable member for Angas wants to carry on in his childish and foolish manner T think that the attention of the Chair should be drawn to his conduct.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! 1 suggest to the honourable member that he get on to the subject matter before the House. I also suggest to the honourable member that his remarks are a little bit outside the terms of the motion now before the House. 1 further suggest that the honourable member be very brief in his remarks.

Mr FOSTER:

– I did intend to crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that some of my time has been taken up by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) seeking to raise a point of order. All 1 want to say about this matter is this: This Government should give consideration to the construction of a Commonwealth office block in Adelaide similar to that which will be built in Hobart. There is a crying need for such an office block to be erected in South Australia. The construction of a Commonwealth office block in Adelaide should be gone into thoroughly by the responsible committee and the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). Over the years it has been said that an office block in Adelaide would result in considerable saving to the Commonwealth. The offices used by the Commonwealth in Adelaide are scattered all over the city and this involves tremendous rental charges.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I want to join those honourable members who have spoken in support of the construction of a Commonwealth office block in Hobart and which has been recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The recommendation of that Committee has been presented to this House by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp). I want to say quite frankly that the decision of the Committee to embark upon the first stage of the Commonwealth office block in Hobart is long overdue. In Hobart far too many Commonwealth departments are located in various buildings for which abnormally high rental charges are made.

I want to make some reference to the situation as it exists in other parts of Tasmania. It must be acknowledged that the great bulk of the population in Tasmania is, of course, north of Hobart. One recognises that not only in Tasmania but also in other States the Commonwealth prefers to have Commonwealth offices situated in the capital city. But what T said in relation to rental charges for Commonwealth departments located in private buildings in Hobart applies equally to the city of Launceston. Representations have been made over many years by myself and other honourable members in this House for the erection of a Commonwealth office block in the city of Launceston. On one occasion I sought information from the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) as to the amount of the annual rental paid for accommodation of Commonwealth departments in the city of Launceston. I have not the figures with me now but I can assure the House that the amount is quite staggering. There is obviously a very good reason why the Government should seriously consider, when all the stages of the

Commonwealth office block in Hobart have been completed, whether an immediate investigation should be undertaken into the need to establish a similar block of offices in the city of Launceston.

Having made those very brief remarks I want to say once again that I support the construction of this block in Hobart. I congratulate the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for having made a very wise decision to embark upon this project which should have been commenced many years ago.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2866

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the fixing of remuneration for members of the Australian Film Development Corporation. Honourable members will recall that during the autumn si’ tings of the Parliament 7 Bills were amended during passage in this House or in the other place. By that I mean the Senate. The purpose of the amendments was to provide that salaries or remuneration for the relevant holders of statutory offices would be as the Parliament provides rather than by determination of the Governor-General. For 3 of these Bills, it was possible to meet the requirement that Parliament rather than the Government determine the salary by inclusion of provision in the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill, which has recently been before the House. I mention, for example, the remuneration for members of the Metric Conversion Board.

However, a provision of this kind was not appropriate for 4 of the Acts amended during passage last May and June. This is because the 4 bodies created by the Acts meet their administrative expenses, including salaries, from funds which under the terms of the legislation are under their own control and are not provided directly or annually from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Accordingly, it would not be practicable to fix and appropriate the relevant salaries or remuneration in the Schedule to the annual Appropriation Acts. The Bill now under consideration - The Australian Film Development Corporation Bill - provides that section 8 of the Act is to be amended so as to specify the rates of remuneration for members of the Corporation. This means that the Parliament itself, rather than the Government, is determining the rate for members of the Corporation. The new provision will apply to all payments to members of the Corporation, thereby making it unnecessary to promulgate the regulations which were to have provided the remuneration until 1st January next year.

The fees which it is the sole purpose of this Bill to authorise are: For the Chairman of the Film Development Corporation, $40 for a meeting of 3 hours or more and $25 if the meeting lasts less than 3 hours. Other members of the Corporation are to be paid $35 for a meeting of 3 hours or more. $20 if it takes under 3 hours. I add that I propose to introduce immediately following this Bill 3 further Bills which have the same object. In these cases also, the amendments made by the Parliament during May and June are such that the salaries required can only be paid after let January next if the Parliament has in some way provided for the payment. For these reasons the legislation will need to be passed by both House in the current sittings.

The 3 further Bills are: Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1970; Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1970, and the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1970.

Leave granted for second reading to be moved forthwith.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– There is not a great deal contained in the Bill which the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) has just introduced. The Bill provides for amendments to the

Act which was passed in this Parliament during the last session. There is only one point I want to make about this Bill. This Bill makes provision for the amounts of remuneration to be paid to the Chairman of the Film Development Corporation and other members of the Corporation. This Bill fixes the rates for the Chairman at $40 for a meeting of 3 hours or more and $25 for a meeting lasting less than 3 hours. Other members of the Corporation will be paid $35 for a meeting of 3 hours or more and $20 if a meeting takes under 3 hours. There is no indication in the Bill as to how these figures were worked out. I think we are entitled to have this. If the Minister would be good enough to give that information we have no objection to the Bill.

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

– in reply - These are standard daily sitting fees paid to part time statutory office holders who are not remunerated by an annual fee. They are paid to such office holders as members of the Manufacturing Industries Advisory Council and the Export Development Council. They cannot be called salaries because the positions are part time, and fees have the connotation of a payment for services.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– by leave- Perhaps the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) will give me information about travelling expenses. I did not notice in the Bill any provision for travelling expenses if meetings are to be held in the various cities, as J would imagine they will from time to time?

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Minister for Labour and National Service) - by leave - Travelling expenses are fixed in a different way to sitting fees and do not need to be included in the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2867

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I have explained the background to this Bill in my second reading speech on the Australian Film Development Corporation Bill (No. 2). By this Bill the Parliament will fix the salaries for the Commissioner, and any Acting Commissioner, of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. The salary of the Commissioner is fixed at $16,931 a year. The salary for the Acting Commissioner is the same - -$16,931. Perhaps the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) may wish to know how this figure is arrived at. The figure of $16,931 is not precisely the same as that set down for level 5 of the Second Division of the Public Service. However, it is the salary paid to like officers who are graded at about level 5 of the Second Division of the Public Service but who are employed in outside instrumentalities. The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Chairman of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation would be examples.

Leave granted for second reading to proceed forthwith.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– The Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) has anticipated my question. I merely make the comment that the salary set out in the Bill is $7,431 more than a member of Parliament receives.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2868

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 have explained the background to this Bill in my second reading speech on the Australian Film Development Corporation Bill (No. 2). By this Bill, the Parliament will fix a salary for the Assistant Directors of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation at the rate of $15,592 a year. It is not necessary at this stage to determine the salary for the Director of the Corporation. This is because the duties of the position of Director will for the time being be carried out by the person holding the office of Commissioner of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Bill lays it down that any salary payable to the Director will be as the Parliament provides. An appropriate further Bill will need to be introduced when the need arises to determine a salary for the Director.

Again anticipating the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart), the salary set out in the Bill is slightly more than level 4 of the Second Division of the Public Service. Other examples are Associate Commissioners of the National Capital Development Commission.

Leave granted for second reading to proceed forthwith.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– The salary of the Commission of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation is to be $16,931. The Bill which is now before us sets the salary of the Assistant Directors of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation at $15,592 a year. The people who operate the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation are concerned with a financial undertaking and they will be expected to compete with outside firms in the construction, planning and study of engineering projects inside and outside Australia. It is mandatory upon the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to provide these operations out of the finances that it receives from the work that is undertaken. It seems to me that a man who is running a business undertaking, particularly one that will be as intense as the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, deserves as much money as the Commissioner of the Exports Payments Insurance Corporation, which will not be expected to operate as a business undertaking. I appreciate that perhaps this is the standard that is set for the general engineer in the Commonwealth Public Service, but in this instance the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is to compete with private enterprise. 1 think the occasion may arise when we will want people with knowledge, ability and experience a little greater than might be available in the Commonwealth Public Service. The salary that is being offered might not be sufficient to attract a first class engineer from private enterprise to work for the corporation. I think this is a point that the Government could keep well in mind.

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

– in reply - I just make these 2 points quickly. The honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) will realise that this is the salary for the Assistant Dire.tor. The salary for the Director has to be fixed when he comes to require salary because he comes into the office solely. I will make sure that the remarks of the honourable member are brought to the attention of the Public Service Board. This leads me to make my second point, which is that the worst thing I think we could arrive at is if we, as Parliament, tried to fix salaries. I »m sure the honourable gentleman will realise the point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to bc moved forthwith.

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

page 2868

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I have explained the background to this Bill in my second reading speech on the Australian Film Development Corporation Bill. By this Bill, the Parliament will fix the salary for the Director of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Thesalary of the Director will be $11,822 a year. This is the same as the salary for officers at Level 1 in the Second Division of the Public Service.

Leave granted for second reading debate to proceed forthwith.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

- Mr Deputy Speaker, we have dealt with 3 Bills so far which fix one salaryof $16,931 per annum, one of $15,592 per annum and the third of $1 1,822 per annum. This is perhaps one reason whyI would not mind Parliament rather than the Public Service Board fixing salaries. Ifind it hard to follow that a person responsible for operating the Export Payments Insurance Corporation is deemed to be worth $16,931 per annum; that someone assisting to operate a business undertaking for the Commonwealth receives only $15,592 per annum; and that someone directing the activities of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority will receive $11,822 per annum only.

In this Parliament from time to time expressions of opinion are given from the Government side about how difficult the Stevedoring industry is. Yet, here is a man who will have as part of his duties the job of trying to keep peace on the waterfront, and who will draw a salary much lower than the salaries paid to men in positions in which they will have far less industrial troubles on their hands than this man is likely to have. Whilst I do not really want Parliament to fix salaries, I sometimes wonder exactly how the Public Service Board arrives at its decisions in many of these matters.

Clause 3 provides for a new sub-section (2.) of section 6c of the Act. It will read:

The Director shall be paid such allowancesas are prescribed.

This Bill is described as a Bill for an Act:

Relating to the Salary and Allowances of the Person holding the Office of Director constituting the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.

The earlier Bill relating to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation makes no mention of allowances being as prescribed. No mention at all of allowances is made in that Bill. If the Minister will be good enough to give the Parliament an explanation of those points, we shall not oppose the Bill.

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

– in reply - Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason for this provision being in the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill (No. 2) (1970) is that when the Senate amended the original legislation it required that the Parliament should determine the salaries. The method adopted here is for the rate to be fixed. The salary does not come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Senate also required that allowances be by prescription. This means that the regulation has to be made to say what the travelling allowance is. It is capable of being disallowed. That is why it has to be in.

I am reminded by my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen), who was with me when we considered these Bills that the reason why no reference is made to this matter of allowances in the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1970; to which the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) referred, is that provision exists in the Principal Act for allowances to be as prescribed. This amendment will put in a salary. When the salary goes in it will fit with sub-clause (2.). This is amending sub-clause (1.) as I recollect it. Subclause (2.) is in the existing Act. That picks up the salary point. There was no such provision in the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2869

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1970

Bill presented by Mr N. H. Bowen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Education and Science · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Following representations from the Council of the Australian National University it has been decided to amend the Australian National University Act to increase the 6ize of the Council from 38 members to 41 members, by making the following changes: (a) adding the President of the Australian National University Students Association as an ex officio member; and (b) increasing the representation of the non-professorial academic staff of the Institute of Advanced Studies and that of the School of General Studies from one member each to two members each. The University Council also recommended a further undergraduate representative, but the Government believes that having regard to the nature and composition of the Council and its methods of operation, the measures it proposes will provide adequate representation for undergraduate students. The qualifying conditions of Council membership are being varied by removing the requirements: (a) that the undergraduates’ representative be a graduate of a university; and (b) that the research students’ representative be a graduate of a university of at least 2 years standing. The Standing Committee of the Council is to be increased from 9 members to 12 members, with the Pro-Chancellor as an ex officio member, and as Chairman in place of the Vice-Chancellor; a quorum would be increased from 5 members to 7 members.

The office of Secretary of the University is to be listed in section 18a of the Act, along with those of Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as one to which Council itself should appoint or elect incumbents. Finally the Bill provides that bachelor graduates of the University should become members of Convocation on graduation. At present bachelors are excluded until they are of 3 years standing. The Government has also approved that changes he made to the Act to give the University more precise powers to control traffic. University controls for this purpose, however, have to be co-ordinated with the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance and it will be necessary to make the amendments to the Act relating to this matter in a separate Bill, to be introduced at some later stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 2870

STATES GRANTS BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2824), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to conclude my remarks, which were interrupted by the adjournment of the House last night, by quoting from a recent book by Professor Sawer entitled Modern Federalism’ in which he raised the matter of the nexus that exists between local, State and Commonwealth government authorities. He said: . . there is a tendency for problems to be treated as national merely because they are common to many regions, even though there is no integration involved. For example, it is often said in Australia today that the Centre must begin to accept responsibility for problems of urban planning and redevelopment. However, there is little integration between the relevant problems of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. There is not even any aspect of planning and redevelopment problems in those cities which could be more economically or efficiently handled by a single staff in a single place, and above all not in Canberra . . .

Once aggregative as distinct from integrated problems are thought of as national, then in the homogeneous affluent societies there are very few substantive topics incapable of becoming national’ and so the affair of the Centre. 1 suggest that that is a warning that it is not as easy to sever the link between function and finance as is sometimes presumed.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We are debating concurrently 4 important measures. The Bills and some of the proposals which have been outlined by the Ministers introducing them represent greater changes in financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States than we have seen for a long time. That being the case, I think one has to say quite clearly that it is almost impossible to debate 4 Bills of this nature in the space of 20 minutes. However, having said that one has to let the case go. There are obviously pressures upon time which are beyond our control. The 4 Bills represent a very great change in financial relationships between the Commonwealth and the States.

Underlying them is the simple fact, as is clearly deductible from the last Budget, that revenue grants to the States from the

Commonwealth have increased very greatly in an absolute sense and a proportionate sense. To illustrate this 1 merely refer to the Budget speech of 18th August and to table No. 3 in the appendix which shows the receipts and outlays of the Commonwealth Budget in national accounting form. When one looks at the Budget expenditures and the grants to the States as a proportion of Budget expenditures over recent years, it is clear that a much greater effort is being transmitted by the Commonwealth in terms of financial assistance to the States. For example, in 1968-69 the grants to the States comprised 25 per cent of the total expenditures in the Budget. In 1969-70 they comprised 26.4 per cent, and this year - this rather understates the situation because there was the matter of the receipts tax - 29.4 per cent of the total Budget expenditures will consist of grants to the States. So while State Premiers and others may complain that they are not gaining all that they desire, it should be appreciated that they are doing very well both in an absolute sense and in a proportionate sense.

I should like to say something about each of the 4 Bills but I want to dwell rather more significantly upon the new system of revenue grants by the Commonwealth to the States. The old taxation reimbursement and financial assistance formulas have been brought up to date. I would like then to dwell for a few moments upon the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The States Grants (Debt Charges Assistance) Bill is simply designed to write off an amount of State debts of up to $l,000m in 20 per cent instalments over a 5-year period. In his second reading speech the Minister for Immigration and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stated clearly that this Bill provides for grants to the States in respect of the interest and sinking fund charges on a parcel of State debts amounting to SI, 000m. One-fifth of the debt is to be paid in each of the succeeding 5 years.

One or 2 moments should be spent in asking whether the repeated claims that State debts have been an increasing burden upon State Budgets are valid claims. I appreciate that as soon as that question is stated a distinction has to be made between Government securities on issue and State debt, but there is an already established relationship between the movements in Government securities on issue and State debt. If one then has a look at the gross debt charges in relation to current Budget expenditures by the States it is clear that the gross debt charges as a burden on State Budget expenditures have been decreasing and not increasing. I will not go into all the details concerning what comprises gross debt charges for the simple reason that I have only 20 minutes in which to speak. lt has been claimed that very little assistance has been given by the Commonwealth in relation to debt charges. Assistance is given in this Bill. State debt charges have been acknowledged in terms of the revenue assistance that has been given to the States in former years. This has applied particularly with respect to some of the funding problems of Tasmania and the alteration in the special assistance grants which have subsequently been given to Tasmania. Some of these special assistance grants have, as we know, now been written into the amount which Tasmania can claim under the financial assistance grants. However, over a number of years some real .assistance has been given to the States in terms of their debt charges. Under the financial Agreement an amount of over $15m is to be paid as a contribution towards the interest payable on the State debts. Under the Financial Agreement there is also an annual sinking fund contribution at the rate of 0.25 per cent per annum over 53 years on all cash loans raised for the States. Assistance is given by the Commonwealth to the States also under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Acts, and rather more recently assistance was given to compensate the States for interest costs as a result of the removal of the income tax rebate on interest on Commonwealth loans. So this is not the first time that the problem of the debt charges that may rest upon the States has been acknowledged; and I have no doubt it will not be the last occasion on which this will occur.

The second Bill to which I would refer is the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) referred to some of these Bills as involving book-keeping arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. In a sense they are bookkeeping arrangements; in another sense they represent a different control over resources involved. But I do not disagree with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in that description. I want now to come to probably the most interesting Bill which we are considering and that is the States Grants Bill itself - the Bill related to the financial grants formula. This is the formula which contains a population multiplier and a wage increase multiplier. One can argue whether the wage increase is the appropriate multiplier or whether one should involve household expenditure as a multiplier and so on. One can argue about the speed with which the wage increase multiplier is utilised to raise the amount of grants per State. That has been done in the past, as one can see from reading the transcript of proceedings of Premiers’ Conferences. It has been argued very capably by Sir Henry Bolte of Victoria, and he has been accommodated satisfactorily, too.

The intriguing features of this Bill are the number of ways in which accommodation has been made for particular States. New South Wales and Victoria had an amount contributed to them which now is written into their own bases for escalation of the grants. Queensland has an annual amount written into the grant for further escalation. Western Australia and Tasmania have been considered. Through the special assistance grants South Australia has been considered. One does not need to argue about the multitude of specific arrangements that have been made between the Commonwealth and States; one needs merely say that they do reflect, in a sense, the differing pressures, political as well as economic, involving the Commonwealth and the States. Insofar as these pressures have been resolved - and they were resolved in the middle of the year - the Commonwealth has been very generous to the States. This is not said merely as an unctuous statement without meaning. Bearing that in mind, it is rather a one-sided argument to say that more and more of the appeals which are traditionally made to State governments for assistance - and this is applied to local authorities - should instead be diverted to the Commonwealth. To make that case and not be aware of what has happened this year and what is proposed to occur in these Bills is to make a case without balance and without the necessary judgment.

The 2 features of this Bill which I find the most intriguing and the most interesting are these: They involve the position of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I will read from the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). He said: . . in the event that any of the 4 less populous States considered that the additional per capita grunts for New South Wales and Victoria would adversely affect their ability to provide services of a standard comparable wilh those in New South Wales and Victoria, it would be open to them to make an application to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for a grant in addition to their share of the financial assistance grants.

That is a new proposal, and it is a pretty fair proposal. The second duty which is set aside to be performed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission is indicated by the Minister who said:

I might interpose here that the question of the distribution of the general revenue grants between the States is one of considerable complexity. It was for this reason that it was suggested by the Commonwealth at the Premiers’ Conference that, in addition to its responsibility for recommending annual special grants to claimant Stales, the Grants Commission might also have the task of investigating and recommending on the distribution of the general revenue grunts between all the States for purposes of the quinquennial reviews of the arrangements. We are still consulting with the States on this suggestion.

They are 2 incredibly important suggestions which should not be ignored. They are incredibly important because they involve the Commonwealth Grants Commission. If one looks around the world in terms of the position of states in federations or the position of provinces in states, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and ils proceedings are not duplicated anywhere else. The level of the discussion and the level of the expertise that is involved in the Grants Commisssion’s determinations are levels which, 1 think, ought to be made appropriate to relations between the States themselves. I hope that both of these aspects of the deliberations of the Grants Commission will be utilised and expanded. I might say also that having watched the deliberations of this body over a number of years it is clear to me that this Grants Commission, without reflecting upon other Grants Commissions, seems to have a level of expertise in its own findings which is superior to those of some in former years. I leave it at that.

I would ask, in relation to my own State of Queensland, what does one do in respect of the Commonwealth Grants Commission? It is clear from the Minister’s speech that if the Grants Commission is to be used to look after quinquennial distributions as between the States - in other words, if it is to be concerned with horizontal equality between the States in terms of standards and services - the States should submit to that body ali the evidence which it would require. I am well aware that States such as Western Australia and Tasmania, and South Australia this year taking advantage of the first proposal in that speech, have been justly treated over a long time. I would request that my own State make an appeal to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. 1 am always encouraged to suggest this course of action when f remember that States, such as the larger ones which have a great deal of political pressure and a lot of political power to develop, do not go out of their way to allow their officers to submit evidence before a body of this nature. The very fact that they do not go out of their way to do this is a reflection that they would rather play their part in the political process than in the economic considerations of differences as between the States. lt is obvious, when one looks at the series of witnesses mentioned at the back of the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s reports, that there are not many witnesses proposed to come from the larger States.

Then we come to another problem. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission is to function in this way, to what extent can it compel, invite or dispose officers to give evidence before it? I would suggest that for the Grants Commission to become, in effect, a States’ fiscal commission, one should give the Grants Commission an amount of money to distribute. If there is an amount of money to distribute as between the States, evidence will be submitted, and very quickly. After all, this is the only way in which the equalising process can be determined. It is fair to say that on the old financial assistance grants formula itself one could not write sufficient variables in it to take account of different taxable capacities between the States and details, different population compositions -of States and details, and different educational efforts between States. All of those -capacities could not be written into a simple formula, but they can be considered by the Grants Commission. So, following on the invitation given to the Commission, I have made a few calculations in relation to ray own State. I have looked at its taxable capacity compared with other States. I have looked at its effort in relation to other States. J have looked also at the different costs of administration of social services according to dispersal of population. lt seems to me that whilst South Australia has been given an advance grant of $5m this year, and it is possible that the completion grant may be a positive one rather than a negative one. Queensland, for example, if it submitted evidence, might reasonably obtain to it a grant of between $15m and $20m. I know that in that State there is some concern that an application to the Commission might involve the surrender of a free hospital system, lt would not. lt only means that a State would not gain extra revenue because it has a service for which it does not charge in its own territory compared with a service which does invite a charge in another State. But that does not mean there would be any dictation with respect to State social service policies.

The final reason why I am attracted to this new use of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is related to the reasons given by former Prime Minister Lyons when he introduced the Act appropriate to this body nearly 40 years ago in 1933. He said:

The Government now desires that a comprehensive investigation shall be made by an impartial body which does not owe allegiance to cither the Commonwealth or the States.

  1. believe that if an impartial body of this type was utilised in a wider capacity, as has been foreshadowed, political and economic pressures would be allowed to develop where they could best operate and economic pressures would have to operate within their own field and not utilise political pressures also. So in looking at these 4 Bills one must say that the level of grants which have been made by the Commonwealth to the States has greatly increased. The Commonwealth has been very generous. Under those conditions there is less of a case for attempting to transfer economic and financial responsibilities of intimate detail to the Commonwealth than in previous years. But most significantly, the 2 new principles, even under the old financial assistance grants, are ones involving the Grants Commission. These principles should be utilised in respect of the Commission whether the Commission remains under its present name or becomes instead a State fiscal commission - names do not matter much.

I ask only that the evidence which determines the level of giants by the Commonwealth to the States be considered in scientific detail, if that is done the States, large or small, would receive a level of grant appropriate to their efforts, particularly their efforts to appreciate their own standards of public service. I make one last point: Conditions in the Australian States differ less than they do in any other federation. It is obvious from work done by Professor Williams in Chicago that the levels of standards as between the poorest and richest Australian States differ less than they do in any other large federation in the world. That fact alone illustrates that there is an awareness of the principle of horizontal equality. I think that if the principles to which I have referred were adopted, that principle could find an even better application than it does at the moment.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I want to speak to the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1970. This annual piece of legislation has a habit of making history. In 1968 when this Bill was put to the House, it marked the end of Western Australia’s dependence on the Grants Commission. At the time it seemed Tasmania would be the only remaining claimant State for special assistance from the Commonwealth. Now South Australia has elected to make a partial return to the shelter of the Grants Commission umbrella. In 1968 in debating this legislation I raised the question of whether it was worth retaining the Grants Commission structure for one claimant State. I suggested then that the whole framework of Federal, State and local government relations should be revised with some new machinery incorporated for assistance to Tasmania. The framework of CommonwealthState financial relations remains intact; there have b.en no significant changes. It seems there is still a role for the Grants Commission; that no matter how much the States try to shake off the status of mendicant statehood there are still advantages in seeking its assistance.

This has happened to South Australia, which withdrew from the special grants system in 1959-60. Now on the basis of a deterioration in relative financial status, South Australia has applied for a special grant. 1 have not been able to look at the submission of the South Australian Government. It was considered by the Grants Commission in August and forms the subject of a one page supplement in the report of the Grants Commission for 1970. On the basis of these hearings the Commission recommended an advance grant of $5m; it will in the next year apply its usual procedures of assessment and revision to determine the extent of special assistance to South Australia. In the absence of analysis, the recommendation of the Grants Commission as enacted in this Bill seems a reasonable course. My South Australian colleagues will be able to comment on the adequacy of this assistance with much greater knowledge than I have.

From the national standpoint, the significant thing about the grant to South Australia is that it shatters the pattern of Commonwealth-State financial relationships which seemed to be emerging. Initially, special assistance of this kind was granted to what were then termed the three marginal States of Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia. This sort of assistance was evolved during the 1930’s with the creation and operation of the Grants Commission. The objective was to put all States in a position of fiscal equality. This applied particularly to the States of lesser population and smaller scope for taxation revenue. The system was designed to provide in these disadvantaged States levels of public utilities and services comparable to those of the wealthier States. It produced a close relationship between the Commonwealth, the Grants Commission and the State governments in allocation of resources to those States. It also meant a substantial degree of supervision of State spending and budgeting by the Commonwealth. This is revealed in successive reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which have shown how budget results of the mendicant States have been adjusted by payment of grants.

Using the criteria that administration in the claimant States should reach an acceptable level, and that their budgeting should be satisfactory, a close surveillance was kept on public finance in these 3 States. This undoubtedly contributed to the effectiveness of Government in the claimant States. The whole process added up to a notable experiment in fiscal federalism - one which was in many ways extremely successful and in advance of practice in other systems of federal government. In many ways the peculiarly Australian structure of general revenue grants, special grants, specific purpose grants, the uniform taxation structure and the creation and operation of the Loan Council and Commonwealth Grants Commission was revolutionary. The United States is still struggling to achieve an equivalent mix of federal forces in a federal system, and a satisfactory basis for revenue sharing. This should be recognised whenever the vexed problems of financial relations between the 3 tiers of government in Australia come before the House. With regard to the system of special assistance, it seemed a pinnacle of success had been reached when Western Australia asserted its independence from the Grants Commission. Now South Australia has chosen to relinquish its independence of the Commission and apply for assistance on the basis that its relative financial status has deteriorated. This opens the way for Western Australian to seek similar assistance if its financial hopes from the Loan Council are disappointed. This would be a legitimate use of the existing structure and it seems there will be a role for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to perform for some years to come.

The Grants Commission and the special assistance machinery are only one facet of the whole apparatus which governs CommonwealthState relations in this country.

This structure is obviously far from the promised land; it is under pressure at the moment. It is a situation which should be approached with tolerance; it should not be beyond the bounds of statesmanship to devise an effective solution. In the main, federalism has served Australia well. In many ways its practice in this country has been more satisfactory than in other federations. However, the basic problem of increasing federal revenues as opposed to static or dwindling State revenues has to be faced. In the past few years, the vitality of the Federal structure has been sapped by the unrelenting pressures of public policy at all levels of government. As any change in the constitutional structure of Australia is beyond credibility, the only solution is to restore and revitalise the existing system, lt must be conceded that the Commonwealth government cannot carry out important parts of its responsibilities without effective State and local administration. State and local government perform essential functions and try to satisfy the reasonable aspirations of Australians for improvements in the environment in which they live. For this reason, it is unfortunate that a malaise is becoming more and more apparent at local and State government levels.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr BARNARD:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with the State governments and local government authorities. It is impossible to put a ‘made in Canberra’ label on all the products of a good life. It should be pointed out that State and local governments may often be humdrum and dull but they are at the heart of national life. To millions of Australians they spell the difference between a decent life and a squalid life. This is why every element of the inter-governmental machinery is so important and why it must be ceaselessly analysed and improved where necessary.

The whole range of Commonwealth, State and local government financial relationships is beyond this Bill. Allowing for the re-entry of South Australia to the special assistance area, the main emphasis of this bill and of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Report falls on Tasmania. For this reason the report of the Commission for 1970 is much more detailed than previous reports on the Tasmanian economy and the Tasmanian fiscal structure. It seems the Commissioners have taken the view that their primary responsibility now is to Tasmania. This, of course, was before the change of government in South Australia and the change in attitude on the part of the South Australian Government to special assistance under the structure of the Grants Commission.

The Commission seems, however, to have some inkling that its expertise and its techniques would be required in the future for States other than Tasmania. In its 1968 report the Commission discussed changing the basis of its budget standard from the budgetary experience of New South Wales and Victoria to a budgetary standard based on the weighted average of the nonclaimant States. This would have meant that future assistance to Tasmania would have depended on a budgetary standard based on the 5 other States, including the 2 States which were formerly claimant States, Western Australia and South Australia. The Commission wisely decided not to adopt the new standard before I he year of review 1970-71. This was a wise decision; if this pattern had been adopted and applied the whole pattern of special assistance to Tasmania could have been distorted because of the South Australian decision to resume claimant status. It seems that with real prospects that South Australia will continue to seek special assistance and the possibility that Western Australia may also resort to the Grants Commission, the Grants Commission acted perceptively.

The report of the Grants Commission also devotes considerable space to negotiations late last year with the Tasmanian State Government over the problem of assessing special assistance to Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government argued that the Commission should make its recommendations on a broad and unsophisticated view of Tasmania’s financial needs. It argued further that the Commission’s existing methods failed to measure properly Tasmania’s relative financial needs. The essence of its contention was that the Commission should rely more on observation and broad judgment rather than on statistical comparison. Admittedly, this was put forward by a State Liberal Government which prefers to deal in the broad rather than the specific. It even has serious problems in fulfilling the specifics of its electoral programmes. This is evident in Mr Bethune’s admission that he has not honoured his electoral promises to independent schools and the very justified criticisms made of him by spokesmen for these schools. In any case the Grants Commission rightly rejected this spurious argument.

The time for such primitive ruleofthumb economics has long passed. If the Premier intends to rely on economic thinking of the sort he put to the Grants Commission there is every reason for extreme disquiet about the future of Tasmania. It is reasonable to assume from this sort of approach that Mr Bethune as Treasurer will formulate his Budget on the basis of observation and broad judgment. There is no place for this sort of cave-man economics in present fiscal policy. This has been rightly recognised by the Giants Commission; I feel they dealt much too respectfully with the submissions put to it by the Tasmanian State Government.

The Commission made the obvious point that it was difficult to see how it could avoid detailed statistical aud other investigations, particularly in a situation where Tasmania often pressed for changes in the Commission’s methods and where its own submissions often included detailed statistical material. This puts in a nutshell the case against the absurdity of the Bethune Government’s submissions on abolition of sophisticated techniques of measurement in the fields of revenue and expenditure. The plain fact is that these techniques are a very real part of modern government; they are becoming increasingly important; more and more they are the conventional weapons of the fiscal armoury of every government. They are perhaps more important to Tasmania than to any other Australian State.

I do not intend to examine the wealth of new material on the Tasmanian economy put forward in the Grants Commission report for 1970. It is an extremely rewarding and valuable document. I do want to develop, however, some of the inferences of the report in the light of the recent study of Tasmania made by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation. This is a body devoted to regional studies in Australia; it cut its teeth on the Hunter Rivery Valley region of New South Wales before embarking on a full scale study of Tasmania. The report does not contain many insights or information new to those who have been associated with public policy. It does draw together into coherent form a great mass of detail about Tasmania. Most of the specific recommendations of the foundation are unexceptionable and even well-worn. However, it is revealing on Tasmanian finances and Tasmania’s investment needs. These are subjects which relate back to the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

The basic point which can be drawn from both reports, the Grants Commission and the Research Foundation, is that Tasmania’s fiscal administration is extremely circumscribed. This stems from the degree of control the Commonwealth, through the special assistance machinery, has over the State budget. The budgets of all Australian States are extremely restrictive in terms of projections forward. Indeed this also applies to the Commonwealth Government although the Treasurer on occasions has made vague references to programme budgeting. The Department of Defence also operates ostensibly on the basis of programming and budgeting forward defence expenditure over 5 years; the results of this system hardly support the claims made for it by the Minister. However, no government budget is as tightly constrained as the Tasmanian Budget. This has had advantages in the past; no-one could deny the benefits that have accrued to Tasmania from the grants system. What can be questioned is the effectiveness of this process in the years ahead.

The research study on Tasmania in the seventies rightly points out that the mechanism of the Grants Commission merely compensates Tasmania for deficiencies arising from its relatively small size by comparison with the other States. Because of this mechanism it is difficult for the State to formulate a long term financial policy. If it is conceded that Tasmania will remain for many years a claimant State, and bearing in mind the tight control the Grants Commission has on the State budget, this is a problem which requires a joint solution embracing the Grants Commission and the Government of Tasmania. Obviously Tasmanian growth depends on the maintenance of comparative advantage of its industries in the internal Australian market and in the export trade. This comparative advantage is being ever more rapidly whittled away. Whatever cost advantages industry based in Tasmania once had because of cheaper power and other concessions have largely disappeared. There has been little movement of new industry from mainland States to Tasmania; a reverse flow is more and more apparent as a number of prominent industries transfer back to the mainland. Increases in shipping freights can only intensify this trend.

The whole tenor of the report of the Hunter River Valley Foundation is that Tasmania’s economic growth depends on the maintenance of comparative advantage for its industries and the promotion of a high rate of investment. On present indications the State is losing out on both counts. Comparative advantage is dribbling away. There is a marked shortfall in public and private investment. This is the sort of situation which cries out for long-term financial planning. Whatever the merits of the present structure it is not providing this long-term planning.

A particularly valuable feature of the foundation report is its estimates of what it terms a gross regional product for Tasmania. This is an attempt to estimate total spending on goods and services in Tasmania in the same way that the gross national product is estimated nationally. These estimates reveal a remarkable fluctuation in Tasmanian growth. Between 1963-64 and 1964-65 the estimated gross regional product, or GRP, increased by 10 per cent; between 1964-65 and 1965-66 by 5 per cent; between 1965-66 and 1966-67 by 10 per cent; and between 1966-67 and 1967-68 by 3.5 per cent. Part of the reason for these extreme fluctuations in growth is the susceptibility of the Tasmanian economy to natural disasters such as flood and fire. But this erratic pattern of growth reinforces the need for careful future planning and projection of the State Budget. In 1967-68, the last year for which the foundation gives an estimate, Tasmania’s gross regional product was $659.

On this basis the foundation estimated that the State needed a flow of investment from Government and private enterprise amounting to more than $l80m for an adequate regional growth rate to be sustained. The report did not attempt to give an estimate of the present level of investment in Tasmania. I can understand the extreme difficulties confronting anyone making such an estimate, but it is a pity we cannot get even a rough idea of the level of investment in Tasmania. There are grounds for believing that this level of investment is considerably below the figure of §180m deemed adequate for 1967-68. In the present year an adequate level of investment for Tasmania would be more of the order of $200m. I would be surprised if the present level of investment for the State was much more than half this figure.

On all the evidence that can be gathered from Grants Commission reports and other sources, the conclusion is inescapable that there is a serious shortfall of investment in Tasmania. This adds to the urgency of providing adequate machinery for future budgetary planning for the State. To draw together the threads of what I have been saying, the contribution made by the Grants Commission to Tasmanian growth over the past 30 years is beyond question. However, the future growth of the State is subject to very serious pressures. These have been dealt with at length in the House on a number of occasions by myself and my colleagues from Tasmania. I believe this makes imperative the adoption of a more flexible instrument of fiscal planning for Tasmania under the guidance of the Grants Commission. For this reason the Grants Commission should be used to develop a system of budgeting which would allow development objectives to be evaluated and incorporated into a budget framework projected up to five years ahead.

I believe the Government should allow the Grants Commission in association with the Tasmania Government to evolve a set of proposals which would put financial policy for that State on a long-term basis In particular, such a system of long-term planning should be based on a system of programme budgeting with revenue and expenditure flows projected up to 5 years ahead

Debate (on motion by Dr Solomon) adjourned.

page 2878

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2801), on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– There can be no doubt that the Australian Wool Commission Bill is the most impor tant legislation regarding the Australian wool industry that has ever been introduced into the Parliament. At the outset I would like to make it quite clear that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. I would also like to say, however, that the Opposition deplores the practice of the Government in introducing the Bill at 8 o’clock last night and expecting us to debate it in full now. Considering the great importance of the wool industry and this legislation I think it is deplorable that the Government cannot handle its business in a better way. All honourable members have the right to study in some detail the proposals put forward in this legislation.

Mr King:

– Do you agree that we should adjourn it until after Christmas?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I have made my point clear, that this Parliament should not rise until this legislation is finished. That does not mean we should debate it in a matter of hours. Approximately 5 years ago the price reserve scheme, which was passed by this Government’s Cabinet, was thrown out by the wool growers. As I have said many times in this House, I believe that this was a tragedy for the wool growers. I believe also that at that time many growers were confused when they voted. Who will ever forget Sir William Gunn stomping the countryside putting forward the case, and the great propaganda machine of the newspapers speaking out against the scheme, with the result that the growers became more and more confused? As a result of their votes in the ballot the scheme was not accepted. I have always said that this was a tragedy for the wool industry.

The Government’s record over the last 20 years towards this great industry can only be described as deplorable. The wool industry, without a shadow of a doubt, is the most efficient export industry Australia has had since it was settled by white men. Over the years, particularly in the last 5 years, we have seen the financial conditions of wool production have deteriorated. In the last few months, as the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) correctly described the situation, we have seen a national disaster in the industry. The Government should recognise that it should accept some criticism with respect to the wool industry. Experts in the marketing system and people who have examined the industry’ over the years have made constructive criticism of the archaic nature of the industry.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has said that there is no evidence of collusion. Many people like Sir John Crawford - he has addressed our committees - say that there is collusion. Who does the Minister think he is fooling when he says there is no collusion? Does he think that the Japanese are being foolish? Does he think they are going to bid vigorously against each other in a spirit of pure competition? Of course there is collusion. The overall number of buyers is seriously declining. The effects of collusion can be seen on the market. Whether it is open collusion or secret collusion, it exists. What we should take into account is that, if the Minister for Primary Industry is correct that there is no collusion, this is a very serious business for the wool industry. Why have prices dropped to such a disastrous level if there is no collusion? It must mean that the wool industry has reached a crisis in terms of the world price of wool. We say that there is collusion and that one of the principal reasons for the introduction of this Bill is to allow the Government or the Commission to become a willing buyer to the degree which will keep every other buyer honest. This is the objective. Whether it will be achieved will depend only on what happens. But one thing is certain: If there is no collusion and if the forces of supply and demand have caused the price of wool to drop to the level that it has reached today, then the Government had better start to make very serious moves with respect to the future of this industry.

Until a few months ago - until this year - when the finances of the wool industry started to deteriorate seriously, nothing was being done to stabilise prices except talk, and to the great credit of the wool growers of Australia, they took the matter into their own hands. Meeting after meeting of growers throughout Australia criticised the Government’s apathy in this field, and meeting after meeting unanimously moved for the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority - a strong buyer which would speak on behalf of the wool growers of Australia and which would sell on behalf of the wool growers of Australia. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has risen in this House time and time again and put the case for the establishment of a single marketing authority. I and most peoples - certainly the growers - were under the impression that the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority meant that a single marketing authority would acquire, buy and sell wool. The Government, through the Minister, has made it clear that this never was intended by the special Advisory Committee or by the Australian Wool Board. It was never stated otherwise before the last few weeks.

But be that as it may, the Australian Labor Party’s policy on this matter has been made clear on many occasions. It believes that as with wheat, there should be a single statutory marketing authority to purchase and to sell wool on behalf of the wool grower. Of course, this would mean over time - and I stress over time - virtually the end of the middle man or the wool broker.

Mr Giles:

– Do you mean to acquire the wool clip?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. Let me deal now with this legislation. There can be no doubt that this legislation has been rushed. I do not want to be too unkind, but I would say that it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have seen in the Parliament, so far as trying to understand it is concerned.

Mr Anthony:

– That is your mind.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We will question the Minister about this matter later and we will see what his mind is like. I refer to the meaning and interpretation of the Bill; to the difference between what the Minister says in his second reading speech and what the Bill says; and to what has been left out of the Bill and what has been put in the second reading speech. Some of it is unintelligible. But one thing is certain - the Bill protects the broker to the hilt, and the broker is the one who gains the most out of this legislation. He will have no more worries because his sales are completely safe. The Commission is helping the sale of his wool because it is a willing buyer to buy wool at the reserve price. One question I will ask now - we will move amendments about it later on - refers to brokerage itself. Nowhere in the Bill is it explained under what conditions will the Commission purchase wool at the reserve price. We would assume that the owner of the wool, that is the wool grower, will pay a commission to the broker, and that the Australian Wool Commission will pay delivery charges. Then when the Commission re-offers this same wool for sale, through the brokers again, there will be another round of commission and another round of delivery charges. There will be 2 lots of commission and 2 lots of delivery charges for the same bale of wool. This contention may be wrong, but I make this point as an illustration. There is nothing in the Bill to show the terms of purchase and sale by the Commission as regards brokerage.

Let me deal with the Commission itself. No mention is made of the qualifications of the members of the Commission. There is no mention of whether the Chairman or a member of the Commission can be the Managing Director of Dalgety Australia Ltd or of Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd. Apparently it means that the Government considers it is possible to appoint some of the brokers to this Commission. In fact, one of the brokers could be the Chairman of this Commission. Is this the Government’s objective? There is no mention of this limitation in the Bill. There is no mention of the required qualifications of the members of the Commission. The only reference is to the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry will appoint the members.

The Minister might be able to tell me about this matter. In his second reading speech he said that the Minister for Primary Industry will appoint the Chairman of the Commission in consultation with the Wool Board. I cannot find any reference to that undertaking in the Bill. It says that in regard to the appointment of the other members of the Commission, the Minister will consult with the Wool Board or with the wool growers on the Australian Wool Industry Conference. But I cannot see any reference in the Bill to the Minister consulting with the Wool Board on the appointment of the

Chairman of the Commission. One of the amendments which the Opposition will move is in respect of the qualifications of the members of the Commission. We believe that the Chairman of the Commission should be as independent as possible, because when I deal with the reserve price scheme I will indicate that I fail to see how we can have a virtually secret reserve price scheme when some of the members of the Commission could - I say ‘could’ in fairness - be leading wool buyers or leading brokers.

I should also like to ask what the Minister means when he says that he will consult’ before he makes a decision on who will be appointed to the Commission. It is said that he will consult with the AWIC and that he will consult with the Wool Board. 1 should like to know just what is meant by the word ‘consult’. In other words, has the Wool Board any power of nomination in this matter, or does it just mean that the Minister will go and have a bit of a talk with the members of the Wool Board and that perhaps he will take their nominations into account? Or does it mean that the Wool Board or the AWIC will have the right to nominate these people?

Mr Anthony:

– 1 will get the honourable member a dictionary.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Knowing the calibre of the answers which we receive, I am quite certain that we will hear nothing of a constructive nature. Turning to the functions and powers of the Commission, there are some outstanding weaknesses here. Most of the functions and powers are just unworkable under present law - this is the advice I have received, anyhow - regarding the present laws of the land. Even if this Bill is passed, complementary State legislation will be required. The Minister says that he has the unanimous support of, I think, the Australian Agricultural Council. But this is quite different from having the support of the State governments in regard to interference with the standards of wool selling methods in the States. I should like to deal with this matter from the point of view of private buying. I ask the Minister: Is it legal for the Commission to demand from private buyers and sellers information of which he approves? In other words, what right has this Commission to go into a State and to say to a private buyer or seller: ‘We want all the information about your income, the price at which you have sold wool and the costs involved’? I submit that the Government and the Commission have absolutely no right whatsoever to do this - certainly not under this Bill.

Turning to clause 18 (b) and (c) dealing with the formulation of standards and making of arrangements and the formulation of terms and conditions, again it is quite obvious that Stale legislation will be required before the Commission can move at all on these points. Now let me deal with the crux of the reserve price scheme, and I hope that somebody in this Parliament will get up and tell us how this scheme will work. In its present form, no-one can decipher how the Wool Commission will be expected to formulate and operate these so-called secret day to day or more frequent reserve prices. I assume that from the wording of the Bill that the price fixation can be more frequent than day to day. If an error is made by a computer or by whoever is responsible for formulating the reserve price surely the error must be rectified straight away and not be left until the following day. So I assume that the words in the Bill mean ‘at any point of time’.

What I want to know is this: Who will set the reserve price? Will it be the Commission? Will it be some members of its staff? Who is to be responsible for the reserve price? Another thing I want to know - and the lack of information on this is a serious deficiency in the Bill - is this: Is this reserve price to be a secret? Will the Commission be able to go on to the auction floor and make one bid? Or will the Commission be able to remain silent and surreptitiously take in wool when the reserve price is not reached? ls the Minister so naive to believe that a reserve price can be kept secret? I admit that there is nothing in this Bill to say that a reserve price will be secret but on the other hand there is nothing in the Bill to say that it should be made public. If some of-

Mr Nixon:

– What do you want?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am criticising this Bill as wool growers and wool buyers and wool brokers will do.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr PATTERSON:

– I may say. Mr Speaker, that we let the Minister for Primary Industry make his speech in silence. If the reserve price is to be kept secret the! Commission will have to take the responsibility for it. There are no penalty clauses in this Bill. Does the Minister think that we are so naive as to think that if a top wool broker or wool buyer is appointed to the Commission he will never ring up his firm and say that the reserve price tomorrow morning or in a few hours will be so many pence per lb. Does the Minister believe that we will say: ‘No. they are honest men and they would never contemplate a thing like that’? This is a very important point and it should be made clear in the legislation. If the reserve price is to be kept secret there should be some penalty provisions within the Bill. The other point I would like to make with respect to the reserve price concerns the way in which the bidding will work. I assume that someone from the Commission will be on the auction floor watching the prices. Will he make a bid or not? This is another thing which is not contained in the Bill. If he did make a bid the reserve price would bc there for all to see. This is another serious deficiency in this legislation.

Honourable members will see in the second clause relating to the reserve price the words ‘is prepared’. The words are not that the Commission ‘will not buy’ or ‘shall not buy’, but it ‘is prepared to buy’. But this does not mean that it has to buy. We can only assume from the looseness of the wording of that clause that the Commission will buy. A very important point arises here. Will the growers be able to veto the Commission? Suppose a grower says ‘I do not want the Commission to buy my wool. I want to submit my wool through my broker and I want the market price for that wool.’ I do not want the Commission to interfere.’ There is nothing in this Bill to say that the Commission has the power to acquire this .wool compulsorily. Apparently it has not got that power. This is another item which needs some explanation.

Is there anything to prevent « broker himself from offering wool on the auction floor? There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a broker who has purchased wool on speculation and who is prepared to wait for the right moment, from putting in his wool once he knows the reserve price. There is nothing in the Bill to say that a broker or a dealer cannot offer wool in this way although the objective is that it should go from the wool buyer to the broker. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent some nefarious practices creeping into this new system.

Another point I want to make is: What is the time limit for the Commission to pay the growers for their wool? There is nothing in the Bill to say that the Commission has to pay a grower when it purchases the wool. Surely there should be a stipulation in the Bill that the Commission will pay the owner of the wool, either through the broker or directly within, say, 14 days. Indeed there is nothing in the Bill to say that the Commission has to pay whether within 14 days, 1 day or 3 months. We can only assume that the Commission will pay the grower at some point of time.

I now come to the reselling of the wool. This is referred to in clause 19 (c) which states:

  1. the Commission, as and when it thinks expedient, re-offers for sale at auction, or otherwise disposes of, wool acquired by it under the scheme.

That is one of the most dangerous clauses in this Bill from the viewpoint of liability. I assume that it has been deliberately included in the legislation. There is no mention of price. The growers - whom honourable members opposite represent - will want to know the price. The taxpayers - whom we all represent - will also want to know this. Does that clause mean that the Commission can offer the wool it purchases under the flexible reserve price at any price it likes, even at a very tow price, or is the Commission obligated to sell that wool at the best possible price it can get? It is for this reason that the Opposition will move an amendment to put in the words ‘that the Commission, when it reoffers that wool, should offer it at the best possible price’.

I have already mentioned the possible brokerage charges which will be incurred when the Commission having purchased wool re-offers it for sale. That is one reason why 1 said that brokers are very well off. In some instances there may be - although it is not stated in the Bill - a double lot of brokerage charges. Throughout the Minister’s second reading speech there is frequent mention of the word ‘advances’. I am not talking about the advances under the price averaging plan. I am talking about the advances in respect of the wool which is taken in to a voluntary pool over 3 lots: It is said that the Commission will pay advances. Do any honourable members know whether the advance will be 60 per cent of the reserve price or just what it means? There is nothing in the Bill to say what it means. This is important. If this wool is not to be said at auction and if the Commission arranges it so that the wool does- not go through auction but is put in the voluntary pool, what price will be paid for that wool? In his second reading speech the Minister said: ‘It will receive a price very close to the reserve price’. But where is this stated in the Bill? The point I make is that the Minister makes these important statements about the price in his second reading speech but they have no foundation in . the Bill itself. The Minister in his second reading speech said:

The Commission is empowered to purchase wool in two ways - through the operation of its flexible reserve price scheme … or, with the consent of the grower, before the wool is offered at auction … In the latter case, the Commission would pay the grower a price equivalent to its most recent reserve price for the particular type of wool . . .

This is a good provision. But why is it not contained in the Bill? When it comes to a matter of law the Minister’s second reading speech is worthless. These things should be contained in the Bill. If the Commission in acquiring wool other than through the auction system is to pay a price approaching the reserve price then this should be set out in the Bill.

The next point I will deal with is with respect to the very sweeping powers of the Government regarding the reserve price scheme. It is mandatory that the Commission comply with that direction. This is set out in clause 19. In other words, we can read into the Bill that the Minister has a right at all times to veto completely the reserve price scheme. This is not good enough. Guidelines have to be laid down in a schedule to the Act or in legislation regarding the operation of the reserve price scheme. There are no guidelines and we can leave it to our imagination as to how the scheme will work. At all times within this fortnightly period the Minister could have the right to veto the scheme if he wanted to. T submit that this type of legislation is not satisfactory and cannot work smoothly.

Also, it would appear - again this is something that is not clear from the Bill - that under clause 21 (b) the Commission has the power to acquire wool other than at an auction direct from the broker if that wool can be classed as being detrimental to the auction system. This is fair enough. But I ask: Has the Commission the power to do this? What will happen if the buyer says: T do not want the Commission to take my wool; I want a broker to sell my wool for me’? What the Government has put forward is not a compulsory acquisition scheme. Tt would seem that the Commission does not have the right to acquire wool under these circumstances. But the Commission should have the right to acquire the wool otherwise, as the Minister pointed out and as the Bill points out quite correctly in regard to the objectives and functions of this legislation, in certain cases there could be a detrimental effect on the auction system. Can the Minister tell the broker to take that wool off the floor if in fact the buyer is not prepared to allow the Commission to have it?

The other point I want to make concerns the open ended nature of the Bill. I appreciate that it is difficult to put a precise figure on loans and operating expenses. Sir John Crawford has estimated on the best advice he can get that the figure would be about SI 33m which would be made up of $11 5m for capital and $18m for operations. T assume - this has been one of the criticisms that I have read in the newspapers - that the Government will look very closely from time to time at the. operations of the Commission with respect to the reserve price and whether stocks are accumulating. It is quite clear that as no limit has been placed on the volume of stocks, very large sums of money may be involved not only for the taxpayer but also with respect to the effect of putting these stocks on to the market and the effect that this will have on the reserve price advanced by the Commission.

The other point I want to make concerns the financing of the scheme through the banking system. Although the loans have to be approved by the Minister, the Labor Party believes that finance should be provided through the reserve banking system and not through approved banks or through some other lending institutions such as pastoral companies. The rate of interest on the loans should be rigidly controlled because, after all, clause 25 indicates that the Government will underwrite all the losses of the Commission and will also guarantee all the loans and interest repayments of the Commission.

Mr Barnes:

– This worries you?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I happen to have some responsibility as regards the taxpayer. The Minister probably has none. This does not worry him but it worries a lot of people.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– Before I deal with some of the points raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and make my own comments on the legislation I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony). I congratulate the Minister for his tolerance, patience and skill in getting this piece of legislation before the Parliament. This has been a remarkable achievement. T cannot reply to ali of the points raised by the honourable member for Dawson. However, one thing which struck me was that his speech was wholly destructive; it was without one indication of what is the policy of the Australian Labor Party on wool. I do not suppose that is very surprising because if we had not known before we certainly know now that the Labor Party does not have one.

I was absolutely amazed to hear the honourable member for Dawson say that he deplored the Government rushing the legislation through this House. I have never known a more extraordinary attitude. What the honourable member said must introduce a considerable doubt about the sincerity of the Opposition’s oft quoted concern about the state of the industry. What if this legislation was held up. Do not let us forget that in the time remaining in this session the legislation has to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. If this legislation is not passed by the Parliament there will inevitably be a delay in establishing the Commission at a time when it is absolutely vital to restore some degree of confidence in the industry- not only to the growers themselves but to all sections of the trade. I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for treating this legislation as of the utmost urgency and I fully support the Government’s action in bringing it before the House at this stage. The honourable member for Dawson said that the Government had done nothing in the last 12 months except talk about wool. I would remind him that the Government has doubled its contribution to wool research and promotion to a total of about $29m. Also, the Government has established a price averaging plan which is administered by the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation at a cost - I would not care to be held to this - of about $12tn. These are just 2 of the things the Government has done.

The next matter that the honourable member brought up was the idea of a single authority. Of course, in this respect we come to a basic difference of philosophy between those on the other side of the House and honourable members on this side of the House. The Labor Party has made no secret of the fact that the one thing it has proposed for the wool industry is total acquisition of the wool clip. That is Labor’s officially stated objective. For my part I congratulate the Government on preserving the right of the grower to choose how he sells his wool. This illustrates the fundamental difference in approach between the Australian Labor Party and the Government. The Australian Labor Party says to the grower: ‘Whether you like it or not every pound of wool you produce will be acquired by a statutory authority’. On the other hand, the Government says: *We have provided a commission with statutory powers to oversee the selling of the entire Australian wool clip’. However, the Government goes on to say: ‘But’ - and this is a big ‘but’ - Ve concede that you the grower should be able to decide for yourself how you dispose of your wool’. Again, I make no apology for that policy.

The honourable member for Dawson, in referring to the day to day flexible reserve price of wool, said: ‘No-one knows how it will work*. I suggest to the honourable member that . he talk about this matter to people in the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation who have been operating the price averaging plan. Work on this scheme has been going on for some months. Not only has the scheme been in operation but I understand that it is operating at a profit. 1 agree with the honourable member for Dawson on one point: This is a momentous piece of legislation, lt concerns Australia’s largest industry. I have heard the total investment in the industry variously estimated at between $8,000m and $ 1 0,000m, but whatever the actual figure is the state of the industry has a widespread effect on the Australian economy and of course a substantial effect on the export earnings of this country. The fall in wool prices has been variously described as drastic and disastrous. However, one thing is rapidly emerging - the problem that the fall in wool prices poses for the countryside itself. If there is a lack of confidence in the industry and if growers leave the industry, this will lead inevitably to increased pressures on providing services in the main cities of Australia. Australia now will really have to come face to face with the realities and the problems of decentralisation. But this is more properly the subject for another debate.

It is extremely important to determine the reasons for the fall in wool prices. Is it high interest rates? We know that buyers of synthetic fibres get credit whereas the buyer of wool has to pay interest at perhaps 9 per cent or 10 per cent on the fall of the hammer. Is it being an unprotected seller? The Minister referred to this by illustrating the fall in the numbers of buyers operating at wool auctions. Is it because of economic conditions in consumer countries with a tight monetary situation? Is it the uncertainty in today’s fashion world? I do not think that we should underestimate the unsettling effect on the wool industry that the inability of women at the moment to decide how long their skirts should be has had. Garment manufacturers are not ordering large forward numbers of garments. They are just getting small runs until they find out what will be the eventual decision of the fashion world.

Is it the price of synthetics? I think undoubtedly we must agree that the price of synthetics is having a substantial effect on wool prices. Until recent months, even with the low prices prevailing, wool had enjoyed a 50 per cent premium in some grades over comparable synthetic products. Possibly even now it may be operating in certain grades at a premium over comparable synthetic products. Therefore, a great danger of arbitrarily lifting the price of wool too far does exist. I do not say that we cannot lift it, but if we lift it too far we must acknowledge that the plain fact is that, with wool only occupying about 7.5 per cent of the apparel market of the world, there would be a very great danger that the users of wool could and would turn to synthetics to keep their mills running. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that quantities of wool are being bought at prices below what buyers are in fact prepared to pay. The flexible price scheme is designed to rectify that situation. I emphasise once again that this is not a fixed reserve price such as led New Zealand into such trouble a few years ago.

Resolving these conflicting elements and obtaining maximum return for the Australian grower will require the highest standard of commercial judgment and management. The members of the Australian Wool Commission will carry a tremendous responsibility. This applies especially to the Chairman. Here I would like to make the suggestion that the Minister and perhaps the Government at least consider the possible advantages of having a part time chairman and a full time chief executive officer. If this were done, I can see that it may be possible - I do not know - to get someone of the very highest standing in the Australian business world to undertake the chairmanship of this Commission more on the basis of a national duty than any other consideration. If this were done, we would get the best, with the day to day decisions being the job of the full time chief executive officer.

No matter how competent the Chairman and the Commission may be, I think that it would be unwise and unrealistic to believe that the AWC is able to solve all the problems of the wool industry or automatically guarantee a payable price for the grower. The cold hard fact is that, as 1 explained a moment ago, alternative cheaper products are now available and manufacturers, however unwillingly, will turn their attention to these alternatives if wool cannot compete on its own merits. Therefore, I see the greatest role of the AWC is to cut costs and to introduce new techniques especially core testing. I do not suppose that it is very often that a member of this Parliament cares to be reminded of what he said in this place some years ago. But I remember very clearly saying in 1967 that I believed that the Government should look a lot closer at the technique of objective measurement for wool and eventual sale by sample and description. I congratulate the Government for making in the recent Budget a greatly increased appropriation for investigation of this new technique. Huge savings are undoubtedly possible.

I think that I should refer to the important effect that the company known as Economic Wool Producers has had on thinking in the wool industry. It was like a breath of fresh air to me to read the prospectus of this company which it issued a few weeks ago. I would say that it would be fair to state that that company undoubtedly has had considerable influence on the much more progressive attitude shown by the Wool Board in recent months. Provided this organisation can attract sufficient support, I believe that it will continue to ensure that the Government sponsored selling system keeps up with the latest scientific advances and business practices. Competition is always desirable. I am fearful that if Economic Wool Producers or something like it fails to get off the ground there is the danger that the system may lack the stimulus to innovation, so vital to wool’s survival.

I am a bit disappointed that the Australian Wool Commission will have no power to negotiate directly on freight rates on its own account. I am sure that the Minister will request the Commission to undertake this responsibility as is provided for in the Bill. But I would have liked the Commission to have this power in its own right. If we accompany negotiations on freight rates by moving towards sale of wool on a c.i.f. basis, it should strengthen greatly the negotiating position of the Australian grower. There is no doubt that the Australian Wool Commission will be required to face many problems and to make many difficult decisions. The great thing is that the wool industry at last is moving towards a rational selling system and the introduction of modern techniques. However, no matter how successful the Commission, the fundamental problems of reconstruction of the industry will remain. It is essential that the wool industry adjust itself to the changing economic environment at home and to world trading conditions abroad. This brings up the urgent and growing need for long term finance and interest rates which take account of the current situation in trading in primary products. We must make provision for those who wish to stay in the industry to do so with prospects of success. Existing credit arrangements, I suggest, are quite inadequate. Here again, I realise that these subjects should be considered more properly on another occasion which I hope will not be too long delayed.

This legislation itself has proved that the Government realises the really extreme urgency of the present critical situation facing this huge industry. Just as I paid tribute to the Minister for Primary Industry at the start of my speech, I pay tribute to the departmental officers and the Parliamentary Counsel who have been responsible for enabling this legislation to be introduced before the end of the session. This too has been a remarkable achievement and an achievement made, 1 know, under quite extraordinary pressure of time.

I trust that the Commission will usher in a new era for the wool industry. I wish the members of it well in the tremendous task which lies ahead of them. Nothing less than the survival of wool growers themselves, the future prosperity of many towns and, indeed, whole districts covering a large part of Australia, and ensuring the continuation of the source of 20 per cent of Australia’s export income rests on their shoulders. This is a great challenge, and a challenge worthy of the best men in Australia. Let us make absolutely sure that we get these men and put them to work as soon as humanly possible. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Grassby) adjourned.

page 2886

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1970

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

The the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill seeks parliamentary approval to borrowings by the Commonwealth of up to $US125m for the purchase of defence equipment in the United States of America. Under the Loan (Defence) Act 1966, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US450m to assist in the purchase of defence equipment in the United States. Those borrowings were almost completely committed by orders placed up to the end of December 1969. Under the Loan (Defence) Act 1970, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US89m to finance orders for general defence equipment placed with United States suppliers for the remainder of 1969-70. Orders approximately equal to the amount of that credit had been placed in the United States by about the end of June, and negotiations have commenced for a further credit to cover orders placed during 1970-71. The present Bill will provide the necessary authority to enter into an agreement for this further credit. The loans arranged under the 1966 and 1970 Acts were all with the Export-Import Bank of the United States. They were used for the purchase of general defence equipment and, in the case of loans arranged under the 1966 Act, for some payments of the FI 1 1 aircraft.

The Loan (Defence) Act 1968 provided for the borrowing by the Commonwealth of an amount of $US75m to assist in financing the purchase of FI 1 1 aircraft. No drawings have yet been made against that loan. The Export-Import Bank of the United States has agreed to provide the loan funds to be raised under this legislation although the full terms and conditions of the credit have yet to be settled. Repayment will be made over 7 years and it will carry an interest rate of 7.375 per cent or 7i per cent - the current rate for loans of this type made by the Bank. The Bill has been drafted to provide authority for the Commonwealth to accept the usual provisions of Export-Import Bank loan agreements. It is similar in all respects, except for the amount and the title, to the Loan (Defence) Act (No. 1) 1970.

Since the borrowing is for defence purposes the approval of the Australian Loan Council is not required. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2887

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2886).

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– This

Bill comes down against the fact that the Government has been in full power and control of the destinies of this nation and its industries for 21 years. The Bill comes before us after 7½ months of the worst crisis the wool industry has experienced in more than a generation. It comes before the Parliament following clear and definite calls by the industry itself - uniquely united for the first time in history - for a single marketing authority to market the entire Australian wool clip. It is presented to us following meetings of thousands of Australian wool growers who voted with overwhelming unanimity for a single marketing authority to market the entire Australian wool clip. It has also a background of the biggest meeting of all, that demanded that the Government suspend all sales to foreign countries until there was a proper reserve price for the product and the run towards bankruptcy was halted.

I emphasise these points before mentioning the action taken by both the Government and the Opposition. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) wanted some further information. I am delighted to provide it. Responding to the urgent and direct requests by wool growers, the Opposition knuckled down to the formulation of a wool plan, which was issued on 22nd May. The main points of the Opposition’s 11-point wool plan are: A statutory authority to acquire, appraise and market the Australian wool clip on behalf of wool growers; a reconstruction scheme to assist in the solution of problems of production and to streamline selling methods; the creation of a capital fund to act as an insurance against price falls; the authority to tackle cost disabilities in producing and marketing wool, particularly for export; a basic average appraisal price and minimum reserve prices or floor prices to be placed on all wool.

I want to make our commitment clear before dealing with the legislation that the Government has brought down, in contrast, 4 months after the Opposition acted, 7½ months after the crisis began and 21 years after taking office. We have determined that we will not oppose the Government’s wool plan. We have said that this is the product of the Government’s 21 years experience and expertise, the product of long months of waiting. The Government has made it clear that this is its answer to the wool disaster. The Government has made it clear to the industry that it is a matter of take it or leave it. There is really no choice. The Government has said: We have heard you. We have studied and understood the problem. This is our answer. You either have this or you have nothing.’ I make it quite plain that with a disaster to cope with we have said we will give the Government the opportunity to try out its solutions. But I also make it plain to wool growers and to the nation that this legislation, this Government answer to the wool crisis, is not what the industry asked for; it is not what the growers have demanded; it is not what the Opposition is firmly pledged to do. So let it be clear that this legislation was conceived by the Government as its answer and that the responsibility for it rests clearly with the Government and not with the wool growers or the Opposition.

Let us examine what the Government proposes to bring to birth. It represents the irreconcilable compromise between the great vested interests which help finance and usually support the Government parties and those who very often work for them, the producers, and who vote for them. No-one could accuse the Government of inconsistency in 21 years. There has been no inconsistency on the part of the Government. It has always hitched its wagon to the star of the auction system. It might be remembered that in 1951 the United States offered Australia a 20-year contract to purchase wool at 100c per lb. The Government rejected the offer. In rejecting it the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the present Minister for Trade and Industry and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), said on 28th November 1950:

The Government cannot agree to any suggestion which involves the termination of public auctions.

So the position is that on this day in 1970 the prevailing price for wool might have been, under that long term contract, 100c per lb, but the Government refused the contract then basically because it was convinced that it would interfere with the sacred auction floor on which so many growers and their lives have been so ruthlessly sacrificed. The auction has sacrificed their interests against a meaningless charade of so-called competition, and the Government knows that for some lines there is only one client.

This Bill is in complete consistency with the Government’s unchanged 21-year-old policies and ideas. Firstly, the auction system shall remain untouched; secondly, the brokers must be assured of their return; and thirdly, the banks’ participation shall be retained, and if necessary they shall receive a guarantee of the profitability of their activity. But what of the poor beleaguered wool grower? The Government says to him: ‘We will start to join with others to operate at auction’. That is what it all amounts to. There are no guarantees to the growers. There are no legislative assurances and there is no direct help, except that the Government will set up 7 nominees of the Minister who will go into business, lt reminds me very much of another Government decision in similar circumstances and in relation to a similar problem. Confronted with collusion, not by foreign wool buyers but by foreign ship owners, the Government did not fight them or oppose them, but joined them, and the result is that today the Government is acquiescing in the exploitation of the wool industry by shipping monopolies that are using wool to bolster their profits, charging 3 times as much as would be charged by charter ships. In this Bill the Government does not fight anyone; it joins the system. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) says that the very fact that there is a new buyer in the field will boost returns by several cents. It will enable the Government to learn more about business, to learn more about the nation’s greatest export industry, after 21 years in power. It looks like a request for a further 21 years.

But what does the Bill insist on for the grower? It insists on a guarantee for the broker and a guarantee for the banker, but what does it insist on for the grower? The Bill is a series of pious hopes, some Treasury finance for the Government to be a buyer if the grower agrees, some vague expressions of opinion, guarantees to the brokers and the bankers, and nothing more. Let us be clear: The Bill gives the authority to the Government to co-ordinate and seek information and to buy if there is willingness to sell. The growers in a position to do so can tell the Commission to go to the devil. That is an interpretation of the lack of power in this legislation. The big corporation enterprises, of course, can ignore it. For the small grower there is the crumb that exists now in the price average plan which, in fact, benefits the broker, and which, under this Bill, leaves the door open for plain racketeering by those unscrupulous enough to use the loose and sloppy provisions of the legislation for their own ends. I say in passing that the price averaging plan probably will return to the brokers between Sim and $2m, but it will not return anything significant to the growers.

The Bill is not the lusty child of long nurturing in the expansive womb of Government that we had been told about; it is a sickly abortion that has tittle chance of thriving. But whatever chance it has, we will give it, even to using our own expertise to try to improve it at the Committee stage. In our country there are strong and powerful forces at work to extirpate the family wool grower - to end the family enterprise. They have no sorrow or regret for the bankruptcy of thousands. These forces are firmly of the opinion that the day of the family enterprise is over. They are dedicated firmly to the corporation and to vertical integration. There is an increasing trend in Australia to the overseas enterprises coming in to control the land,own the sheep, own the broking firm, have interests in the shipping and further interests at the other end in processing. There is a complete tie-up, not in the interests of the Australian economy or the Australian family but in the interests of the exploitive forces which are enshrined in the auction system. The profitability of wool as yarn is up by 17 per cent. The profits of the mill masters in Bradford are up 24 per cent, and this is at a time when the Australian wool grower gets $2 from a $100 suit.

Let us examine the current scene in some detail. In the past 10 years there has been a dramatic contraction in the number of wool buyers. From 30 separate mills each with a separate representative in Australia, the number of United Kingdom buyers, for example, has reduced to 3 large combines. The same position applies in Europe. The situation is that on some individual sale lots there are only 2 or 3 bids. Two-thirds of all superfine wool is bought by one single buyer and one-third by the other buyer. The Government apparently believes that the 2 buyers bid against one another in a genuine way just to keep the price up. Yet I understand that the 2 of them bid for only 1 client or on behalf of 1 client. I have not heard such a good fairy story since Hans Christian Andersen passed away. The Government continues to protest that although there is an admitted aggregation of buyers there is no collusion in buying. Even the Government will admit that prices are falling below what buyers would be prepared to pay if there was any reason for them to pay more. The Government believes that it will be able to tell within an hour or two of the opening of the market what the price levels will be, and then the Government will move in. But with daily price levels to be set does the Government really believe that this is going to work and be effective?

The Government must know that it is necessary to enter the top and yarn market, but after 21 years in power it still says that it does not know enough about this market to do it. The Government says publicly that in the months ahead it expects confider.ee to return and prices to rise. Please God that happens. But privately the Government says this will give it time to make up its mind about rationalisation. This is a euphemism for wiping out more farms. The bleak prospect is for a few cents up and more farms going out. I wonder whether perhaps we will be left with only 20 per cent of the farms that we now have. The Government knows that there is an 8c per lb difference in price because of visual error. It knows that 75 per cent of present buyers would buy on sample right now. But the Government still postpones any meaningful reform, pleading, after 21 years, for more time to investigate. Everyone in the industry knows that sale by sample means decentralised handling - that is, country handling centres where we can put big lots of wool together, sell on sample and put directly on our own ships. This is what the growers really want, yet the Government is clinging to the auction system despite the fact that for some sections of the crossbred market there is only one real buyer.

The Minister will appoint 7 men to the Commission. He will choose 2 growers, and he will tell them what to do. They will report to him every 14 days. If they do not conform, he can dismiss them individually. If they defy him as a Commission, he can order them collectively. So the status of the Commission is that of an advisory committee to the Minister. Two growers - carefully selected no doubt - against the rest. The selling brokers will be strong indeed. And why should they not be? The selling brokers have S600m invested in the present exploitive processes of the wool industry. If they control the Commission they will safeguard their S600m, kill any significant enterprise, and kill hope for the growers of any decentralised development across the countryside. I feel that the Government may have shown some of its real dedication - against opposition. The Government bulldozed the appointment of 2 overseas brokers’ representatives to the Wool Advisory Committee of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. These representatives were both from the same company.

Mr Nixon:

– Sinister!

Mr GRASSBY:

– It was an incredible action. The exploitive interests are fighting a magnificent rearguard action. They have their agents and I am sure we will hear from them before this debate ends. They know about selling sight unseen. They well know that when selling sight unseen comes in, when we can establish handling centres in the countryside, perhaps when we can have warehouses in buying countries, charter our own ships and standardise the whole operation, the exploitation of the grower will end and the profits will start to remain at home.

Returning to the fiction of competition - the auction charade in relation to the Japanese section of the wool market - we find that the only 5 Japanese who travelled here, travelled together, came together and acted together. In theory they are supposed suddenly to rise, find a new enmity and fight each other, not in the interests of Japan but in the interests of the Australian woolgrower. Bear in mind that these are the only people bidding on these occasions for lines that are required by Japan. The Government, after 21 years, says: ‘We do not know whether there is more demand or less demand for wool. We do not know whether there is collusion or not.’ The only comment from the Minister himself was to say that he went to Japan and asked them whether they were being naughty. They said that they were not. He was reported to have been happier as a result.

The growers around Australia tonight wanted to hear from the Government 1 commitment: They wanted a price on the product. They wanted a just return, not guarantees to bankers and brokers but guarantees to them in their trouble. They wanted a ban on exports until 45c was reached. By the banks of the Murrumbidgee, the Lachlan and the Murray they are humming a song. I thought I might pass it on to the House. It goes this way:

Baa, baa, blacksheep, have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. One for the broker, one for the banks. And one for the Japanese to sell to the Yanks.

I say that with due respect to my friends in Japan and the United States. It was once said that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings come words of wisdom. It may well be the theme song of this legislation. I am saddended by it but I certainly pledge, with my colleagues, to stand by what we publicly said we would do in relation to the legislation which the Government has introduced. We will also stand by the policy we announced on 22nd May 1970. We will do all we can to end a situation that is indeed a national scandal.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– the Bill before the House this evening is an extremely important one. It deals with what is still the most important and biggest single industry in Australia and an industry which is in real trouble. The Bill sets out the powers and functions of the Australian Wool Commission which is to be set up by this legislation. It is a tragedy that this was not done earlier, but the wool industry has been sharply divided on what should be done to assist the industry. We have seen this process developing over the years and the information coming from various sections of the industry has been of an adverse nature. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said that the Commission is not what the industry wants. As I understand the situation, the industry has fully endorsed the Bill. I am sure that both the major wool growing organisations and the Australian Wool Industry Conference have endorsed the Bill unanimously. I would say that as the representatives of the industry, with whom the Minister has to deal, have endorsed this Bill, they have in fact accepted it as a whole. No Bill, especially initial legislation in a field, is perfect. From year to year no doubt there will be changes to this legislation as there have been to other primary industry legislation setting up organisations such as the Australian Wheat Board. No doubt this legislation will be changed as we find ways to improve it.

The basic point is that the Commission is set up to set a reserve price so as to test the market. This is nothing new to Australia; it has been done before. The Bill will set up a reserve price plan which has proved successful in this country previously. So this is nothing new in the history of Australia. The great tragedy is that it was not carried on after 1951 when the wool industry was in a financial situation to support this type of legislation. So since 1951, when the price of wool was at its highest, we have never seen the price of wool as low as it is today. In fact it is at its lowest price since 1946 when it was 20.41c per lb. Today it is down to about 28c. In 1947 it was 32.92c; the average today is about 28c. The tragedy of the whole situation is that the industry has had no protection in recent times andprices have fallen away to their present level. Part III of the Bill sets out the functions and powers of the Commission. Clause 18 reads: (1.) The functions of the Commission are-

  1. to operate a flexible reserve price scheme in respect of wool offered for sale at auction;

This is what has been tested in the Australian wool market before and it can be tested again. I have every confidence that given good management by the Commission it will prove to be successful. Before I sit down I hope to be able to produce -some evidence that might substantiate that. In relation to the setting of a flexible reserve price I turn to clause 19(1.) which reads

The flexible reserve price scheme operated by the Commission shall be a scheme under which -

  1. from day to day, or as frequently as the Commission thinks necessary, reserve prices for the various types of wool being offered for sale at auction are determined by or on behalf of the Commission, having regard to the bidding at recent auctions and to all other relevant information available to the Commission;

I pin my faith on that clause and on the Commission itself, if the scheme is good enough to stand up to the situation in which we find ourselves today. The wool industry is a terrific industry, but wool prices have been moving downwards. In 1955-56 the average price for greasy wool was 50.08c per lb. In 1966-67 it was 47.38c - moving down - and in 1967-68 it was 41.75c, so continuing the downward move.

In watching this downward trend in prices one becomes a little interested in what might be happening to the textile industry overseas. We have heard a tremendous amount of propaganda from people coming here from textile industries overseas for the first time in their lives when it was understood by them and the rest of Australia that this Government was about to bring down legislation to do something about the falling price of wool. These people suggested to us that it was not in the best interests of the wool grower and that the wool industry was in trouble because of competition with synthetics. Competition with synthetics has been with us for a long time. I do not underestimate competition in any market, but I would like to see a little evidence that competition from this quarter is having a detrimental effect. One of the people I have referred to came from one of the textile factories in West Germany - the Norddeutsche Wolkammerei und Kammgarnspinneri. The capital employed in this factory in 1963, in round figures, was 22 million Deutschmarks. The net profit before tax at that time was 3,997,000

Deutschmarks. If we move to the latest figures which the Parliamentary Library has been able to get for me - all these figures were taken out by the Library - in 1967 we see that the capital employed was 23 million Deutschmarks. The net profit before tax was 4,659,000 Deutschmarks. So at that time, when wool prices started to move downwards, the net profit of this company was in pretty good shape.

Also amongst the people who came to this country and who have been buying a lot of wool from Australia were representatives of Japan Wool Textiles. Australia is very grateful to all the people who come to this country and trade but it certainly looks for a fair go. Japan Wool Textiles is a representative enterprise manufacturing woollen fabrics. From December 1966 to May 1967 this firm was operating at a profit rate of 30 per cent. From June to November 1967 the profit rate was 41 per cent; it was moving up while the price of wool was moving down. From December 1967 to May 1968 the profit rate was 36 per cent. Honourable members may think that that is an isolated case but I will cite another woollen textile mill in Japan as a further example. This mill manufactures woollen fabric exclusively and in 1967 its sales amounted to around 5,000 million yen.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order. I would just like to draw to your attention, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to the fact that there are only 3 members of the Liberal Party in the Parliament. Does that indicate that they are not interested in wool or that they do not care for the Country Party?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HALLETT:

– From November 1966 to April 1967 the profit rate of this firm, which was established in 1918, was 85 per cent. From May 1967 to October 1967 the profit rate was 88 per cent and from November 1967 to April 1968 it was 93 per cent. This shows that the textile companies in Japan are not exactly running without a little profit. I have much more evidence to show this. I have always said that wool could stand on its own feet if in fact it was given an opportunity to do so. It is obvious from all the information from the northern hemisphere that I have been able to collect that textiles are doing reasonably well.

But I now turn to a synthetic textile manufacturer in Japan and it is interesting to note that in the period 1965-66 the profit rate of this firm was expressed as a minus percentage. From February 1966 to January 1967 it was 3 per cent and in 1967-68 it was again a minus percentage. I think that quoting these figures explains a lot of things about the use of wool in the 2 countries which I have given as examples. But I think a lot of research needs to be done in Australia and overseas not only on the selling and manufacturing of the finished article but on precisely what is happening in the textile field right from the wool shed - the sheep itself, if you like - until the finished article is sold to the public somewhere overseas. I hope this would be a job for the Commission, to analyse completely the situation of textiles throughout the world and to see exactly what wool’s place is in the world today.

From memory, I think wool represents only about 8 or 9 per cent of total textiles throughout the world, but it is a tremendous fibre and I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be a fibre that will be wanted in the world of tomorrow. It has always been wanted and, I feel, always will be wanted. With the higher standards of living which we see throughout the world today obviously more people will want better clothes, and what better clothes could one have than clothes made from wool itself? There have been a lot of arguments put forward over the years as to why wool fluctuates in price. These are perhaps fairly good arguments but as far as I am concerned they have never held water - not many of them anyway - because every time in the history of the Australian wool clip that some measure of control has been brought in such as a reserve price scheme or any other price measure at all, this has stabilised the position of wool and brought it up to a reasonable price. All the woolgrowers of Australia are asking is that they have a reasonable price for their wool.

It is very hard to understand overseas textile manufacturers trying to destroy - and that is exactly what they are trying to do - a great industry such as the wool industry because it cannot possibly function with the prices that it is receiving today. Why these manufacturers should be trying to do this I do . not know, especially when some of them are making the large profits I have illustrated, and there are plenty of these very profitable woollen textile manufacturering firms throughout the world. But here we have examples of the profits they have ma«4e. I only wish I could have obtained figures more up to date than those which the Library has been able to supply me with but I understand that these figures are very hard to find. I understand that one of my colleagues may have some later information in regard to 1 country.

I hope that the Commission does take it upon itself to make a complete study of the overall situation not only here but throughout the world and I would criticise the Australian Wool Board for not playing a greater part in this and making public from time to time precisely what is going on in the world in relation to textiles. I have said previously in this House, and I will repeat it, that the research and promotion into which we have poured millions of dollars - not only the Government but also the wool growers - is of little use unless it is combined with research into marketing. No other commercial business or organisation would think for a moment of putting so much money into research and promotion without looking at its marketing proposals. It has been proven beyond doubt that although the money that has been poured into research may have benefited somebody it certainly brought the wool grower to his knees. Therefore the three, marketing, promotion and research, must be combined.

If some of the millions of dollars that have been spent on the promotion of wool had been spent on marketing we might have been a little further ahead today. I am not saying that promotion in industry is not necessary, but much depends on where and how one promotes a product. I think I am right in saying, as I have said before, that the Australian Wool Board is not looking in the right direction in relation to this question. However, I do pin my faith in this Bill, on the powers of the Commission and on the members of the Commission and their ability to do this job, because if they are no good or do not know their job, regardless of who they might be, then they will not be able to do the job which I envisage they should be doing.

The Minister has seen the requirement within the industry. He has brought this legislation forward very quickly, considering the time slot and the complexity of the legislation itself, but now I would say to him, having got the Bill into the House, that when he does in fact get the Royal Assent to it he should go full speed ahead to get the Commission set up immediately because the industry is in dire straits and needs a floor put under it to stop it moving down any further. I have no doubt that the Minister will do this as soon as possible. I repeat that it is a tragedy to see a great industry like this torn apart internally in the first place and then by other very big organisations both overseas and in Australia which, when the Government last tried to do something about the position a few years ago and also in 1951, turned loose a machine of money and propaganda which completely confused the growers, mainly those in New South Wales. It is interesting to note that at the moment the New South Wales growers are the most adamant that something should be done. All this has happened before and perhaps the growers will not forget in a hurry the experience of the past of their own industry tearing itself apart and the experience of those people who poured out propaganda against this great industry. I hope the growers will back-up this Bill, turn it into an Act and get it going with a good Commission to administer it. I have no doubt that given these powers and with future experience the Commission will do a good job. I have mentioned that there may need to be some amendments to the Act because there are elements within the industry now that do not like this term ‘flexible reserve price’. But as I understand it this flexible reserve price is now a policy of both South Africa and New Zealand. If we adopt that policy we will be in line, if we can use that term, with our colleagues in this industry in these 2 countries. We have worked in double harness previously in a scheme like this, but because the reserve price is flexible it does not mean to say that it is not solid and this is up to the Commission and the way they run the system, There are other opinions that growers should have more representations on the Commission. That may come about; I do not know. The main thing is to have a good, solid Commission with a good working base, which the Government will give it through this legislation. The Minister said in his second reading speech that there will be no limitation on the money available. So the Government is backing this plan, and it will go forward. The Commission must have some backing if it is to operate effectively. The implementation of this legislation will, I have no doubt, set the wool industry on the return road to prosperity.

Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro. (9.41 · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to see this Bill passed and I want to see it have a useful effect in the ruinous situation now confronting so many wool growers. I speak with knowledge of the position in my own electorate of EdenMonaro. I support generally the position taken by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) in opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I particularly support his reference to the reserve price scheme which was defeated 5 years ago. He has correctly described that defeat as a tragedy for the woolgrowers. It is important to record that it was defeated, as the honourable member for Dawson has said, by a campaign to mislead and confuse the growers, which was carried out by a combination of some Government members of the Parliament and of the powerful forces outside the Parliament which both control and support this Government and keep it in office. There is no question but that that the scheme was defeated by a combination of those forces from the Government side and from outside backers.

The reason why I stress this is that a similar campaign is now being engaged in and is, I am sorry to say, largely supported by members of the Australian Country Party, once again to mislead the wool growers of this country about the steps which are necessary to restore economic health to the industry. Everyone will hope that the new machinery to be established by this legislation will be effective. But surely no-one can deny that its effect will not be unlimited. Indeed, it will have a limited effect. The exaggerated predictions made by some Country Party Ministers, some Country Party members, and notably by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) tonight, as to the effect of the Commission on prices and the future of the industry are absolutely deplorable. Why have they sought to reassure and placate growers with such statements when they have only to consult any of those people who are really knowledgeable in the industry to be told that there is no basis whatever for such exaggerated hopes.

This should be the moment of truth for all Country Party members in this Parliament. Every honourable member who has taken part in recent debates or who has listened to recent speeches knows that until just the other day members of the Country Party in this Parliament have constantly sought to minimise the difficulties of the wool industry. Until recent days they have refused to agree that there is any serious problem at all. I refer particularly to the speeches by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt). He and other Country Party members have risen in their places and dismissed statements from this side of the House as to the gravity of the situation in the wool industry as being - I quote the words of the honourable member for Hume - ‘the utterances of prophets of gloom which ought to be disregarded’.

Mr Pettitt:

– In an attempt to restore morale.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Those members have dismissed the warnings as being unduly pessimistic, designed to create panic and lower morale, as the honourable member for Hume admits. They have urged the rural community to forget its troubles in the hope that they will go away. Indeed, Country Party members in recent days in this House have urged wool growers to concentrate not on the troubles in their own industry but on the dangers created by youthful demonstrators in the community. They have urged them to rally round the Country Party banner, not on the cry of the needs of the wool industry but on the spurious cry of law and order and now, in one further desperate attempt to mislead their own supporters, on the mythical story of the 35-hour week. When those cries have fallen on deaf ears, as they are doing now, Country Party members must face the facts.

Every speech made by a Country Party member on the issue of wool in recent weeks was swept aside exactly a week ago today when the Leader of the Country Party (Mr McEwen) described the position of the wool industry as a national disaster.

I do not know whether he was, in the words of the honourable member for Hume, attempting to reduce morale, but he said it was a national disaster. Indeed it is. Every Country Party member now has to fall into line with his leader. The Leader having made that admission, they are stripped of any excuse for their failure right up to this moment to take any steps to exert pressure on the Government to adopt the measures necessary to cope with the national disaster. Not one Country Party member in this Parliament has demanded that the Government take adequate steps to cope with the national disaster. The first measure in any national disaster is to provide immediate and massive financial assistance. That is the immediate need of the wool industry now.

Many growers need full relief from the interest burden of debts which is crushing them. It would be easily within the power of this Government to pay the cost of an interest holiday for wool growers and then for the next few years to pay the difference between 8 per cent interest and 3 per cent interest. 1 have not heard one Country Party member threaten the Government that unless it takes that course he will withdraw his support from it. Many other growers must have adequate cash assistance now, simply to enable them to survive. The men who are the alleged representatives of the wool growers and the primary producers have been silent when it comes to the question of threatening the Government with the loss of their support unless it will provide the cash assistance that these primary producers must have to stay upon their holdings. These are the immediate steps to be taken. They must be followed by long term measures which would have a general effect on the whole of the rural economy throughout Australia.

Country Party members in this House sneered openly the other day when I proposed that the Government should now provide $100m of assistance to the wool industry. They would not have sneered if it had been proposed to provide that amount crf assistance for secondary industry. Secondary industry today, largely because of the work of the Leader of the Country Party, who is the spokesman and main support of the manufacturers in their demands for ever increasing protection, is receiving from the Australian community direct assistance equal to $l,500m a year and, counting indirect assistance, up to $3,000m a year. Yet Country Party members sneer when it is proposed that the Government should provide SI 00m of immediate assistance for the wool industry Is the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) saying: ‘That is not right*? I did not hear the honourable member for Mallee say one word in support of that proposal. In fact he is still silent. He is now only whispering in bis beard.

Mr Turnbull:

– I did not sneer.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not hear the honourable member sneer. I did noi hear him say anything. I did not see him do anything. The honourable member for Corangamite earlier tonight expressed the hope that this measure win create ‘a new era for the wool industry’. Everyone would hope for that, but I cannot imagine thai anyone who knows the problems of the industry would pin his hopes on this measure alone creating such a new era for the industry. He showed his recognition in, 1 thonght, a few very eloquent words of description of the present ruinous state of the industry but he expressed the hope that this measure will restore that situation and create a new era for the industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the expression by the honourable member for Corangamite is irresponsible optimism carried to dangerous lengths, and it has pervaded, until tonight, all the expressions of the rural members on the Government side of this House. No-one who has studied this legislation - even though he may believe and hope that it will have a limited effectiveness - can see the basis for such expressions of hope as that. A great deal more than this is most urgently needed now, and the member of this Parliament who blinds his own eyes and attempts to blind the eyes of his constituents to those measures is performing an ill service to those whom he represents in this Parliament. Rural industry must itself demand - and must have representatives in this Parliament who will demand - that in its need assistance should be given to it comparable with that which is given to secondary industry. It is absolutely useless for reactionary representatives of rural industry to hope that their problems will be solved by demanding now a stoppage of the arbitration process of providing just wages and conditions for Australian employees. In fact, every trade union that has expressed itself on this matter of the problems of the wool industry - and many have done so - has expressed the view that country dwellers equally with city dwellers are entitled to an Australian standard of living and to equal measures of protection and assistance to enable them to maintain that standard of living.

It is no use members of the Country Party deluding their supporters into the belief that this can be achieved by attacking the standards achieved in secondary industry. They must get out to achieve such standards for their own people. This is not achieved, of course, by driving the small farmers off their properties and into bankruptcy, as I have heard advocated in the last few days by members of the Government side of this Parliament and by previous members of the Government side of this Parliament. It is not to be achieved by allocating the whole of the land to great financiers and to great land holding companies, as I have heard advocated in the last few days by present members of the Government Party in the Parliament - some of whom are here tonight - and by members who were On the Government side in previous parliaments. I shall quote some of these statements. One was:

It is nonsense to talk of the needs of the little man* in the wool industry.

Another statement was:

Purely economic forces show that the small man is doomed . . . that aggregation into large holdings should be allowed.

What a gospel of despair. Does the honourable member for Mallee support that?

Mr Turnbull:

– Are you quoting from Hansard?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, I am quoting from statements made outside this Parliament in the last few days by present members of this Parliament and by past members of this Parliament from the Government ranks.

Mr King:

– Who made the statements?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Wait and the honourable member will (earn. Another statement was:

The 24,000 farm units in the ‘pastoral’ area of New South Wales should become 3,000 units. . . Graziers should forget unity. How we can survive as individuals is now the important question.

The final statement was:

The vote among graziers as to what policy they should pursue should be taken on a vested interest basis, that is, the significance of the vote should depend on the size of the herd or the size of the wool cheque.

We hear sufficient from the metropolitan areas without hearing this kind of talk from the alleged representatives of rural industries. It is amazing and most audacious to read the demands made through the metropolitan Press, that the rural areas must adjust to the price that the buyer is prepared to pay or else go out of business. That would mean the closing down of country towns and men walking off their farms and joining the ever increasing trek for employment at the factory. It is incredible to me that some country representatives are accepting and echoing that when those who raise that cry - the cry that the country producer must accept the price that the buyer is prepared to pay or else go off the land - those metropolitan interests which are spreading that cry would themselves shriek in horror if it was suggested that they should sell their products at the world buyers’ prices. Of course they do not and of course they should not. They are part of the protective system of this country which has enabled secondary industry and the employees of secondary industry to maintain Australian standards of living while the standards of the rural producers, under their benighted leadership in this Parliament, have constantly fallen.

I said in this House recently that of the many causes of the present plight of rural industry and of the wool industry in particular, inflation is among the chief causes. Inflation in Australia has been caused, first, by the deliberate failure of this Government to take measures to cope with it; secondly, by the acquiescence of members of the Country Party in allowing that failure to continue; and thirdly, by the operation of the processes which protect secondary industry and its employees - the tariff boards, the arbitration courts and so on. How can rural industries or their leaders put the case that rural industry should absorb all those ever increasing costs and at the same time be prepared to sell its products on the world market without assistance?

The final point I should like to make is that even now the Government is showing its complete contempt for this Parliament and for the legislation which it is introducing, by depriving the Parliament of any opportunity to deliberate on this legislation, to examine it and to decide where and in what sense, if any, it needs amendment to give the very best results. The Government instead has so little regard for the wool industry, its need and its prosperity, that rather than allow this Parliament time to examine this legislation, it will force the legislation through the Parliament in the small hours of the morning so that the Parliament can go into recess until next February or March.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– There are several points I should like to make particularly for the benefit of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser). Having heard the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), I know quite well that he did not say that this legislation, or the formation of the Australian Wool Commission, is the salvation of the industry and will lead to a rapid increase in the price of wool. He did not say that, and I think it is quite unfair for the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to say that he said it. I should like to remind the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that it is easy to fall into the trap of making political capital out of situations. Anybody who denies that it is necessary to have some aggregation in the wool growing scene is talking nonsense. This has been going on since the country was settled. It is a continuing process. The only way in which farmers can meet the situation is to change as the position changes. I thought that it was deplorable for the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to make political capital out of the situation in this way. I would like to take up one matter the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) mentioned. He kept on saying that we were wedded to the auction system or that this Commisson is wedded to the auction system. Surely he has read the Ministers second reading speech. Surely he knows that there are several ways in which a private buyer still has room to operate and in which the Economic Wool Producers Ltd still has room to operate. Surely the honourable member knows that the Wool Commission itself is free to sell wool through the auction system or by any other method it thinks fit. To keep on referring to something which is entirely wrong seems to be rather queer.

I listened tonight with my usual respect to the speech made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). I am sorry that he always talks in that kind of petulant way. I always expect him to burst into tears. Really, some of the things he said are not worthy of a man who speaks for the Opposition! He kept on saying: ‘It is not in the Bill.’ I am not quite certain what he meant by that phrase but having listened carefully to him I found that he was complaining - and complaining is the operative word - that there is nothing in the Bill that lays down the brokerage rate, or that there is nothing in the Bill which lays down how the Commission will bid. If 1 were to send a man to plough a paddock I would not say to him: ‘You go around 3 times in second gear and then lower the lever a bit’. If I gave a man the job and the man I got to do it was a good man I would expect him to do that kind of a thing himself.

When the Opposition was in office as the Government and set up Trans Australia Airlines it did not say: ‘You will fly so many flights a day out of this or that city.’ The best people available were appointed to do the job and they were expected to get on with it. It is really nonsense for anyone to pretend that a group of people of the quality that we expect and hope and must get will be appointed to the Commission and then have to be told how to apply the technical processes, The honourable member said that the brokerage rate is not laid down in the Bill. He ought to know that the wool does not have to be sold in this way. If a brokerage rate is too high - and this would be a commercial judgment - the Commission will say to the grower: You go and sell it in some other way’.

The honourable member for Dawson said that we may get people within the Commission who will take financial advantage of their position. J remind the honourable member that we are not dealing with trades hall politics, we are dealing with a group of people who are honourable and efficient.

To those honourable members who are interjecting I say that I have heard a few comments from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) about the situation at the Melbourne Trades Hall which were not exactly complimentary.

I want to come back to some of the fundamental parts of this legislation. One point which we should bear in mind in this place is that we do not solve problems by talking about them. We solve problems by making decisions. I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has made these decisions. I would like to congratulate him on the way he has handled a very difficult position. I would like, if I may, to thank my colleagues in the Australian Country Party for the active co-operation they have given to the Liberal Party. This co-operation between these two parties has been a very valuable lesson to me and I think it has added something to this legislation.

What will the Australian Wool Commission do. Firstly - and this is the least that it will do - it will add confidence to a situation in which there has been a lack of confidence. Secondly, it will create an environment - as the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) spelt out so clearly - to encourage the changing of our selling methods. There is an exciting vista opening up new methods of selling wool. The main function of the Commission as I see it is to encourage this change to take place. I think that everybody agrees with this. There are such methods as core testing, selling by sample and so on. These changes open up possibilities for our future. The changes may bring about a big saving in costs.

Another thing the Commission will do is create an environment so that we can have effective commercial competition between people who sell wool. This is the difference between the Labor Party and the approach of the Government. The Labor Party - and the honourable member for Riverina has emphasised this yet again - wants the Government to acquire the wool-

Dr Patterson:

– No, wheat.

Mr KELLY:

– This is what the honourable member for Riverina said, that the Labor Party wants the Government to acquire the clip. I am saying that this is not the way to handle it. It is not the way that I would - outside of politics - handle it. The first real hope that I have for the Commission is that it will give elbow room for different methods to be tried out one against another. Here again I would like to pay a very sincere tribute to what the Economic Wool Producers Ltd has done. The EWP is a group of people old-fashioned enough to think that they ought to assume the responsibility of trying to solve their own problems and with a great deal of enthusiasm and initiative and courage they have set out to evolve new methods of handling wool. Under the Labor Party policy there would not have been any room for that. There would not have been any room for the private buyer. There would have been one source only.

This is what that Commission will do. I think it is worth remembering what the Commission will not do. One of the things about which we have to be quite clear on is that the Commission will not place a firm floor in the price of wool. Many people will be disappointed about this but I am not one of them. I think it will be far too dangerous at this stage to embark upon such a venture. There will be a flexible floor price which will fill in all the pot holes existing in the market. To do more than that would be politically attractive bu at this stage commercially dangerous. The commission will not give the grower control over the clip. Some people may resent this but as a wool grower - and I kid myself I am one - I do not have any idea in the world about the commercial aspects of selling wool. I have no doubt about my commercial inability to sell wool in competition with professional people who are a lot better at it than I am. I am not supporting the view - even though it is politically popular - held by some people that there should be more growers on the Commission. I know that the people in the farming community are well aware that wool selling is a job for a person with commercial expertise. To pretend that the farmer, such as myself, can come in and lay down a blue print for selling a clip of the size produced in Australia is just nonsense.

I would like to pay a tribute to the growers who, after receiving the devastating knock of falling wool prices, have gradually pulled themselves together and realised that they have to face their own problems and try to solve them themselves. They realise that they have to change their methods of selling and their methods of production. Anybody who does not recognise that these changes are inevitable is just ignoring the fundamental facts of a living and viable industry.

I would like to congratulate the wool growers upon their realisation that a great industry such as the wool industry cannot be subsidised out of its own profits. This is not an easy lesson to learn, but they now know that this is not the way out of tha situation. There are lots of things that will be left and problems that will remain unsolved when this legislation is eventually passed, and anyone who pretends that it will solve all the problems is only deluding the industry. Other problems within the industry such as restructuring and farm debts are fundamental matters that will take a great deal of courage, ability and wisdom to solve. We must start to face up to these fundamental problems. I know that the Minister has these matters very much in his mind at the present time.

I would now like to comment on a matter which I have previously raised in this House. Far too much nonsense has been talked in this country about company takeovers of farms and about the fear that we will all be run by large corporations. I say again that 1 would put the economic size family farm, particularly the one concentrating on animal production, against any corporation farm in terms of efficiency of production. Let us not have any of this nonsense that we will be taken over by large international companies. When we consider the amount of money in farming today, there are a lot of other places where these companies could put their money. We should not get into a dogfight about the fundamental, human and economic problems of farming. They are human and economic problems and I am well aware of them. I live in a farming community and my family has done so for the last 100 years. I resent the clap-trap that people engage in when they allege that we are not interested in the well-being of the farmer. We recognise that for the welfare of the industry inevitably there has to be a change. Anyone who does not recognise that is doing himself an injustice and is certainly doing harm to the industry.

I repeat that a lot of problems have been left behind, one of which concerns costs. I will not toss into the ring the 35-hour week because this matter has been tossed around rather a lot lately. But this is the kind of thing we ought to be aware of. The tariff question is another matter that is discussed a great deal. A lot of problems will face our economy and those interested in the well-being of the farming community. However, we will have to leave the problem to be solved by the general reconstruction and planning that has to be done. In conclusion I would like to congratulate the Minister and his officers most sincerely for the dedication that they have shown. I think the Minister has given a remarkable performance in regard to this legislation. There is a depth of wisdom behind that rather benign exterior that always surprises and gratifies me.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– The humility of the modest honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) is touching. He reminded me a little of a forerunner of his whose quality was humility, when he came to the side of his friend Latimer. I wondered whether the honourable member was in the prison to do his penance when he spoke so feelingly for the Australian Country Party. This was something that I found quite unusual and I wondered whether the honourable member was setting an example to show that we also should be penitent and that penitence was good for us all. I do not wish to deal to a great extent with what the honourable member said. However, he said that we must accept that necessary changes will take place, that we are going through a period of transition and we ought to recognise this. If what he said is correct and if the Government recognises that it is so, the Government ought to state it in clear terms and should devise policies to be put into effect in those circumstances and make it quite clear why these policies are being introduced and implemented. The Government ought to tell the people involved in the industry its plans, its functions, what it is doing, why it is doing it and involve these people in the change. The Government should take this course of action instead of allowing as many people to be hurt as are being hurt at present because the Government has not decided what it intends to do under the circum stances. The Government has not given any hope and direction to the people. In fact, in Western Australia it has quite culpably failed the farming community.

Mr Grassby:

– The Minister has not told us how many farmers the Government wants to go.

Mr KIRWAN:

– In Western Australia the Government has not only not told us bow many farmers it wants to go but the Government has been opening up about 1 million acres of land in Western Australian for people to grow wool and wheat. The Western Australian Minister for Agriculture, who is a farmer and a member of the Country Party, was asked the other day on a Four Comers’ programme why this had been done. He said it was done because people were demanding land and when this happens you must give in to those demands and open the land up. He was asked: ‘Under the present circumstances was that not a wrong decision?’ He said: ‘No, you must yield to what the people are demanding’. Of course it was a wrong decision. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) said earlier this year that anyone who had anything to do with the wheat industry could have foreseen 5 years ago what was going to develop. If the Government bad foreseen this, surely the responsible thing to have done was to take the necessary action to see that as few people as possible suffered or that the number of wheat growers was pegged at a certain level to avoid the over-production into which we have run at present. That would have been responsible government. One would have thought that if the Country Party was supporting people on the land and if the farmers were told what was the right thing to do the present situation would not have eventuated.

Because of the limitation of time to speak in this debate I want to direct my remarks mainly to the wool industry in Western Australia. Firstly, I want to try to set what I have to say in perspective and illustrate the situation that has caused the Government to act. That situation has not developed suddenly but has been developing over the last 5 years and perhaps longer. I want to refer to the situation which has induced the Government to introduce this Bill. The Bill was introduced last night, allowing only 24 hours in which to examine it. We must ask ourselves: Why this terrible haste?’ Of course, the answer is that a Senate election is approaching and the Parliament is to rise at the end of this week. When I was speaking on the Budget I said that the holding of elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives separately is a waste of money. It costs the country about $l+m to hold the elections separately. However, on this occasion I think the benefits to the wool growers may be even greater than this amount. It is certain that this legislation would not have been introduced and dealt with if the Senate election was not upon us.

I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the ‘West Australian* of 11th September 1970. The article stated:

About 3,000 West Australian grain and sheep fanners now appear to be in a near hopeless financial position and are almost certain to have to leave their farms in the next few years.

About one in five wheat and sheep farmers is unable to pay debts and earn a reasonable living. They cannot borrow more money…..

These farmers are scattered through all agricultural areas, with concentrations in higher rainfall areas such as Rocky Gully, Jerramungup, Ravensthorpe, Bridgetown, Boyup Brook, the Midlands and parts of Esperance.

This is a very scattered section of Western Australia. The article continued.

There are also considerable numbers in the traditional wheatbelt areas.

There seem to be at least 500 new land farmers with virtually no chance of continuing in farming.

These are the people who have been encouraged to take the new land which has been opened up by the Western Australian Government in recent years. Their plight is appalling. The article continues:

Consideration mav have to be given to abandoning some of the areas recently opened up and resettling the farmers elsewhere.

Up to another 5,000 farmers are in no immediate danger of being forced off but are having trouble servicing debts, which average about $30,000 a farm and run up to 570,000 to $80,000.

The total rural debt in WA is now more than $200 million owned to banks, stock firms, insurance companies, hire purchase companies and other lenders.

These figures, which do not include dairy and horticulture farmers, are based on discussions with government officials, representatives of lending institutions and farm leaders.

Farm values are estimated to have fallen 20 to 25 per cent in the past 18 months.

Not only have the debts of these farmers risen at a tremendous rate and to frightening proportions but they are in a position where there are so many farms for sale that it is virtually impossible to sell them and prices for farms have fallen as rapidly as farmers’ debts have increased. Only recently I had the gravity of this situation brought home to me by electors in Western Australia. One gentleman came to me very concerned one day. He had no debts and he owed the machinery companies or the stock firms nothing. However, he owed the man from whom he was purchasing the land $14,000. He went to the Commonwealth Bank and asked for a loan of $14,000 so that he could pay out the owner of the farm. The bank manager told him that to obtain that money he would have to put his farm on the market at a reasonable price and would have to understand that the sum of $14,000 as an advance was the limit of the money that he could borrow from the bank. He was in the position where he had to agree to this proposition. He finds now that his farm is being advertised by stock firms and that the bank manager concerned has zealously gone among his neighbours to tell them that the place is on the market and to inform them of the price. He may find himself in the position of having the farm sold over his head.

The other day, I was speaking to some people who come from the border of my electorate. They had come originally from the eastern States only a few years ago. They had been wool growers. They sold their farm in the east - I am referring to 2 brothers- for quite a good price and were able to buy land at a cheaper rate in Western Australia. Therefore, they had money behind them. Now, these brothers have had to lease their farms. They are going to work in the iron fields at Mount Tom Price. The wife of one of these men will have to return to school teaching. Countless numbers of farmers must leave their farms now, take up jobs in towns and send their wives out to work.

This is the situation that has caused the Government to act. Yet it has acted only at this late stage because a Senate election is around the corner. The Government would have been content, in other words, to allow this situation to continue for at least another 2 years until the next House of Representatives election is due. This is the situation.

I do not know how this has come about, but the time that has elapsed since it became apparent that the Government ought to take action of this kind and the presentation of this measure is approximately the same as the time that elapsed between the statement by the Government that it would take action to assist marginal dairy farmers and the occasion when the marginal dairy farms legislation was introduced, that is, 4 years to 5 years.

Of course, in the case of the legislation relating to marginal dairy farms, it must be remembered that the Act will operate for 4 years only. The legislation will mean only $l.Sm per annum to each of the States involved. The introduction of that legislation was held up ostensibly because the States would not agree. The legislation was introduced with agreement from one State only. The Bill could have been introduced in the first place because that same State had agreed to the scheme after the proposal was first made. So, the result was the same.

So too could this legislation have been introduced earlier. Better legislation, with more thought given to it, and with better drafting, could have been introduced 4 years ago and the wool industry would have accepted it in the same way as the earlier legislation to provide assistance for marginal dairy farms was accepted by the States and the farmers concerned.

The Opposition looks forward to moving amendments to this Bill during the Committee stage. We are hopeful that this will be the first step on the way to introducing our own wool proposals which we believe are eminently more suited to the conditions and to the needs of the wool farmers of this country. We hope to see great care exercised in the choice of the chairman and members of the Commission. We would hope to see increased grower representation on the Commission.

We hope that the disintegration that has taken place within the ranks of the parties opposite together with the rebuff that they will suffer at the Senate election which is approaching will force any early general election so that it will be a matter of only 12 months or even less before the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) stands on the opposite side of the table to which he stood this evening to present to the Parliament the Bill which will include the proposals of our Party for the wool industry.

Sir, we are not opposing the Bill. We support it as being only partly desirable, that is only insofar as it compares with our own proposed legislation. We look forward to the time when we shall have our proposals accepted in this place for the benefit of those people whose suffering and whose financial difficulties are of the greatest concern to us.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– First, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) upon the speed with which he acted in concert with the Australian wool industry in presenting to Parliament this Bill to establish the Australian Wool Commission. Who would have thought that in a matter of a few months we would have seen the wool industry completely united and the Government acting in such time to try to meet the crisis that the industry is facing?

I wish also to pay special tribute to Sir John Crawford, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, an eminent economist with special knowledge and interest in rural economics, for the preparation of his comprehensive and historic assessment of the proposals of the Advisory Committee of the Australian Wool Board. Full marks to the Minister for his decision to engage the services of this eminent Australian to prepare the proposal for the Government.

The wool industry has been long divided - in fact, it has been plagued - by indecisions and by divisions on the question of marketing. Of course, this non Socialist Government has never, and I hope will never, instruct an industry what it shall do with its product. We have been waiting for the wool industry to decide what policy it would adopt and how it wanted the Government to act. Unfortunately, throughout the whole of this debate within the industry, a certain loss of confidence in the industry has occurred.

In this regard, I wish to pay special tribute to another important personality in this welcome movement towards a united approach by the industry, particularly in New South Wales. I refer to Mr Ronald Hunter, a leading stock and station agent and grazier in Moree who, for many years, has been a member of the General Council of the Graziers Association of New South Wales. It was Mr Ronald Hunter who organised the initial mass meeting of wool growers in Moree, in my home town, at the Moree Showground on 21st March of this year. Over 2,600 wool growers attended this meeting and almost unanimously voted for the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority. This was an historic landmark in the history of Australia’s biggest industry. I might say for the record that I am proud I was the chairman of that meeting.

From that day - 21st March - events have moved swiftly. Further meetings were held around Australia. In March 1970, the Australian Wool Board Advisory Committee met in Canberra. In April of this year, the Graziers Association of New South Wales voted in favour of this proposal. Again in April, the Australian Wool Industry Conference voted in favour of a single wool marketing authority. In June 1970, the Australian Wool Board Advisory Committee’s sub-committee was established to examine the principles involved in the submission. In July 1970, the subcommittee reported that it was firmly of the view that the present and foreseeable conditions of the industry called for the establishment of an effective, that is, a strong single wool marketing authority with powers relating to the whole of the clip.

As I said earlier, the Minister invited the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University to make an independent assessment of the proposal and to comment on the broad principles recommended by the Committee. On 14th September, Sir John Crawford handed this report to the Minister. On 6th October the Minister announced that the Commonwealth Government had agreed to the establishment of a statutory wool marketing authority to be known as the Australian Wool Commission. Since then the Australian Wool Industry Conference has voted for this proposal by 47 votes to nil, with 3 abstentions. I have traced the history of events that have led up to this Bill. So I say to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby): What utter rubbish to come into this place and say that we have not implemented what the industry asked for. It is a mischievous and mislead ing statement to be made in this House. He went on to quote a little rhyme called Baa, Baa, Black Sheep’. Let me quote a similar rhyme:

Blah, Blah Grassby, have you any wool? No, sir, no, sir, just a lot of bull.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I remind the honourable member that that is an unparliamentary remark.

Mr HUNT:

– It is a compliment, Sir. The Government has recognised the importance of the wool industry to the national economy. It certainly recognises the plight of the industry at the present time. Who in this country does not recognise it? After all, since August until 2 days ago we have seen the price for 70s fall by 15 per cent. The price of 64s spinning quality has dropped by 22 per cent and the price for carding wools has dropped by 22 per cent. Of course there is a crisis in the industry, but this Government has responded to that crisis over the last 12 months. Let us look at the record. It shows that $27m has been allocated to promotion and research; $30m has been allocated for an emergency grant to the wool industry in the last Budget;$1.5m has been allocated for objective measurement; $90m has been guaranteed as a loan to the Australian Wool Board for the building of complexes, and in this Bill there is a provision for at least $115m of guaranteed loans for the operation of the Commission. A further $12m of Government funds is to be made available. Am I correct, Mr Minister?

Mr Anthony:

– It is $18m.

Mr HUNT:

– A further $18m is to be made available for the operational costs of the Commission. The wool industry, of course, is Australia’s biggest single industry, with an estimated capital investment of over $8,000m. It has certainly been Australia’s biggest export income earner. Since 1948-49 it has earned$17,000m of foreign exchange, which is 40 per cent of Australia’s whole export income in that time. The wool industry has made the major contribution of all industries to building up the country’s economic and industrial strength. The wool industry is of national importance; it is not of importance to the rural sector alone. Australia’s place in the world of wool production is the highest. In 1968-69 Australia produced 32 per cent of the world’s wool, 40 per cent of the world’s apparel wool and 53 per cent of the world’s merino wool. But more than this, this industry is vital to the whole pastoral and agricultural inland of Australia. Vast areas of Australia, entire settlements in the inland, are dependent upon the wool growers and the industry generally. Who could contemplate the Australian inland without the merino sheep, without wool? This great industry, which has stood unprotected, earning more foreign exchange than any other industry, requiring little in the way of imported capital, remitting a very small percentage of its profits overseas, has been the mainstay of Australia’s postwar progress and industral development.

It is true that Australia has ridden on the sheep’s back. She rides to some extent on its sagging back today, and let no-one think that this country can do without the export earnings of the wool industry. There are far too many knockers of the wool industry and of wool. We hear people saying that wool is finished, that it represents only 7 per cent of the world’s apparel fibres and that synthetics have licked wool. We hear these slogans. I believe they are nonsense. The industry is in trouble but I believe that the tide of fashion will turn and that the smart women, the fashionable men such as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and even the honourable member for Riverina, will see the light and wear woollen suits. Wool is a prestige product. I am confident that wool will ride out the present crisis with the assistance of this Government.

We hear that millers overseas are going out of business, and we hear about the great difficulty under which the overseas mills are labouring. We hear that some of them have gone broke. This may be true. But I refer to the reports from some British companies. The first one is from Aire Wool Corporation Ltd for the year ended 30th July 1969. This was before the price fall in wool. This company, which has a capital of £Stg868,334, had a profit of £St&179,774. The profit as a percentage of capital after tax was 20.8 per cent. The director’s fees were Stg36,973. The dividends in that year increased by 10 per cent. Let us look at the report of Allied Textile Co. Ltd for the year ended 30th September 1969. This company has a capital of £Stg1,598,824. The profit after tax was £Stg519,895, and the company had a 33 per cent return on capital after tax. The chairman of that company said that the achievement of these results was a sufficient indication of the likely progress of the group to justify the directors’ recommendation to increase the ordinary dividend.

I could go on to show that there are numerous companies that are doing jolly well out of the fibre of wool. My colleague, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett), gave some of the figures for the Japanese mills. It would be foolish for us to think that there is not a ceiling in price set by alternative fibres. Whilst we may expect prices to rise as a result of getting some firm foundation for a rise, I think the wool industry will have to live with the competitiveness of other fibres, and accordingly a ceiling will be placed somewhere - I hope, above where it exists today. I am pleased to see that the Minister and the Government have recognised the need to act quickly to establish this floor. Clause 2 in Part 1 of the Bill states:

This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

This, of course, meets the requirements of the New South Wales Graziers Association, whose council met during the week. They requested that the Federal Government be asked to take the action necessary to enable a reserve price to be extended over the whole of the Australian wool clip with the aim of preventing prices falling below the current levels and restoring the confidence of the wool trade; such a reserve to be maintained until the objectives are achieved or the true demand picture for wool has been restored. I believe that the Commission will provide a new confidence for the wool industry, not only for the growers but for the buyers, for the trade and for the bankers and Australia generally. This is one of Australia’s most important industries. I am delighted that in this short time the Government and the Minister, in particular, have worked so patiently and well for the industry to achieve this objective.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I have listened with interest to our country cousins this evening. They may be surprised to see me rising to speak on a wool debate.

Mr Pettitt:

– Nothing about you would surprise us.

Mr COHEN:

– I thought the honourable members would come in like a pack of sheep. I am equally qualified, and probably more qualified, to talk about wool than any of them because I have been selling wool for 12 years. It has been my livelihood and I have done fairly well out of it. I thought I should express a few views on woollen garments just to break the monotony of the baas we have heard from members opposite. Members of the Australian Country Party would not know the difference between a tweed, worsted or melange if it fell on them from a great height, and that is not the only thing they would not know about it if it fell on them from a great height. They could not sell a woollen garment at half the price. Just look at how drab they are. Most of them wear the same suit every day. Most of them are not even dressed in wool. They are a disgrace to the fashion trade. Why do they not get out and promote the product - wear some smart clothes and look as though they have something to promote and not something of which to be ashamed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order!

Mr COHEN:

– I will not be any more provocative, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think they know my views and what I think of them. It has always been a mystery to me why Australia does not market and manufacture more of the world’s woollen products. Why does a country, which produces more than half the world’s wool, remains such a back number in terms of production of textile goods? What attempts have been made to make Australia one of the world’s fashion centres? There is no reason why most of the fashion centres should be in Europe. At the moment, France, Italy, Great Britain and the United States of America would be the top 4 fashion countries. Britain, of course, became a fashion centre during the socalled swinging 60s. At one time Britain was not regarded as a setter of fashions, but it has promoted the fashions that have come out of Britain in recent years. There is no reason why we could not do this. If we cannot get into the high price field of manufacturing, why cannot we get into the medium priced field? As Japan and China now manufacture most of the cheaper goods, there is no reason why we could not capture a large percentage of the medium and, I believe, the high priced fashion garments sales in the world’s markets. Australia, I understand, uses only about 6 per cent of its own clip in domestic, secondary and tertiary fields. What attempts have been made to assist the Australian textile industries which are producing yarn and finished garments?

I looked through the Australian Wool Board’s interim annual report and when I saw the names of Board members I checked with experts to ascertain how many of those members were from outside the woolgrowing area or the Public Service field. I was told that practically none of them has had any experience in the manufacturing, designing or retailing fields. It may be that they have done a fair job, but they are not getting many results. 1 should like to see at the top level of the wool industry those who have had the practical experience of having to manufacture, design and sell the goods. Despite the growth of man-made fibres I understand that almost 80 per cent of all the fibres used in the textile industry are natural fibres and that only 20 per cent are synthetic fibres. 1 heard the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) say that wool is still the best fibre, and I agree with him from the practical experience that 1 have had io selling garments day in and day out for nigh on 12 years. I have yet to see anything that is as good as wool in certain fields, but it has some limitations. Anyone who goes about saying: ‘Wool is the best and 1 am going to wear wool irrespective is a fool. He should realise that wool is not satisfactory for some garments. It is not a practical exercise to produce woollen shirts, because they itch a person to death. lt is not practical to use wool in some garments for children because at present wool has not been made shrinkproof in a large number of products. Mothers will prefer to buy garments containing synthetic material because they have to be washed over and over again. Some garments are far better when made of a mixture. Socks and lightweight summer suits fit ideally into this category. But there are some woollen garments that cannot be replaced by a synthetic. Winter suits and knitwear garments are still on their own in terms of wear, quality and every other aspect at which one can look. So I support the honourable member for Gwydir on this rare occasion when he said that wool is still, in 90 per cent of cases, the best product on the market.

Why is it that the demand for wool is declining? I can only recount some of the experiences that I have had as a retailer. At the opening of every season we have a fortnight of wool promotion. I might add that in my store I will not stock any garment of synthetic origin in a field where J think that wool is superior. I believe that Australians should get behind their own product and sell it, not just give lip service to these things. Every year my manager or I communicate with the Wool Bureau and ask for what assistance it can give us. Quite frankly we have given away ringing the Bureau because of the almost useless material it forwards us. This year, because 1 knew that an opportunity would present itself for me to speak on this Bill, I asked my manager to ring the Bureau early. We received from the Bureau 5 posters. I have a menswear store. I realise that there should not be any commercials in this chamber so I will not give the address. However, the posters that I now show to honourable members were what I received. The first is a charming little piece. Mr Deputy Speaker, Can I have these posters incorporated in Hansard?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:

– I doubt it.

Mr COHEN:

– I am not trying to be funny. I hope that honourable members will take some interest in these matters. The next poster gives details of woollen family garments. It is quite an attractive poster. The next poster is also suitable for displaying in a store that sells men’s woollen garments, but the remaining 2 posters are quite useless for a men’s store. These posters represent the total assistance that the Wool Bureau could give me.

Mr Robinson:

– Oh!

Mr COHEN:

– I do not know which honourable member interjected ‘Oh’. I am not trying to score any cheap political points, but to tell what happens. This is the best effort we have ever had from the Bureau. In previous years we got one or two posters about 18 inches by 12 inches. The Bureau just was not interested in what we had to say. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) knows my store. He has shopped there to his everlasting credit. He knows it is a good store in a very high class area on Sydney’s North Shore. It has a huge frontage of 37 feet. A wool promotion feature would be seen by some 20,000 people over a period of a fortnight. Yet this is the best material we have had for 10 years. I am trying to be serious and not trying to score points.

Mr Robinson:

– They probably saw your Thai silk tie.

Mr COHEN:

– I have more wool on me than has the honourable member. That is the sort of stupid statement we get from members of the Country Party. There are areas in which certain garments cannot be produced well. I have woollen ties but the tie field is one which we should not worry about. The amount of wool used in the tie field is absolutely infinitesimal. To try to score a point in that way is not worthy of him. People talk about the wearability and serviceability of wool. These features do not determine sales of woollen garments these days. What determines sales of woollens is fashion. The plain facts of the matter are that in the last couple of years allwool garments, such as knitwear garments, have not been in high demand. I could go into a long dissertation as to why it is that the knitwear garment trade is depressed at the moment. I could show the House my own figures, which have dropped. I am as interested in selling knitwear garments as anyone, probably more interested. It is at least 3 years since a garment in the knitwear trade has had fashion appeal. Since the polo neck sweater became popular about 3 years ago there has been nothing new to promote. I could detail every year for the last 12 years what the latest promotion has been. It could have been black; it could have been olive, green or red; it could have been bulky knit sweaters, Como cardigans or the ordinary cardigan. Each year we have had something new to promote and something to sell. There has been some gimmick. Over these last 3 years we have had nothing. I am hopeful that next year we will have some new garments. Although I have given away managing the business, I did the buying this year with my manager. Next year what is known as the skinny rib will be promoted. It does not have particular appeal to me because I do not fit skinny ribs very well or skinny anything these days. This is a new promotion and one hopes it will take off and create a demand.

I could give the House figures for the last 3 years to show that sales of knitwear garments have dropped by 20 per cent to 25 per cent. I have talked to my colleagues in this industry and they have all told me the same thing: It is purely and simply a fashion demand. The young people are the ones who create demand and the sort of garments being sold are not woollen garments. They are buying suede, leather and a whole range of other fabrics.

I believe that the Wool Bureau and the wool promotion section of the Wool Board should be getting to the person who makes the final sale. I have seen a lot of the promotional work on television. A lot of it is very good. I have seen some of the things that the International Wool Secretariat has done. For instance, it has had Prince Michael of Kent in the London to Mexico World Cup car rally dressed in specially designed pure wool garments and his car upholstered in wool. There is a whole list of these things and I think they have some merit. One can never tell in advertising what the answer is. People can laugh and say: This is not the way it should be done’. Quite frankly, one does not know in advertising what the answer is until one has advertised.

One thing should be done. The Wool Board should get in touch with the man who makes the sale - the young man of 20 or 21 in the shops of the big retailers such as Myers and David Jones, and in the small stores - and say to him: ‘You have a vested interest in selling woollen garments’. We should be taking them to training schools and teaching them the various qualities of wool - the fact that it does not burn, that it is warm and the whole range of good qualities the garment has. Perhaps we should give awards to the man who sells the most garments. Time and again I have been in stores and seen a customer walk in and say: “Which one is the best?’ The salesman says: Take the orion one, it does not shrink’. I admit some of these synthetic garments do not shrink but the salesman has not bothered to describe the virtues of the woollen garment. If I was given garments to sell I could sell any one of them. One does not tell the people the weaknesses of a garment Every fabric has a weakness. I can tell the House the weaknesses of orion or cashmilon. One does not emphasise the weaknesses, one emphasises the good points. I do not think it is being dishonest; it is part and parcel of selling. I feel the Wool Board, particularly the promotional and merchandising side of it, can do a great deal more by getting to the man who is making the final contact with the customer and educating him in the aspects of selling wool.

I saw a rather interesting letter to the editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ a couple of weeks ago. It was from a woman by the name of Janet M. McPhee. 1 will read it because it backs up my personal experience. The letter in part says:

For years I’ve worked closely with Madame Vera Fels, the governing director of Germaine Rocher (French house of haute couture in Australia) and being an Australian myself was amazed to find that only imported woollen piecegoods from France, England and Italy were used in the making up of our exclusive women’s wear. It seemed we had nothing of comparable quality, nor the range of colours, available on the local Australian market.

Being ‘all for Australia’ I called in a representative of one of our largest manufacturers of textiles and an offshoot of an overseas textile company and asked him to bring us the full range of woolen fabrics suitable for exclusive women’s wear. I spent a tot of time going through the samples submitted, but without bias was forced to admit there was not one colour in the entire range, nor a texture, which would have tempted me to buy even one length.

On asking the representative why this firm still carried a range of colours of die 1920s which lacked the subtlety of the soft colours and the excitement of the glorious sharp colours the overseas mills were able to produce, I was told ‘Well, we can sell all we need in this range so why should we bother our heads to change?’! This awful apathy still appears to prevail - if the woollen materials displayed for the making of women’s wear are any guide.

I agree wholeheartedly with Janet M. McPhee because this is the same sort of experience I have had. Some time ago the Wool Board each year was promoting a series of colours. In a speech one cannot describe colours but the monotony and boredom of the colours brought forward year by year by the Woo! Board were unbelievable. One would see the top 10 or 12 ranges of knitwear garments and they would all be made in the same wool. The navy would be the same; the bone would be the same; the olive would be the same. There was none of the subtlety, nuances and brilliancy we get in the variety from overseas countries. It was not that the garments from London, Japan and Hong Kong were better. They were simply different and they gave variety. I am sorry that I went longer than I said I would but I hope that what I have said will introduce a few new thoughts on what I think is a very vital question for this country.

Debate interrupted.

page 2907

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! It being 11 o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House of 26th August, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 11 to 11.30 p.m.

page 2907

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I rise tonight on this very important occasion to add what I trust will be an intelligent appreciation of the situation as it now exists in regard to the wool industry. I wanted to quote something which I noticed on my office table, lt is: ‘God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.’ I approach this subject tonight in that vein. I want to impress upon those who hold very definite ideas that people holding contrary ideas are just as sincere and as genuine in their attempts to do the best thing possible for the growers of wool in this country. I want to state right now without any qualification whatsoever that this scheme will not render unto the grower one extra cent. I have no better authority for that statement than Sir William Gunn who stated some 3 or 4 months ago that he could not give any guarantee that there would be any increase in the price of wool as a result of this scheme.

The further decrease in the price of wool in Australia has been brought about by the lack of confidence in all sections of the industry engendered by a series of events that have occurred this year. Firstly, there were the stage managed meetings that growers held earlier this year at the instigation of the Australian Wool Board and graziers’ organisations, at which resolutions were passed requesting and demanding that a single marketing authority be set up. Secondly, there was the Wool Board’s report on the establishment of a marketing authority followed by the report of the Wool Board’s Advisory Committee recommending the setting up of a single statutory authority and the establishment of a reserve price and an acquisition scheme. The latter has been described as a shocker, even by those now in favour of the marketing authority and reserve price scheme which this Bill provides for. Thirdly, rumours spread overseas in September that wool sales were to be suspended for one month. This caused confusion all over the world and the rumours should have been promptly denied by Sir William Gunn. He did not deny that there would be a suspension of sales. Fourthly, there was the curt reception the members of the International Wool Textile Organisation received from some members of the wool industry and, fifthly, there was the opposition to some of the sections of Sir John Crawford’s report to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony).

Most industries spend thousands of dollars attracting users and buyers of their products. The Wool Board and graziers’ and growers’ associations - not the majority of growers - spend much money and effort in driving them away. Mr Gullett’s statement in regard to a buyers’ cartel has cast suspicion and a stigma on the other 166 buyers. Mr Gullett should name the 2 buyers who informed him that a cartel was arranged to bring about a decrease in the price of wool in Australia and the Government should appoint a select committee which would be required to bring in its findings within a fortnight. We could bring Mr Gullett before the committee, find out the names of the buyers and bring the representatives of the buyers before the committee. Then once and for all it could be established whether a cartel is operating to the disadvantage of the wool growers in Australia. This time last year I said it appeared to me that a cartel was operating.

We have a golden opportunity to prove one way or the other whether an organised attempt is being made to depress the price of wool in Australia. I trust the Government will grasp this opportunity with both hands to establish whether a cartel has been operating to the detriment of the wool industry in Australia. Fear and desperation can produce and have produced unreasoned logic. The lessons of the past and the techniques that we know are being discarded, not because they have fallen down but for schemes unproven. This is being done because it is a change.

We should consider the position of the wool industry. I have been to the Library and have traversed the history of the wool industry from the start of the First World War. Wool was a required commodity. Great Britain wanted it and she desperately desired that it should not be used by the enemy. More or less the same thing happened in the Second World War. Australia had a reserve price in 1921 when the British Government guaranteed a fixed price of 8c a lb. The industry quickly rehabilitated itself, the wool market became stable and the surplus wool which had built up was quickly sold. We have to look at the wool industry as it now is. Firstly, I want to deal with some of the statements made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) I am astounded that he is so ill-informed in regard to marketing. He stated that all experts had agreed to an acquisition scheme. If honourable members go back to the Philp report of 1961 they will find that it strenuously opposed the establishment of the statutory authority, a reserve price and an acquisition scheme.

Dr Patterson:

– I said: ‘Of wool growers’.

Mr IRWIN:

– I recorded the honourable member as saying ‘all experts’. Now he is speaking about willing buyers. He paraded this suggestion of collusion. 1 ask him, if he is so definite that there is collusion, why does he not bring the evidence before the House? From investigations that I have made and from reading the Australian Encyclopaedia I find that in the wool industry there has been not one defalcation in the payment for wool purchased. I find that when there has been disagreement or misrepresentation in regard to marketing, not once has lt gone to court. The differences have been settled amicably. The wool industry must be a remarkable one to have existed so long with this record. There would be no other sphere of business where this would happen.

I want to impress upon the people the position in which the wool industry now finds itself. In 1958 there was a drop in the price of wool. Man-made fibres were 50 per cent dearer than wool in 1958 when wool was at a lower price than it had been for a few years. But now, at the prices that were applicable 3 weeks ago, man-made fibres are 50 per cent cheaper than wool fibres. Have honourable members opposite got that in their minds? Three weeks ago man-made fibres were 50 per cent cheaper than wool fibres. We have got to face the facts of life and the facts of marketing. Almost every segment of the wool industry is in difficulty. This season wool garments and fabrics could not find a ready market in the United Kingdom and Europe. It is no good putting our heads in the sand and not standing up to the realities of the situation. Wool has certain qualities that are incomparable.

Our difficulties arise mainly from the inability of the International Wool Secretariat and the Australian Wool Board to do their job as they should. Australia subscribes many millions of dollars to the International Wool Secretariat. It would not agree to promote the blends such as terylene and wool and wool with other fibres. There was a terrific market there, but we kept to the old idea of selling all-wool garments. We have missed out on that segment of the trade, and now we are suffering. Sir William Gunn must bear the brunt - as a general does if he loses a battle - for the decline in the industry as it now exists. The Wool Board has let the growers of Australia down. I have heard some people say that the Government should have come in. I say that the Government should come in only when it is requested to do so. We do not interfere with organisations like Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd or Lysaghts. They run their businesses. If it wants any assistance from the Government, it is the industry’s job to approach the Government. Sir William Gunn sold the wool growers down the drain. He should take full responsibility for what has occurred in the wool industry.

I want to get my message over as quickly as I can, so I will condense as much as I can. I will read a letter that I sent. We should not have any ideas that the majority of wool growers are in favour of this scheme. I have batches of letters, not only from individuals but from individuals on behalf of hundreds of other wool growers. There is no unanimous approval of this scheme or of any other wool marketing scheme. 1 can prove that. I can prove that the owners of 60 per cent of- Australia’s sheep are opposed to the scheme. They want loan money. Furthermore, they want it at commercial rates. They say that, if the industry is not viable and cannot stand on its feet, it is time they got out. I shall read a letter that I wrote to Mr Hudson, who wrote to me about a certain matter. -Because it is written I can read it quickly and I will be able to finish quoting it before I resume my seat. It reads:

Thank you for your letter of 19th October which f have read carefully and with interest. While I share your concern at the present situation in which most primary producers are placed, I feel that certain of your statements need interpretation. In some respects I do not agree with your conclusions and necessarily, therefore, I do not agree with the steps you suggest for correcting problems.

I shall refer to several of the points you make in the order in which they appear in your letter.

  1. Forward Selling

I do not dispute your contention that some SO per cent of the wool clip is sold on firm contracts for delivery at nominated dates.

The question of the impact on prices of the practice of selling forward was fully investigated by the Philp Committee in 1961, and has been frequently discussed in the last few years. I believe the following points are valid:

  1. wool is faced with strong and increasing competition from man-made fibres, which are immediately available to the mills. Mill programmes are established at least one year ahead, and supplies of fibres must be assured. The mills cannot risk a breakdown in supply which will throw machinery and labour idle.

Forward contracts allow the mills to schedule deliveries of wool, recognising that the source of supply of the raw material is far distant from the ultimate consumer market.

Forward contracts, therefore, counteract the immediate availability of man-made fibres and place wool in a sounder competitive position.

You argue that the practice depresses prices as the forward contract prices have a limiting effect on competition. It can equally well be argued that as deliveries must be effected in accordance with contract terms, competition can be stimulated, a point emphasised by the Philp Committee.

  1. Forward selling is not, in my view, the cause of the economic crisis among woolgrowers, nor is it the reason for the low level of prices. Three factors combine to determine profitability, production, which is determined in large measure by seasonal conditions, costs of production, which have continued to rise, and prices, which have fallen seriously.

Of these factors I regard the drought as the major adverse influence, as in the badly affected areas it has reduced production in quantity and quality, caused rapid increases in liabilities, and involved a higher rate of expenses.

Merely to lay the blame for the crisis on the level of wool prices is not logical, and clearly the adverse season has been a major cause in the reduction in prices. The modern, high-speed mill machinery cannot cope with the tender light wool which was been offered in large quantities, and this necessarily results in discounted values.

  1. If forward contracting were abolished another advantage would be conceded to man-made fibres, and I consider the adverse effect on wool prices would be serious. We cannot risk those steps which would make wool commercially hazardous to the buyer and user.

    1. Gross Wool Income

The most recently published figures indicate a recovery in wool production this year which will in part offset the fall in value. Present indications are that gross wool realisations in 1970-71 will fall by not more than $150m, not $400m as estimated by you.

The probable reduction of $150m is serious in itself, but I must query your figure to ensure that proper perspective is maintained. I believe also, that the rules of supply and demand do apply to wool, and that an increased supply at a time of economic depression in several of the major buying countries, such as France and Italy, would in itself have a depressing effect on prices.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– We have been listening to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) who is a well known lobbyist for the wool selling brokers and the other private financial institutions.

Mr Irwin:

– Mr Speaker, 1 raise a point of order. I take strong exception to that remark.

Dr Gun:

– Why?

Mr Irwin:

– Don’t you speak to me, you little squirt.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman who was interjecting during the speech of the honoura bie member for Mitchell and to other honourable gentlemen on the left hand side of the honourable member for Bendigo that they might refrain from interjecting. I suggest also that the honourable member for Mitchell should expain to the Chair what he wants to do. Does he want to make a personal explanation? If he does, I will be quite happy to hear him.

Mr IRWIN (Mitchell)- Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Kingston mentioned that I was a lobbyist for brokers.

I do not know any broker personally or otherwise. I have never had any association with any broker. The honourable member’s remark is a reflection on my character.

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– A point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Kingston will resume his seat.

Mr IRWIN:

– It is a reflection on me, and I deplore what the honourable member for Kingston has stated.

Or GUN - Mr Speaker, we can take comfort from the fact that the honourable member for Mitchell is opposed to this proposal. I should have thought there is ho doubt that there are many occasions when the interests of wool growers and of the people of Australia at large are difficult to reconcile with the interests of wool selling brokers. I think we can take comfort from the fact that the honourable member for. Mitchell is opposed to the general principles behind this legislation. It sounds to me that he is advocating a sort of social Darwinism - something that I am afraid we cannot afford in the present state of the wool industry. Tremendous problems are facing us as a result of the present position in the wool industry. In the first place, there is the problem concerning foreign exchange which the wool industry is still responsible to maintain to a large degree. There is the increasing problem of rural poverty and there is the problem that if nothing is done about this industry there will be a continuing and growing drain on the taxpayers’ money. So for those reasons I believe that something must be done for the wool industry.

There seems to be some difference between what one understands this Bill to mean, from reading it, and what the

Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) says it means. Clause 21 of the Bill defines the powers of the Australian Wool Commission. It states:

The Commission has power to do, in Australia or elsewhere, all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with, or as incidental to, the performance of its functions . . .

Then it goes on to itemise the functions. The Commission has power:

  1. to inspect and appraise wool presented for sale at auction and
  2. to buy wool at auction or otherwise.

Therefore, almost plenary powers are being given to the Commission which, of course, is a very good thing. It really means that the Commission, if it wants to, can go outside the auction system to sell wool. It certainly appears to me, from reading subclause (b) of clause 21, that if the Commission wants to do so, it can bypass the wool selling brokers. My reading of that sub-clause leads me to believe that representatives of the Commission can go onto the property of the wool grower and perhaps acquire the wool direct. But that is something about which I should like to inquire of the Minister when we come to the Committee stage of the debate. Let us compare what appear to be the almost plenary powers of the Commission as outlined in the Bill with what was said by the Minister for Primary Industry in his second reading speech. He said:

What was put to the Government was a body which should be given certain powers relating to the whole clip but working within the existing marketing arrangements in which a number of private firms carry out the physical task of selling wool. The Government has very largely adopted the proposals put to it by the industry and they have been embodied in this BilL

If we go by what the Minister has said the Commission will operate through largely the present mechanism, namely, the private wool selling brokers. This is unfortunate. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is the establishment of an authority which will undertake the business of wool selling broking on behalf of and for the benefit of the growers. The Australian Labor Party generally supports this Bill because it provides for a reserve price system. My Party is committed to supporting a reserve price plan, although probably not in the same form as is envisaged by the Government. My Party would like to see a fund set up which is vested in the growers themselves rather than in the Government. It hopes ultimately to do this. Of course, they would have to be the growers’ funds. The Labor Party recognises that in the present state of the industry, with the price of wool as it is, it would not be possible for this money to be found. However, it is hoped that the industry will be resurrected to a position where it is viable and self supporting so that the stage will be reached where the initial outlay of the taxpayers’ funds will be amortised and we have a fund which is vested in the growers themselves and operates for the benefit of the growers and not the private wool selling brokers.

Contrary to what the honourable member for Mitchel has said, I certainly think that there is cartelisation on the part of the wool selling brokers. We have plain evidence of this in the fact that there are uniform price arrangements and uniform fees are charged by the wool selling brokers. This is a restrictive trade practice. I do not know why the Government has tolerated this practice. It would appear, as if -the Government is very much beholden to the. wool selling brokers and the other financial institutions in this country. The price averaging plan of last year is another example of a conflict of interest between the wool selling brokers and the wool growers. Rather than allow the star lots to be bought’ and sold privately, which would have saved overheads and increased returns to the growers, the Government allowed the Wool Marketing Corporation to be set up, which may have been to the advantage of the wool selling brokers, but not the wool growers.

As far as 1 can determine from the Minister’s second reading speech the Australian Wool Commission will enter into business as another buyer. In other words, it will become another of the buyers on the floor participating in the auction system. The Australian Labor Party would like to see the Commission operate as a wool selling broker. This is something which it would appear from a literal reading of the Bill will come later. I believe that there is scope for the Commission to go into business as a wool selling broker. I would like to see the Commission ultimately operating in this fashion. In this way it would be able to acquire all of the wool and sell it by auction, contract, inter government treaty, tender or any other method and private buying and selling could still take place if desirable.

I wish to run through some of the merits which I see in the proposals before the House. Firstly, the Bill will allow the operation of a flexible reserve price plan. I think we have to be realistic about this matter. I do not think that we will achieve the dramatic result of returning wool prices to what they were in the good old days. I believe that the competition of synthetics will mean that we cannot hope to return to the prices which obtained in, say, the days of the Korean War. What we are trying to do now is restore confidence in the wool market. The main function of this Commission will be to eliminate the undue fluctuation which has occurred through . a diminution in the number of buyers in -the market; The result has been a decrease in competition, and because of this there is evidence that wool is being sold at auctions at prices which .are less than those which the buyers have been prepared to pay.

I feel that the operation of a flexible reserve price plan will go a considerable way towards restoring confidence within the industry. The trouble in the industry has been that, -with the competition from synthetics, there has been somewhat of a downward trend in the price of- wool over the years; but there has been a completely new phase in the last few months in that the price of wool has completely collapsed. I hope that the Wool Commission will restore the situation to what it was before prices collapsed. However, I do not think that we can prevent the continuing threat to the wool industry from synthetics. I do not think it is of any use believing, with a feeling of nostalgia, that we will bring back the good old days and get the high prices that we had before. It would be disastrous for the wool industry to try to hold the manufacturers to ransom by maintaining a fixed reserve price. I could not think of anything that would be more disastrous for the industry. I could not think of anything that would so hasten the movement of manufacturers into the field of synthetics. It might also aggravate the situation at the producer end, because it may mean that the wheat growers would shift into the wool industry which is exactly the opposite to what .happened a. few years ago when this Government said: ‘Grow all the wheat you can, boys, and we will give you a first payment of $1.10 for every bushel you can grow.’ I think that the reverse situation is very likely to occur particularly with the impending entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community.

Furthermore, I can envisage the spectre of large stockpiles of wool if we try to maintain too inflexible a reserve price system. The difference between a realistic reserve price policy and an unrealistic one is that we have to have some degree of flexibility. Another advantage of this scheme is the objective testing of wool which will, I feel, help to restore confidence in the industry. This should increase the return to the grower. This would be achieved by reducing the number of claims against the buyers on account of inaccurate valuations, and it should enable a more efficient processing of wool.

The system will permit private selling to be retained. At the seminar of the Australian Institute of Political Science held in Goulburn last weekend I was most interested to hear the pros and cons discussed as to whether the private buying and selling of wool would undermine the auction system. Without having any expertise on this matter 1 would not like to say one way or the other. But I feel that it is probably a good thing to allow private buying and selling to continue under the scrutiny of the Commission which can, under the provisions of this Bill, review its policy at any time. Another matter which is of fundamental importance is that the Commission can, after it has acquired wool, go outside the auction system if it wants to dispose of the wool in that way. I have not sufficient time in this debate to pursue that matter any further. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, there is provision in the Bill for the Commission to go into business as a wool selling broker.

The principal demerit of the Commission is not a sin of commission but a sin of omission in that there is no provision for any restructuring of the industry or, what we now euphemistically call, farm adjustment. I cannot see that this is any less urgent that the problem of reforming the marketing system. I think that this is a severe indictment on the Government because even if there had not been a catastrophic fall in. the price of wool over the last few months surely to goodness we had to see that something had to be done about restructuring the industry. The fact is that we have a certain amount of income from wool. In spite of the drop in the price of wool we have been able to keep that income up, but not increase our wool cheque very much, by increased productivity. With our wool cheque as it is at the moment we cannot expect to maintain the number of wool growers that we now have with a reasonable standard of living. The answer, as Professor Campbell suggested at the weekend and as I have suggested on a number of other occasions, is an aggregation of holdings.

Sooner or later we will have to make up our minds which of those in the industry can be made economically viable and which cannot. We have to decide which farmers can be put on the right path. Perhaps those farmers just lack capital. We might be able to put them on the right path by debt reconstruction, by long term loans or by consolidation of debts. We should allow those whom we cannot possibly help to remain in the industry if they wish but we cannot expect that such people should receive a continuous remittance from the taxpayers. Such people have to be helped by a whole spectrum of measures. This is not just a matter of getting a person off the land or diversifying his activities. It is a social welfare problem; it is a matter of educating or reeducating the families of wool growers and taking social welfare measures. At the same time, of course, we have to have a look at the problem of decentralisation. We should not just talk about this problem. The big tragedy at the moment is that there is absolutely no machinery at all to enable this restructuring of the industry.

I cannot understand how supporters of the Government can really claim to have the interests of the industry at heart if they have not given any consideration to this problem. The Minister for Primary Industry said in his second reading speech that he would give urgent consideration to this matter. But after all these years there is just no administrative structure, there is no legislation and there is absolutely nothing.

Mr Hunt:

– ls the South Australian Government contemplating legislation?

Dr GUN:

– The South Australian Government cannot do anything until the Commonwealth gives a lead. The one exception is the Rural Reconstruction Board of New South Wales. There is nothing more futile in this industry than subsidies. There is absolutely no way ot justifying the payment of subsidies. In particular, 1 have in mind the subsidies that were provided in the Commonwealth Budget this year. As far as I can see the only way that a subsidy can be justified is if we want people to go into the wool industry. But at present there are too many people in the industry at the moment. The payment of subsidies is a luxury we cannot afford. This country wants to achieve a great number of things at the moment. With the prosperity that we have we have to try to put our wealth to good use. We have to do something about Aboriginal welfare, the problems of cities and pollution and all the other problems that face us. We cannot afford to be handing out money that in the long run will be of no use to wool growers and which will just be a drain and a liability on the other programmes that could be carried out.

I regret that the wording of this Bill is somewhat defeatist. I refer particularly to section 25 (4.) (b) which states: any part of the profit not so applied shall be transferred to a reserve for meeting losses of subsequent years.

This rather assumes that things will be pretty black whatever happens. It appears that in the long run we will not make anything out of this proposal at all. I hope we can do a little better than this and make the industry self supporting so that it will not be a continual drain on the taxpayer. If we can have an industry that is viable and self suporting this will be to the benefit of rural and urban communities. Another objection that I have to the Bill is that there is no limit stated by the Commonwealth on the outlay. I know that there are difficulties in this. If we stipulate a certain limit on a Treasury appropriation we will find a problem in that buyers might try. to hold out on us and the scheme will crack. 1 know there is a problem but I think we should set some limit to the outlay. . .

I feel that another serious defect in the legislation is that it is too much open to political pressure. For example there is nothing to stop the Minister for Primary Industry from jacking up the reserve price if an election is close and he feels he is in trouble in his electorate. I suppose the Minister might be outraged by such a suggestion.

Mr Nixon:

– Seeing that there are no sheep in his electorate, he ought to be.

Dr GUN:

– The Minister for the Interior is saying that only because he expects that he will be the Minister for Primary Industry before very long. I have no doubt that after the next federal election for the House of Representatives there will be a Labor Minister for Primary Industry. In general I support this legislation, but there is a great deal of room for improvement. I hope to have something more to say about that at the Committee stage.

Thursday, 29 October 1970

Mr ENGLAND:
Calare

At the outset 1 wish to dissociate myself from the contention of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who laid the blame for the present parlous position of the wool industry, as I understand him, on the International Wool Secretariat and the Australian Wool Board. I am quite sure that the great majority of wool growers appreciate that the principal cause of their predicament is the disastrous world price of wool combined with the high cost structure under which they are forced to operate today. The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) said something which I must take up. If 1 remember his words correctly, he said that the Government exhorted the farmers: ‘Grow as much wheat as you like, boys, and we will pay you $1.10 a bushel’. That statement cannot fairly be attributed to this Government. He also used a rather grating term, in this situation. He spoke of holding the buyers to ransom. The last thing that the industry or the Government wants to do through this Bill is to operate in terms of holding buyers to ransom. If that is the approach. I think we will be in for a great deal of trouble with this scheme.

The Bill is not designed to enter the field of farm restructuring, but that is a most important base from which to work in reconstructing the industry in the future. In supporting this Bill I know that I am reflecting the views of the great majority of the wool growers I represent. It is only in comparatively recent times that any representative of the wool areas could make that claim. But there are still many retentionists and conservatives who want to retain the existing system of marketing, despite the calamitous depths to which wool prices have fallen. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have been forced to those low levels.

It is a matter of historical fact that the wool houses have resisted any change to a reserve price scheme or to a similar scheme which might enable the producers to take any action resembling placing a price on their own product. I command the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) for so clearly setting out the recent history of events leading up to the introduction of this Bill. It is only in the last few months that it has become plain that a clear majority of growers favour changes of the type set out in this measure. In fact, many will hold that it does not go far enough.

The great wool industry involves the lives and economic activities of a great number of people as well as a very substantial financial investment. It has always been the policy of this Liberal and Country Party Government that if the wool industry elects to change its marketing arrangements, the Government is ready to legislate for the change providing that it considers such a change to be in the interests of the Australian community. That is the view of the Government of this legislation. That policy has attracted criticism of the Government and its supporters even in this chamber tonight. That criticism has come particularly from those people who have been anxious for change for a long time. There has been criticism from left and right of the procrastination which has occurred. I think that we in the Government Parties regard this as being one of the hazards of office. The policy has been to wait for a majority opinion. That is it in a nutshell. I have supported that policy. I have taken my share of criticism for it. I will continue to support it. We legislate according to the wishes of the industry.

It has been said that the decision now is a unanimous one. It is not a unanimous one. But it comes in my opinion from a very readily discernable majority in the wool industry right throughout the Commonwealth. We know that in the past Australia has had a very long tradition of selling its main export commodity on the open market, lt has had the tradition of selling it under the auction system. I say therefore that this system cannot be altered lightly. This is the thing which has concerned the Government in the past.

But, over the years, despite what I have heard just recently, certain practices have crept into the auction system which have upset the system and almost negated the system. Whether we argue about it here or not, 1 know that this is the general contention amongst woolgrowers. They have made up their minds on the merits of the auction system. Whether this change has resulted in something called pie buying, lot splitting or cartel influence, there is no doubt that we are in a period of organised buying. I think that the logical answer to organised buying is organised selling, provided a rigid sense of responsibility is employed by the new Commission. Surely organised selling in the wool industry today is justified and surely it must pay off where no world stockpile of the commodity being sold has been permitted to be built up and where the commodity being sold still has a number of highly desirable characteristics which the greatest scientific brains in the world cannot duplicate.

We can almost anticipate the criticism that no mathematical proof in figures or no material proof that the work of the new Commission will be of benefit is available. Now, this is true. I think that it would be injudicious, to say the least, to forecast the result with any claim to accuracy. Many contingencies are involved. We can all see them readily. We can see some of them. They just cannot all be foreseen. But it appears logical to me that if the use of the daily reserve price principle is followed according to my understanding of the Bill, that price can be changed more than once daily - it must result in the elimination of the drastic and, in many cases, the unexplained peaks and troughs which, when applied to individual cases, very often mean the difference between profit and loss. The new selling methods will go into operation as soon as possible after the Bill receives the royal assent.

It will be remarkable indeed, as previous speakers have said, if changes are not necessary from time to time as experience dictates. The Government and the industry now must get on with the job, in my opinion, of solving the acute problem of rural indebtedness. This is all part of the one great problem. It is excellent to know that the nationwide survey of rural debts has been running under the guidance of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), who is at the table, in accordance with the promise given by the Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his Budget speech of August last. It has been running concurrently in the Department - it has not waited for this work to be completed - with this tremendous job of negotiation in the first instance and preparation of this wool legislation. I am led to believe that the survey is nearing completion. After that comes the major task of solution and the legislation to bring it along.

Despite the uninformed criticism which has been levelled at the Government and at the Minister personally, I commend htm for his outstanding efforts in the interests of the woolgrower in, first of all, fostering industry agreement, which was no small task and, secondly, in the near to impossible task which he has accomplished successfully of getting this legislation into this House at this time. A subject of this nature, affecting the lives of so many people in the wool industry with such a major investment in this country, almost demands that I take every minute of the time available to me to speak to it. However there are still a number of speakers to follow me in this debate. One of them is the Chairman of the Government Members Wool Committee. He and the Committee also should be commended for the assistance they have given to the Minister and to the Parliament. I support the Bill and I again congratulate the Minister.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I would like to comment firstly on a statement made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr

Street) and to link it with a statement made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin). The honourable member for Corangamite refuted allegations made by the honourable member foi Dawson (Dr Patterson) to the effect that the Government had done nothing to deal with the crisis in the wool industry. The honourable member for Corangamite said that the Government had doubled the grant for promotion and research. The honourable member for Mitchell made the statement when commenting on a letter he had written to irate wool grower constituents of his, of whom there are apparently hundreds. He said that he did not refute the statement made by one of the wool growers that some 80 per cent of the wool being marketed was not going through the auction system but was going through the system of forward buying.

The point I want to make is this: The wool growers and the Government have invested a tremendous amount of money in the promotion of wool sales. I am informed that the sum total is up to about S350m now since the system of wool promotion was first introduced. We have also been told how much money has been allotted in the current financial year. The Government can continue spending millions of dollars on the promotion of wool but it will not get very far unless it gets down to dealing with the critical situation in the wool marketing system. That is the fundamental criticism which we of the Opposition make of this Bill.

I was contacted recently by a person who is very influential in the stock and station business. He asked me whether it was true that $29m had been allotted for the promotion of wool. I replied thai as far as I knew that was the case. He said: Well, you should make a very close examination of wool promotion because for all the success it has achieved it may as well have been given straight back to the wool growers’. In his view the money was being wasted. I think it is time we took a very close look at bow the money allocated for wool promotion is being used. Obviously the honourable member for Mitchell has expressed some doubt about the way in which it has been spent. I think the time has come for a very close examination into how effectively this money is being spent on wool promotion.

The honourable member for Mitchell spoke about forward buying. I want to refer the House to a comment which appeared in the ‘Australian’ in March. The comment related to a statement made by the chairman of the Squatting Investment Company of Melbourne. This is very important and it refers to the point mentioned by the honourable member for Mitchell. The Chairman, Mr Balderstone, said:

It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the Australian wool clip was now sold firm by wool traders before it was auctioned.

If this was so, according to Mr Balderstone, exporters had a financial interest in seeing wool prices decline progressively. There was no point in spending millions of dollars in publicity and promotion only to see its effects dissipated, he said, by unfair restrictive bidding in buyer price control at what should be competitive auctions.

Two principles are fundamental to a serious approach to the crisis which threatens destruction to thousands of wool growers. Firstly, there must be immediate action to stabilise the industry’s economy on a sound economic basis for the producers. In other words, there must be immediate action to control the marketing of the product in such a way that the producer will gain, firstly, his costs of production and, secondly, a fair return on the labour and capital he has invested in his business. It must be stressed that unless the grower is getting a price that covers both these essential requirements he is progressing towards not mere bankruptcy but outright extinction. It is not necessary to highlight the disastrous effect that the present crisis is already having in country towns. Its effects are evident everywhere in my electorate and can be seen in the stagnation of the economies of country towns. It affects also the cities, as was evident in the large scale retrenchments at Massey-Ferguson (Australia) Ltd, which also hit my city. Also equally deserving of emphasis is the disastrous effects that impossible prices have upon our export capital.

What is the minimum price that the wool grower should be getting on average for his wool? In 1968-69 the overall Australian average price for greasy wool was 44.67c per lb. That was a year of credit squeeze, a squeeze on cost of production. Since then there has been an increase in costs, such as the increase in the cost of fuel announced in the Budget and an increase in the cost of merchandise. Small adjustments have been made in wages of station hands and shearing costs have increased. 1 suggest that it is hopeless for a farmer to carry on if he is receiving prices lower than 44.67c per lb. The fact is, however, that the farmer is becoming more insolvent every day. He is declining into bankruptcy. Equity in his property has vanished. It has lost its income earning capacity. Not only have livestock deteriorated in value but wool cannot be produced economically, and this means that there is no market for wool producing stock. Only last week Sir William Gunn stated that the average price for wool was 26c per lb. The collapse and threatened destruction of thousands of growers and their industry is dramatically illustrated by this figure.

The second fundamental principle required to be recognised in any realistic and serious approach to the crisis is urgent and realistic government action, not mere window dressing and confidence tricks on the eve of an election. The collapse in prices has been continuing since March. I would like to set the record straight on just how long action has been urgently called for without the call being heard. In February the average price of wool was approximately 40c per lb. It quickly fell back to 32c. The price has progressively and disastrously worsened. In June it was approximately 28.35c. It is now 26c. Only the Government has been unable to recognise the crisis. For 7 months growers have been calling for urgent and indeed radical action. They have received neither. On 21st March a meeting of about 2,600 growers was held at Moree. One of the motions passed deserves comment. A report of the resolution states:

At the Moree meeting on 21st March a resolution was unanimously adopted by the 2,600 present calling on the Commonwealth Government to forthwith establish a statutory authority to acquire and market the entire Australian wool clip, and that resolution incorporated the words ‘and pursues that action with the utmost vigour’.

I stress these resolutions by grower meetings to give the lie to the half-truth, or perhaps quarter-truth, that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) resorted to in his second reading speech last night when he said that the Australian Wool

Commission originated in these meetings. But 1 will return to this point later on. Another meeting was held at Narrandera on 28th April, and 1,300 wool growers passed a similar resolution. It was rather interesting to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Calare (Mr England), who preceded me in this debate. He said thai procrastination is the price of government. When the matter goes back as far as this without any action being taken, it would appear that procrastination is not only the price but also, apparently, the disease of government. The meeting at Narrandera passed the following resolution:

The Commonwealth Government be requested to immediately constitute the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation as a statutory body, under the Wool Board, to acquire and market the entire Austraiian wool clip.

Mr Grassby:

– That has not been done.

Mr KENNEDY:

– No, it has not been done. In reply to the honourable member for Riverina, 1 point out that it is ridiculous to say that this Australian Wool Commission originated in those meetings, because what these meetings called for was a statutory authority, not a board, to acquire, appraise and market the whole Australian wool clip. On 14th July at Orange a meeting of 1,500 wool growers chaired by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) called on the Government to impose an embargo on wool leaving Australia at less than 45c per lb in order to prevent buyers such as Japan from getting away with cheap wool.

Mr Grassby:

– That has not been done either.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Of course that has not been done. No urgent action has been taken. As we see, procrastination is the price of government. In the meantime the New South Wales branch of the Country Party called for immediate action to prevent a drop in the price of wool below 45c per lb, pending the complete reorganisation - 1 stress those words - of the wool marketing system. I refer now to another meeting. In the last week of July the United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association of New South Wales expressed strong support for the ultimate acquisition of the whole Australian wool clip. I would stress incidentally that back in April the Australian Wool Industry Conference voted unanimously for the establishment of a single marketing authority to handle the enure Australian wool clip.

It is pure humbug and outright fra.ul and deceit on the part of the Minister for Primary Industry to state, as he did in his second reading speech, that the Australian Wool Commission that he has conceived has grown out of meetings such as those. His statement in last night’s second reading speech was:

The proposal for such a body-

He was referring to the Australian Wool Commission- was supported at mass meetings of wool growers throughout Australia. The 2 federal wool grower organisations - the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation - resolved to press for such a body, as did the national body of the wool growers, the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

The fact was that back in April the Australian Wool Industry Conference called for a single marketing authority to handle the entire clip. I stress the deceit of the Minister in suggesting that what these bodies and these meetings of growers that I have mentioned wanted was the abortion which he has finally produced. They wanted no such thing. They wanted urgent action to stabilise the price of wool at 45c per lb and they wanted a single marketing authority. The fact that they have accepted what they were powerless to reject is merely evidence of the truth of the old saying that half a loaf is better than none at all. In this context perhaps a better way of putting it would be that it is better to have a handful of crumbs when one cannot get a loaf.

Mr Grassby:

– Members of the Country Party have accepted it.

Mr KENNEDY:

– They had no alternative. It was a matter of a fait accompli being presented by the Minister. When one asks the question: ‘Does the Bill before the House deal seriously with the crisis facing wool growers?’, one sees that the answer must be no. I believe that this Bill is irrevelant to the real needs of growers. Lel us look at the situation in which it is being introduced. The Country Party is desperate about the Senate elections. At a recent meeting of growers at Hay - it was held on the 12th of this month - the wool growers passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in this Government. These wool growers are people who traditionally have been supporters of the Country Party. Yet they passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in this Government. It was a very well attended meeting. A second motion to oppose all Government candidates at the coming election was only narrowly defeated.

Meantime the Government obviously is not aiming to fight the election on its chronic record in primary industry. A new and spurious bogy in the 35-hour working week has been whipped up to compensate for the waning market power of Communism at elections. This Bill has been churned out with abundant insincerity. The Government has not dared to debate it on a day when the proceedings of the House were being broadcast. It has given the Opposition 24 hours to consider the Bill. This is a fraudulent and dishonest Government. This Bill offers nothing to the wool grower. The 100,000 wool growers who are facing bankruptcy, and most of whom are completely insolvent at present, are offered nothing to stabilise their business. The Government offers nothing but a policy of escalating losses and accelerating poverty. The Bill will not restore economic income to farmers.

Let us examine the principle on which the Minister for Primary Industry has stated the reserve price will be based. This will be a reserve price based on a level slightly below the level of the previous day’s operation. Last week Sir William Gunn said that the average price of wool was 26c per lb. A figure slightly less than 26c is obviously an utterly hopeless and impossible figure for wool growers. Furthermore, in announcing the Commission the Minister said that it could bring about a 10 to 20 per cent increase in prices. Even if that were true and not merely a possibility, an increase of 20 per cent on the current price of 26c is a mere 5c. This would rise the price of wool to a mere 31c. In 1968-69 there was an average price of 44.67c per lb. In that year there was a cost of production price squeeze which was recognised throughout the industry by the growers themselves, by the banks and by the wool firms which were financing the industry. At the current 26c per lb, plus the 20 per cent increase mentioned by the Minister, the average price would be raised to only 31c per lb which would leave it at 30 per cent lower than in 1968-69, 25 per cent lower than the average at January of this year and at least 20 per cent to 25 per cent below the cost of production.

Political exercises of the Country Party notwithstanding, the growers will continue to head for bankruptcy and extinction. Growers are not even given the certainty of so paltry a price rise as 10 per cent. The Minister has delivered the death blow by his promise that the Commission should not be expected to lift wool prices beyond that dictated by world supply and demand, in other words we are back to where we were. The Government’s answer to disaster is continuing disaster. Not only are individual growers heading for extinction; the industry and the nation are accompanying them.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

We have just listened to the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) who claims that the scheme proposed by the Bill offers nothing to the wool growers. Nothing could be further from the facts of the situation, because the scheme offers something of very great benefit to the wool growers. The honourable member said that it was not what the wool growers asked for. It may not be exactly what was asked far at the meetings to which he referred, but 1 have talked to wool growers who were at those meetings and they are very satisfied with the progress that has been made towards achieving a great improvement on what existed at that time. That is the important factor. Never in the history of the wool growing industry has there been such an acceptance by the representatives of the growers as there has been of this particular action on the part of the Government.

Most of what I would have liked to have said about the Bill has been well said already by members of the Australian Country Party, but as, with my colleague the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), I represent many of the most sorely pressed wool growers of the Commonwealth because of the tremendous drought that has extended over those areas, I thought that I should at least say how pleased I am– and I am sure that the honourable member for Kennedy would join with me in this - to know that the Government has come down with a scheme which offers such promise of assistance to the wool growers in that area. Surely if anyone needs assistance, it is those people. Wool growers recognise that statutory powers are necessary. That was one of the major factors mentioned at the meetings that have been referred to by the honourable member for Bendigo. There is no question either that a flexible price is the most efficient way of ensuring that wool growers will get the highest price that the market is prepared to pay. At the same time it will ensure that the stockpile of wool is kept within reasonable limits. This is, indeed, the best way to overcome the substantial fluctuations that sometimes occur during wool sales.

The desperate situation with which the wool industry is confronted demands that growers receive the highest price obtainable, and this is the objective of the Bill. This is what those meetings of wool growers wanted to achieve, and this is the way the Government has decided it can best be achieved. This has been approved almost unanimously by representatives of the wool growers throughout Australia. The Bill does, in fact, represent what the Australian wool growers want. One of the fundamental operations associated with this scheme will be the accuracy with which the market can be gauged and the flexible reserve price applied. Wool growers arc hard pressed financially - and that takes in many of them, especially in the areas that I have referred lo - are no doubt hoping for a quick return to prices which show some degree of profitability, but I am of the opinion that it would be unwise to expect miracles. Steady progress towards that objective would be more likely to ensure the ultimate success of the scheme. I realise that many wool growers cannot afford to wait, but these growers may have to be taken care of under a debt reconstruction scheme and with finance made available on long term low interest conditions.

The personnel of the Commission will have a heavy responsibility and they should be given a reasonable time to achieve the results at which they are aiming. There is no doubt that marketing would be streamlined anl considerable savings made in the selling of wool if it could be sold by sample. When core testing and objective measurement reaches the stage where it is universally acceptable as accurately representing the article, these aims will be achieved. Every effort must be made to have this method operating at the earliest possible time, and I am confident that this will happen. The establishment of confidence will, I believe, be one of the great benefits arising from this legislation. I feel that this confidence will spread through all sections of the wool industry and I confidently trust that it will become the base for the rehabilitation of the wool industry.

I join with other honourable members who have offered congratulations to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) on being able to bring in this Bill in the time that has been available to him and against a background of division that has become so much a part of wool industry negotiations in the past. As my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr England) has said, the Minister has accomplished almost the impossible. I join in (he congratulations to all who have been concerned or who have assisted the Minister in this matter and to Sir John Crawford for the part he played in assisting the Minister to have this Bill before the House tonight. I trust that this achievement will encourage the wool industry to continue to strive to maintain unity of approach in facing the problems of the future and that by our combined efforts we will be able to give the maximum assistance to this great industry which is still of such national importance. 1 should like to make a few comments on the efforts of the Opposition in this debate. I believe this has been one of the worst efforts that we have ever seen from the Australian Labor Party. Honourable members opposite have asked what the Government has done for the wool industry. I tried to make a note of the words used by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) who said that the Government had hitched its wagon to the auction system. Whatever his words, he tried to convey that the only thing the Government had ever done was to stick to the auction system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The honourable member for

Riverina should have known that the Government twice stood ready to back a reserve price plan for wool and stood ready to back those reserve price plans financially, placing no limit on the extent of the amount which might have been necessary to support the plan. Yet the honourable member tonight said that the Government has been concerned only with sticking to the auction system.

If the honourable member did know of the action taken by the Government he must stand condemned for his completely inaccurate statement regarding the Government’s attitude. If he did not know, he should not have had the temerity to talk about a subject that he knows so little about. J have selected the honourable member for Riverina on whom to comment because I took a note of some of his remarks, but his was characteristic of the approach of the Labor Party to this Bill. I mention also that the Japanese Trade Agreement paved the way for Japan to become the greatest buyer of Australian wool, yet honourable members opposite say that the Government has done nothing for the wool industry. As I have said, the Opposition has put up on this occasion one of its poorest performances. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because all that honourable members opposite know about the wool industry is second hand or theoretical. But the Opposition’s performance has been made even worse by its blatant efforts to try to get some political gain from the desperate situation in which the wool growers now find themselves. 1 would have liked to say much more on this subject.

Dr Gun:

– You have not said anything yet.

Mr CORBETT:

– I want to leave time for my colleagues to speak in the debate. I ignore the interjections which are no better than the poor efforts that have been put up by the Opposition during the debate. I conclude by saying that it gives me great pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– During the course of this debate, which has been constructive and which has revealed some support for the Bill - with some reservations - the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) has seen fit to attack the Australian Labor Party. If he wants to poke his neck out I will take him on. We stand in this House on the most expensive carpet in the country, from Cairns to Carnarvon, but it does not contain one thread of Australian wool. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the wig you wear contains wool. If it does, I wonder whether it is Australian wool. 1 say that respectfully. The chiefs from the Australian Country Party stood here tonight and said the Australian Labor Party was jumping on the wool industry band wagon. Honourable members opposite are the guilty parties in creating the situation that we have in the industry today. Only two Liberal members have spoken in this chamber tonight, and one of them did not agree with the Bill at all. 1 did not hear the other Liberal member’s contribution.

The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was cross about the fact that the Country Party maintained an attitude within the Government ranks that its members should be the only members to speak on rural matters. The Liberal Party has a stake in the rural industry and must take some responsibility for it. But it is obvious from its attitude tonight that it leaves the running to the Country Party. It is a shocking state of affairs when a vital industry such as rural industry, particularly the wool sector, has to come down to absolute rock bottom and we have to witness absolute poverty in the countryside before this Government is prepared to do something. Has it acted merely because there is a Senate election within the next few weeks? I recall that in the last session of the Parliament we were debating a wool measure involving a sum of $28m or $30m in the dying hours of the sitting.

J am not confident that the Bill will mean a return for the person who matters, that is, the grower - not New Zealand Loan Ltd and all those other burglars and brokers who are protected by this Bill. It is only assumption on the Government’s part, and perhaps to some extent on the part of some of the speakers on this side of the House, that the measures that are contained within the Bill will cure the ills within the industry. Many a commission has been set up by this and other governments for the purpose of curing ills in industry but they have not had the desired result. There is nothing in the Bill that spells out to the wool grower that he will receive at least a fair return for his labours in producing the product. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that pays any attention to the tremendous gap that exists between the grower and the consumer. The housewives in this country will determine how much wool is worn and how much wool is purchased. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) is interjecting. He represents in this chamber wool growers who sell wool at from 16c to 20c per lb but the housewife, when she buys an article made from wool, pays $16 for it. If the Minister is going to sit in this place and say there should not be a fair return to the grower he needs his head read. He should not be sitting here claiming to represent people. I have been in this chamber only since last March, one might say, and not one week, almost not one day, has gone by when there has not been a doleful, dreary speech by Doug Anthony in respect of some matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Grassby:

– You mean the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr FOSTER:

– What did I say?

Mr Grassby:

– You said ‘Doug Anthony*.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am sorry, I should have said ‘the Minister for Primary Industry’. He is aspiring to become Treasurer of the Commonwealth. God help us if he does. This Bill does nothing but play with words in relation to the transport sector of the wool industry. This is evidenced by the actions of Government members last week in regard to shipping. That is one matter. Another matter is the statements of the various Ministers that the grower can expect still to bear the brunt of a very costly, inefficient and unnecessary means of transporting wool. The other thing that worries me considerably is the fact-

Mr Robinson:

– What about the waterside workers?

Mr FOSTER:

– I will fetch them into it in a moment if the honourable member wants me to. The fact is that Government members engage people to oppose any justifiable wage applications which are made on behalf of workers generally in this country. When do we see a member of the Liberal Party or the Country Party supporting a wage rise unless it is to increase the salaries of parliamentarians?

Of course, it is never seen. We have before us tonight a Bill which is open ended and in effect gives a completely open cheque to the Australian Wool Commission. The Treasurer might have a casual look at it. If he happens to be the Minister for Primary Industry, Lord protect us again. The people who will pay for it are the wage and salary earners. All the Government can do is cast aspersions on those people who live in urban and city areas. It has done that continuously for a number of months. The Bill does not provide for any trade union representative on the Commission. I do not know what honourable members opposite are worried about. They could have had Bob Hawke on it if they had wanted to and he could have thrown some light on some of the problems. But the fact is that the Government should stand condemned forever and a day. It should never forget that it is supposed to represent the industry but it turned its head the other way when the industry cried out for some assistance. The Government has not had the courage to face up to its responsibilities in this regard. It is only because the pressures within the industry are so great, plus the fact of the forthcoming Senate election, that honourable members opposite have got to their feet to speak about this matter at all.

We of the Opposition have proposed a number of amendments to which the Government ought to give every consideration, and perhaps support, even at this late hour. The Government ought to realise that what is contained in this Bill may appear to be quite good, but it has to be put to the test. It is not an interim measure that is proposed. It has to be put to the test. There is nothing in the Bill, as 1 see it, that says in a straightforward manner that the system operating in the past will not be retained. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill that really spells out that there will not be collusion by the people who buy our wool to defeat the proposals which the Government feels are contained in the Bill to protect the interests of the grower.

The wool broker is most certainly protected by this Bill. Dalgety and New Zealand Loan Ltd is most certainly protected by it. The banking system as it applies to this industry generally is protected within the terms of the Bill. But the fact still remains that the Government should have gone much further with it. By the time the Bill had been introduced, the Government should have investigated it to such an extent that it could have adequately informed this House as to whether there was any real and lasting benefit in the proposals now before the chamber. The Government has not done that and it is for that reason that I am somewhat critical of it.

The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), who has just resumed his seat, spoke of the problems facing the electorate of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). What the devil is the honourable member for Kennedy doing jaunting around overseas if he has so many problems within. his electorate?

Mr Corbett:

– He is doing a good job.

Mr FOSTER:

– He should be in this chamber if his electorate needs him because of the problems there. The honourable member for Maranoa also spoke about the wonderful Australia-Japan Trade Agreement. 1 have said in this House before, and I will repeat it, that generally the Government has displayed an inferiority complex in regard to overseas trade. Most certainly that must apply to trade with Japan, because the Government has not shown any courage in its dealings with Japan. Only today we heard yet another speech by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) about what is happening in the United Kingdom. If I may say so, the same problems exist in that area. For years the Government has had the problem of Britain joining the European Economic Community staring it in the face and yet it has done nothing about it. Britain is now telling the Government that it intends to apply levies on the trade. The Government has trod the same path with our rural industries which will be affected by Britain’s entry into the EEC as it is treading with the wool industry.

What the Bill ought to have provided for is an open inquiry into the transportation of the product. We are in a situation today where there is an over-tonnage of container ships used by our principal traders, and the Government will have available in the very near future quite a large tonnage in the form of vessels which have been constructed in the last 5 years.

The Government ought to have made provision in the Bill for these ships rather than playing with words. There should have been some clause in the Bill giving the Commission a direction to negotiate tonnages, ships and space to take our produce overseas. But there is nothing in the Bill which would have cut us off from the continuing ties that have bound us to the conference lines, the monopolistic shipping cartels, that have been strangling not only rural industries but also the economy of this country generally.

Are we to continue in this way? The Bill does not make provision for 1 ship to operate on the principal overseas trade routes and we are in fact paying back to Japan millions of dollars because of the fact that a single vessel on that route has exceeded the percentage that was agreed to round the conference table. This is the reason why the Australian National Line has shown a loss. This was brought out in a debate in this House last week. Nothing is spelt out in the Bill. I repeat that the Bill should have contained some instruction to this newly set up Commission to go overseas and get shipping space which would have given a greater return to the grower and would have been a saving to the Commonwealth generally. Such tonnages are available and not necessarily strictly within the tramp field as perhaps may be suggested. Honourable members will recall that Russia was prepared to ship our wool clip in 1967 for 15 per cent less than the conference lines. What did the Government do about it? It did absolutely nothing. It forced Russia - and she did it probably for her own reasons too - to join the conference lines so she would charge the same rate that the conference has been charging the industry for a number of years.

Mr Cope:

– That is private enterprise.

Mr FOSTER:

– It might be private enterprise to the Government’s way of thinking, but when it acted in that manner in 1967 it was not thinking of the private enterprise sector.

Mr Robinson:

– You have 1 minute to go-

Mr FOSTER:

– I have more than 1 minute to go. People like the honourable member are, of course, never in possession of all the facts. When Bills such as this one, setting up a commission, are introduced into the House, I feel that we ought to be beyond the stage at which we cloak with secrecy the identity of the people who will have to accept the responsibility of taking up positions on the commission. One could speculate, of course, as to who these people might be in this case. The Minister for Trade and Industry might take up the position as the head of the Commission when he retires. It would be a tragedy if he did. There have been some representatives of the industry in influential positions who have brought nothing but disaster to the industry. Surely the Country Party’s choice of Sir William Gunn some few years ago - perhaps he was offered the job to keep him out of this House - has meant little to the poor old woolgrower. I will end on this note: When the Government starts framing legislation for woolgrowers - and Sir John Crawford makes mention of this - it should have in mind that there are people in the industry who can be classified as woolgrowers and producers but who have smaller areas of production than do the huge barons and wool brokers who own millions of acres of pastoral land in Australia.

Honourable members say that representation is being given to the wool growers. Surely from a commonsense point of view this should have been broken down somewhat. It may have been difficult but nothing is easy when one is trying to solve a problem one has created by one’s own inactivity and almost stupidity. The fact is that more consideration should have been given in the Bill to grower representation on the basis of the volume of wool that a grower produces. I suppose it is difficult to know where to make a cut off point. The Government has not given any consideration to this matter. It is hopeful that it can continue as it has in the last few years. During the course of the debate it has been stated that the Government faces some problems in regard to how far it can go in drafting such legislation as that now before the House. In 1959 when the Constitutional Review Committee .sat it made what was considered from an all party point of view, one could almost say, to be a reasonable set of guidelines to be followed. One could go further and say that some recommendations were made in regard to the important aspect of market ing and trade as they affect the rural industries. In the last 10 or 11 years what has the Government done about this matter? It has done absolutely nothing.

Mr King:

– That is not true.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is true. The Government has done absolutely nothing about that. Show me where the Government has sought a referendum of the people in order to alter the shocking and restrictive Constitution which was imposed on the people of Australia at federation almost 70 years ago. It is not too late to give some consideration to these vital matters because the legislation could prove to be of some small benefit to the area to which the Government intends to pay some attention but the Government lacks the constitutional powers which are required in this day and age to market adequately and properly not only the products of the rural industries but also most of the products of the Commonwealth. The Government ought to cay regard to this important aspect.

The Country Party which would have some 20 seats in this House gained only a small percentage of the votes cast at the election. In fact it is on a par with the Australian Democratic Labor Party. On the percentage of votes that it obtained that Party should not be represented in this chamber and, Mr Deputy Speaker, even though you may be a member of the Country Party, neither should that Party be represented here. If the Country Party had an ounce of courage in regard to its responsibilities to the rural industries it would have said to the Liberal Party months ago: ‘We will get away from the Ministry. We will not accept a portfolio in this House’. By accepting a portfolio the Country Party has tied itself to the Liberal Party and has inhibited its activities in this House on behalf of the people it represents. The Country Party should have had the guts and the courage to get away from the Ministry. Let those who have pushed the Party into the position it is in tonight carry the responsibility.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– We have certainly heard the results of some woolly thinking this evening, climaxed by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) who complained that the wool grower was not receiving a full and just price for his commodity. Now I can see why me

Opposition has not attempted to put forward the Australian Labor Party’s policy on wool marketing. I refer to one clause which states that the Labor Party is prepared to support orderly marketing on the basis that it shall be financed by a revolving fund started by the Commonwealth and eventually financed by the growers. I can see why the Opposition did not want to do this. The honourable member for Sturt says that they are not getting sufficient funds. It is a case of taking your money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.

A lot of comments have been made since the Bill was introduced last evening. Unfortunately, with the lateness of the hour, time will not permit me to cover all the points I would like to cover. Certainly time will not allow me to answer all the questions put forward by the Opposition. However, there are a few fundamental points I would like to raise before we go into the Committee stage. I agree with the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) that this is the most important piece of legislation ever introduced for the wool industry. I endorse that remark entirely. Never before in the 12 years that I have been in this place have I seen any legislation prepared and introduced - no doubt it will be passed by the end of this week - as quickly as this piece of legislation. Naturally one must commend certain people for it.

The purpose of the Bill is to establish an Australian Wool Commission in connection with the marketing of Australian wool. As 1 said, it has come about in a matter of a few weeks. The people who have had anything to do wilh it ought to be commended. About 4 or 5 weeks ago the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) requested Sir John Crawford to present his submissions to the Minister. They were received. The Minister put them to the Cabinet, received the o.k. of Cabinet, announced the scheme, put it to the industry and now to the House. I am sure that this legislation will be assented to in both Houses before this week is concluded. I want to compliment those people who have had something to do with it. The first is the Minister for Primary Industry. I know that he has received many forms of congratulations in this chamber and certainly from outside the chamber. The congratulations coming from outside have been chiefly from the industry, despite what Opposition speakers have said here mis evening.

I know that many of the organisations, from branch level right through to the Australian Wool Industry Conference, have been offering congratulations to the Minister. They are certainly warranted. Naturally, one must not overlook the Australian Wool Board Advisory Committee. Sir John Crawford - I think the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) referred to this this evening - is possibly one of the most efficient economists Australia has ever known. We certainly thank him. We must thank officers of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics who did much to assist Sir John Crawford and others in preparing the recommendations. 1 want to pay tribute also to 2 other men. The first is Mr Wallace of the Department of Primary Industry. I am sure that he will receive his recognition and appreciation when he knows that this Bill has finally passed through both Houses. Finally, the man who made it possible to introduce this legislation into the House so quickly is Mr Comans, the Parliamentary Draftsman.

All honourable members will remember the statement made by the Minister last week that we were having great difficulty in preparing legislation which could be introduced before the House rose for the Senate elections, and we were concerned about that. I am sure that it is only because of the efforts of men like Mr Comans that it is possible to present this legislation now. I compliment all those people who have contributed in some way or other in bringing this legislation forward. I do not think there is any need for me to go through the background history of the wool industry. It is rather interesting to note that many of the Opposition speakers tonight have spoken out for the first time on the wool industry. I have not heard a boo from many of them since the wool industry has been trouble At the same time they are still adopting a Calamity Jane attitude and are using the old system of sapping the confidence of anybody connected with the wool industry

Mr England:

– There are many experts in the Opposition tonight.

Mr KING:

– As the honourable member for Calare said, we see a lot of experts in the Opposition tonight. I am informed that no wool grower from the Opposition side spoke tonight. Why? Because there is not one wool grower in the Opposition. The Government realised that something had to be done. It realised that it was not its responsibility to see that good prices were obtained for our commodities, but it realised something had to be done. It has taken certain action. There is no doubt that something is being done now. I believe that the introduction of this legislation will herald the beginning of a new era in which we hope we will be able to see increases in the price of wool. A few weeks ago, long before this legislation was prepared,I said that when this authority was constituted it had to have some teeth in it. After studying the Bill, I believe that not only has it teeth in it but also it has fangs in it. The legislation covers the vital wool industry issues. Clause 18 of the Bill states: (1.) The functions of the Commission are -

  1. to make arrangements for the sale, otherwise than at auction, of wool received by a broker for sale at auction that the Commission considers cannot advantageously be offered for sale at auction and for the processing of any such wool before sale;

This is where I believe the Commission has a substantial power to dispose of certain types of wool. I believe that that clause of the Bill will give sufficient teeth or fangs to the Commission. I spell out very loudly and very clearly to all would-be buyers and all would-be manufacturers that, if the price of wool does not increase to a reasonable level, the future of the auction system certainly is in doubt and the future of wool production must also be in doubt. I hope that those people will heed that message. The honourable member for Dawson was critical in his remarks.I think I am correct in saying that it was the honourable member for Dawson. IfI am wrong, it was somebody else fromthe Opposition. He stated that there were only 2 growers on the Commission and that the industry had asked for more. The reason for this is obvious. Naturally the industry wants to have as many people looking after its interests as possible. I think I should draw the attention of the critics to clause 7(1.) of the Bill which states:

The Commission shall consist of 7 members; namely -

a Chairman;

2 members to represent Australian wool growers;

1 member to represent the Commonwealth; and

3 other members.

Sub-clause (3.) states:

Before appointing a member to represent Australian wool growers, the Minister shall consult the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

The critics might say that the Minister will consult the Conference but that he will take no notice of it. This is a lot of claptrap. This is the normal form which a Bill takes when it virtually asks the industry to supply 2 names of persons to become members of the Commission. Who are the members, apart from the Chairman? Two members will represent Australian wool growers, one member will represent the Commonwealth and there will be 3 other members. I stress the following sub-clause:

A member referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (1.) of this section shall be a person specially qualified for appointment by reason of experience in the marketing of wool or wool products, in the processing of wool or in the manufacture of wool products or by reason of other experience in commerce, finance or economics and, before appointing a person to be such a member, the Minister shall consult the Australian Wool Board.

Again, he has to get the approval of the Wool Board. We must appreciate also that this is a Commission to market wool. It is important that wool growers have a voice in their industry organisations, but we must remember that we are not doing away with the Woo! Board and the AWIC. We are retaining them. Of course, it is on these bodies that the wool growers will be able to get their true representation.

I said publicly at a meeting recently that I would have liked to see a Commission consisting of about 3 members. I make no apologies at all for that statement. We could have had a Commission consisting of about 3 members with no wool grower on it at all. We must have the best brains possible on this Commission. Despite the fact that we have some very important and smart men within the wool industry, I do not believe that they are the salesmen for whom we are looking. The honourable member for Dawson also complained about the fact that the Bill did not spell out the minor issues regarding the setting up of the Commission. I believe that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) gave him a very satisfactory answer when he said that if he were employing somebody to plough his paddock he would not go out and tell him when to put the plough into the ground and when to take it out again. The simple answer is that he would have confidence in the individual to do the job. That is the Government’s attitude towards the appointment of members of the Commission.

A few minutes ago the honourable member for Sturt said that the members of the Commission should be announced at this stage. How can the Minister do that? What a ridiculous suggestion. After all, we first have to get the legislation through the Parliament and then we have to find the people who we believe can do the job. Because of the importance of the wool industry and the prices being paid for wool today, I suggest to the Minister that once this legislation is passed and receives the royal assent we must ensure that it is implemented as quickly as is humanly possible. I do not care how the Minister does it, but because the legislation is very important it should be implemented as quickly as possible. Wool growers are in trouble today.

The honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Allan Fraser) spent a lot of his time talking about industry problems. As 1 said earlier in my remarks, I think that if ever there was a man acting as Calamity Jane it was the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. It was the first occasion for quite some time that I have heard him speak about wool. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) - that honourable gentleman who always is so vocal on issues connected with primary industry and more often wrong than right - said that this Bill does not actually cover what the industry wants. What more does the honourable member for Riverina want than complete satisfaction and appreciation from the industry organisations? The honourable member for Gwydir referred to the result of the meeting of the Australian Wool Industry Conference last week, or whenever it was. All the other organisations scattered throughout the length and breadth of Australia have complimented the Minister on this legislation. Do not try to tell me that they are not satisfied. These people do not send telegrams congratulating the Minister unless they mean what they say.

In summing up this debate, 1 point out that honourable members opposite have tried to find fault with the Bill. They have asked many hypothetical questions. Yet as I said at the outset, not one speaker on the Opposition side got up and gave the House an alternative proposal, nor did one speaker on the Opposition side give us the Opposition’s policy on wool. Honourable members opposite are not game to do that because they are not proud of their policy.

Dr Patterson:

– Why do you not tell the truth?

Mr KING:

– Who told us about the Opposition’s policy?

Dr Patterson:

– The second speaker.

Mr KING:

– 1 listened to the second speaker and I did not hear him mention the Australian Labor Party’s policy on wool. He confused it with a lot of other academic remarks which certainly do not line up with Labor’s policy. Let us have a look at the Australian Labor Party’s policy on wool. It wants a reserve price plan based on the referendum which was rejected about 5 years ago, which shows how up to date its policy is; it wants a statutory authority set up, which is fair enough, and it wants to acquire, appraise and market our wool. A little while ago I reminded the honourable member for Sturt that the Labor Party also wants to have a revolving fund which will be financed at first by the Commonwealth and then by the industry itself. All I can say about this proposal is that the industry would want to get a very much higher price for its product than it is receiving at present because if it did not the industry would find itself in a financial position where it could not fulfil its obligations in regard to the revolving fund.

I did intend to resume my seal long before this. 1 would have liked to discuss a number of other important matters this evening but time does not permit me to do so. I compliment the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) for introducing this legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I trust that the wool industry will receive adequate financial assistance as a result of the introduction of this legislation.

page 2927

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Strategic Materials to China (Question No. 1976)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Are (a) iron (b) steel and (c) zinc among the strategic materials which the NATO powers and Japan have agreed not to export to China.
  2. To what extent does Australia observe the agreement.
  3. When was the list of strategic materials last reviewed.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Please refer to the answer to question No. 2033.

Strategic Materials to China (Question No. 2033)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Will he inform me, as ,be Acting Minister promised on 30 September (Hansard, page 1861) whether iron and steel are on the list of strategic materials which Western countries, including Australia and Japan, have agreed not to export to China.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I have already answered a similar question in the House on 14 October when I told the honourable member for Bowman that I had nothing to add to the replies given by the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Acting Minister for External Affairs during my absence. I said on that occasion that I had instructed my Department to have a further look at the question which would, if necessary, be referred to the Cabinet.

Department of External Affairs (Question No. 2074)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does bis Department propose to produce an annual report for 1969-70 along the lines of previous reports.
  2. If not, why not.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The annual report previously produced consolidated in printed form much of the material submitted to me by my Department during the year. However, its production required much detailed supplementary work and, in view of other and more urgent demands on my Department, I decided to discontinue it.

Telephones (Question No. 2078)

Mr Armitage:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many applications were lodged for telephone services in each State during the vear 1969-70.
  2. How many long-term deferred applications for telephones were there in each State as al 30 June 1970.
Mr Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Demand in each State for telephone services involving the provision of new lines or equipment in 1969-70 after allowing for withdrawn applications which numbered 37,707 was as follows:

In addition, throughout the Commonwealth, 172,566 applications were received for services utilising lines and equipment already in place as follows:

  1. Deferred applications (those on which service could not be offered pending major extensions of cable and/or exchange equipment) at 30 June 1970, were:

Pastoral Award: Penal Sanctions (Question No. 661)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Is it a fact that International Labour Organisation Convention No. 104 prohibits penal sanctions for breaches of contract of employment by indigenous workers. (2)Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission has incorporated in the Pastoral Award a provision which authorises an employer to confiscate one week’s wages of a shearing employee who breaches his contract of employment.
  2. Which of the member States have ratified Convention No. 104.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Convention No. 104 - Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) 1955 provides that a ratifying country shall take action for the abolition of penal sanctions for breaches of contracts of employment by workers belonging to or assimilated to the dependent indigenous population of the country. ‘Breach of contract’ means refusal or failure to commence or perform the service stipulated in the contract, neglect of duty or lack of diligence, absence without permission or valid reason and desertion.
  2. Under clause 42(g) of the Federal Pastoral Industry Award, an employee forfeits one week’s earnings to his employer when he ‘leaves his employment otherwise than as provided in subclause (d) or (e) of this clause. . . ‘ Sub-clauses (d) and (e) relate to discharge for incompetence, misconduct or absence from work through illness under specified conditions, to departure from employment in consequence of accident, sickness or other urgent necessity or with the permission of the employer, or, in the case of certain cooks in joint messes to discharge at the request of members of the mess. Whereas the Convention applies only to workers belonging to or assimilated to the dependent indigenous population of a country, the award applies to employees covered by it regardless of their race.
  3. Brazil, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Morocco, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Portugal, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia. United Arab Republic, Yemen.

Army Training Area: Bulli Pass (Question No. 1779)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Has the Army established a secret mock-up Vietnamese village in a sub-tropical rain forest south of Bulli Pass comprising houses built of thatched palm leaves, a network of tunnels and a maze of trip wires extending over a wide area of bush land.
  2. In whom is ownership and control of the land vested.
  3. Has authority for use of the land been granted.
  4. Does the Military activity conducted in this area constituted a hazard to children and bushwalkers.
  5. What accidents have occurred in the area to either military personnel or civilians.
  6. Is this area still being used for training purposes; if so, what efforts are being made to protect plant and animal life.
Mr Peacock:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The mock-up village established by the Army in the Bulli training area in 1968 was never secret. The village comprised houses, concealed holes and tunnels but trip wires were only laid when the village was in use. The buildings have now been removed and the tunnels and holes filled because the village is no longer required for training purposes.
  2. The land is owned by the Bellambi Coal Co. Ltd, and is part of the Sydney water supply catchment area with water rights consequently controlled by the Metropolitan Sewerage and Drainage Board.
  3. Authority to use the land has been granted by the Bellambi Coal Co. Ltd, and the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Drainage Board.
  4. No.
  5. There have been no known accidents involving civilians. Military personnel have had some training accidents but not as a result of the use of the village.
  6. The general area is still being used for training by the Infantry Centre but no live firing takes place. Every effort is made to conserve the natural state of the area - the animals are untouched, there is no destruction of timber or undergrowth and all rubbish is removed for disposal at Ingleburn Camp. In addition Rangers patrol the area and representatives of the Bellambi Coal Co. Ltd, carry out annual inspections to ensure the area is not damaged.

Censorship (Question No. 1819)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Which Ministers attended the conference on censorship in Sydney in September.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the conference for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
  3. In what respects has uniform legislation in the Territories (a) already been and (b) yet to be brought into operation.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. At a conference in Sydney on 18 September State Ministers responsible for matters of censorship met under the chairmanship of the Minister for Customs and Excise.

The State Ministers attending were:

Chief Secretary, New South Wales

Chief Secretary, Victoria

Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Queensland

Attorney-General, South Australia

Chief Secretary, Western Australia

Chief Secretary, Tasmania.

The Minister for the Interior was represented by an officer of the Department of the Interior.

  1. After the conference a Press Statement, agreed by all Ministers present, was issued. That Press Statement is reproduced below:

Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for censorship matters have agreed to the principle of introducing an ‘R’ certificate for theatrical films.

The Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr D. L. Chipp, M.P.) said this in Sydney today (18 September). He was speaking after a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in Sydney to discuss censorship matters.

He said: “The State Ministers have agreed to recommend to their Governments that existing legislation be amended so that an ‘R’ certificate for theatrical films may be legally enforced. “The effect of the legislation will be that children between the ages of 6 and 18 will not be admitted to theatres at which ‘R’ certificate films will be exhibited. “The ‘R’ certificate will be applied by the Chief Film Censor to films which it is considered are suitable only for adults. “There will be two other classifications - Suitable for General Exhibition (G) and ‘Not Recommended for Children’ (NRC): these classifications will be advisory.”

Mr Chipp said that the Ministers agreed that the introduction of a legally enforceable R’ certificate would remove an anomaly from Australian film censorship. Film censorship need no longer be too inhibited by the lack of control of children’s attendance at theatres.

The Minister said: “ Today’s meeting, the first of its kind since 1968, has also agreed to changes in the regulations governing film censorship. The changes include the establishment of an appeal board or boards of suitably qualified persons to replace the existing single Appeal Censor and a system to allow Deputy Censors under the control of a member of the Film Censorship Board to examine films and to recommend release of ‘G’ type films and refer other films to the board. “There will also bc provision for recourse to the courts to determine whether or not as a fact a film is obscene, as is now possible with books.”

The meeting examined the effect of local production of books which have been prohibited by the Minister for Customs and Excise and discussed specifically the effects of the statement by the South Australian Attorney-General on the principles which will guide him in deciding whether or not to authorise a prosecution.

Mr Chipp said: “ It has been agreed that the work of the National Literature Board of Review and the operation of the Uniform Book Censorship Agreement should continue as before. “ However if a local edition of a prohibited book is allowed to be distributed in any State, the responsible Minister in that State will consider whether it is appropriate to take measures to confine the distribution of the book as far as possible in that State.”

  1. When all State Governments have agreed to the introduction of legislation to provide for a legally-enforceable ‘R’ certificate, legislation applicable in the Territories will need to be similarly amended.

The Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, which it is proposed to amend to implement other changes in the censorship system referred to in the Press Statement, apply uniformly throughout Australia.

Commonwealth Railways (Question No. 1823)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that the provision store and the Seaview Hostel at Port Augusta are operated by Commonwealth Railways as separate accounting entities.
  2. If so, what profit or loss resulted from the operation of each of these establishments over the last S years.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. lt is established practice that the accounting results of the activities mentioned are treated as confidential.

The purpose of the store and the hostel is to assist employees of the Commonwealth Railways and it is not believed that their interests or those of the railways would be served by disclosing the results of their respective operations.

Shipping: ‘Australian Endeavour’ (Question No. 1916)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What was the original cost price of the full containership ‘Australian Endeavour’ and was this price at the pre-devaluation of sterling rate.
  2. What was the cost of the containers for this ship and how many have been purchased.
  3. What profit or loss has been made to date in the operation of this vessel.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. ‘Australian Endeavour’ was built in Germany at an original contract price of 41.065 million Duetsche Marks. The contract for the purchase of the vessel was signed on 31 July 1967 and devaluation of sterling look place on 18 November 1967.
  2. Containers used in this trade are purchased by A.C.T.A. Up to 30 June 1970, 6,476 containers have been purchased at a cost of £4,863,672 (Sterling) and under existing arrangements the Line has paid a hiring charge in advance to A.C.T.A. to the extent of one-third of the above sum.
  3. To the extent to which the trading results are not confidential the results of the operations of the Australian National Line in overseas trades appeared in their financial results which were tabled in Parliament on 20 October 1970.

Ship Repairs (Question No. 2000)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What ships working on the Australian coast have been docked or repaired overseas from 1 January 1969 to date.
  2. Can he say why these ships were not docked or repaired in Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The matters will require making extensive inquiries of the shipping organisations concerned.. A more detailed reply to the question will be prepared in due course.

War Pensioners (Question No. 2048)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. What was the total number of war pensioners as at 30 June 1970.
  2. How many of these pensioners received an increase in pension during the financial year ended 30 June 1970.
  3. Is it a fact that war pensioners receiving from 10 per cent to 70 per cent pension have not had an increase for a considerable time, despite increases in cost of living which have seriously cut the purchasing value of their pension.
Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. The total number of war pensioners as at 30 June 1970 was 585,307. This figure included incapacitated ex-servicemen and their dependants and the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen.
  2. Precise figures are not available, but assuming that the question is directed to those who received increases in their basic rates of pension as distinct from those who received increases arising from re-assessment of the extent of pensionable incapacity, approximately 98,000 war pensioners would have received increases during the year.
  3. Yes, assuming again that the question does not relate to increases arising from re-assessment of pensionable incapacity.

Geneva Conference on Indo-China: United States Speech (Question No. 1724)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the United States Department of State Bulletin Vol. 31, JulyDecember, 1954, page 162, in which the United States representative is quoted as saying at the conclusion of the Indo-China conference at Geneva on 21st July 1954 that his Government would continue to seek to achieve unity in VietNam through free elections supervised by the United Nations to ensure that they were conducted fairly.

    1. Why did his Department’s Select Document on International Affairs No. 1 of 1964 page 17, omit what the United States representative had said at Geneva on 21st July 1954 concerning elections in Viet-Nam.

  2. Has his Department published any document in which it produces the full text of whit the United States representative said at Geneva on 21st July 1954 concerning elections in VietNam.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. I am aware of the document referred to.
  2. The text published at page 162 of the Department of State Bulletin Vol. 31 JulyDecember 1954, was the full text of the United States representative’s speech at the 21st July 1954 meeting of the Geneva Conference on IndoChina. The text of the formal declaration itself, as published on page 17 of Select Documents on International Affairs No. 1 of 1964, was considered to be the part of the speech most relevant for inclusion in such a publication as Select Documents.

In the remainder of his speech, the United States representative referred, inter alia, to the United States attitude to nations divided against their will, noting that his Government would continue to seek to achieve unity through free elections, and to its traditional position that peoples were entitled to determine their own future. The United States would not join any arrangement which would hinder this.

In view of the interest shown in the speech, I include here the full text of what the United States representative, Under Secretary of State, General Walter Bedell Smith, said at the concluding Indo-China plenary session at Geneva on 21st July 1954:

As I stated on 18th July, my Government is not prepared to join in a declaration by the Conference such as is submitted. However, the United States makes this unilateral declaration of its position in these matters:

Declaration

The Government of the United States being resolved to devote its efforts to the strengthening of peace in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations takes note of the agreements concluded at Geneva on 20th July and 2 1st July 1954 between (a) the Franco-Laotian Command and the Command of the Peoples Army of VietNam; (b) the Royal Khmer Army Command and the Command of the Peoples Army of Viet-Nam; (c) Franco-Vietnamese Command and the Command of the Peoples Army of Viet-Nam and of paragraphs 1 to 12 inclusive of the declaration presented to the Geneva Conference on 21st July 1954 declares with regard to the aforesaid agreements and paragraphs that (i) it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations dealing with the obligation of members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force; and (ii) it would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the aforesaid agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security.

In connection with the statement in the Declaration concerning free elections in VietNam my Government wishes to make clear its position which it has expressed in a declaration made in Washington on 29th June 1954, as follows:

In the case of nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek to achieve unity through free elections supervised by the United Nations to ensure that they are conducted fairly.

With respect to the statement made by the representative of the State of Viet-Nam, the United States reiterates its traditional position that peoples are entitled to determine their own future and that it will not join in an arrangement which would hinder this. Nothing in its declaration just made is intended to or does indicate any departure from this traditional position.

We share the hope that the agreements will permit Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Namto play their part, in full, independence and sovereignty, in the peaceful community of nations, and will enable the peoples of that area to determine their own future.

  1. No.

Revenue Returns (Question No. 502)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he supply information as to the last estimated annual return to Australia from mineral, including fuel, industries in the form of (a) royalties, (b) taxes on dividends paid (i) overseas and (ii) in Australia, (c) company and payroll taxes, (d) taxes on over-award salaries and wages, (e) ex gratia or charitable donations primarily for the use of Australians and(f) capital gains to Australian shareholders.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Royalties. The Department of National Development has furnished me with the following figures for 1968-69-

  1. Taxes on dividends.

    1. No statistics are available from which any reliable estimate can be made of the amount of income tax collected in respect of dividends paid overseas by companies in the mineral industries in Australia.
    2. Dividends paid to Australian resident companies are effectively freed from income tax through the operation of the rebate allowable under section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. No statistics are available of dividends received from mineral companies by individuals resident in Australia.

  2. Company and payroll taxes.

Tax payable in respect of the 1967-68 income year, the latest year for which statistics are available by companies classified for the purposes of income tax statistics to the mining and quarrying industries amounted to $29.0m.

The amount of payroll tax payable in 1968-69. the latest year for which such statistics are available, by employers classified to the mining and quarrying industries, less export rebates allowed in respect of mineral exports, is estimated at approximately $3.0m.

  1. Taxes on over-award salaries and wages. Income tax statistics of salary and wage earners are not recorded by industry of employer and income tax returns do not indicate the amount of any over-award payments received by taxpayers.
  2. Ex gratia or charitable donations.

No official statistics are available from which any reliable estimate could be made of the amount paid by mineral companies as ex gratia or charitable donations primarily for the use of Australians.

  1. Capital gains.

No statistics are available which would enable any sort of meaningful estimate to be made of capital gains to Australian shareholders in mineral companies.

Equal Pay (Question No. 1012)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Will he give the Committee on Women’s Employment an opportunity to consider the Commonwealth’s 9-point formula relating to the question of equal pay.
  2. If so, does the Commonwealth intend to adhere to its support for the formula.
  3. Are some of the points contained in the formula not applied by the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission when fixing minimum rates of pay for adult mates; if not, why not.
Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. As I explained in my press statement of5th May 1970 when announcing the establishment of the Committee on Women’s Employment, the Committee, which is consultative and advisory in character, advises through the National Labour Advisory Council, the Government and the Department of Labour and National Service on questions relating to the employment of women in the work force. Its charter is broad but like the Council itself, it does not ordinarily become involved in matters which have been or are likely to be the subject of claims before arbitral tribunals. The subject of equal pay falls into this category.
  2. On the assumption that the honourable member is referring to the nine principles set down by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its 1969 Equal Pay Case decision the Commonwealth proposes to abide by the principles.
  3. The Commission’s nine principles set out in its 1969 Equal Pay Case decision are concerned with determining whether female workers employed under particular Federal awards should be granted the same pay rates as males and are not concerned with determining minimum rates of pay for adult males.

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Question No. 1040)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Has he considered the views expressed in the 1969 Annual Report by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when the President reported that it would be an advantage if the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were amended to remove the requirement that the Commissioner concerned must almost automatically be the one to sit with judges on a reference bench.
  2. If so, does he propose to lake action to give effect to the President’s recommendation.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The matter referred to in the first part of the honourable member’s question is under consideration and hence I am not able to indicate whether the Government will introduce legislation to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act along the lines suggested by the President of the Commonwealth and Arbitration Commission.

Nuclear Power (Question No. 1284)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

From what country would Australia obtain enriched uranium if a SGHWR type reactor was installed at Jervis Bay.

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

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

Conditions set out in the tender document issued by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission provide that tenderers shall supply the initial charge of fuel and at the option of the Commission they may also be called upon to provide5 years’ supply of fuel after the commencement of commercial operation of the station. In the case of SGHWR this would be the responsibility of the United Kingdom tenderer

The British-German-Dutch centrifuge consortium has staled that if a British or German tender for an enriched uranium fuelled plant is chosen for the Jervis Bay project the consortium would make arrangements whereby Australian uranium might be enriched in Australian plants. This would further our objective of attaining selfsufficiency in nuclear fuel. I would add that Australia has also been engaged for some years in independent experimental work towards producing enriched uranium by the centrifuge process.

Semi-government and Local Government Revenues and Debts (Question No. 1384)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

How soon after the end of the financial year is it possible to obtain information in or from each State on (a) semi-government and (b) local government (i) revenues and (ii) debts in answer to questions like my questions Nos 52,53 and 54 (Hansard, 5 May 1970, pages 1641 and 1628 and 15 May 1970, page 2331).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician advises that figures of semi-government revenue similar to those provided in answer to question No. 52 (Hansard, 5 May 1970) generally become available within 7 to 8 months after the close of the financial year.

The Acting Statistician further advises that figures of local government revenue similar to those provided in answer to question Nos 52 and 54 (Hansard, 5 May 1970) generally become available 20 months after the end of the financial year to which they relate.

With regard to local and semi-government debt, information such as that provided in answer to question No.53 (Hansard, 15 May 1970) is available for all States except New South Wales within 18 to 20 months of the end of the finan cial year to which the figures relate. Information for New South Wales generally becomes available after a further delay of 4 to 6 months

Water Conservation (Question No.1521)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government of Western Australia sought Commonwealth assistance for the building of a dam for irrigation purposes near Harvey.
  2. Is this dam required for the irrigation of fringe farming areas and to prevent flooding in the region.
  3. Was Commonwealth assistance originally requested in 1966.
  4. It so, what was the estimated costof construction at that time.
  5. What is the estimated cost of construction at the present time.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes
  2. The proposal as submitted by the Western Australian Government doss contain a component for flood mitigation in the region. It is intended that additional water supplies be made available to existing farms which are at present subject to excessive restrictions, and that some water will be made available for land on the fringe of present irrigated areas.
  3. No.
  4. See (3).
  5. The estimated cost of the project as submitted by the Western Australian Government is $5.3m.

Nuclear Power (Question No. 1559)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

On what grounds were the sites at Bristol Point and Scottish Inlet in the Jervis Bay area considered unsuitable for the construction of a nuclear power station.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Murray’s Beach site is closest to the entrance to Jervis Bay and offers the most convenient and economic characteristics for discharging the coolant directto the ocean.
  2. The sites at Bristol Point and Scottish Inlet are close to the flight envelope of the airstrip at Jervis Bay.
  3. Geological survey work indicated that these two sites had some structural disadvantages when compared with that at Murray’s Beach.

Voting Age (Question No. 1579)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Having regard to section 41 of the Constitution, is there an obligation on the Commonwealthto reduce the voting age for Commonwealth elections to the age applying in a State for elections.
  2. Will he consider tabling in the House any opinions by the law officers that may be opposed to the contention that there is such an obligation.
  3. If there is doubt as to the position, will he consider the Commonwealth taking action in the High Court, if this is possible, with a view to the matter being decided before any relevant legislation is passed by a State Parliament.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. and (2) These questions require answers providing or based upon legal opinions.
  2. Such action is not contemplated.

Hume Weir (Question No. 1683)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Was the Hume Weir, prior to the recent floods in the Muray Valley, filling earlier and faster than normal.
  2. Did heissuea statementthat the River Murray Commission was making releases from the Hume Weir operating on a flood mitigation policy based on a continuing evaluation of seasonal conditions.
  3. If so, why did the River Murray Commission wait until a flood situation had developed before releasing water in significant quantities.
  4. Is it a fact that, in the period immediately prior to the flood, Murray irrigation districts were being denied any significant improvement in their inadequate water allocations.
  5. It is also a fact that under thecontinued irrigation restriction policy water was held back to such an extent that it created serious flooding, damage to property, inundation of extensive areas of farmland and possible stock losses.
  6. If so, will he, in view of the widespread disquiet in the Murray Valley, institute an urgent inquiry as to what went wrong with the flood mitigation policy and provide an urgent answer to these questions.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. Floodmitigation releases had been made since the end of July. Two days before the flood, releases were increased to the recognised and accepted flood level of 14 feet at Albury. As soon as it was confirmed, on the basis of rainfall reports, that a major flood would result, releases from Hume Reservoir were further increased. The highest rate of release was about 42,000 cubic feet per second, compared with the peak flood inflow of over 65,000 cubic feet per second. Thus by storing a significant part of the flood waters, the storage operation considerably reduced the magnitude of the flood at Albury, and in addition delayed its impact, thus giving more time for preparatory action to be taken.

It is easy to be wise after the event, but it is clear that the storage was, within the overall policy of primary concern for irrigation, managed very effectively. To have absorbed the flood in Hume Reservoir without exceeding theriver channel capacity at Albury would have required an available flood storage of about 500,000 acre feet prior to the flood. If such a storage had been provided at this time of the year and subsequent rainfall had been well below normal irrigation supplies during the current and even the next irrigation seasons could have been prejudiced.

  1. The matter of water allocation is the responsibility of the States not the River Murray Commission. The River Murray Commission is concerned with the equitable distribution of water between the States, not the allocation of water within each State. I understand, however, that surplus water was made available from the Murray to both New South Wales and Victorian irrigators as required from the beginning of the current irrigation season in early August.
  2. No.
  3. As indicated above, Hume Reservoir was managed in a very efficient manner and the maximum practicable flood benefits were achieved within the limits dictated by the overriding irrigation requirements.

Superannuation Fund (Question No. 1720)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When is it expected that the next actuarial investigation of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund will be carried out.
  2. How long is it expected to take for (a) the results of this investigation to be made available and (b) any necessary adjustments to be made to Commonwealth Superannuation Fund pensions.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Actuary has already commenced work on the Ninth Quinquennial investigation of the Superannuation Fund for the period 1st July 1962 to 30th June 1967.

  2. (a) The investigation cannot be completed until all the data required by the Actuary has been made available to him by the Superannuation Board. A large proportion of the necessary data has already been furnished by the Board, but additional material, related to the retrospective application of the non-contributory provisions of the scheme (Act No. 26 of 1969), is not expected to be available until the end of this year. In the normal course, the Actuary’s Report could be expected to be available by the end of the second quarter of 1971.

    1. It should not be assumed that this actuarial investigation will disclose surplus assets which would lead to adjustments in existing Commonwealth Superannuation Fund pensions. In any case, increases in these pensions are not usually met from the accumulated contributions in the Superannuaton Fund but direct from Consolidated Revenue.

Water Conservation (Question No. 1757)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Western Australian Government sought Commonwealth assistance for water conservation and irrigation projects during the past 1 2 months; if so, what were these projects.
  2. What was the order of priority set down for individual projects.
  3. What amount was sought for each of these projects.
  4. Which of these projects have been examined and assessed by the Commonwealth.
  5. When is a decision likely to be made on the financial assistance to be granted.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Western Australian Government has sought Commonwealth financial assistance during the last 12 months for the following water conservation and irrigation projects under the National Water Resources Development Programme:

    1. The Comprehensive Agricultural Areas Water Supply Scheme to cover cost escalation of works in progress.
    2. Upgrading of the old gold fields water supply branch mains.
    3. Key stock water dams outside the Comprehensive Water Supply Scheme boundaries (approximately ten dams).
    4. Dam on the Lefroy Brook in the Manjimup area.
    5. Dam on Thompson’s Brook in the Preston Valley.
    6. Flood mitigation levees at Carnarvon.
    7. Dam on the Gascoyne River at Rocky Pool about 30 miles from Carnarvon.
    8. Dam on the Harvey River.
  2. The above list is in the order given in the Western Australian Submission but no mention was made of particular priorities.

  3. For the projects listed in (I) above, the estimated costs prepared by the Western Australian Government for each project are as follows:

    1. $4,568,000
    2. $1,500,000
    3. $1,000,000
    4. $4,850,000
    5. $400,000
    6. $450,000
    7. $7,000,000
    8. $5,500,000

There is no indication of any particular proportion of the costs being sought from the Commonwealth.

  1. Because of the large number of projects with considerable detail which have been submitted to the Commonwealth for financial assistance under the Programme, it has not been possible to complete the examination and assessment of any of the Western Australian submissions.
  2. As indicated in (4) above, a large number of detailed submissions have been received from all States and it is not possible at this stage to give any indication of whether financial assistance will be granted or when an announcement is likely to be made.

Ambulance Services (Question No. 1767)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What taxation concessions are extended to ambulance services.
  2. Are ambulance services subject to (a) payroll tax, (b) sales tax on the purchase of vehicles and (c) petrol tax.
  3. Are taxpayers contributions to ambulance funds tax deductible.
  4. In view of the financial difficulties being experienced by ambulance services, will consideration be given to providing relief from tax impositions.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Ambulance services which qualify as public benevolent institutions are exempt from income tax on any income derived. Donors who make gifts of S2 and upwards to an ambulance service which is classified as a public benevolent institution are allowed income tax deductions for such gifts.

Ambulance services in this category are nol liable for pay-roll tax and are entitled to exemption from sales tax on goods purchased for their use and not for resale. Other ambulance societies are not exempt from pay-roll tax but are entitled to exemption from sales tax on machinery and equipment for use in connection with the preservation of human life or the transport of persons for the purposes of medical or surgical treatment.

The New South Wales Ambulance Service Board which conducts ambulance services throughout New South Wales is accepted as a public benevolent institution and is. therefore, exempt from pay-roll tax and from sales tax on goods for its own use and not for resale, lt is also exempt from income lax and gifts to it of $2 and upwards are allowable deductions.

  1. (a) Ambulance services which qualify as public benevolent institutions are exempt from pay-roll tax but other ambulance services are subject to payroll tax.

    1. Ambulance societies, whether public benevolent institutions or not, are exempt from sales tax on the purchase of ambulances.
    2. Ambulance services are not entitled to duty-free petrol. A duty-free concession is provided in Excise Item 10a (and in an equivalent Customs Tariff item) in respect of articles being the property of the Commonwealth Government. Under these provisions, a Commonwealth ambulance service such as operated in the Australian Capital Territory by the Department of Health would be entitled to duty-free petrol.
  2. Periodical subscriptions which entitle contributors to be provided with ambulance facilities as required are not allowable deductions for income tax purposes.
  3. The provision of ambulance services in the States is the responsibility of the respective State Governments and I am not, therefore, in a position to comment on their financial condition. For the same reason the Commonwealth has consistently refused to make grants to State ambulance services or to provide indirect assistance through further taxation concessions of the kind implicit in the honourable member’s question.

Electrical Power (Question No. 1808)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has Commonwealth assistance been extended to State Governments for electrical power production.
  2. If so, (a) what was the nature of the assistance in each case, (b) to which States was it extended, (c) when was the assistance given, (d) what specific plants were assisted, (e) what was the extent of the loan or grant in each case, and (f) how many loans or grants were for coal burning plants.
  3. Has the Western Australian Government sought assistance from the Commonwealth to extend the Muja Station.
  4. If not, would favourable consideration be given to such a request.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth has agreed to provide two States with financial assistance for electricity production projects.

In the first case, under the Tasmania Agreement (Hydro Electric Power Development) Act 1968 the Commonwealth is providing Tasmania with bridging financial assistance, subject to an overall limit of $47 million to assist in the acceleration of a five-year programme of electric power developments which include the Mersey/Forth scheme and the Middle Gordon project. The financial assistance is by way of interestbearing loans each repayable over a period of 8 years commencing not later than 15th December, 1975.

In the second case, under the Gladstone Power Station Agreement Act 1970 the Commonwealth will provide financial assistance to Queensland by way of loans to help finance the construction of a thermal power station at Gladstone in Central Queensland. The amount to be provided by the Commonwealth for the project is proportionate to the total cost of the power station in the ratio of 80 to 155. The estimated total cost of the power station (together with local reticulation) at 1968 prices is SI 55 million and on this basis the estimated total amount of the Commonwealth’s financial assistance is S80 million. This is the only instance where the Commonwealth has provided financial assistance for coal-burning plants.

As well as these two cases where assistance has been granted for electricity production as such, mention should also be made of assistance provided by the Commonwealth to South Australia under the Natural Gas Pipeline (South Australia) Agreement Act 1967. This is in the natura of bridging financial assistance and is up to a maximum of $15 million to help finance the construction of a natural gas pipeline from GidgealpaMoomba to Adelaide. The financial assistance is by way of interest-bearing loans each repayable over a period of 8 years commencing 15th December, 1972. The relevance of this project to electricity generation lies in the fact that the principal initial market for the natural gas is the Torrens Island power station.

  1. No.
  2. Any such request would be considered on its merits.

Public Service (Question No. 1910)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department ever exercised its prerogative in the provision of funds by rejecting a Public Service Board proposal to introduce new pay rates.
  2. If so, what are the particulars of each such exercise of Treasury prerogative.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

When new pay rates are proposed for staff employed under the Public Service Act the approval of the Treasurer is sought to meet the total additional liability. It is the practice for the Treasury, in conveying advice of the approval to the Public Service Board, to add that departments may pay the increases from existing appropriations and that additional funds will be provided, upon application, from the Treasurer’s Advance pending parliamentary appropriation.

There is no record of funds not having been provided to meet the cost of new pay rates.

Coal Loading Works (Question No. 1932)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government enter into the New South Wales Coal Loading Works Agreement.
  2. What were the terms and conditions of the Agreement with respect to (a) the purpose of the loan, (b) the amount of the loan and (c) the terms of the loan repayments.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. The Agreement was signed for and on behalf of the Commonwealth by the then Prime Minister on 18th October 1961 and was incorporated in the Coal Loading Works Agreement (New South Wales) Act 1961.

  2. The following terms and conditions were included in the Agreement:

    1. The loan together with a grant from the Coal Industry Fund of the Joint Coal Board was to be made available to the State to help meet expenditure by the State on coal loading works at the ports of Newcastle, Port Kembla and Balmain. The works covered by the Agreement consisted of-
    1. At Newcastle and Port Kembla - the provision of new coal loading plant and ancillary works, including wharfage, rail, road and storage facilities, capable of loading coal onto a ship at a rate of at least 1,500 tons per hour.

    2. At Balmain - the improving of coal loading plant and ancillary works, including rail and storage facilities, so that they would be capable of loading coal onto a ship at a rate of 1,000 tons per hour.

    3. The total amount of the loan was not to exceed $3. 3m and the total amount of the grant from the Coal Industry Fund was not to exceed $2m. (These amounts were paid to the State over the years 1961-62 to 1965-66 inclusive.)
    4. The loans bore interest at the rate of 5) per cent per annum from the date of each advance and each loan was repayable in equal semi-annual amounts over 10 years.

Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (Question No. 1934)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Is it intended to change the personal licensing system applying to 5 staff categories known as Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers’ now provided for by the aircraft Navigation Orders and Regulations: If so, what is the nature of the proposed changes.
  2. Have efforts been made to ascertain the views of the Radio Institute of Australia and the Licensed Aircraft Engineering Association with respect to the proposed changes: If so, wilh what result.
  3. ls it likely that replacement of present L.A.M.E. licensing arrangements with a system of organisational licensing’ to be undertaken by airline companies and equipment contracting companies would reduce the present high standard of licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and provoke staff dissatisfaction.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Changes to the system of licensing of aircraft maintenance engineers are at present under consideration. The review which is being conducted follows an assessment of the application of the existing system to the newer and more complex aircraft which are coming into use in Australia. Modern practices, proposed and in some cases currently being used, by the large international and domestic operators overseas are being taken into account.

No change is contemplated in the existing 5 categories of licence but consideration is being given to the introduction of an additional licence to be known as a Route Station category licence for maintenance personnel based at transit stations where scheduled maintenance is not normally performed on aircraft. This would have application to operators of large aircraft in regular public transport operations, lt is envisaged that the basic qualifications and specific type training required for the issue of the proposed new category licence would be of a standard compatible with the duties and responsibilities to be exercised by the holder of such a licence.

  1. In May 1970, the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers’ Association and the Professional Radio Employees’ Institute were notified by letter of the broad proposals for changes to the aircraft maintenance engineer licensing system. These 2 organisations were advised that the broad proposals were being translated into amended Air Navigation Orders, the drafts of which would be sent to them for their consideration and constructive comment. The draft Air Navigation Orders are still being prepared and will soon be available for circulation and comment.

Industrial organisations other than the 2 already mentioned have been kept informed through the Secretary of the ACTU.

  1. The changes under consideration in the system of licensing of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed in major regular public transport airlines if subsequently implemented would not reduce the standards of training and examination “ for the issue of the basic licence. Under the current system, aircraft or equipment type endorsements are given by the Department on the basis of the applicant having been trained and examined by the airline operator on a particular type of aircraft or equipment. The training and examination system is under Departmental surveillance.

Under the new proposals, persons required to certify maintenance performed on major types of aircraft employed in regular public transport operations would still need to pass the Department’s examinations for the issue of the basic qualification. The aircraft or equipment type endorsement currently entered in the licences by the Department would be replaced by an endorsement given by the operator. The training examination system used by the operator would continue to be under Departmental surveillance. It is neither intended nor expected that changes proposed in the method of licence endorsement would reduce the present high standard of licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.

Poverty in Australia (Question No. 1935)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he bring up to date the estimates of Professor Ronald Henderson presented at the Australian Institute of Political Science Summer School on Poverty in Australia at Canberra on 25th to27th January 1969 in a paper entitled The Dimension of Poverty in Australia for (a) substantially increasing child endowment payments and having them treated as taxable income and (b) the elimination of tax concessions for children and the provision of this money for child endowment.

Mr Bury:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 do not regard it as a proper discharge of my functions to bring up to date estimates prepared privately and without official confirmation or endorsement.

Public Service:

Professional Engineers (Question No. 1956)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Did his Department make any direct or indirect submissions to the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator, or to any Commonwealth department concerning the salaries of professional engineers either prior to, or following, the Board’s decision regarding these salaries.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

page 2937

No

Civil Aviation: VOR System (Question No. 1993)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. Does the Department of Civil Aviation propose replacing the non-directional beacon (NDB) at Derby with a visual omni range (VOR).
  2. Is it a fact that 40 international flights per week cross this sector and that aircraft leaving either Den Pasar or Alice Springs have between 2½ and 3¼ hours flying before reaching the next reasonable navigational aid.
  3. If so, will the Minister give the installation the highest priority to ensure that the VOR becomes operative in the course of this financial year.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Department has planned to install a modern VOR equipment at Derby to supplement the existing installation of a high powered nondirectional beacon (NDB).
  2. There are 44 scheduled international flights per week on the route between Alice Springs and Den Pasar. The flight time between these 2 points is normally in the vicinity of 3 hours during which time the non-directional beacon (NDB) at Derby provides assistance to the navigator and for updating the aircraft’s self-contained navigation aids.
  3. The Department will carry out the installation of the VOR at Derby when more urgent installations have been completed. It is expected to be commissioned during 1972.

Taxation (Question No. 2055)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Can country people claim as taxation deductions travelling expenses incurred in obtaining specialist medical care.
  2. If not, has provision of such an allowance been considered by the Government.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Under the present law travelling expenses associated with medical treatment are not allowable as deductions for income tax purposes.
  2. The question of allowing such expenses has been examined many times, the most recent being when the 1970-71 Budget was in preparation. Although the Government has not seen fit to date to propose their allowance, the matter will be kept under review.

Australian Capital Territory: Consumer Protection (Question No. 2060)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government during the recent byelection in the Australian Capital Territory announce that ft intended to introduce consumer protection legislation.
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to draw up the legislation, and when will it be introduced.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A draft of the proposed legislation has been prepared and is being examined. At this stage no date can be given for the introduction of the legislation.

People’s Republic of China (Question No. 2066)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Which countries have extended diplomatic recognition to the People’s Republic of China and when did they do so.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Notes -

  1. All Communist Chinese diplomats were expelled from Burundi in 1965, Central African Republic in 1966, Dahomey in 1966 and Ghana in .1966. The Central African Republic and Dahomey subsequently recognised the Government of the Republic of China with its seat in Taipei.
  2. Indonesia’s relations with the People’s Republic of China were suspended in October 1967.
  3. Peking has not reciprocated Israel’s recognition.
  4. Nigeria states that it recognises both Chinese Governments, but has relations with neither.
  5. On 7th May 1970 Peking withdrew recognition from the Cambodian Government and accorded recognition to Sihanouk’s exile Royal Government of National Union’ in Peking. On 24th July 1970, a mission of the Republic of China was established in Phnom Penh.

War Service Homes (Question No. 2080)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing:

Why does the War Service Homes Division insist that, before it will grant a loan, the proprietors of the relative certificate of title must be registered as joint tenants and not tenants in common.

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

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The War Service Homes Act provides that an eligible person and the wife or husband of that person may be treated together as an eligible person for the purposes of the Act but the application of this provision is prohibited by the legislation if the land, or land and dwelling-house, is or are owned or proposed to be owned by the eligible person and his or her wife or husband otherwise than as joint tenants.

Productivity Promotion Council (Question No. 2118)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What assistance does the Commonwealth give to the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Productivity Promotion Council of Australia receives executive and administrative assistance from the Productivity Promotion Branch of my Department.

Mr Grassby:

– There has been no competition.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Of course there is no competition, and this has been the trend during recent years. There are fewer and fewer buyers attending the wool sales just as there are fewer and fewer butchers buying at the cattle and sheep sales today. This has emasculated the auction system and has heaped up the profits of private business at the expense of the producer. An article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 23rd October 1970 had this to say:

Two wool buyers bad said before the current selling season that certain merchants planned to combine to force a substantial drop in prices, the general council of the New South Wales Graziers’ Association was told yesterday.

Mr H. Gullett, the association’s Canberra representative, said such a price fall had been ‘precisely what had happened’.

Mr Gullett said the two buyers, men of repute and of conservative outlook, had asked to see him about 5 weeks ago.

They had said they were ‘absolutely satisfied’ a number of overseas buyers planned to combine to force prices down.

He had seen the buyers again yesterday, and they had said events had confirmed their fears.

Not only had European and British buyers been involved, but the Japanese during this selling season had been ‘very ready learners indeed,’ they had said.

Mr Gullett spoke after a councillor and member of the board of the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation, Mr D. J. Asimus, had moved that the association ask the Federal Government to establish, as a matter of extreme urgency, a reserve price to cover the whole Australian clip.

Mr Gullett said the 2 buyers had considered that if the downward trend in prices continued, as they expected, fine and superfine wools would suffer the same decline as other types.

This article shows that collusion had been taking place under our noses at the recent sales. How can this reserve price plan really stop this practice? The brokers are still able to play a complete and comprehensive part in wool selling and buying. There is no restriction on them at all. In fact, 1 believe that their position has been strengthened as a result of this Bill. Someone has said that this is really a brokers’ Bill. This Bill will establish them securely in the framework of the wool industry. There will need to be a lot of constant checking and investigation week by week to see that this Bill will not be exploited by such people. The Bill is really a half measure at best; it is a nervous hesitant attempt at a solution. The Minister hopes for an increase of a few cents in wool prices through this voluntarily based reserve price plan which could be in some senses be a toothless tiger.

I would like to refer to another important piece of evidence from Professor Keith Campbell who told a recent conference of the industry:

No matter what wool marketing scheme this country ultimately gets, its benefit is going to be primarily in the direction of stabilising prices rather than raising them.

Professor Campbell, of course, is Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture at Sydney University. At this conference he was speaking on the subject ‘The Economics of Wool’. Professor Campbell said that the effects of the cost price squeeze in the wool industry generally did not deter graziers from investing in their properties at least up to the 1966-67 financial year, but it appeared that farmers and graziers were now relying increasingly on bank credit. Another professor who spoke at the conference had the temerity to tell the stoney faced wool growers:

Having studied the production of natural materials in competition with synthetics and substitutes, 1 am certain that wool cannot survive the competition of synthetics.

So the poor old wool growers are getting it right left and centre from professors one of whom has had the nerve to say that wool has no hope of winning the battle with synthetics. The wool men and the wool industry contribute $800m to our export income. This is apart from the injection of spending power that wool makes possible in the country and the cities. But the 80,000 wool men are at the mercy of the bankers, wool buyers, overseas manufacturers and pastoral firms. The total rural indebtedness today is estimated at $2, 000m and a big chunk of this must be made up of the indebtedness of the wool industry. Those whose properties are heavily mortgaged are crippled by high interest rates, which are I suppose the highest in many generations. The small wool producer is hit the hardest.

The tremendous influence of the middle man in the industry is illustrated in my following remarks. The difference between the price received by the wool grower and the price paid by the consumer is scandalous. For instance, let us say that the wool grower receives 27c a lb for his product. The wool passes through the processors and the manufacturers and comes out at the other end in coloured knitting wool which is sold at the outrageous price of $5.75 a lb. This is completely scandalous and outrageous. The price paid by the housewife for knitting wool - not clothing or other made up material but ordinary coloured knitting wool - at $5.75 per lb represents an increase of 2,211 per cent over the return of 27c per lb to the grower, who must take all the risks. That situation is indicative of how the manufacturers and processors batten on the wool grower and keep him flattened out like a snake.

I have expressed my point of view on this Bill, and that of the Labor Party. We feel that it is at least a start on the road to a better scheme or a reserve price plan with more teeth in it, as ours would have. We would not be asking for a referendum on our scheme if we came into office. We believe that a government should act as a government. Believing that our price reserve plan with provision for total acquisition would be the right thing for the industry, we would have the courage to bring it down. That is our policy. It would give greater security and hope to the wool grower than the scheme encompassed by this measure. The weakness of the proposed scheme is that it allows for voluntary participation. Growers can use it or not, as they wish. So can brokers if they wish.

Finance to the extent of $115m is being provided for capital expenditure plus §19m for operating costs. The Government is doing its best financially to back the scheme and to guarantee to growers a reserve price, but it still has grave weaknesses which we wish to emphasise in this debate. We wish the scheme well. We hope that it will succeed beyond our expectations. So do the hard-pressed woolgrowers. We do not want to let the Bill pass without offering considered criticisms. Our committee has met frequently on this issue, and members of that committee have spoken in this debate. For members of the Country Party to try to make out that they are the only ones who know anything about the wool industry is a fantasy and an outrageous insult to honourable members on this side of the chamber.

Mr Robinson:

– Oh no.

Mr COLLARD:

– It is interesting to hear the honourable member for Cowper say Oh no’. It is also interesting to note that I am the second Labor Party speaker in succession in this debate. According to the list of speakers I will be followed by a third Labor Party member. It seems that the Labor Party has a great deal more interest in this Bill than honourable members opposite. Quite obviously this Bill has been thrown together hurriedly and haphazardly. It may be accepted by wool growers on the temporary basis of being better than nothing but it certainly will not be acceptable to them as the legislation they require to provide reasonable security in the future.

It can give them no comfort or cause for satisfaction because it will not necessarily bring about any upward movement in wool prices. This measure seems to me to be a last desperate throw by the Government to try to save itself at the forthcoming Senate elections. The best that can be said for it is that it may help to halt any further decline in wool prices. It may have a steadying influence, but even in that regard it is a case of hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I say that because there appears to be in the Bill absolutely nothing that is likely to pose an obstacle to buyers’ continuing in collusion as they have for so long to force prices down and keep them down.

Until we produce a plan that will stop collusion wool growers will remain at the mercy of the buyers. The proposal for a reserve price plan is not new. Honourable members will recall that a reserve price scheme was in operation between 1945 and 1951. That scheme was the first worthwhile attempt to bring about a system of organised wool marketing. That scheme operated so well that a move was made by woolgrowers at that time to make it a permanent method of wool disposal. Unfortunately, when it went to the poll, it was rejected. But, of course, it was not rejected because of itself or what it contained, but it was rejected because the government of the day- a Liberal PartyCountry Party coalition, the same as we have at the present moment - which had taken office shortly before the expiration of the scheme imposed a 74 per cent levy to raise money to administer the scheme if the growers voted for it and also brought down a measure to deduct 20 per cent from the gross income of wool growers. These 2 impositions were sufficient to cause the wool growers to vote against the continuation of the scheme even though they realised its value in normal circumstances.

Since the expiration of that scheme almost 20 years ago, wool marketing in Australia has been allowed to be carried out in a completely haphazard method. Wool buyers have been permitted to have sole control of what the growers will receive for their product. It seems rather strange and indeed very disturbing that this Government, which has been in office for the whole of that time and which surely would have recognised the fact that our wool marketing system was not only unsatisfactory but also a danger to the future of our woolgrowing industry and which as a result of that long experience should not only have been aware of what was required but also have been prepared for what was required to protect wool growers against buyer collusion, should now bring down such a sloppy and imprecise proposal as we have before us this evening - or, should I say, this morning.

If the concern of the Government for the wool grower was as keen as it suggests, surely it would have had firm proposals all prepared and ready to introduce on short notice. But it seems from the proposals that we have before us now that its concern is mainly for the brokers because certainly there is a much greater measure of protection for those people in this Bill than there is for wool growers. The wool grower today has no more control and no more protection regarding the price that he will receive for his wool than he had in 1932 when the price dropped to slightly below 6d a lb. It was recognised then that buyer collusion was a prime cause of the decrease in price. It was significant that the price between 1929 and 1932 was higher. In 1932 the Commonwealth Wool Inquiry Committee was set up. It brought down its report in October of that year. I wish to quote from the report what one member of the Committee had to say in relation to collusion. The member was Mr E. Grayndler. Under the heading: ‘Wool Buyers and the Wool Buyers Association’, he had this to say:

In reviewing the evidence as shown in the transcript it is abundantly clear that the woolbuyers have a very close organisation and have such power among themselves to enable them to keep down prices. The existence of ‘lot splitting’ in my opinion is not as innocent and legitimate on all occasions as their advocates imply. The composition of a ‘pie’ seems to be readily accomplished at their will. Those in the ‘pie’ do not bid against each other. The ‘pie’ may be composed of any number of buyers who desire to secure any part or any lot of wool offered for sale. The evidence tendered by some witnesses indicated that the buyers can exercise a strong influence on the market prices. The constitution, rules and regulations of the Buyers’ Association give power to a committee to refuse membership to any buyer, to call upon any member to resign, and to expel any member for any reason that the committee thinks fit, and the member has no redress or any right to take legal action in defence of his rights.

I am forced to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence on this matter, that the buyers could exercise, if they wished, a stranglehold on the wool market and stifle any successful competition.

Further, he went on to say:

Australia has the finest merino in the world and the world needs that high-class wool. Yet under the circumstances obtaining, it is possible for powerful buying groups to stifle competition and obtain our wool at prices below its cost and fair value.

I have considered it my duty to call attention to the above matters in the interest of the large number of growers who are unable to help themselves out of the difficulties and obstacles that confront them in the disposal of their wool clips.

So as long ago as 40 years wool growers were plagued with buyer control - not simply buyer resistance but collusion. In fact this has applied almost throughout the auction system.

In 1958 the New South Wales Government set up a judicial inquiry under Mr Justice Cook, if my memory serves me correctly, to investigate wool matters, including the allegation of the existence of pies. The report brought down in 1959 showed conclusively that Australian wool growers were at the mercy of operating pies in die buying area. In 1961 the Commonwealth Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry was set up under Mr Justice Philp but it failed to make any recommendations towards improving the marketing situation. However, as a result of that report we saw the formation of the Australian Wool Board. It incorporated the Australian Wool Bureau and had authority to set up a committee of inquiry into wool marketing. It did this in 1963.

There has been no lack of inquiries and reports and there has been no lack of information showing that there are pies and buyer collusion which largely are the reasons for the depressed market. Despite years of experience of what has been happening we find on this occasion the Government bringing down a Bill which will do little, if anything, towards removing that collusion or the operation of those pies. A few years ago the Japanese admitted clearly that they worked in pies. Who can blame them? Noone can blame them. No doubt they operate under instructions from their Government that they have only a certain amount of cash with which to purchase wool. They have to spend that money as well as they possibly can. No doubt the same applies to other buyers. As I said earlier, no-one can blame them for doing this, but we certainly can blame this Austraiian Government for allowing the situation to continue for so long.

I realise that we cannot expect the reserve price plan to be the complete answer to buyer control. I suggest that any reserve plan introduced to operate in favour of the grower, or at least to bring him a reasonable and proper return, must include provisions whereby buyer collusion will be difficult to pursue. Unfortunately this Bill makes no such provision. I do not think we can achieve that desirable situation - it is desirable, in my view at any rate - while the seller, who incidentally need not be a grower but can be a broker, who can offer wool for sale by auction and accept a price below the reserve price, who can buy wool by private treaty at a sum well below the reserve price and who can go into the auction and sell below the reserve price and still make a profit. The Commission, as I read the Bill, will have no power to stop him doing it.

Another defect in this Bill is that it refers to a reserve price but fails to give an answer to this very important question being asked by the wool grower: ‘What price can I expect to receive?’. This surely must be the main question being asked by wool growers. They want to know the minimum price they can expect to receive and whether it will give them some profit over their cost of production. In this respect I was rather interested in what the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said during an Appropriation debate in 1964. He said that the Country Party policy was one which favoured the auction system with a floor price that had been approved by the wool growers at a referendum. It would seem that the policy of the Country Party has changed. Whilst it now favours a reserve price scheme it does not suggest that such a scheme should be supported by a referendum of wool growers or that it should state what the minimum price should be. So in 1964 the growers, according to Country Party policy, were entitled to these things, but today they have been cast aside and receive no thought. As I said at the beginning, the best that can be expected from the proposals of the Government which is now before the House is that the decline in wool prices may become steady or perhaps may be even halted at the existing levels, but it gives no cause to expect any increase. Surely this is not sufficient. Practically all our primary industries have from time to time enjoyed protection of stability and established prices by either State or Federal legislation, or both. I do not think anyone would deny that those industries and the people associated with them have gained a considerable benefit from that legislation. Unfortunately some of those industries today are in some difficulties and, in fact, are facing very serious problems. But J would suggest that had the market protection not been available to them their difficulties would have come very much sooner and would have been much more serious at this time. 1 point out that it was a Labor Government which during the Second World War and the postwar years introduced 3 of those very important marketing schemes for the primary industries. In 1945 Labor introduced the Joint Organisation, which 1 referred to earlier as being the first worthwhile attempt to organise the marketing of wool in Australia. In 1947 Labor brought in the dairy industry stabilisation scheme, which gave a guaranteed price for 5 years. In 1948 Labor introduced wheat stabilisation, again with a guaranteed price. I do not think there is any need for me to go on and explain the benefit that the wheat industry and the people associated with it derived from that legislation. I have referred to those pieces of legislation which Labor brought down during its short term of office because they must make it clear that as far as the Labor Party is concerned the wool industry, which is one of our most important industries, should again have organised marketing facilities at its disposal of a kind which will give it the security it deserves.

Not only are the wool growers suffering from the lack of proper marketing methods, but all Australia is suffering from a loss of export revenue. I remember reading an article some 5 or 6 years ago which pointed out that the lack of marketing facilities with Commonwealth backing had cost Australia some £ 1,000m. So the cost to Australia now because we do not have proper marketing facilities is well over $2,000m. Certainly that sort of money cannot be given up by Australia, and is well worth chasing. I should not think there would be any argument about our capabilities to produce much more wool. Our sheep numbers and our wool production can and would increase considerably, particularly with the present wheat situation.

The Government has asked the wheat industry to diversify. What are the majority of wheat growers to diversify into if it is not into wool? But in the present situation we would simply finish up with much more wool but with less money. The increased production of wool would bring no benefit to either the farmers or Australia. What is the wheat grower expected to do? Is he expected to grow more sheep and produce more wool when he can see no surety or any possibility of receiving a minimum price? Can he go into wool unless he has some surety that he will at least get some reasonable return for his wool that will show him a reasonable profit? One would have thought that the Government would have been concerned about this situation and would have expressed some positive idea on what the situation would be in the future, and given the growers some assurances. The wool grower gambles not only on the price that he will receive but also on climatic conditions, drought, fire and floods. After he has been able to get through those, surely he should not also be called upon to take this further risk of having to place his produce on the market when he is likely to receive very little for it. I would like to think that the proposal that we have before us at present will give him that security. I would be very happy if I was able to stand here and be quite certain that the wool grower would receive from this Bill the security that we would like him to receive. But, unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposal to suggest that.

The fact is - this cannot be denied; it has been proved too often in the past and nothing has happened to alter it - that the wool grower is being denied, and in fact is being cheated out of, a fair go on the auction floor by the collusion amongst the wool buyers. Under this Bill the wool buyers will still determine what the price will be because there will be no reason for any competition. As I see the Bill anyway, the wool will be available and if they do not bid today they can be pretty sure that the reserve price will be lower tomorrow As a matter of fact, the way the Bill reads, it looks as though if they do not bid this morning the price will be brought down this afternoon. So, there does not seem to be any need for them to compete. As we know the method of collusion, the system is that they all partake in the lots that are bought and therefore they have no reason to compete with each other.

Even if the Commission is successful in holding the existing price, it still will be too low to allow a reasonable margin of profit over the cost of production. Of course, the cost of production will not decrease or even remain at the same level It will increase. In this regard also the Government has done absolutely nothing to try to rectify the situation. We hear honourable members on the Government side demanding that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) or the appropriate Minister take action to deny workers their just wage entitlements. We hear them calling for longer working hours. But we never hear them - not even the Country Party members - asking for any form of price control. The lack of any control of prices enables certain industries to increase their prices, whether or not an increase is warranted. This is crippling many rural industries in relation to production costs.

It is idle for honourable members opposite to suggest that the freezing of wages will control prices. If they cast their minds back about 17 years, they will recall that at that time wages were pegged for a period of about 12 months. What happened then? When it was decided that wages should be re-examined the arbitration court decided, in its wisdom, after an examination of the matter, that the basic wage should be increased by £1 a week to make up for the price increases that had occurred during the time of the wage freeze.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

) - Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr ANTHONY:

-I think I have answered most of the questions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 10 - by leave - taken together.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The clause states ‘A member, other than the Chairman or the member representing the Commonwealth . . .

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am sorry. My argument applies to a member other than the Chairman or a member representing the Commonwealth. The Minister should have control over the appointment of a member, as he does under this Bill, and also over the appointment of a deputy who has all the rights of a member as provided for in the Bill.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– Yes.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 19. 01.) The flexible reserve price scheme operated by the Commission shall be a scheme under which -

  1. from day to day, or as frequently us the the Commission thinks necessary, reserve prices for the various types of wool being offered for sale at auction are determined by or on behalf of the Commission, having regard to the bidding at recent auctions and to all other relevant information available to the Commission;
  2. if, in respect of any wool submitted for sale at auction in accordance with arrangements referred to in paragraph (d) of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section, a bid equal to or greater than the appropriate reserve price determined by the Commission is not made, the Commission is prepared to buy the wool at the appropriate reserve price so determined; and
  3. the Commission, as and when it thinks expedient, re-offers for sale at auction, ‘ or otherwise disposes of, wool acquired by it under the scheme.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

)- Order! I suggest that as the honourable member has circulated 3 amendments to this clause he might ask for leave to move them together.

Dr PATTERSON:

– 1 ask for leave to move the 3 amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), omit ‘from day to day, or’.
  2. After paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1.) insert the following paragraph: (ba) If the Commission buys the wool at the appropriate reserve price it will make arrangements so that the grower whose wool is bought is paid within fourteen days; and’
  3. At the end of paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1.) add ‘at the best possible price’.

On the first of these amendments, I wish to refer the Minister to his second reading speech. This is an important point. There is no question that there is inconsistency here. The Minister says in bis second reading speech:

Under the - scheme reserve prices for the various types of wool offered at auction would be determined daily or at less frequent intervals.

That can only mean daily or more than daily. The point I raise is that the wording in the Bill is ‘from day to day, or as frequently as the Commission thinks necessary’. That could mean by the minute or by the hour. There is no question that there is a definite inconsistency between the wording in the Bill and the wording in the Minister’s second reading speech. According to the second reading speech, it is fairly clear that the reserve prices would be determined from day to day or at less frequent intervals. According to the Bill, the reserve prices would be ‘determined from day to day, or as frequently as the Commission thinks necessary’. That is the main reason why the words ‘from day to day’ in the Bill are superfluous. If the reserve prices can be determined as frequently as the Commission thinks necessary, technically they can be determined every minute and there is no need for the words ‘from day to day*. But if what is stated in the second reading speech is the correct interpretation, it is quite a different matter.

The second amendment concerns subclause (a) which relates to the Commission purchasing wool when it does not reach the reserve price. The clause contains the words: ‘the Commission is prepared to buy the wool’. The Commission cannot say that it will purchase the wool because it does not have compulsory powers of purchase if the buyer does not want to sell the wool. As I see it, there is no provision to pay the broker or the buyer. I suppose it can be said that this is implicit, but this is the principal reason for the amendment to provide that when the Commission purchases wool it must pay somebody within some time limit. We believe such provision should be contained in the legislation so that the Commission can pay the broker, buyer or the grower under accepted commercial terms in the wool industry - that is, prompt payment within 14 days.

Mr Irwin:

– It is provided somewhere in the Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:

– No, it is not in the Bill. It is implied, but I think it is sufficiently important to have such provision in the legislation. After all, if a grower’s wool is taken over by the Commission he wants to know when he will be paid. This is important. Ii he is selling a lot of wool and it does not reach the reserve price and is taken over, what is the position? What does the Commission do? Does it make its own rules? I think provision should be included in the Bill to meet this situation.

The third amendment is important because when the Commission purchases wool it has to re-offer that wool for sale, but there is no indication to the broker or to the taxpayer what the price will be. Obviously a specific price cannot be stated. We can assume that the Commission will try to get the best possible price but if it is a bit lax and has big stocks of wool on hand there is the temptation to get rid of it quickly and sell it at a low price perhaps at some private sale. This could materially affect the demand for wool traded at other sales at that time. This is the reasoning behind the amendments. There is inconsistency between what the Minister said in his second reading speech and what is contained in the Bill; there is the question of paying for the wool within a certain time and there is need for the Commission to indicate the price. Earlier I asked the Minister a question which he did not answer so I shall ask it again because it is fundamental. I do not know whether the Country Party can answer this, but I want to know the answer. Is this a secret reserve price or is it not? This is important.

Mr Buchanan:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– It must be.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is no good saying h is because I have some doubts whether it is. If it is a secret reserve price, can it be kept secret? If anything is secret there should be some penalty for divulging it. Is this again in the realms of being secret one day and not secret the next? It was stated, after the Crawford report, that the reserve price would be a secret report and not a report posted up. It is important to know the answer to this question because if it is a secret reserve price I can see complications arising.

Dr Patterson:

– ‘lt can do that, can it?

Mr ANTHONY:

– It will be able to go in and bid; it has this flexibility. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) asked whether this flexible reserve price will apply evenly. It is intended to apply evenly in different selling centres on the same day. Clause 18 (4.) states:

The Commission shall not perform its functions so as to give preference to 1 State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof or otherwise inconsistently with the Constitution.

So the Commission has to try and operate evenly throughout Australia.

Mr Grassby:

– Can the Commission buy it on the farm?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Under the measure it can buy it anywhere. As I have stated in my second reading speech, the intention is to do it so as to regulate the offerings of wool coming into the auction room. It is not the intention to act as a private buyer as such, although as the Act is written the Commission could do so.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 22. (1.) The Commission may. with the approval of the Minister, given with the concurrence of the Treasurer, borrow money from an approved bank or from another lender for the purposes of working capital of the Commission and give security over any of its assets for the purposes of any such borrowing.

Mr Crean:

– Are we to continue? This is absurd. I say to the Leader of the House that surely this is a reasonable time to adjourn. We have to meet tomorrow and it is now 4 o’clock. We have committee meetings in the morning at 9 o’clock. When will we adjourn?

Mr SPEAKER- I call the honourable member for Swan.

Mr BENNETT:

– I rise to express the concern which is felt in Western Australia at the comparatively low grant which has been allocated to that State. Western Australia is our biggest State and has problems peculiar to itself. It has a comparatively low population in relation to its size. To find that ours is the lowest grant for the largest State and to be assured that the grant will further decrease in future is indeed alarming for Western Australia. Only South Australia and Tasmania are receiving less under the States Grants Bill 1970. However those States have the offsetting effects of the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1970 which provides $5m extra to South Australia and $13,680,000 extra to Tasmania. It makes Western Australians wonder why discrimination is shown towards their State, which has suffered a drought and which is the only State that has not received drought assistance. So they have protested. They wonder whether Western Australia is again being treated as a Cinderella State.

Let us not be deceived by the volume of the amounts offered. We must realise that if local government services are to expand in Western Australia enormous capital will be required, which the State Government does not have available - nor has local government. We are in need of enormous amounts of capital to deal with the sewerage and drainage problems. There is land within 5 miles of the centre of Perth where building and development by the State Government and local government have been hopelessly delayed for want of capital for drainage and sewerage. Only the Commonwealth has the amounts available that are required to get the development under way. It is hopeless to expect the same taxpayer to pay twice for the facilities when he as a ratepayer has to meet the cost of the capital works, even if the loan moneys were available, which they are not. The State Electricity Commission has to use wide publicity campaigns to fill its loan issues in a competitive market. Even then it has difficulty in filling the loans. The money just is not there.

Unless the Commonwealth recognises its responsibility to participate by assisting local government, rates will continue to spiral just to meet loan repayments on capital works. It is hopeless to expect local government, which is being forced to accept more duties in the service of the community, to find the funds to do so. I instance the infant health clinics which local government bodies establish in fixed buildings or, in some cases, in mobile clinics. They provide kindergartens, the cost of the establishment of which is met from ratepayers’ funds and is in no way taken into account by the State grants. The Federal Government has indicated that it is to enter into the preschool-child minding centre scheme on the taxpayers’ money. It is not unreasonable to ask that this scheme be further widened to take into account grants to local governments to enable them to expand and maintain their infant health clincis and kindergartens. If this intrustion is not made on a direct basis, provision should be made for the State to give assistance from Commonwealth grants.

Assistance to local governments by all taxpayers is not a far fetched scheme, as some would have us believe. Let me quote from the Northern Territory report for 1969-70 at page 55. Referring to local government, it says:

Darwin is still the only Northern Territory centre with a City Council and municipal administration. Financial assistance from the Commonwealth in 1969-70 was $302,000 towards general operations, $168,000 on capital works and $269,000 on road construction commitments. In addition the Commonwealth carried out extensive reconstruction and improvements of main arterial roads and bridges.

Here is a prime example of direct assistance to a city by the Commonwealth for items which should receive a flow on from Federal funds through the State authorities to local government. Such flow on of capital could assist with educational services such as libraries which, at the moment, have to wait their turn in competition with the clinics, kindergartens and senior citizen services which the local government authorities are being expected to provide. The growth and public demand for these services are becoming more and more, year by year. As a result, local authorities do not know which way to turn to satisfy all of the demands which, in the opinion of many people, are being foisted on them, when these matters should be the responsibility of tax collecting governments.

The extra demand being made on local government is a reflection on the efficiency and the willingness of State and Federal governments to face up to their responsibility to the community. The situation in Western Australia is such that in many instances the local authority has no money left to deal with works in a proper manner. Footpaths and roads take secondary consideration because of a lack of funds. Funds have been expended on capital works and borrowings have been at such a high level that in some cases over 50 per cent of rate revenue goes in capital loan repayments yearly. This situation is not good enough. It is not good enough to say that urban services and planning are lacking, without attempting to ensure that our people receive a State grant sufficient to ensure that the difficulties mentioned are overcome. We cannot continue with this uneven and unequal development between States, between cities, between shires and between suburbs. It is imperative that genuine reorganisation take place at an early date.

We in Western Australia are not deluded into believing that we will be able to over? come our sewerage, drainage and general expansion problems caused by increased population growth without large capital sums being made available to us. Some people say that we are a booming State. We are booming in the north, in exports and private company developed towns, and even in private railways. The little money made available by the Commonwealth Government to the States as a grant for the flow-on of this development is a disgrace. No credit is due to the Commonwealth Government for this. The lack of help given to cope with or to encourage developments in Western Australia has created a parlous situation. When the Commonwealth looks at figures our growth rate, etc., in relation to the betterment factor it looks at inaccurate figures. It should take into consideration all the problems to be faced with distance and the costs and the unfortunate pressures associated with attempts to absorb a new and dramatically growing population.

People are attracted to the west by dreams of making a fortune which does not eventuate. So they compete with our established residents for housing and services which are hopelessly inadequate at this juncture. The crash housing development that is needed creates new areas with demands for clinics, kindergartens, libraries and all the associated services needed by a community. The cost of providing these services falls on local government. It cannot handle that cost. The Government has indicated that money is available for these services. It has announced its intention to enter the pre-school area. Therefore I call on the Government to make funds immediately available to local government, by special grant, to meet its immediate needs in sewerage and drainage and to facilitate housing development. I also call on the Commonwealth to make special grants for infant health clinics, kindergartens and other community services, the need for which is there now and is increasing.

By giving the money to the people who are experienced in this field and who know the needs of their community, a real solution will be offered to local government, which is a responsible part of the community and which voluntarily takes interest in and responsibility for the needs of tha community. It will be the best possible means of solving the problems of the community at that level. As 1 understand the situation, at least one shire has already expanded its services to include the provision of child minding centres. These problems will be solved if a genuine attempt is made to ensure that the States have sufficient money by way of grants from the Commonwealth. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his second reading speech, admitted that to keep up with community demands for improved services the States have at the same time had to increase the severity of their own taxes and charges. They are severe indeed.

I instance the road maintenance tax applied in Western Australia. Its application has led to the gaoling of several people and to threats of similar treatment to others who have been and are unable to meet the iniquitous tax that the State must impose because of an insufficient flow of grants from the Commonwealth. So, a desperate situation exists. Suggestions are being mooted to place an extra1c a gallon tax on fuel in an effort to raise the amount necessary for road maintenance. That is on top of the 3c tax already applied by this Government on fuel. If the extra tax on fuel imposed by the Budget were allowed to flow to the States, the problem of having a road maintenance tax would not exist. So, 36,000 commercial vehicle owners in Western Australia continue to suffer the double penalty of an increased fuel tax and an increased road maintenance tax, heavy permit fees for loads and heavy licensing fees for their vehicles.

This secondary system of taxation is an unjust imposition of which the Government is aware. This Government must co-operate with the States to ensure that the imposition of this tax is not continued. I say that because there is at least 1 truck owner incarcerated in Western Australia, on a Commonwealth warrant, for the offence of non-payment of New South Wales taxes. The fact that he is a bankrupt does not protect him. He will remain there until the debt is cut out at $7.99 a day up to 13th January 1971. This is adding a further cost to the State. We have to support his family at additional cost. Also, it must have cost the Commonwealth something to put the warrant into effect. So when the Minister said that the States were having to increase the severity of their own taxes, I only hope that he appreciated the effect of these taxes on individuals - the citizens of Australia - who suffer because insufficient Commonwealth grants are being made available to the States. This is their own money.It has been collected from the citizens of the States by way of direct and indirect taxation. It is not only a grant; it is a right.

It is unfortunate that the Government finds so many reasons to refuse to increase the return to the States of what is their own money. Unless some early solution is found to this impasse there will be a serious breakdown in State and local government finances. I call on the Commonwealth’ to make grants to the States for the provision of community amenities in housing estates similar to those which the Commonwealth provides, by way of grants, in housing estates under its control. I have referred to the amenities which are provided in Darwin and whichI understand the Commonwealth is responsible for providing in Canberra itself. Let all be equal in opportunity and in the provision of amenities. Let the functions and finances of the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and local government authorities be balanced to ensure that resources are developed adequately and that adequate services are provided in the interests of the community.

Motion (by Dr Patterson) put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. The motion foreshadowed by the honourable member would be completely out of order in relation to the third reading of a Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question before the Chair is that the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr Gun:

– I take a point of order. Does the Minister have to seek leave to move the third reading forthwith?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. He sought it and it was granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith? I call the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have called the Minister. He has to move for the third reading before the honourable member may speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member should know the procedures of the House by now. This is the normal practice. It was followed by the member of the Opposition in charge of the Bill before the House. It was granted. The question now is that the Bill be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

Members of the Australian Labor Party have every right to speak on legislation concerning the wool industry. Thirty-three of the seats held by honourable members of this side of the House are rural or semirural seats, whereas the Australian Country Party has 22 and the Liberal Party of Australia has only 12. Many honourable members on this side of the House have had years of experience in matters concerning the wool industry, although we do not have properties. However, the fact that one has a property does not give one any particular rights or privileges to speak on this matter. This Bill is the high water mark of this Government’s fumbling, hesitation and inaction. The Bill which is before the House tonight is as out of character with this free enterprise Government as spectacles are to a blind man. The decline in the wool industry has been in progress for about a decade, but it has taken this Government almost that long to bring down legislation for the establishment of a government selected and appointed wool commission to try to tackle the problem. 1 shall give some figures to prove how desperate the situation is in the wool industry. Figures have been thrown around loosely during the course of this debate. 1 propose to quote from an official document. The average wool price this week at auction has gone down to 26.19c per lb, which is equal to the 1946 level. The average price for this season according to the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers is provisionally 29.5c per lb, which is about 33-1/3 per cent lower than for the corresponding period last year. This is a fantastic fall in 12 months. Surely the Government must have known that it would happen. From all of the information available to it the Government must have known that wool prices were in a tail-spin, but it has taken this length of time to try to find some answer to the problem. Brisbane had a Ti per cent drop at the auctions. Japan bought freely in Brisbane. The United States of America also showed more interest than usual early in the series, but very little interest later on. It is only natural that Japan would buy freely at such a cheap price. Any country would.

I have details of the average prices obtained in the capital cities. In Brisbane 92.94 per cent of the bales offered were sold at an average price of 25.37c per ib. In Adelaide 83.84 per cent of the bales offered were sold at an average price of 25.34c per lb. In Hobart 95.25 per cent of the bales offered were sold at an average price of 31.01c per Jb, which is the highest price obtained in Australia. In Launceston 89 per cent of the bales offered sold at 28.61c per lb. In Fremantle the price was 26.35c with about 90 per cent of the offering sold. At those sales a total of 150,797 bales were offered for sale. These prices illustrate the present tragic picture of the wool industry.

There has been talk for many years of introducing a reserve price plan. A referendum was held 5 years ago on this very question and it was only narrowly defeated. Who defeated it? The big wool growers of New South Wales were responsible for its defeat. Tasmania supported the referendum and so did South Australia. The New South Wales Graziers Council put over a heap of propaganda and sent speakers throughout Australia to oppose the reserve price plan. That Council was responsible for the defeat of that referendum. In spite of the Opposition from that Council the referendum was almost carried.

This reserve price plan is not a new thing. It has been talked about for many years. The Liberal Party of Australia has resisted it strenuously. The Australian Country Party has nervously asked for it to be introduced but there has been conflict and indecision within Government ranks over what to do with the wool industry. There have been very serious differences of opinion between Liberals and members of the Country Party. The Liberals have been responsible principally for the long delay in getting a reserve price plan before this Parliament. At long last with a rush like a gale coming through a door which has been opened suddenly the Government has in a spirit of panic, brought down this Australian Woo] Commission Bill. The bill was introduced yesterday and it is being debated today. How long is it since that has happened? The Government, of course, wants to get this Bill passed before the Senate election. This legislation will be one of the fastest pieces of legislation we have had in the time that I have been in this place.

In spite of all the fanfare, this legislation is still only a skeleton of what we on this side of the House believe is necessary to overcome the unprecedented collapse of the wool market. The proposed scheme is only a voluntary scheme in the sense that growers do not have to sell their wool under it. The growers have to ask for assistance, as do the brokers. This plan could be a failure if it is not accepted by the brokers or the growers. We believe that the Opposition’s plan, which is a total reserve price plan with acquisition, has teeth, depth and strength and is the only type of plan that could solve the vicious and catastrophic problems which face the industry at the present time. There has been collusion at auctions for years. We have studied the pie system and we have proved that to be so. It has kept the price of wool down, even back in the early 1960s.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– As the Whip of the Australian Country Party, I put my name on the bottom of the list of speakers. I had not intended to speak tonight because time is the essence of the contract. We want to get this Bill through this chamber as soon as possible and to get it to the Senate so that that chamber can pass it and it can become law as soon as possible. Some honourable members have aasked: ‘Why all this rush?’ It took some time for the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) - I must compliment him on doing an excellent job - to be sure that the primary producer organisations, specifically those concerned with wool, would approve of the legislation that he hoped to implement. He did a magnificent job in getting agreement from the chief primary producer organisations and wool bodies in Australia.

So, the Bill is before the House tonight. As far as I am concerned, the sooner it is passed the better. Recently - I think it was last week, but it may have been this week - the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that members of the Australian Labor Party would do everything they could to facilitate the passage of the Bill. I believe they will do that. However, from some of the speeches I have heard tonight from Labor members condemning the Bill, it is a wonder to me that the Labor Opposition supports it. Members of the Labor Party were quick early in this debate to say: ‘We do not oppose the measure. We will support it. We may have some amendments but if the amendments are not carried’ - and from what I can gauge, I do not think they will be carried - ‘we will support the Bill’. Yet they have condemned it. This seems strange to me and I cannot understand that attitude at all.

One thing that would have brought me to my feel if nothing else had was the quoting by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) of what 1 said in 1964. What 1 said then was quite true; and it is true today. Regarding the auction system, the Bill is aimed at stopping collusion at auctions. A close watch will be kepton what is happening. Anyone who has had any experience of auctioneering or of the auction system will quickly realise if there is any collusion to bring prices down. I believe that the people who will be appointed to the Commission will be men who have had experience of auctions and of selling. They will quickly note whether collusion is taking place and take necessary action to stop it. After all, there can be collusion between buyers in private selling as well as in auction selling. It cannot be said that if there is private selling there is no collusion. Some people come from overseas to buy wool. One man may buy wool, take it to the United Kingdom and split it up between two or three Bradford mills. The situation must be watched closely not only in Australia but overseas, especially if the wool that goes overseas is being divided among different people who send one buyer to Australia to act for them. This will be one of the most difficult things for the Commission to overcome. It will have to be watched very closely. I hope it will be overcome and I give the Bill my best wishes in doing this.

The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) said that the Australian Labor Party has a right to speak on wool legislation. He said: ‘Although some members of the Australian Country Party seem to think that we do not have that right, we represent so many more rural electorates than does the Country Party’. That may or may not be so. but I put it to members of the Labor Party that in half of the electorates that he mentioned Labor wins the seat not on the rural vote but on the vote of a city within the electorate. If honourable members look at the returns of the elections they will find that a Labor Party candidate may have won but his vote in the rural area would not have got him very far towards victory on any occasion.

The Japanese Trade Agreement has been mentioned tonight. I think that a lot of the new members do not know what happened when that Agreement came before the House. Every member of the Labor Party who was in the chamber when the vote was taken voted against the Agreement. It is on record in Hansard that the Labor Party of the day pledged himself to rescind the Agreement at the first opportunity. When honourable members opposite say: What rot’ they should remember that their Party pledged itself at the first opportunity to rescind the Japanese Trade Agreement. The Labor Party has not been in office since then. When it gets into power, if it ever does, will it rescind that Agreement, or has it thrown this pledge overboard? These are the big questions that members opposite must answer if they can.

We must have a Bill such as this to give the wool industry a chance to recover. All of the talk about the Country Party being to blame for the wool market languishing is so much rot. No-one can prove anything of that nature. The Country Party, of course, represents in this Parliament prim ary industry and country districts generally. It represents country towns and it knows that people living in country towns are dependent for their prosperity and well being on the produce of the surrounding farmlands and the price that can be obtained for that produce. Consequently I can say that the Country Party represents a great deal in that better part of Australia that lies outside the metropolitan areas. We give our wholehearted support to this Bill. I shall not go into details because members of the Country Party who have already spoken in the debate have gone into detail and have pointed out the ways in which this Bill will provide great help to the wool industry and to Australia. It has my full support.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (2.6 a.m.)I must admit that I have come into this debate a little late, but this was not my intention. 1 have been out on electoral business and when I came back I found that the list of speakers for the debate had been almost filled. Evidently members of the Australian Labor Party have been very concerned about the crisis in the wool industry and have been doing a lot of study on the subject to enable them to make their contribution to the debate. This, I believe, is to the credit of members of the Labor Party. Because of the large numbers of wool growers in my electorate, which, like that of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), has for a large part of it some of the worst country in Australia in a drought stricken area, I felt that at least I should ask the Opposition Whip to put me on the list of speakers to enable me to enter the debate for a few minutes at least. There is another reason for my entering the debate. I had not intended to mention this, but because of what was said by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) I propose to do so. I enter the debate also because of the large vote that I received in country areas. In many places the vote that I received was equal to that received by the Liberal Party and Country Party put together. Consequently, I feel that I should spend at least some time in dealing with the problems of the wool industry and that I should have the indulgence of the House to enable me to do so.

I was very surprised to bear some members of the Country Party criticising honourable members on this side of the House because we have not spent years in the wool industry. Members of the Country Party seem to be very confused. It appears to me that some hurried agreement has been reached between members of the Country Party and members of the Liberal Party, but from listening to the debate tonight I have the impression that they are miles apart. If we were to talk to wool growers other than those who are members of the Country Party we would find that there is a three-way split because wool growers generally to whom I have spoken have an entirely different idea about a wool marketing scheme.

Much has been said about the auction system. No doubt in the past the auction system has appeared to work all right, but the benefit of a system is not really known until it is subjected to pressure. I feel that this is what has been happening and that the wool growers have found that they can no longer carry the bankers and the brokers on their backs and are looking for a better system. I propose to accept the challenge issued by the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) and read out the Labor Party’s policy on wool. I believe that this is consistent with what has been asked for by wool growers throughout Australia. I am very proud to have the opportunity to place this policy before the Parliament.

The Opposition’s policy is as follows:

The establishment of a statutory authority to acquire, appraise and market the Australian wool clip on behalf of woolgrowers;

A reconstruction scheme to assist in the solution of problems of production and streamline selling methods;

A consideration of a tariff compensatory bounty to offset the serious cost disabilities incurred in the production of wool for export;

A fully elected Australian Wool Industry Conference to represent all wool producing areas of Australia.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

The establishment of a statutory authority which would be responsible for the acquisition, appraisal, marketing and distribution of Australia’s annual wool clip.

The authority would be conducted on sound business principles applicable to co-operatives.

The authority would arrange for the acquisition and appraisal of the wool clip to be located in decentralised modern wool marketing complexes.

Wool would be appraised and catalogued by competent appraisers under the jurisdiction of the authority in the short term, with the rapid progression to pre-sale testing by objective measurement and equivalent scientific techniques designed to improve, standardise and streamline the preparation and sale of the clip.

After consultation and collaboration with world wool organisations and exporting and importing countries, an annual average appraisal price for the Australian wool clip to be determined, based on the level of realistic world prices.

A minimum reserve price (floor price) would be then placed on all wools; those lots not realising the floor price, either by auction, tender or private treaty would be ‘taken over’ at the minimum reserve appraisement price by the authority.

Special contracts or international bi-lateral agreements can be negotiated by the authority, acting in association with the

Federal Government.

Wool growers would contribute a small percentage of the gross proceeds of (heir annual wool clip for a period of say five years in order to build a capital fund to control and market all surplus wools ‘taken over’. (This would act as an ‘insurance fund’ until any wool ‘taken over’ is disposed of at the most satisfactory level of prices).

All profits, after working expenditure and the provision for normal reserves, would be returned to wool growers each year.

RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME

The physical and economic problems associated with the production and handling of wool are becoming more evident as the cost price squeeze continues.

In order to encourage continuous innovation with respect to:

wool production and land use;

domestic transport efficiency;

wool handling and distribution; and

pre-safe testing; development funds (grant and loans) be made available to the authority, the States and to wool producers.

I believe that our policy is consistent with the decisions of wool growers throughout Australia. I feel there are some weaknesses in the proposition put forward by the Government, one such weakness being the composition of the authority. We heard the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) criticise the Australian Wool Board.

If we read the suggested composition of the authority we see that the Chairman is to be appointed for 5 years by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Australian Wool Board. The Bill also provides for 2 woolgrower representatives to be appointed by the Minister also after consultation with the Australian Wool Board. But I believe that the main factor that will determine whether this authority is successful will be its form of leadership. I feel that this is the weakness in the composition of the authority. It appears to me that it has taken power right away from the woolgrower representatives. In ray opinion, any authority that is set up should have a majority of wool growers on it so that they can determine and advise other wool growers what is taking place. Also this would give them a voice in the authority and some power to select their own chairman.

Just in passing, I want to inform the House that the date on our policy is 22nd May 1970. I commend it to the House. 1 draw the attention of members of the Country Party to the fact that it was our intention, although we disagree with a lot of the proposals in this Bill, not to hold up the passage of the legislation. We realise the crisis in the wool industry. We do not intend to delay the passage of this legislation in case it does contain some benefits for the wool growers. We point out to the Country Party members that it is their responsibility to see that this proposal works. I am quite sure that the Liberal Party does not have a great deal of time for it. Judging from the speeches made by members of the Liberal Party, I feel that they would give it away at the first opportunity and say to their Country Party colleagues: ‘It was your scheme. We did not want it anyhow.* I feel that the Country Party members have a bigger responsibility in this matter and 1 hope that they will live up to it because there is no doubt that there is a crisis in the wool industry.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– in reply- I would just like to make a few comments and answer a few questions which have been asked of me by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). We have heard a lot of speeches in this debate tonight, some of them very good ones. But the speeches which came from the Opposition side gave me the impression that they were giving grudging approval to this wool marketing scheme mainly, I suppose, because they do not have anything better to offer to the Australian wool industry.

In his speech, the honourable member for Dawson, who led on the Opposition side in this debate, was more or less foreshadowing the amendments that he proposed to make to the Bill and listing a whole series of questions of which I will try to answer some. However, I thought the other speakers from the Opposition displayed a lack of study of the Bill. There was one exception in this regard, and that was the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), who is not a rural member. I think that possibly he made the best contribution to the debate from the Opposition side. I say quite genuinely that I believe he had studied the Bill and knew it thoroughly, although on a few occasions he did run wild and criticise us for not bringing in matters dealing with reconstruction of the industry and debt problems. However, I think we can forgive him for those few misdemeanours.

The Labor Party has stated tonight that it has a wool marketing policy. It even went to the lengths of getting one of its members to read out a long document which is supposed to be its wool marketing policy. All I could gather from that document was along the lines of a description I once read of how the Labor Party formulates rural policy - that it is a hotch-potch of all the headlines they can pick out of rural newspapers. That is exactly what it was. If one tried to work out a wool marketing scheme from that statement then all I can say is: Let me know it is financed, because that is the basis of any wool marketing scheme. The very weakness of it was that, as Opposition members said, they would finance the stockpiling of wool out of a levy placed on growers, a fund that would accumulate over a period of 5 years. I ask honourable members how we would ever accumulate a fund of money from the wool growers today with the pitifully low prices that they are getting. It makes the scheme quite impracticable and unworkable. Members of the Opposition are hypocritical in saying that they have a wool marketing scheme.

However, I do not want to provoke debate at this late hour. But I would like to thank many honourable members for making reference to my part in bringing this Bill forward. My only comment is that I am merely the fountainhead of a tremendous amount of work that has been done by a lot of people over quite a lengthy period in bringing this Bill before the House. I know it is regrettable that we have not had a wool marketing scheme operating before this but we cannot have a wool marketing scheme operating within Australia in peacetime unless it has the co-operation of the industry and the support of the States. The industry consists of more than just the wool growers. It involves the people who are responsible for the physical handling and the merchandising of wool, and I do not think one can ignore the end users as being part of the wool industry. I mention that many people are involved in this. We have a plan before the Parliament to be implemented as soon as possible. Although it has taken time I believe that with the effluxion of time it is probably a more complete wool marketing scheme than would have been devised if it had been brought in a year ago, or even if the reserve price scheme that was proposed a few years ago had been brought in.

This plan incorporates many features additional to what was originally suggested. The fact that a wool marketing corporation has been brought into existence enabled a price averaging plan to operate, enabled the elimination of the star lots - the small expensive lots to handle - thereby greatly reducing some of the costs. The fact that a corporation has been in existence for a period has enabled a mechanism to be established to build on to it quickly to enable a reserve price scheme to operate. We have managed to incorporate in the functions and the powers of the Commission the right to assist in the development of technical improvements for the appraisal and handling of wool and the introduction of such things as sale by sample which leads to very obvious cost savings. It has enabled us to give consideration to the Commission’s having power over the rosters and the offerings of wool and withdrawing faulty types of wool thus preventing them going on to the market. These proposals were never thought of or canvassed a year ago. The plan has given the Commission power to purchase wool, have it processed and resell it as a semiprocessed product. It has given the Commission power over the whole Australian clip and power over the private buyers if it is found that their activities are detrimental to the general interests of wool marketing. These are additional functions which the effluxion of time has made it possible to bring into a Commission.

I am grateful that there were people in the industry at the beginning of this year who spearheaded an attack on this problem. During the course of the last 2 decades every time an effort has been made to introduce a wool marketing scheme there have been 2 distinct groups which have been poles apart, one group believing that there should be complete acquisition of the clip and a fixed reserve price - a guaranteed price - and, at the other end of the spectrum, the other group which believed in a laissez-faire policy with no interference by the Government. Those 2 groups have never been able to merge but during the course of this year, due to the fact that people from both groups have been prepared to sit down to talk, both learning from mutual discussion, both becoming better educated in the problems of the wool industry, they have reached a compromise which I believe is probably the best method of handling and selling wool. It is a mid-way course which certainly involves government financial assistance and a flexible reserve price which will not cause disastrous stockpiling of wool and disastrous financial involvement by government as has been experienced in South Africa and New Zealand. We are plagued with the likelihood of this kind of disaster hitting our wool marketing scheme because we benefit from their experience.

Meetings were held such as those mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). He chaired a big meeting at Moree. He mentioned Ron Hunter to whom I too would like to refer. Ron Hunter did a tremendous amount of work in organising big meetings throughout the country and in helping to educate the producer as to the need for a single statutory wool marketing authority that is what this Bill provides. Education was probably needed more in New South Wales than in any other State because it had previously rejected wool marketing schemes. I think there might have been reason for the previous schemes being rejected because they were based on a fixed reserve price and, as experience has shown, there are weaknesses in such a proposal.

I pay tribute also to a man who has been criticised tonight by some people. I refer to the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, Sir William Gunn. He is a tremendous influence and force in the Australian wool industry. There are few men who are more misunderstood and more unfairly criticised than is Sir William Gunn. He has done a tremendous amount of work for the wool industry in establishing the International Wool Secretariat and in developing programmes for promotion and research. At the beginning of this year he, on his own initiative, formed the advisory committee of the Australian Wool Board which represented all sections of the Australian wool industry which got together and put up the basic elements of a single wool marketing authority. Yet there are people who find it fashionable to bandy his name around in a most unsavoury way. I would like to say also that the trip of the members of the international Wool Textile Organisation was not without its rewards. I believe that the industry in Australia learnt something about the problems that these people are facing from their competitors, the synthetic manufacturers. I believe, also, that they have learnt a great deal from industry leaders in Australia about the need to organise and co-ordinate the method of selling wool in Australia. 1 mentioned in my second reading speech the enormous and fantastic job done by Sir John Crawford in preparing a report on a single wool marketing authority. The Government Members Committee, which consists of members of both the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party, was constantly in touch with me, making suggestions and recommendations. Some of these suggestions have been incorporated in the functions and powers of the Commission. The speed at which the industry organisations accepted the proposal and supported it completely - except for 3 members who wanted further time to consider it - shows the sort of overwhelming support that the industry is giving to this proposal. There are no reservations, as some honourable members opposite have tried to make out.

Lastly, 1 would like to thank the Australian Agricultural Council, which met on a few days notice and gave unanimous support to the proposal. I hope that, when complementary legislation by the States is necessary, it will be implemented as speedily as possible. It is not necessary at the moment to bring in a flexible reserve price. All that is needed is the co-operation of the brokers who have agreed in setting the standards or types of wool being sold in the auction room. This sort of co-operation is operating now with the price averaging plan. I would certainly like the work of my own Department and that of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to be recorded. The people concerned have worked long hours, strenuously, and with a great deal of dedication trying to get the job done.

One or two speakers tonight criticised the Australian Wool Board and the International Wool Secretariat for not having a policy of promoting blends of wool. They do promote blends of some types of wool. Carpet wools that contain up to 20 per cent synthetic fibre are promoted by the International Wool Secretariat in the United Kingdom. The IWS will be presenting a full report, at its next meeting to be held in South Africa on 9th November, on reconsideration of its policy on blends in relation to apparel fibres. But there are many difficulties involved. One should be obvious. Why should the wool industry bodies promote blends when the synthetic manufacturers, or the producers of man made fibres, are not also making a contribution? Should they not make a contribution? This is one of the difficulties that has to be overcome. It is being examined and considered. I believe it is necessary that this suggestion be taken into consideration and fostered for the future. 1 am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I did want to make these few comments. I would like to answer very quickly some of the questions that the honourable member for Dawson asked me. Commision is paid on wool that comes into the auction room. This is normal. If wool is bought up by the Commission and re-offered, a small commission will be payable. That system operates now with the price averaging plan, but the commission is generally negotiated with the brokers and the fee is a concessional one. It is not the normal fee charged by brokers. The honourable member asked about consultation with the Board on the appointment of the Chairman. I am afraid that I cannot go any further than to say that consultation means what it means - consultation. There will be discussion with the Board on appointments. There is provision in the Bill to ask for information from private operators about their buying and selling practices. The clause in the Bill does not make the supplying of this information compulsory, but it could be made compulsory and enforced by regulation. The Bill contains provision for the making of regulations. That is the means by which information could be obtained if there were any difficulty in obtaining it as the present clause stands.

The honourable member for Dawson talked about the operation of the reserve price scheme. He thought that it should be spelt out in greater detail. The reserve price scheme will operate exactly as it has been operating in the last 2 months. He talked about writing into the Bill the percentage of advance to be made to growers on wool which is pooled voluntarily or on wool that is bought up by negotiation. The present principle, on which the price averaging plan has been operating, has been a 60 per cent advance. I would imagine that this would be about the figure that the Commission would pay. It is a matter for commercial judgment on the part of the Commission. I do not believe that these* matters should be written too firmly into the legislation because they would limit the freedom and the flexibility of the Commission. The honourable member said that the reserve price might need to be varied within a day. It is intended that the flexible reserve price can be varied at any time. It can be varied every 5 minutes or every half an hour.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I refer specifically to clause 7 which deals with appointments to the Australian Wool Commission. The point I make here is that when the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) answered my query he said that all members, including the Chairman would be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. Why is’ that not in the Bill? That is my specific point. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that reference to the appointment of the Chairman should not be included in the Bill, because reference is made in the Bill to the appointment of every other member of the Commission. The Bill provides that the appointment of the 2 members to represent Australian wool growers, the member to represent the Commonwealth and the 3 other members of the Commission will be made after consultation with the Australian Wool Industry Conference or the Australian Wool Board. I refer the Minister specifically to his second reading speech in which he said:

The Chairman would be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Australian Wool Board.

I think he must agree that as he referred to this matter in his second reading speech and as the Bill provides for the appointment of the other members of the Commission after consultation with the AWIC or the Wool Board, to be consistent, reference should be made in the Bill to the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission after consultation. That was the point I was making. I accept the Minister’s assurance that the Chairman will be appointed after consultation with the Wool Board, but as the Minister says this in his second reading speech and as reference is made in the Bill to the appointment of the other members of the Commission after consultation with the AWIC or the Wool Board, to be consistent, I think that reference to the appointment of the Chairman after consultation with the Wool Board should be included in the Bill. That is the first point regarding the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission.

Great play was made particularly by members of the Australian Country Party of the need to appoint to the Commission men of the best calibre, I cannot help but refer to the almost parrot-like remarks made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt). He always makes the remark that members of the Australian Labor Party are not wool growers or wheat growers- or something else. It is a very strange thing. On this type of illogical reasoning the honourable member for Hume would not even entertain appointing to the Commission a man like Sir John Crawford or the members of the Advisory Committee. He would say: They are not wool growers so what would they know about the wool industry?’ This is the type of illogical nonsense that we hear from the honourable member for Hume every time he gets up and opens his mouth. But as nobody in the Parliament takes him seriously, it does not really matter what he says. Of course, the honourable member would criticise a man like Sir John Crawford if he were offered part-time or full-time chairmanship of the Commission. He would say: ‘What would he know about wool?’ This is the kind of illogical nonsense we hear from the honourable member. I have made my main point. Perhaps it is not important but at the same time there is an inconsistency in the Bill regarding the appointment of the Chairman and the members of the Commission. To be consistent, perhaps the Minister might consider writing into the Bill the provision regarding the appointment of the Chairman. I may have missed it, but I could not find any reference to the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission after consultation with the Australian Wool . Board. There has to be consistency.

The other point I make refers to the appointment of the 2 members to represent Australian wool growers. There is a strong argument for the appointment of more members to represent wool growers, but a lot will depend on the 2 members who are picked. This will be the key factor. It does not matter whether two, three or four members are appointed to represent wool growers. A lol will depend on whom the Minister picks, in consultation with the Australian Wool Industry Conference, because there is a very strange mixture of people on this Conference. As I have said in this chamber time and time again, it is not a democratically elected body representing the bona fide woolgrowers of Australia. As I see it, the key question is: Who will be the 2 members to represent the wool growers?

Again I refer to the honourable member for Hume who must violently object to the appointment of the 3 other members of the Commission. After all, they will have more say than the 2 wool growers. Apart from the 2 members to represent the wool growers, there will be one member experienced in finance and economics - he would know a lot about wool; one experienced in the processing of wool - he is not a wool grower either: and one experienced in the marketing of wool. I wonder whether the honourable member for Hume will get. up and criticise those members because they are not wool growers. The point is that there will be a balance on the Commission. But, as I say, the key is: Who will be the 2 members to represent the wool growers? We will all be watching the outcome with great interest. It could be said that these 2 people will really be responsible to the wool growers of Australia and will have to report back to them. These 2 people will hold very responsible positions.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I wish to comment on the necessity to appoint a full time chairman of the Austraiian Wool Commission. This will limit the choice of the best man available for the position. I think that the chairman of the Commission should be the counterpart of a chairman of directors of a company. If the position of chairman is open only to someone who is prepared to serve full time it will limit the number of people who will make themselves available. The people who are most able to serve in this position because they have a greater capacity and ability may not be prepared to serve full time. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) should give eanest consideration to this matter because the success of the Australian Wool Commission depends on who is appointed as its chairman.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to refer to clause 7 of the Bill, which relates to the membership of the Australian Wool Commission. I wish to raise a point concerning the balance of the membership of the Commission. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has pointed to the great desire of many people to have stronger representation for the wool growers. The wool growers will be represented by 2 of the 7 members of the Commission. The point which is in the minds of these people is the composition of the board of directors of the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation. Five of the directors of the Corporation have a vested interest in selling and handling wool. One director has an interest in processing. To overcome the great weight of these processing and broking representatives the balance of the board of directors - five of them - are wool growers. I mentioned at the second reading stage of the Bill the concern which has been expressed at the appointments which have been made to the Wool Research Advisory Committee of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Two of the people appointed were drawn from a broking and selling firm. Great concern has been expressed at the fact that the emphasis will be on the interests of the selling brokers and not of the growers. I draw attention to this matter in relation to the membership of the Australian Wool Commission. I hope that there will be as good a balance on behalf of the growers as is possible under the provisions of the Bill. I make that point at this stage without moving an amendment to clause 7 of the Bill.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I wish to make a couple of brief comments. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was right when he said that the Bill did not contain any provision for consultation with the Australian Wool Board on the appointment of the chairman of the Australian Wool Commission. I would think that such a provision should be included. The honourable member for Dawson was alert in picking up that point. However, I covered this point in my second reading speech. I think this is adequate for the time being.

The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) asked whether a part time chairman of the Australian Wool Commission would be appointed if the best man available would accept the position only on a part time basis. Naturally consideration would have to be given to this aspect. However, I think it is important to have provision for a full time chairman. The

Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Dairy Produce Board all have full time chairmen. Representations have been made for a full time chairman to be appointed to the Australian Wool Board. All I am saying is that the options are not closed. I certainly want to place emphasis upon getting the right man for the job.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) asked whether it would be possible to appoint 2 extra grower representatives. This matter has been considered. The industry itself considered it. There was practically an even vote as to whether there ought to be an additional 2 representatives. The vote was 24 to 25. One fellow was late for the vote, which would have made it 25 to 25. There is a difference of opinion within the industry. The Government looked at this aspect and felt that for concise, precise and rapid handling of the wool situation a smaller body would be more effective. Therefore, it decided to keep the membership of grower representatives to 2.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 11. (1.) A member, other than the Chairman or the member representing the Commonwealth, may, with the approval of the Commission, appoint a person, other than a member, to be bis deputy, and may revoke any such appointment.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

There are two reasons why I have moved this amendment. The first reason is quite obvious. Surely the deputy of the Commonwealth member on the Commission will be appointed by the Minister. As one who has been in the civil service this seems to me to be fundamental. Secondly, I believe that it is good policy for the Minister to have control over the appointment of a deputy; otherwise a member appointed by the Minister could, subject to the approval of the Commission, appoint anyone as his deputy. I am not saying that a member would appoint anybody who is irresponsible, but the point is that in order to tighten up the Bill the Minister should he given control over the members and deputies. If the Commonwealth representative is a member of the Commonwealth

Public Service the only person who could possibly appoint a deputy would be the Minister.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I do not think this amendment is necessary. 1 am sorry I cannot accept it. The provision in this Bill is the same as that which applies to other statutory bodies. Clause 14 of the Bill reads:

The Minister may remove a member from office by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

The Bill provides for control over a member and this provision would automatically give to the Minister control over the deputy. I do not think there is any need for an amendment to clause 1 1 .

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– The Minister’s answer seems to me to be rather unsatisfactory. It means that if he, as the Minister concerned, does not want a particular person to remain on the Commission as a deputy he has to label him as a cheat or as someone who has been guilty of some misconduct in order to get rid of him.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 16. (1.) If a member -

  1. being the Chairman, engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office;
  2. becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit;
  3. is absent, except on leave granted by the Minister, from three consecutive meetings of the Commission; or
  4. fails to comply- with his obligations under the next succeeding sub-section, the Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, remove the member from office. (2.) A member who is directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Commission, otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company consisting of not less than twenty-five person shall, as soon as possible after the relevant factshave come to bis knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Commission.
Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– by leave -I move:

  1. In sub-clause (1.) after ‘member’, first occurring, insert ‘or his deputy’.
  2. After sub-clause (1.) insert the folowing subclause: (1a.) If a member or his deputy has direct managerial or policy-making responsibility in any wool broking or wool-buying firm in Australia or elsewhere the Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, remove the member or his deputy from office’.
  3. In sub-clause (2.) omit otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other membersof, an incorporated company consisting of not less than 23 persons’.

We believe the provisions of clause 16 should apply equally to the deputy as well as to the member. The logic of that follows on from the various clauses and sub-clauses in the Bill. The reason for the insertion of the new clause was touched on in my previous speech. I believe and the Opposition believes that members of the Commission, particularly the Chairman, should be independent because if the wool position deteriorates further a lot of blame will be put on the Commission and the bone will be pointed at certain people. For that reason, if the Chairman is a man who is directly concerned with managerial or policy making responsibility of a major wool broking or buying firm it is certain that the woolgrowers and others will tend to put the blame on him, just as a lot of woolgrowers and people have put the blame on wool buyers and brokers today. These people have been accused of collusion and all sorts of things.

For argument’s sake, let us take the case of Mr Vines who is respected in the international field and in Australia in terms of organisation and ability. I think I am right in saying that Mr Vines is the Chairman of Directors of Dalgety-New Zealand Loan

Ltd. He is also a director of the P & O Line which is a firm, within the terms of this Bill, with which the Commission would be negotiating - I think I am right - in respect to freights. I am not in any way casting aspersions. I am only quoting an example. We have a man who has a proven reputation in the field of marketing but who nevertheless is of vital importance with respect to the policy making and managerial decisions of a broking firm. After all, brokers and buyers are not always thought of as the friends of the wool grower. In fact, their whole policy is the reverse. Therefore, I believe and the Opposition believes that it would not be in the best interests of the Commission to have members - particularly a chairman - who are very closely associated with a board of directors, or act as chairman of directors, with policy making responsibilities of wool brokers or wool buyers in Australia or overseas.

In regard to sub-clause (2.), 1 do not think there should be any qualifications at all with respect to contracts where a member is directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Commission. If any member is interested in a contract other than as a wool grower putting wool in for sale, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, 1 believe that that member should declare himself. There should be no qualification about it. If he happens to be a member of a firm, institution or corporation having over 25 members, I do not think that has anything to do with the position whatsoever. Any member of the Wool Commission who has a serious wool contract should have to declare his position straight away. He should be above suspicion and that is the reason why we have moved that amendment. 1 have given the 3 reasons behind the proposed amendments and I do not think there is any need for me to say any more about them.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to speak particularly in support of the amendments proposed to clause 16. Members of the Commission should be above reproach. The Commission will have a great many problems to overcome and it is important that its members be completely above reproach. The 2 amendments we propose are particularly designed to achieve that result. We believe that the

Chairman and members of the Commission should not be in a policy making or managerial position in firms which could very well be competing with the Commission and its objectives. There is every precedent for this situation. I refer, for example, to recent legislation to set up the Australian Film Development Corporation As my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) has just pointed out to me, that legislation contained a suitable precedent to which die Minister might apply himself. In that legislation it was accepted quite definitely that members of the Corporation could not be involved in activities which could come into direct conflict with the stated government objectives for that Corporation.

Therefore we have said that neither the Chairman nor the members of the Commission should be in a policy making or managerial position in any wool broking or wool buying firm in Australia or elsewhere. If they wish to engage in activities which are in competition with those of the Commission they should resign from the Commission. Under our proposed amendment the Minister would have the power to remove them. The second amendment we have proposed is also related to the probity of the Commission. There should not be any qualification in matters of local government. There is a clear position. Either a member has an interest or he has not. If he has an interest, how much interest is not relevant. He must have no interest.

I make a plea to the Minister that he considers the 2 proposed amendments. As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said, the Minister should consider them not only in relation to the possible charges that could be levelled against members but also on behalf of the Commission, to ensure that it is above reproach and that the probity of its members is unchallenged. I commend most strongly the 2 amendments that we have proposed.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I think there is some substance in the proposed amendment to clause 16(1.) (a). A member could put himself in a very difficult position. However, I do not think that such a man would be appointed to the Commission. It would be foolish to appoint to the Commission a man holding a managerial office in a wool buying and wool broking business. I cannot conceive that it would ever happen. If the Minister will give us an assurance to that effect, it may not be necessary to amend the clause.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– In relation to the first amendment that has been suggested to clause 16 - this seeks the insertion of the words ‘or his deputy’ after the word ‘member’ - all I would like to say is that this is covered in sub-clause (5.) of clause 16, which states:

The preceding provisions of this section (other than paragraph (c) of sob-section (1.)) apply to and in relation to a deputy of a member in like manner as they apply to and in relation to a member.

So the point is really covered by that clause.

The second amendment that has been moved to clause 16 seeks the deletion of certain words. The purpose of this amendment is really to exclude a broker from being one of the part-time members of the

Board. I do not know whether that is desirable. What is necessary is to pick the men of highest qualification and experience to be on the Board. If it were necessary and felt wise to put a broker on the Board, 1 think it would be wise to have that flexibility. But if those words are eliminated or if the proposed new sub-clause is inserted, that flexibility would not be available. So, I am afraid that I have to reject the amendments that have been proposed.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 - by leave - taken together.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

Clause 18 is extremely important because it deals with the functions of the Commission. It outlines the powers or the objectives of what the Commission has in mind. Again, one could speak at tremendous length on this subject. I do not intend to do that because most of the questions that I did ask were answered. However, 1 would draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) to something at which I believe he ought to look. He will not accept an amendment, I would think, but he ought to look at this matter because to me some inconsistency is observable.

In his second reading speech the Minister deals with wool that is taken in from other than auction. He says:

In the latter case, the Commission would pay the grower a price equivalent to its most recent reserve price for the particular type of wool or such higher price as the Commission may determine.

Nowhere in the Bill is this stated. It applies, 1 assume, to clause 18 (g) in relation to the sale of this wool. That would be the price. That is what the Minister means in bis second reading speech. But the thing is mixed up. Confusion arises because some of this wool goes into a voluntary pool and here there will be advanced, in the Minister’s own words, probably about 60 per cent. So, I would suggest that the Minister have a good look at this matter because I believe that there could be - and is - some confusion here. I ask this particularly because the Minister spells this out in his second reading speech but it is not stated in any way in the Bill.

This matter is pretty important too. This is the buying of wool by the Commission outside the auction system. This is an arrangement, I would assume, with the broker or with the buyer. It does not go through the auction. The buyer will ask the broker or the Minister: ‘Well, that is all right; but what price am 1 going to get for it? That is what I want to know, lt is not in the Act’, lt is no good saying that this is the same as the price averaging plan. It is not. 1 would suggest that the Minister have a good look at this matter because I believe that it should be put in somewhere in the Bill. It is pretty important. A fair amount of this wool could be about in drought areas particularly. It is not going to hit the auction floor, lt will come around through the back door and the grower has to take it on some type of trust, we might say. I do not think he should have to take it on trust. This point is important enough to be included in the Bill. I do not want to refer to other matters at this stage. Private buying is dealt with in this clause and it is a subject on its own. I have mentioned the main point 1 had in mind in respect to this clause. Most of my other questions have been answered by the Minister.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I want to pose a very clear question to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anth- ony) relating to the operation of clause 18. The clause mainly expresses objectives. Reference has been made to the fact that the price averaging plan is incorporated in this general clause. I ask the Minister to give us specific guidance on this point. The price averaging plan is being carried on now, and it has been carried on, on a voluntary basis. It relies on co-operation. There is no power for acquisition. My colleague, the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), will follow me and will state a specific example of the operation of this plan in order that we can clear up this query. I think the matter is terribly important. I am sure the Minister would agree that this is the kernel of the entire Bill. As I read it. and as I am advised, this clause is an expression of objectives, an expression of what it is hoped that the Commission will do, but this basically is a voluntary arrangement. All these arrangements rely on voluntarily given co-operation. If a grower decides that he does not wish to co-operate in any of the matters dealt with in this clause, he need not do so. He cannot be compelled to do so.

I am asking a series of questions of the Minister and am seeking his guidance and interpretation on this essential point relating to the whole of clause 18. I ask the Minister to withhold his reply until the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has given his example.

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

y-Briefly, the only matter I want to mention in relation to clause 18 is this rather variable situation that I have in mind. Under sub-clause (a) a reserve price can be fixed because the wool has been submitted to auction. Sub-clause (d) refers to wool that is not to be sold because the Commission thinks it should not be sold. Then the payment can be made in advance because the sale has been delayed. As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said, there is some confusion as to what the price might be. This confusion is carried on a bit further in sub-clause (e) which suggests that if a small lot is involved, which I understand would be the position with the price averaging plan, the sale can be avoided by the Commission. Obviously that is the present position. Turning now to sub-clause (f), we get the same situation. It refers to the avoidance of the sale because it is a small lot but the avoidance can be extended to an even greater quantity of wool by agreement with the person entitled to the proceeds.

Taking that point as the principle, it seems reasonable to me to suggest to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) that in all these cases there ought to be agreement with the person entitled to the proceeds. Sub-clause (g) deals with the unfortunate situation of a person who might have submitted his wool for sale at auction but finds that because the Commission has decided that it was not advantageous to submit it for sale the Commission would make a sale by another method. I assume that the owner would have no power to intervene. I ask the Minister: What would be more reasonable than to suggest, for example, that in subclause (g) there be inserted after the word sale’ the words used in sub-clause (f) which are ‘by agreement with the persons entitled to the proceeds’? Should not the same situation apply to sub-clause (e)?

I am putting these things for this reason: A friend of mine has been caught up in the price averaging plan scheme. As I understand the position, last year he was able to sell his small lot of wool. He knew the price for which it was sold and to whom it was sold. He received his full price, less the appropriate charges, within 7 weeks. This year he has been caught up again in the price averaging plan scheme. I understand that the first term has not yet expired and will not expire until December. He is unable to find out to whom his wool was sold or for what price. He has been given 60 per cent of something. It is understood that he will get whatever is left in December. On inquiry as to what authority there was for this, he was told that it was by agreement and that there is no statutory authority. If he had known that he would be placed in that position he would have said: ‘I do not want the wool to be sold at a price I do not know anything about. I should at least be consulted.’

The same situation would arise under clause 18 and also under clause 20 later. We could get a dissatisfied wool grower who would be entitled to say: ‘Under the price averaging plan 1 at least thought I should have been consulted. I should have beengiven the right to say that if it was to be a low price I did not want to submit my wool’. In the case to which I have referred the person would not have had his wool sold if be had thought it would have automatically been caught in the price averaging plan - as it was. It was a small lot. and because it was given to Winchcombe Carson it was deemed to be virtually acquired under this scheme even though there was no statutory right for it to be so acquired. So you have an example, Mr Minister, of- a dissatisfied grower not knowing what his wool was sold for and not knowing when he will get the balance of his money. He would have liked to have had his own reserve price on it. Bearing in mind that clause 18(l.)(f) provides for the extension of the price averaging plan by agreement, I ask why it would not be possible for sub-clause (g) to provide that at last the seller should be consulted about the price at which his wool is sold or should be entitled to make a submission.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

Clause 18 (3.) states:

The Commission may exercise any of its functions outside Australia.

Will the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) please explain why that would be necessary?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– The first question asked by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was in relation to wool that is purchased prior to the auction, after negotiation with the owner of the wool. This wool will be sold at the existing reserve price. I spelt this out in greater detail in my second reading speech. I would have interpreted this to mean thai he would be paid in the same way as for wool taken out when it does not meet the reserve price. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) asked me whether all the functions and powers of the Commission are to be voluntary. Except for the setting of standards of preparation for wool, which will require complementary State legislation, they all become powers byCommonwealth legislation. Under our trade and commerce powers these come into existence straight away. The operations of the price averaging scheme and the advance price become compulsory, not complementary. The standards of clip preparation is the only matter that requires complementary State legislation, but we can operate at the moment because the brokers have agreed on standards.

Another question asked of me was whether the owner of the wool could have the right to withdraw his wool. I might not have it clearly, but once a star lot is taken up he has no say in the price at which it is sold, because it is all included in the price averaging plan. He loses possession of it immediately. It is acquired and he is paid an advance. The returns are pooled when the wool is sold and they are distributed to the owners according to the type and quality of the wool. The question asked by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) related to sub-clause (3.) of clause 18, which reads:

The Commission may exercise any of its functions outside Australia.

This is included specifically to cover a reserve price scheme for wool sold at auction in the United Kingdom. About 10,000 bales a year are sold on that market. It is intended to operate a reserve price for Australian wool sold there. This has always been accepted in all the reserve price scheme proposals put up. It would be quite unfair to the brokers concerned and the people who sell on the English market if we were to make the scheme apply exclusively to the Australian market.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

I return to the point I raised about the price. The main point that I was making was on the confusion about the definition of advances’ as it applies to the price averaging plan and as it applies to the voluntary pool and the other situation in which the wool is taken from the producer or the broker before it actually goes to auction. The answer given in the second reading speech is that a price equivalent to the most recent reserve price will be paid. I would like to have seen that in the Bill. But I assume that, as the Minister has explained it carefully in his second reading speech, that could be taken for all practical purposes, as if it were in the Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

This clause deals with the reserve price scheme. The first point to which 1 wish to draw the Minister’s attention-

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– In relation to the amendment to strike out the term ‘from day to day* I point out that the policy position of the Labor Party was made abundantly clear at the second reading stage, namely, that we do not subscribe to the view that it should be on a day to day basis. The term which is used here in the drafting of the Bill is superfluous; it is just not necessary. It states the concept twice. We oppose the provision particularly because it is not in accordance with our view of what should be done. We oppose it because we do not think that as a policy it will be workable, but we oppose it also because the provision is superfluous. I stress that.

Moving on to a discussion of the general wording of clause 19, it has been suggested that the reserve price could vary day by day or even, perhaps, hour by hour. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has intimated that prices could vary at intervals of less than a day. I should like to know also whether different prices will be operating in the different centres because there are centres involved in wool selling at Melbourne, Sydney and other places. Is it proposed that the variation in price should be within an hour or within a day, or that different prices would operate at different centres. This is a query which has been raised. Another question relates to the wording of the clause, which could be interpreted to mean that it would be possible for a broker to buy wool and to pay for it at a particular price and that, because of the very quick variations in price, he could submit the wool to the Commission and benefit from a new price which bad been fixed. That would be a type of racketeering which would seem to be permissible, or at least possible, under the somewhat loose and vague wording of this clause. I direct the Minister’s attention to these queries and ask that he consider first of all the amendment and then the queries which have been put forward in relation to the drafting of this clause.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I think the point raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) is covered by clause 24 which states:

The arrangements that may be made by the Commission include arrangements with brokers for the deduction by brokers, in accordance with provisions to be included in the terms and conditions upon which wool is accepted by brokers for auction . . .

The broker will sell the wool on behalf of a client, deduct all the charges and then send the client a cheque.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that it was not necessary to have in clause 19 (1.) (a) the wording from day to day*. I agree that it is not necessary to have that wording, but I do not think that by retaining the words we cause any inconsistency. The words are inserted in the provision to make it quite clear that it is intended to be a flexible price which can vary from day to day. The clause goes on to state that the price may vary ‘as frequently as the Commission thinks necessary’, which would allow it to be changed within a day, or at intervals of less than a day to day basis. The purpose of the words is to make the interpretation a little clearer. The next point raised referred to the Commission buying wool at the appropriate reserve price and making arrangements so that the grower whose wool is bought in is paid for that wool within 14 days. It is not necessary to write this into the Bill because it is part of the terms and conditions of a normal auction, and it will be necessary to conform with the terms and conditions of a normal auction. At present the prompt price operating in an auction is for payment within 16 days. If that should change the Commission would have to perform in the same way as any other buyer in the auction room. At the moment it would have to pay within 16 days. 1 believe that the honourable member raised one other point. Me asked whether the price would remain secret, lt is generally intended that this price will not be made public; but it will be very hard to keep it secret all the time. It will be difficult to keep it secret if the Commission goes in and acts as a bidder. Whether the Commission operates a reserve price will be at its discretion. If the wool being offered does not meet a reserve price it is automatically taken in by the Commission. There could be occasions when the Commisison decided to go in as a bidder, but once it bids it reveals what the reserve price is because it will bid at the reserve price.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– If the Commission buys the wool at certain prices, whether the prices are secret or not, I would like to know how it operates. This might be very simply answered. Will a man bid on behalf of the Commission, will the reserve price be known to the auctioneer, and when it is not reached will the wool he knocked down to the Commission? If there are 3 or 4 buyers for the Commission, they would soon become known and, of course, the moment any one of them started to bid people would know what the reserve price was. Will it just be bought in by the reserve and if it does not go above that will it be bought by the Commission?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I could not clearly say just how it would work. As I mentioned earlier, there are two ways of doing it - either by allowing the auctioneer to know what the reserve price is and if it is not reached the wool is automatically passed into the Commission, or the Commission can put a bidder in to bid. There is this flexibility to take up the wool either way. I doubt whether the Commission’s practice will be consistent; 1 think it will vary from time to time. It is not intended that the reserve price be known all the time. It will not be publicly announced but I think it would be fairly easy to pick it up within a day if the wool was not sold and was taken up by the Commission. On some days no wool would be taken up and nobody would know what the reserve price was on that day.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Minister for Primary Industry did not comment on the second amendment. It is an important amendment because it could mean that, if the Commission was not selling at the best possible price and the losses were underwritten by the Government all the time, this is the clause under which losses could be made. Big stocks could be taken over and disposed at what price? That is why I put in as a safeguard the words ‘at the best possible price’. I assume this is what the Commission would do. Would it obtain the best possible price? Will there be some type of arrangement whereby it would offer it at the reserve price on that day, or will it offer the wool at the best possible price?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– I do not really think that the amendment to Clause 19 (1.) (C.) of the Bill is necessary. Of course the Commission will try to sell the wool at the best possible price. As a safeguard against not selling it at the best possible price there is clause 19 sub-clause (2.) which states:

The Commission shall, at fortnightly intervals, make reports to the Minister and the Treasurer concerning the operation of its reserve price scheme . . .

Then there is paragraph (c) which refers to: sales of wool by the Commission and proposed offerings of wool by the Commission.

So reports have to be made to the Minister and, naturally, if the best possible price is not being obtained the Government would need to intervene.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 - by leave - taken together.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) neglected to answer one point that 1 made during the second reading debate which seems to be pretty fundamental to the whole scheme. This is concerned with clause 21 (b), which states that the Commission can ‘buy wool at auction or otherwise’. It seems to me that this means that the Commission can do just about anything. We are not quarrelling with this, but, as I mentioned before, we do quarrel with the fact, as interpreted by the Minister in his second reading speech, that it is always necessary to provide wool selling brokers as intermediaries when the Commission purchases wool through the auction system. It seems to me that we have now reached the situation where the Commission could find itself in the position of a private buyer. In other words, it could go on to the property of the grower and purchase wool there. In that case it would be operating as a private wool selling broker.

Perhaps it could be interpreted in another way, but clause 18 (1.) (g) provides that one of the functions of the

Commission is ‘to make arrangements for the sale, otherwise than at auction, of wool received by a broker for sale at auction . . .’. In other words, the Commission can go to a broker and say: This lot is no good. We will not put this on auction. The Commission has decided it will dispose of it in some other way.’ Surely if that contingency were to be covered, it would be mentioned in section 21 (b). In other words, it seems to me that the Commission is being given plenary powers. We do not quarrel with this. It is the sort of thing that we would like to be done. We believe the Commission should move in on the business and operate for the growers and squeeze the wool . selling brokers out altogether. But I wonder whether the Minister could make this clear. We would like to see this operating. No doubt what the Commission will actually do within the framework of the legislation will depend on the personnel appointed to operate the Commission. However, I think the Committee should know whether this is the intention of those 2 extra words ‘or otherwise’.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– Under section 21(b) of the Bill the Commission has power to ‘buy wool at auction or otherwise’. That word ‘otherwise’ is there to enable the Commission to negotiate with the owners of the wool before it actually goes on to the auction floor. As I stated in my second reading speech, the intention is to try to control the offerings of wool particularly faulty types of wool, by interrupting them before they enter the auction room. To do this the Commission would need to purchase them outside. The word otherwise’ is related to that wool which would be voluntarily purchased.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

The purpose of this amendment is quite clear. We believe that the loans should be negotiated through the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank principally because the rate of interest then could be specifically negotiated between the Government and the Reserve Bank. Another lender* referred to in this clause is not defined in any way. It could be other than an approved bank. It could be a pastoral firm or an overseas firm. It is not defined. Naturally the Opposition wishes that the procedure be consistent with that which obtains, in the case of, say, wheat, and that it be financed through the Reserve Bank of Australia. Under such circumstances, the Government would then have complete negotiative power with respect to the rate of interest. After all, this clause has to be read with clause 3 which states that the Commonwealth will guarantee the repayment of amounts borrowed and the payment of interest. In other words, the Commonwealth Government underwrites, if necessary, every loan at the rate of interest negotiated with an approved bank or some other lender. In other words, the taxpayer underwrites it. The position should be consistent with that of other primary industries. We believe that it ought to be financed through the Reserve Bank at a negotiable rate of interest.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I want to force home here the point that under the arrangement for financing the advances to the Australian Wheat Board we have a situation in which the Treasurer can intervene if the interest burden is too low but he can intervene at the primary stage. In fact, this was done by Prime Minister Chifley at a time when he was not only the Prime Minister but also the Treasurer and the wheat industry was in trouble. What he decided to do was to reduce the interest rate and therefore the burden on the growers. Of course, the bur den was a considerable one as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony; would know in relation to the record wheat crop that we had in 1968-69. The interest due to be paid by growers for moneys advanced was S25m. So interest is of tremendous importance to us. Here we have i clause whereby it is proposed that the Government and the Treasurer will underwrite or guarantee the repayment of private bank finance. This means that there is no real reason to seek the money in that quarter because the Government is in fact saying: ‘We will guarantee it if this is necessary.’ So surely there should be a consistency about it in relation to the precedent for wheat and also in relation to our own taxpayers and our own growers The Government should go to the Reserve Bank and say clearly that it is the borrowing authority. If the Treasurer has to guarantee anyone let him guarantee ourselves, let him guarantee our own institutions, let him guarantee on the best basis for the taxpayers and the growers themselves. I think this is a terribly important and fundamental point. We are very much concerned about it and I would ask very sincerely that the Minister think again about giving a guarantee in such terms to private banking institutions when in fact we can go directly to the Reserve Bank. We can fix the interest. The Treasurer has a direct say. He can protect both the taxpayers and the growers in a very adequate way under the terms of the amendment which the Opposition has moved.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · Richmond · CP

– The Opposition has suggested that the words an approved bank or from another lender’ be omitted and the words ‘the Reserve Bank’ be inserted in lieu thereof. I do not see why this is necessary. The Reserve Bank is not excluded. An approved bank can be the Reserve Bank. Who knows which financial institution will provide the working capital? Nothing Is being lost. The Reserve Bank may be the appropriate bank.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– 1 make one final plea. I warmly welcome what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has said. On behalf of the Opposition, many people in the community and, I am sure, many honourable members on the other side of the House I ask that when a decision is made it be that the Reserve Bank is the approved bank.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Anthony) - by leave - proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I desire that my name be recorded that I oppose the Bill. I think there will be a big loss of money and no advantage to the growers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2964

STATES GRANTS BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2878).

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I rise to express the concern-

Ayes . . . . . . 34

Noes . . . . . . 43

Majority .. .. 9

Question so resolved in the negative.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

I doubt whether I have ever less needed a vote in favour of being heard. However, because of the late hour, I shall try intelligibly to confine my remarks to the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1970 insofar as it concerns Tasmania. The moneys involved are an advance grant of $22m and a completion grant of SI. 68m, making a total of $23.68m, from which $10m has been deducted because of moneys which were advanced previously to the State under a financial assistance grant. The purpose of this grant, as has already been put forward, is to supplement the basic Commonwealth financial assistance grants. If we look at table 6 at page 27 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report we will see that the proportional increases on the base grant for Tasmania’ have not been particularly noticeable in recent years. In the 1969-70 proposals as against 1968-69 the increase for Tasmania was 11 per cent compared with 12.1 per cent for New South Wales, 13.1 per cent for Queensland and so on. The 1970-71 -proposals as against 1969-70 give Tasmania an increase of 12.7 per cent compared with 16 per cent in New South Wales, 14.7 per cent in Queensland and so on in the other States, most of which are somewhat higher.

The basic purpose of this special assistance has been described at the Commission’s Hobart hearing as follows:

Basically, the payment of a Special Grant is to relieve a problem in government. It represents a redistribution of the total financial resources of all Governments to enable the Government of a small State to function at a level comparable to the Governments of its larger and wealthier neighbours.

We might well substitute the word ‘economy’ for the word ‘government’ but I suppose that the problem can be seen as being one and the same. It is seen perhaps a little differently by the Grants Commission itself when it uses these words:

Tasmania’s share of general revenue grants, exclusive of the special grant, represents a much larger amount per head of population than the amounts received by New South Wales and Victoria, and thus may be regarded as meeting in part the additional financial need of Tasmania as compared with the standard States. The special grant recommended by the Commission represents its assessment of the remainder of this additional financial need, and by implication it also represents the Commission’s assessment of the total of general revenue grants to Tasmania needed to bring that State up to approximate fiscal parity with the average of the standard States.

It is of some consequence that in the last year or so the budgetary situation in Tasmania under the new Liberal Government, in slight coalition with the Centre Party, has been considerably changed. In 1968-69 Tasmania had a Budget deficit of $3. 7m. In 1969-70 that deficit was converted to a plus of $2.8m making an overall change of $6.5m, which is a very considerable increase. 1 think it would be less than just of me not to mention in this regard the considerable abilities displayed by the new Premier, Mr Angus Bethune. I have not always seen eye to eye with Mr Bethune on political matters and i have sometimes perhaps regarded him as a slightly conservative politician, but I have reason to believe that if his taking the premiership would have prevented the accession of Liberal Party government after 35 years of tired Labor incumbency he would not have taken the premiership for himself. There are perhaps few politicans in this country who would set aside a long standing goal like that, as 1 believe he would have done. It happens that Mr Bethune and his Government regard these grants as too small and it is a very difficult situation to substantiate, but I think that one should make a case in that direction and that such a case is justified. The essential problem is one of scale. Tasmania, as with the smaller partner in any enterprise lacks the flexibility and bargaining power of its larger relations - most notably, of course, New South Wales and Victoria - in economic matters.

Although the Stale is afforded certain constitutional provisions of protection which we know of in this place, it is in fact the securing of external investment which is a problem. This is a problem of attraction and not of compulsion in any sense. There is then at once the need where large industrial output, for example, is contemplated to offset a small local market by compensating factors. In Tasmania hydroelectric power most notably primarily filled that role in the half century following the First World War. But that is not the whole of the problem. In fact it comes down in terms of this problem of scale to the question of whether or not the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and thereby the Federal Government, making sufficient appreciation of the size problem, that is to say, a problem in which the sufferer has an inability to take advantage of the economies of scale and the diversities of opportunity which are present in larger entities.

Essentially, this can be seen as a population problem. If in fact we look at some of the many tables appended and otherwise in the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission we find that the Tasmanian population has at best maintained itself, or almost so, over recent years. In fact, this would be the case over this century whereas the populations of some of the larger States have gradually crept up. The basis of this problem involves the population structure. Tasmania has a relatively youthful population. In other words, compared with most other States Tasmania has a considerable population in the youthful age categories. Tasmania has been of assistance to the population growth of Australia because for many years there has been a net outwards migration. Therefore, these young people are in fact helping to build the national population to a considerable extent. But what this leaves is a greater burden of nonearning population in the total population structure. For instance, by the 1966 census the proportion of adult aged people in Tasmania was around 56.6 per cent while that for Australia generally was 60 per cent. So although reproductivity of Tasmania is high it has fallen somewhat during the mid-1960’s but it is high relative to the rest of Australia. The fact is that the high rate of increase through the 1950’s continues to exert sufficient influence to maintain a general youthful population in Tasmania.

If we look at the basis of this population situation, we find that the population is distributed through the work force in a not particularly typical way for the country as a whole. We find that there is a localisation of economic activity in particular areas and again this is the wont of small entities compared with larger ones. We can take particular industries and find that they are heavily represented. We can take many others and find they are unrepresented according to some basic criteria such as a national average in relation to the total available work force. This could be shown at some length if time were available. (Quorum formed.)

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 43

NOES: 33

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Bury) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, I desire to move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent me moving the following motion:

That the House take note of the time - it now being approximately 4.33 a.m. - and that the House is of opinion that the House is incapable of serious, reasonable or responsible debate and that the House adjourn for approximately 6 hours and resume at 10.30 a.m. today.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr Bryant:

– .Speaking to a point of order, Mr Speaker, surely it is appropriate for a member to move the suspension of the Standing Orders at any time.

Mr Bryant:

– Oh, yes; I had noticed that.

Dr Gun:

– I take a further point of order. You said in part: ‘Is it the wish of the House’. The Minister should seek leave.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Speaker, I wish to move-

page 2970

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That somuchof the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent -

Orders of the Day Nos 6, 7 and 8 for the resumption of the debate of the second reading of the States Grants (Debt Charges Assistance)Bill, States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill, being called on together,

A motion being moved that the Bills be now passed, and

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations of the Bills to be then announced together.

page 2970

STATES GRANTS (DEBT CHARGES ASSISTANCE) BILL 1970

Second Readings

Consideration resumed from 24 September and 22 October (vide pages 1610, 1611 and 2465), on motions by Mr Lynch and Mr Bury:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Bills (on motion by Mr Snedden) passed.

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations announced.

page 2970

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 43

NOES: 34

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.43 a.m. (Thursday)

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19701028_reps_27_hor70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant