House of Representatives
29 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2971

PETITIONS

Aboriginals

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN 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 Australia respectfully sheweth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next 3 years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the breadwinner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent *home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of 1 home-maker to every 8 houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who arc currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these’ requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vita] matter.

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

Petition received and read.

Aid lo Developing Countries

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 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 Melbourne respectfully showeth:

Their sincere request that:

Australia increase financial aid to less wealthy underdeveloped countries to reach a minimum of one per cent of her gross national product by 1971;

Australia revise her trade and tariff policies and practices in order to make available, both in Australia and overseas, more markets for goods from less developed countries.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that tha honourable members of the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to discuss and to effect the requests mentioned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginals

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Aus-, tralia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next 3 years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by tha appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginals

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of tha House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in tha South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

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

And your petitioners as in duly bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginals

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal Welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out Native Reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town bousing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘Home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of bousing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

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

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

Petition received.

Aboriginals

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal Welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor bousing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out Native Reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over die next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘Home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

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

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, 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 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 Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. 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 Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 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 earnings for all Stales, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. 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

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, 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 earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. 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 Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 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 Mew 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, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– 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 Victoria 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 Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

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

Petition received.

Law and Order

Mr BENNETT:

– 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 they are gravely concerned at the apparent appalling increase in crime in Australia, particularly in densely populated areas;

That they fear the police forces of the various States and Territories are undermanned and underequipped to handle the increase in crime;

That their concern is aggravated by the apparent number of unsolved crimes particularly those involving violence to the individual including murder,

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the. Commonwealth Government will seek the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the States to enable;

proper town planning and development to halt the increase in densely populated areas which leads to increased crime,

the proper staffing and equipping of police forces to enable adequate crime prevention and detection measures to reduce the frightening increase of both solved and unsolved crime,

the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and

compensation to victims of crimes of violence, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Censorship

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, 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 New South Wales respectfully showeth:

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;

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;

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;

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 and read.

Censorship

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, 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 Bradfield respectfully showeth:

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.

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:

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.

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

Whereas -

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 than 300,000 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 inequalities;

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 request that your honourable House 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 pro grammes for low income earners, migrants, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.

The provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Petition received and read.

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble 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 78 per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received and read.

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 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 78 per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has a clear mandate to act for the advancement of the Aboriginal people, and
  2. Aborigines require a sound economic basis to rise from their present position of poverty, and
  3. the granting of special land rights would provide such a basis, and
  4. common justice and international standards require recognition of traditional ownership rights of indigenous people,

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for:

  1. Aboriginal residents on existing reserves throughout the Commonwealth to obtain ownership of the reserves:
  2. the recognition of Aboriginal ownership of traditional land at present owned and leased by the Crown, and
  3. the development of mining, pastoral and other enterprises on all Aboriginal land to be subject to the consent of Aboriginal owners and such conditions as their own legal advisers may arrange.

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

Petition received and read.

35-HOUR WEEK

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do the views on a 35-hour week recently expressed by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers indicate a conviction within the Government Parties that a longer working week would be beneficial to Australia? If so, does the Prime Minister propose advocating an extension of working hours during the Senate election campaign?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to that question is no, we do not think that extended working hours are required. But we do believe that at this stage in our economic development the reduction of working hours to 35 would, as any sensible person must see, either greatly reduce production - surely that follows - or greatly increase the price of what is produced. If that is so, Mr Speaker, then those least able to stand this loss of production and the increased prices will be the ones that are hurt most by it. In other words, the rural industries, already badly hit, will undoubtedly have their costs added to should this proposal, which I am told is supported by Mr Hawke and the Leader of the Opposition, go through. The rural industries would undoubtedly have an extra crippling burden added to them. So would all those on fixed incomes - superannuitants, pensioners and others. I think that anybody who regards this dispassionately must agree that what is required in this country are new amenities, new schools, new roads and, at the same time, new health and social services and increased living standards. They must agree that this cannot happen if production is reduced or prices are raised.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. I will not have a repetition of yesterday’s question time when people continually interjected. I will not have it, and I warn the whole House.

page 2976

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minis ter: How safe is the advice that by our withdrawing from Vietnam we will put an end to the war there? Should we disband bush fire brigades so that fires will not come near our country centres? Should we withdraw all resistance to cost increases to end inflation?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Without referring to the last 2 parts of the honourable member’s question, I think the first part as to how safe or how accurate is the advice could be answered by saying that the policy of the Opposition that we should withdraw from Vietnam on the plea that that would end the war is manifestly absurd. What has happened is this: As the result of disregarding the policy of the Opposition, as the result of remaining with our allies in Vietnam, we have now reached the stage where the South Vietnamese are able to take over more of the burden themselves and we are able to begin withdrawal. We have also reached the stage at which the President of the United States of America has proposed a ceasefire and negotiations. Clearly, if we were to do what the Opposition wants and withdraw at this stage there would be unlikely to be a ceasefire or negotiations because the enemy would see that they could gain what they wanted because, regardless of anything, we were going to withdraw. I would say, Mr Speaker, that in fact the result would be either to prolong the war or to hand the victory to the Vietcong on a plate.

page 2977

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM LEVY ON AUSTRALIAN SHEEP MEATS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Does the levy to be imposed by the British Government on Australian lamb and mutton amount to 3d a lb? If not, does he know the amount and will he reveal it? Why was it not revealed in his statement yesterday? What will be the cost of the levy to Australian meat producers and exporters? What will be its effect on their capacity to compete with other supplier nations? To what extent will the levy offset any contribution to income stabilisation attendant on the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission?

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

– The calculations of the Department of Trade and Industry from sterling to Australian currency of the amount of the levy - in this case it is a straight out duty - which the British Government has announced it proposes to impose on Australian mutton and lamb is, I am advised, fractionally more than 3c Australia a lb. It is my belief that I stated that amount in my statement to the House. If I am wrong I invite anyone to contradict me, but I think I stated that amount. So I think that the honourable gentleman takes his policy from the front page of the ‘Australian Financial Review’. This is how it is brought in.

I told the House that ! had heard of these proposals late on Monday, when they were given to me on a confidential basis by the office of the British High Commission here and, having been given them on a confidential basis, I could not reveal them. When the British High Commission furnished me with the text of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I then, at the very first opportunity, came into the House and stated the attitude of the

British Government on this matter. 1 am touched by the concern of the Leader of the Opposition for Australian rural industries, as revealed in his question.

Last night the Leader of the Opposition made his very full and very considered policy speech, describing the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to all the problems of Australia at the momment. His speech included these words:

Our 2 greatest rural industries - wool and wheat - have suffered disastrously from this lack of leadership.

That is the policy of the Labor Party as enunciated in the full, considered policy statement of the Leader of the Opposition, and not another syllable in the whole policy speech of the Leader of the Opposition deals with the rural industries. Of course, there is not a syllable in it of constructive suggestion. It is just a backhanded slap at the Government and the Australian Country Party.

Mr Cohen:

– Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order. Has this any relevance at all to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would think that it is quite relevant to the matter of primary industry and trade.

Mr Whitlam:

– It is a swan song. Give him a go.

Mr McEWEN:

– You know, it is rather pathetic that the-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Whitlam:

– Let the lame duck waddle off.

Mr SPEAKER:

– And the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. This is the second occasion on which he has interjected. I suggest that he might set an example to his followers and to other members of the House.

Mr McEWEN:

- Mr Speaker, I think it is rather pathetic that in relation to my policy responsibilities and my administration the Leader of the Opposition can do no more than fall back on and make reference to my age. I have never heard anything mora puerile and I should like the Leader of the Opposition to know that it leaves me completely untouched.

page 2978

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr BRYANT:

– I address my question to the Minister for the Army. Is he awake?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think this morning is not a time for joking. Many of us have not had enough sleep.

Mr BRYANT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Army. Some criticism has been offered of the Australian Labor Party’s policy to withdraw , all troops from Vietnam on the grounds that it would cause military difficulties iri the area. Is it not a fact that the Australian forces do not garrison in an area and that no Vietnamese people rely upon . Australian troops for protection? Is it not a fact that Australian troops do not operate in close conjunction with Vietnamese or troops from the United States of America, and that a complete withdrawal from the area would have little military or political effect upon the province itself? As our presence has had little or no political impact in the area there is nothing to be gained militarily or politically by remaining there.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member has visited Vietnam and I find it amazing that he makes statements of this kind in asking his question. 1 would have thought the question was based on a dream. I fail to comprehend how he could make these implications after having visited the area. The Prime Minister has given the reasons for the withdrawal of one battalion without replacement. Those reasons are well known. The programme of Vietnamisation and the other developments he mentioned are continuing within the province. We are working closely with the South Vietnamese. There has been part of a division of United States troops within the province - which renders invalid all that the honourable member has said so far. In addition there has been close liaison at a village level both with civic action programmes and in activities of mobile advisory teams with the regional forces and the popular forces. As has been stated before, there are reasons for the motivation of the role we play in the province. The reduction of our forces in the area means that the Vietnamese are assuming more responsibility and I think that one could really say that the removal of those forces does not mean conditions are ripe for the withdrawal of all forces. This is the view of the Government. I think it runs quite counter to and is the very antithesis of the viewpoints expressed in the honourable member’s question.

Mr Bryant:

– Would you like to debate it somewhere?

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes, anywhere.

page 2978

QUESTION

CIVIL LIBERTIES

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to a recent statement by a responsible public figure that individual liberties might be threatened more by internal civil strife than by international friction and war? Has the Government adequate power to cope with attacks on individual freedoms which are becoming more prevalent in Australia? If not, will action be taken to strengthen the ability of the Government to preserve those freedoms that we have long accepted in Australia as part of our freedom loving democratic way of life?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have seen the statement to which the honourable member referred in the first part of his question. In answer to the second part of the question I would say that I am not satisfied, nor is the Government, that the law in its present state so far as it affects areas of Commonwealth responsibility can protect adequately the freedoms to which the honourable member referred. With this in mind legislation to deal with that topic is currently being drafted.

page 2978

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Defence. Is it true that this year’s defence budget provides for more than 42 per cent greater expenditure than the average yearly expenditure on defence during World War II? Is this increase in expenditure due in part to an immediate military threat to Australia and a danger greater now than it was in World War II?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The attempt to make some comparison with expenditure in World War II in absolute terms, as the honourable member does, does not really make any sense unless the purchasing power of the dollar of today is compared with the purchasing power of the pound which was in use during World War II. I do not really think that the honourable member believes there is a great deal of substance in his question.

page 2979

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Has his attention been drawn to the 7th October number of Resist’, a journal purporting to be the journal of the Draft Resisters Union? If so, does that issue carry a statement purporting to have been made by certain persons including four members of this Parliament and one member of another Parliament, which pledges sanctuary to all young men who defy the National Service Act courageously’ as referred to in the article? Has the Attorney-General made any investigations to determine whether the publication of that statement is an offence under Commonwealth law? If so, what investigations have been made? If it appears that an offence has been committed will prosecutions be launched against the persons, including the members of Parliament, who have purportedly made this statement?

Mr HUGHES:
LP

– Yes. my attention has been drawn to the journal ‘Resist’ to which the honourable member has referred. The statement to which the honourable member has referred is one to which several members of this Parliament are purported to have subscribed. T have considered the statement and I would say that the substance of it is as was described by the honourable member in his question. It offers encouragement, or so it would appear, to people defying the National Service Act by offering them assistance in employment and sustenance. .1 have formed a certain view upon the statement. The Solicitor-General also has considered the statement and has formed a view upon it. I have taken the course of submitting the statement to a senior counsel practising at the Victorian bar to have the benefit of his view as to whether the tendency of the statement is to incite people contrary to section 7A of the Crimes Act. When 1 have received advice from senior counsel and compare it with the views of myself and the Solicitor-General, I shall decide whether investigations should be undertaken with a view possibly to instituting a prosecution. If the advice of senior counsel goes a certain way and if the investigations that I would then put in train lead to the establishment of the necessary evidence I should anticipate commencing a prosecution.

page 2979

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr WEBB:

– Will the Minister for Social Services state whether some pensioners who were formerly in receipt of fringe benefits, such as medical benefits, are now losing those benefits because they earn a few cents over the allowable income which takes them within the ambit of the tapered means test, ls he prepared to allow pensioners who are in receipt of fringe benefits to continue to enjoy them?

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

– The position is as I have stated previously in the House. Under the tapered means test people who previously were not eligible became eligible for a part pension and were not eligible for fringe benefits. There has been no change in that regard. I have informed the House that the matter of the withdrawal of pensioner medical cards is under consideration at present and I cao make no further statement about the matter at this stage.

page 2979

QUESTION

CROATIAN REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERHOOD

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Externa] Affairs knowledge of a reported statement by the honourable member for Lalor, made last Sunday, that Government Ministers, namely himself and the Minister for Social Services, have given support to the Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood, an organisation which has been blamed for the bombing of the Yugoslav Consulate in Victoria? Is there any truth in the allegation made by the honourable member for Lalor?

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

– Normally I would completely disregard anything that was said by the honourable member for Lalor. The degree of accuracy and credibility of the honourable member can be tested by my answer to the question. I have no knowledge whatever of any person known to me being a member of the Brotherhood, the Ustashi or any other similar Yugoslav organisation. Secondly, apart from what I have read in the newspapers, from what I have heard in debates in this House, mainly from the honourable member for Lalor, or from what I have read in departmental files, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the operations of the Ustashi or the Brotherhood. I believe that this indicates the degree of credibility that can be attached to any’ statements that are made by the honourable member for Lalor.

page 2980

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT NOISE

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to a report that an injunction was granted recently on the application of several learned barristers in Sydney to restrain developers from using jackhammers at certain times , as the noise made it impossible for them to work in their chambers. If so, does this indicate that protection from noise is evidently available to everyone except to people almost driven out of their homes and senses by aircraft noise? If so, is there any reason why the law should not be amended to provide that persons or organisations affected by aircraft noise at all hours of the day and night should be entitled to take similar action against the Government or the airline companies responsible for this menace to their health, homes and welfare? In any case, in view of the curfew at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport being constantly broken with the approval of the Minister, will he make public the legal rights of individuals and organisations to protection against this threat to their way of life?

Mr Cope:

– Answer yes or no.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honourable member for Sydney does not cease interjecting, I will say yes or no to him shortly.

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

– The first part of my answer is no. I have not read the reference to the jackhammers. But I would remind the honourable member that this House set up a select committee to investigate the problem of aircraft noise. That committee already has submitted an interim report and has now concluded its work in relation to this matter. I would ask the honourable member to contain himself until the members of this House on that committee have had the opportunity to submit their advice to Parliament for consideration of what is a very important social problem and a matter that does concern so many people in the community. I know that the members of this committee have carried out their duties in a creditable way. I have no doubt that when the report of the committee is received it will be one that will be given the consideration that it deserves.

The only other point that I would refer to is the question of the curfew applying to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the statement that the honourable member has made that this is broken frequently on the authority of the Minister for Civil Aviation. On a number of occasions both in this House and in the Senate indications have been given of the limited number of times when approval has been granted for flights outside the curfew hours. It has been stated quite clearly that approval is given in cases of emergency or in special circumstances during peak periods of the year. The matter is considered very carefully. Authority can be given only by the Minister personally. A very careful check is kept on this matter and flights outside the curfew hours are kept down to the absolute minimum.

page 2980

QUESTION

JERVIS BAY NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for National Development indicate whether the evaluation of tenders for the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay has been completed? If so, when will the matter be considered by the Government?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– As I had indicated to the House previously, of the 9 tenders that had been received originally for the erection of the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay, 5 had been eliminated and a concentrated evaluation was being carried out on the remaining four. This work is still proceeding between our consultants, Bechtel, and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I have also indicated previously that we have accepted that the results of the evaluation in the form of a recommendation to the Government for a contract would be submitted about the end of the year or early in the new year. This work is of a very intense nature involving numerous studies, which means that groups of people from the tendering countries have to come here and go through the tenders very carefully with the Commission and the representatives of Bechtel. I expect that we would be in a position to consider a recommendation in the new year. After it has been submitted to me I will make a recommendation to the Government for consideration. I believe that this will be in about the first one or two months of 1971.

page 2981

QUESTION

KINDERGARTEN- CUM-CHILDM1NDING CENTRES

Mr WHITLAM:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the right honourable gentleman would not allow his Minister for Education and Science yesterday to answer a question without notice from my Deputy about the proposed kindergarten.cumchildminding centres, I ask him whether his proposals have not been sufficiently delineated as the Treasurer might say, to permit him to say whether these facilities would fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Labour and National Service, the Minister for Education and Science or the Minister for Social Services.

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The consideration of this matter, which has been going on for some time, has been in the carriage of the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Minister for Social Services. They have been conferring on the matter. Other things regarding it will be made known at the proper time.

35-HOUR WEEK

Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Leader of the Opposition made no reference to the Australian Labor Party’s 35-hour week policy in his Senate election campaign speech last night? Is he aware also that Mr Hawke followed the Leader of the Opposition at the campaign opening and spoke on the 35-hour week issue? Is the right honourable gentleman further aware that Mr Hawke issued a challenge to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and National Service to debate the 35-hour week issue? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to tiptoe through the political tulips with Mr Hawke in hot pursuit?

Mr GORTON:

– The answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question is yes. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition made no mention of this matter when he delivered what, by some stretch of the imagination, I suppose could be called a policy speech, though it contained no policy. I am also aware that he was followed at this meeting by Mr Hawke who did mention the 35-hour week and who had something most interesting to say.

When talking about issuing a challenge, he had this to say:

The Prime Minister has joined me -

That is, Mr Hawke -

  1. . and Mr Whitlam in saying that the 35-hour week is an issue that should be discussed and judged at this election.

It is quite interesting to have this affirmation by Mr Hawke, at second hand, of what Mr Whitlam has said, because I think that everyone in this House will agree that so far his silence has been almost deafening. But it is interesting to have this Hawke-Whitlam axis confirmed, particularly in a field where the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are, by their platform, pledged to bring in a 35-hour week and where, if this nation ever had the misfortune for them to be in government, they would have to carry out that policy insofar as they could in their own instrumentalities and would have to advocate it in the Arbitration Court to the great distress of all those areas of which I have spoken. In replying to the last part of the honourable member’s question, I do not think it is a case of the Leader of the Opposition tiptoeing through the tulips with Mr Hawke in pursuit. I think it is perhaps rather a case of them both walking hand in hand through the flowery meadows because neither would want the other to get behind him.

page 2981

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Postmaster-General by referring to the Minister’s answer to my question No. 2078 which indicated that 54 per cent of the long term deferred telephone applications are in New South Wales whereas only 39 per cent of the total number of applications for telephone services during the year 1969-70 were from that State. Incidentally there are only 792 long term deferrals in the Minister’s own State compared with 4,098 in New South Wales. I therefore ask: Why has this discrimination against New South Wales in respect of telephone services been allowed to continue? Will the Minister immediately initiate the necessary action, including the allocation of the required finance, staff and resources, to restore justice to that State keeping in mind that this discrimination has been a continuing feature as exemplified by the fact that it existed when I first entered this Parliament in 1961?

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

– When 1 became PostmasterGeneral some 7 years ago and investigated the situation of deferred applications it was obvious that New South Wales had many more and a much greater percentage than any of the other States. Indeed, special action was taken by me to bring about a big reduction in the total number. From memory I believe that at one time, over a period of 2 or 3 years, some 44 per cent of loan moneys available to the Post Office was spent in New South Wales for the purpose of overcoming the problem there. It is to be appreciated by anybody who knows the Sydney area and who knows the type of country, sandstone in particular, that there are substantial problems associated with the cost of putting telephone services underground in that area. Additionally, of course, there has been a tremendous expansion of population in the Sydney area which, again, has contributed to the problem that exists. But it is not to be assumed that while we try to cure a problem in one area a similar problem will not arise in another State. A couple of years ago the demand rate in Western Australia reached as high, over an 8 months period, as 42 per cent. It was therefore necessary for something to be done by the transfer of employees, as had taken place in relation to New South Wales, to Western Australia to keep under control the situation there. I have said in the House before, and I say it again, that I have no intention of allowing every State to become unbalanced merely to try to solve the problems of one State. I will do my best to ensure that by degrees we are able to reduce the total number of deferred applications in each State.

page 2982

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for External Affairs state in plain terms, so that the average citizen can understand the implication, the effect of Labor Party policy, as announced by the Leader of the Opposition, of an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam? In particular, what would the effect be on our friendly relationship with other countries in South East Asia and our allies engaged in the conflict?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– Those who have had the misfortune to read the speech that the Leader of the Opposition made last night will recognise that he is completely enmeshed in the past and is unable to look to the future and the bright hopes it has for the people of Indo-China.

Mr Whitlam:

– I quoted what you said.

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-MAHON- Yes, in 1967. lt was then right, but what the Leader of the Opposition forgot -

Mr Whitlam:

– lt looks damn silly now. .

Mr MCMAHON:

– You looked damn silly on television.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 would suggest to both the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that the cross-fire across the table cease and that the Chair be addressed in the correct manner.

Mr McMAHON:

– I assure you, Mr Speaker, that in deference to your wishes 1 will not retaliate. If I may continue uninterrupted I will deal with the consequences of the situation mentioned by the honourable gentleman. If we look at the tactics being displayed by the Leader of the Opposition we will see there is a deliberate effort to confuse the issues and by political deceit to try to prevent the Australian people from being well informed as to what is happening. As to the substance of the question, if there had been a withdrawal of allied forces on a completely unconditional basis, as recommended by the Leader of the Opposition in 1967, there is no doubt at all that by now the South Vietnamese would have been conquered by the North Vietnamese, that Laos and Cambodia would have fallen and, I believe, that the Thais and Malaysians would have been threatened.

Mr Bryant:

– None of us would have been safe in bed.

Mr McMAHON:

– You did not say that when you came back from Cambodia.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills has been continually interjecting during Question Time. I warn the honourable member.

Mr McMAHON:

– For those who have memories and a conscience, I remind the House-

Mr Gorton:

– There is only one bloke with a conscience and that is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McMAHON:

– He says he has a conscience, but he has not. For those with consciences I remind the House and the Australian people of the massacres which took place of those who disagreed with the North Vietnamese when the Communist regime took control. I remind the House of the massacre of 5,800 people which took place at the northern university capital of Hue. The people of South East Asia believe that if the Indo-Chinese states were defeated and occupied and their futures determined by the Communists, the same kind of massacres would occur in their countries. This is the kind of problem I am sure the honourable member for Bennelong has been thinking about but the kind of problem which is completely ignored by the Labor Party. The so-called voice of conscience of the Labor Party is completely still when this kind of problem is being considered. Let me turn to the realities of life. Australia is there to maintain the independence and neutrality of those countries and, for that matter, the independence and neutrality of all the countries of South East Asia. We are not prepared to see them conquered by the Communists.’ What are we doing? The President of the United States has recently stated a new initiative and that is that there should be a negotiated settlement based upon a standstill cease fire and that there should be a political settlement based on the present political realities in those states. Just listen to the feminine hysterical laughter coming from the honourable member for Lalor. This offer of a negotiated settlement has been made. So far we have had no-

Mr Uren:

– Why did the Burmese dislike you so much?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 said at the beginning of Question Time that I will not have it continually interrupted by interjections which, as all honourable members know, are out of order. If the continual chatter from the front bench continues I will name the next offender.

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order. You would assist the conduct which quite rightly you advise if you were to deter Ministers from intruding gratuitous references to other honourable members. The Minister for External Affairs has made a reference to a member of my front bench and you point out quite correctly that it would be disorderly for the member so named to respond. It would be much easier if such gratuitous references were not allowed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If I correctly recall the interjection I heard - it may not have been audible to the Leader of the Opposition - perhaps I should have taken stronger action than I did.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order. With due respect, Mr Speaker, is it not a fact, that members are required not be to provocative? The Minister for External Affairs is exquisitely provocative and I think that this ought to be taken into account.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order in this regard. The honourable member himself has been continually carrying on an undercurrent of interjections.

Mr McMAHON:

– I was saying that the President of the United States has taken this initiative to have a negotiated settlement on the basis that the states of Indo-China should be free and neutral and that we should give them the opportunity to determine their own future. I have not heard one member of the Opposition support the initiative taken by the President and supported by our own Prime Minister and by the Liberal-Country Party Government. What this clearly indicates is that they want the Communist Party of North Vietnam and, for that matter, the Peking Communists, to dominate the whole of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and subsequently to be able to exercise at the minimum political hegemony throughout the whole of South East Asia and, I think, ultimately to go well beyond that.

page 2983

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1970

Bill returned from the Senate without requests.

page 2983

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AIRCRAFT NOISE

Report of Committee

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– I present the report together with the minutes of proceedings of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Australia has been in the vanguard of world wide efforts to achieve some relief from exposure to aircraft noise. During the course of this inquiry, now complete, we have had ample evidence of the work of Australians in bringing the problems of aircraft noise to international attention. I point to the 1969 International Civil Aviation Organisation Conference in Montreal, devoted entirely to the problems of aircraft noise, and to the fact that it was the work of Australians which stimulated the necessary interest to bring that Conference to reality. Senior officers of the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of Health’s Acoustic Laboratories contributed to what was a highly successful conference. A great deal of knowledge and skill was contributed by our officers, one of whom was elected as Chairman.

The Select Committee has been fortunate in having as technical adviser Mr J. A. Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories, undoubtedly the foremost scientist in his field in Australia. He represents this country with singular distinction at the International Standards Organisation and ICAO on matters of aircraft noise and other acoustic problems. At their conference, Mr Rose is highly respected by overseas authorities for his outstanding knowledge of his subject and his representation of this country. The Committee is deeply indebted to him for his unselfish dedication to the inquiry.

The report which I have tabled represents 2 years of work by your Committee and I am happy to commend it to the Parliament, as further evidence of Australia’s unique position in the attack on the problem of aircraft noise. This Committee has the distinction of being the first to be appointed to investigate aircraft noise specifically at the national level. I hope it will not be expected that we have found some dramatic means of overcoming what is a very real problem of modern living. It is just as impossible to eliminate noise nuisance from aircraft as it is from surface transport.

Communities in the vicinity of airports will be exposed to aircraft noise despite elaborate measures to overcome this nuisance, which leads the Committee to conclude that land use planning is the key to mitigating its worst effects. In the absence of Commonwealth legal power to legislate outside the boundaries of Commonwealth property, the Committee urges State and local governments, which have this power, to work together in taking immediate steps to zone land subjected to acute aircraft noise exposure in such a way as to achieve compatibility between the airport and its neighbourhood. It is unnecessary to render such land sterile and there is every prospect of its value appreciating significantly. The responsible attitude of the Victorian Government in enunciating an appropirate land use policy objective at the time of the opening of Tullamarine Airport is commended by the Committee, and the forward planning of other States has been noted in the course of the inquiry.

Perhaps the most novel of the 29 recommendations in this report is one relating to the use of financial incentives to civil air operators who take steps to reduce noise nuisance. Nowhere in the world has such a policy yet been implemented, though it is thought to be in the minds of some authorities. One reason for the recommendation of financial incentives for noise reduction is to avoid if possible the principle which is sometimes used of imposing penalties. The report states the belief of the Committee that the aim should be to reduce noise exposure particularly at times and in places of most distress to the community. The noise level performance of each aircraft at specific times of the day for each separate runway at airports whose neighbourhoods suffer from severe exposure are factors to be taken into account, in this way aircraft operators are to be encouraged to reduce noise by any or all of a variety of techniques available to them, including weight reductions, operational techniques, fitting engine noise reduction equipment and operating at least critical times of the day. Coupled with this is the recommendation to introduce noise monitoring at Sydney Airport. The Committee does not suggest Australia-wide installation of monitoring systems at this stage, contenting itself with a suggested priority according to the severity of noise nuisance. Both fixed microphone and mobile monitoring equipment are required to investigate complaints against noise and to check the effectiveness of noise abatement procedures and their implementation.

These and other recommendations, 11 of which are based on evidence considered since the tabling of our June 1970 Interim Report, can make a substantial contribution to relief from aircraft noise in Australia. A printed version of the report is not available as yet because of the shortening of the Parliamentary sittings in the current session and the inability of the Government Printer to cope with the large volume of work required prior to the end of the session. However, a copy of the text of the report has been circulated to honourable members, the Press, some Departments and others. I apologise to the House for this somewhat unusual procedure and hope it will cause no inconvenience.

The Committee has now concluded its inquiry and, as required by its terms of reference, has reported to the Parliament. I wish to thank all members of the Committee for the ready co-operation they have given in arriving at unanimous conclusions on what have often been rather contentious points. I am very conscious of the sympathetic consideration always received from the Minister for Civil Aivation (Senator Cotton) and the willing assistance given by officers of his Department. The Committee is especially appreciative of the comprehensive response received from him after the detailed examination that he has made of the interim report.

I am indebted to the staff of the Committee and thank them also for a most creditable performance in preparing the huge volume of transcript of evidence and the production, first, of the draft material and then final proofs of the report in a strenuous race against time. Our recommendations have been made in the earnest desire to bring relief to those people living under flight paths and subjected to a growing annoyance. We sincerely believe that if our recommendations are adopted with good will by those people or organisations who can implement them, a considerable measure of relief will be achieved.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– by leave) - I join the Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Air craft Noise in expressing my appreciation to the members of the staff of the Committee, to those men who were so cooperative and helpful to members of the Committee, including myself. They made information available to us and assisted us in every possible way. We had as good a team of men working with us as it was possible to get together. Although the present Secretary of the Committee is Mr Chapman, Mr Doug Blake was the original Secretary, and I also include him in the people who were most helpful and co-operative to members of the Committee.

I believe that this inquiry has been helpful. I believe that the Committee has come up with some reasonable recommendations which, if implemented by the Government, could be of great assistance to people living close to or adjacent to airports or under flight paths. Today there is a greater awareness of the problems of aircraft noise. May I issue a warning. I believe that the Service departments - the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army and the Department of Air - probably have to take greater heed of the Committee’s recommendations than they have done in the past. I believe that already I have seen examples of the Service departments ignoring completely the interim reports which the Committee presented to- this Parliament late in 1969 and early in 1970. So we have to consider the effects not only of aircraft noise created by general aviation but also by the Service aircraft.

I believe that the Committee has brought down some very good recommendations on noise exposure forecasts. All I want to say at this stage is that I hope that in the initial stages, until such time as the effects of this section of the recommmendations and the application of this new system of noise exposure forecasting are considered fully, this matter should not be enforced rigidly. There should be some elasticity about it so that at least we can see how it will work, and people should not be debarred from doing some of the things that they want to do in areas where town planning proposals have already been instituted. It is in this latter field that there has to be maximum co-operation between the Department of Civil Aviation and the State planning authorities at both tha State and local government levels. lt was obvious from the inquiry and from the evidence which was presented to the Committee that local government and State authorities are not prepared to hand over to the Federal Government the right to plan in areas adjacent to airports, in the same way as we now have power under the regulations to control the height of buildings adjacent to airports. Therefore, if they are not prepared to give this power to the Federal Government, at least they should co-operate and have some regard for the people who have to live near airports.

Another important decision concerned the question of the support for the imposition of the curfew on the jet aircraft operations between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. I have not the time to deal with all of these matters in detail because of an arrangement to confine our remarks to a reasonable degree, but already questions have been asked concerning this matter of the curfew and to . date there has been no indication from the Minister - whether it be the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), the former Minister for Civil Aviation who is sitting at the table, or his successor - that due heed will be given to lbc need for rigid imposition of the curfew, particularly at those airports where people are affected seriously by aircraft noise. 1 refer to Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. The people in those cities have their night’s rest disturbed at all hours of the night by the noise created by jet aircraft. ft is my view that there should be no relaxation of the curfew on flying hours except in the case of an emergency such as when an aircraft is having difficulties or people have been delayed because of bad weather conditions. Perhaps my colleagues who represent electorates which are situated under flight paths may disagree with me on this point but I feel that people should not be forced to remain away from their homes or not. allowed to complete their journey in such unusual circumstances,. But I think it is completely wrong te schedule flights as they have been ever since this Committee commenced its inquiry. It is my view that the Minister should immediately terminate the policy that has been adopted in recent years of allowing airlines to operate during curfew hours in holiday periods. If the airlines have not sufficient aircraft then that is just too bad.

The number of people’ who gain the advantage of travelling after I I p.m. and before 6 a.m. is so infinitesimal in comparison with the number who travel between 6 a.m. and 1 1 p.m. that we should do everything possible to ensure that the people under the flight paths do not have their night’s rest disturbed. The imposition of curfew hours is something that must be rigidly enforced. 1 want to refer to another matter while I am in such a domineering and dogmatic mood.

Mr Swartz:

– That is a change.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– That is right. It is a change. The further point I want to make is that the Department of Civil Aviation should demand that airline operators compel their employees to wear protective equipment when working on ;t tarmac adjacent to aircraft. There are two types of people who can be affected by aircraft noise. There are those who live under the flight path. When aircraft fly over their homes these people suffer some nervous reaction because of the noise. They may have their rest disturbed, telephone conversations interrupted, television viewing interfered with, and so on. Other than the effect that the noise has on a person’s nerves there is probably no permanent damage. In contrast those men who work on a tarmac and are adjacent to aircraft should be compelled by their employer or union - this applies both ways - to wear protective apparel to prevent permanent damage being occasioned to their hearing. I am now speaking as one who has some knowledge of this matter. Because of the effects of noise which I suffered in another field, in my former occupation, I have not got complete hearing today. These people who work on a tarmac are subject to an even higher level of noise than 1 had been subjected to when working in a boilermaker’s shop. T can only assume that the extent of the loss of hearing incurred by members employed in the aircraft industry is much greater than it is in the boilermakers’ industry. I hope that the union concerned and the airlines will co-operate to do something positive about this matter.

By the same token there is a necessity for research to be carried out into the effect of noise on people under flight paths. We know what effect aircraft noise has on people adjacent to aircraft but research should be undertaken to determine the social effects on people. What does aircraft noise do to them? This is something on which the Government should be prepared to spend quite a deal of money to enable universities and people in the medical and sociological fields to carry out an investigation. It is unfortunate that the Committee did not have the financial resources or the time to carry out such investigation. This is a matter which has to be dealt with much more fully than the Committee was able to do.

In conclusion there are two matters I want to refer to. Firstly, the Government did not give the Committee the power to tackle properly the problem of aircraft noise; in other words to inquire and determine where the airports should be located. I do not think that there is one member of the Committee who agrees that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is in the correct position and that it should remain v/here it is. It is obvious to everyone who has done any work on this matter that the Sydney Airport should be shifted because of the thousands of people who are affected adversely by the noise level adjacent to the Airport.

Mr Hurford:

– Also West Beach at Adelaide.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Well, Sydney is even worse than West Beach. It is much worse than Brisbane or Perth. I will agree with the honourable member for Adelaide that the airport at Adelaide and also, I might add, the airports at Brisbane and Perth, have a very decided noise problem. But the problem at Sydney is greater than the problems at these other airports. I believe the Committee should have had the power to make recommendations to the Government about the location of an alternative airport for Sydney. The Committee has carried out the work that it was given on aircraft noise. However, the Government has left the matter of airport location to other committees. I understand one committee that was appointed reported to the Minister for Civil Aviation some months ago. That report is probably still lying in the archives of his office and it appears that the Minister does not intend to do anything about it. The Government is now appointing subcommittees to investigate this matter. When the Senate election is over we may get a report. But I believe this Parliament should have a say in where airports should be located. The Aircraft Noise Committee should have been given the power to report the siting of airports. The Committee should have been able to report not only on Sydney but also on West Beach, Perth Brisbane and any other airport that presents a problem. Townsville has a problem, which will become even greater unless something is done about it.

Mr Buchanan:

– What about Norfolk Island?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I know that the Chairman of the Aircraft Noise Commute would have liked to go to Norfolk Island and so would everyone else, but I do not think there was any need to go there. I know that the Chairman also, considered that a visit to Norfolk Island was not necessary. There is a need for this type of planning and the Committee should have been given the responsibility to report on such plans.

Whilst there is no minority report and whilst members of the Committee had no desire to bring down a minority report, I had an objection to one of the recommendations of the Committee. I expressed my opposition in the House when the interim report of the Committee was tabled. I believe that Standing Orders should be amended to allow a minority report to be presented to the Parliament. Under the present arrangements a member of the Committee cannot express opposition to the contents of the report or any portion of the report. A member would be able to do this if a minority report was tabled with the report of the Committee. At present a member may express his opposition in the minutes of proceedings when resolutions are adopted or decisions made by the Committee. However, this is not the same as a minority report. Therefore, I believe that Standing Orders should be amended to provide for minority reports.

Mr ROBINSON:
Cowper

– by leave - Very briefly I want to refer to the report which has been presented to the House by the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. I believe that contrary to what was said by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) the work of this Committee and the report that was presented provide a basis for a very sound approach by the

Government, by the Department of Civil Aviation, by other Commonwealth instrumentalities and in particular by State instrumentalities to this very vexed question of excessive aircraft noise. It would be quite wrong for the impression to arise from the comments that were made about the report by the honourable member for Newcastle that there had been shortcomings in the work of the Committee. 1 would agree with him that the terms of reference limited the activities of the Committee in some directions, but I must emphasise that the intention of the Government was quite clear when the terms of reference were originally presented to this House. The terms of reference were debated on a previous occasion when the interim report of the Committee was presented to the Parliament. They were also discussed when the Committee was reappointed when the new Parliament came into existence. On that occasion, it was quite clearly stated by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in this place, that the purpose of the Committee was to seek certain information and to make a recommendation to this House. This has been done, and it has been done in a manner that 1 believe completely accords with the objectives that were in mind. It is a basis not only for appropriate action by the authorities concerned but also for future work and future action of a technical nature in this important field of aircraft noise.

I commend the Chairman and members of the Committee for the effective approach that they have made to this matter. In particular I refer to the assistance given by specialist officers who have been untiring in their efforts to find the most effective solution possible to this problem. I think that perhaps the most significant of the recommendations of the Committee is the first recomemndation referred to earlier in this discussion. It indicates quite clearly that there is a means of establishing a positive approach to the assessment of aircraft noise. I refer to the recommmendation that provision should be made of a permanent means of assessing aircraft noise and of monitoring aircraft noise. This should be understood quite clearly by all those concerned including airline operators and pilots who are responsible for operations at air fields. Undoubtedly this provision will apply in the first place to those airports which have the greatest degree of aircraft noise, that is, where it is a major problem. This would apply to Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and, to a lesser extent, Perth.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is the major problem. The honourable member for Newcastle has referred to this fact. But he went on to say that the Government had not given power to the Committee to seek and to recommend sites for new airports. This was very clearly a matter of policy. It was not a matter within the scope of the Committee under its terms of reference. The reason why it was not in the terms of reference can be quite positively identified. The reason without doubt simply is that this is an administrative matter for the Department of Civil Aviation and for the Government. The evidence taken by and the recommendations of the Select Committee will play an important part in putting useful data into the hands of the proper authorities responsible for dealing with the matter of selecting and recommending sites for new airports. H we wish, the term ‘alternate’ sites may be used. It can be recognised that an alternate site for the airport for Sydney is a matter of great importance that encompasses many more considerations than noise alone. It would be quite wrong for us merely to consider aspects of noise and nothing else in the question of siting a future airport for the City of Sydney. There are commercial considerations. This is not something that can be taken merely as the only basis for decision. It must be recognised that although the problem of noise is of tremendous significance, an acknowledgement of that fact alone does not set a basis for selection of a new airport site. If a site can be located which will provide the maximum possible avoidance of noise, and provided all other requirements - in particular navigational requirements - can be met satisfactorily, that would be the place to put an airport of the future for any major city of Australia such as Sydney.

I am sure that the approach to this responsibility will be a constructive one. As I said a moment ago, the responsible authorities will be assisted in their task by the results achieved as a consequence of the work of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. I believe that the report presented is an excellent one. I believe that it has gone to the extreme limits possible, that it sets a remarkable technical basis and provides a very useful summary of the many aspects of this very vexed question. I believe that the House, when it has had an opportunity to study the report fully, will regard it as a unique report and as a consequence of very effective work by one of the first select committees appointed by the House of Representatives in recent years to deal with an important public matter.

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

– by leave - As a member of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, which has been meeting for 12 months, I would like to make some comments about the report which has now been tabled. Firstly, I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee. He and I are of different political persuasions, and we do not agree on some of the suggestions made in the report, but I have never seen a man work harder at solving, within the limited terms of reference of the Committee, the problems we had to endeavour to solve. Needless to say we were not able to solve all of them. We had the undoubted assistance of experts in the field. Mr Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories is an excellent person in every regard and one whose recommendations we should certainly follow. We had the assistance also of Mr Leonard and Mr Gross from the Department of Civil Aviation. They have tried their best to indicate to us the ways in which, perhaps, the noise problem could be quickly eliminated. Last but by no means least we had the assistance of Mr Chapman, who has been a dedicated servant to the Committee. We could not have completed the report without his assistance. I refer also to the work done by my own colleagues, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). They put a great deal of work into this report.

A consideration of this matter comes back to the question: What was the problem we set out to solve? It became obvious as we got into our work that the only solution to protect unfortunate people from the noise of jet aircraft was the proper use of land. It is regrettable to think that the national Parliament was not able to give to the Committee, which could perhaps have brought forward very reasonable suggestions on the matter, the power to inquire into the suitability of existing airports and to make recommendations about where future airports should be located. Because we did not have that power we virtually were stifled in making a number of recommendations that would have been of great advantage. The Parliament must take the responsibility, because whether the Committee should have that additional power was the subject of a vote here, and the power was denied us.

One of the Committee’s recommendations was that we should have a sociological survey of the problems of the people who live under the flight paths. I live in such an area myself, and I am well aware of the problems of these people. In my electorate the number of people affected in this way is some 200,000. They have been where they are throughout their normal lifetime. They have built up a large part of the city of Sydney. The area in which they live consists of excellent residential areas, splendid commercial areas, a university, teaching hospitals, schools, churches and magnificent beaches - alf the excellent facilities of a city which could not be surpassed anywhere. The one exception is the airport, which ocupies an area of a mere 1,500 acres. The 33rd most important airport in the world does not measure up to any international standard. Heathrow Airport in London, which has been subject to so much criticism and which was the subject of a devastating report by the Wilson Committee in 1961. has an area of 2,700 acres. Le Bourget in France, which also has an area of 2,700 acres, has been phased out of existence. It did not have a sufficient land area.

Time and again we come back to this point: The real issue is sufficient land. Certainly the Government made some effort to solve the problems in Victoria by acquiring 4,500 acres for the Tullamarine Airport. That was far too small an area to have acquired. The Government should have acquired at least 9,000 acres, because that is the international standard. The people of Keilor will have to pay the penalty for what might be termed short sightedness from the monetary point of view. I am here to represent the people of KingsfordSmith. It is elementary that the curfew on night flights must be maintained. There should be no flights at night over the residential areas of my electorate or the electorate of St George particularly and also the electorate of Grayndler. It is impossible for people who have borne the brunt of earning their living during’ the daylight hours to come home and be’ saturated with noise throughout the early hours of the evening.

Mr Bennett:

– What about Perth? . .

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

– My colleague asks about Perth. I have indicated that we cannot say anything about a particular airport. I am speaking as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith; I am not speaking about anything I have learned during my service on the Committee. The Committee has not been able to bring in a minority report, and to that extent I agree with the recommendations of the Committee. We did have some disagreement about what might be the views of the State Planning Authority in New South Wales. This is the sole purpose for my now rising. The State Planning Authority in New South Wales, I believe, has adopted or is about to adopt and implement a noise exposure forecast. This noise exposure forecast is an American invention. It sets out the different levels of noise exposure, which is creditable, and it has annexed to it a schedule which shows the acceptable development in areas under the flight path. If that noise exposure forecast were applied in my electorate, it would be obliterated from the point of view of residential development or use for schools, hospitals and universities. Can anyone imagine in this day and age that an area in which a capital investment has already been made by both Federal and State Governments to build up this community should now be obliterated because aircraft fly over it? Does it not lead to the principle that the airport should be relocated elsewhere?

The only satisfactory way to use Mascot is for the aircraft to fly across Botany Bay. There is no other way by which the people can be prevented from being saturated by noise. The State Planning Authority has adopted this noise exposure forecast, I say. because it feels that the Department of Civil Aviation wanted it adopted. The Department of Civil Aviation encouraged this report to be produced prior to this Committee bringing in its report.The Committee says that the report is a good idea from the point of view of a noise exposure forecast’ but that it should be applied with very cautious restraint. In my view it should not be applied in the ‘ Sydney region. It would prevent development. On page 87 of its report the Committee has said in its wisdom . that State planning authorities have indicated that land use zoning should be put into practice immediately to prevent any intensification of the density of residential development. I do not accept that proposal. I am not decrying the value of the Committee’s, work or its recommendations, but I cannot in all honesty say that I represent people, who should not be where they are because aircraft are flying above them. It is not much good my reading, the report of Mr Ashton, the Chairman of the State Planning Authority, who said that the report has not been implemented. He has said that he is waiting on the report of this Committee before he implements it, but I know from the local authorities of both Botany and Randwick that it has been implemented. People who have been entitled until now to redevelop their properties are now being prevented from doing so because of the noise exposure forecast issued by the Department of Civil Aviation.

I give high praise to the Chairman for the suggestion that there should be no more parallel runways at Mascot, nor should there be. I. want the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to take note of that, because if people can demonstrate against noise in France and everywhere else throughout the world they can surely demonstrate in Sydney. They can lie on the tarmac or do many other things in protesting about whether their needs have been adequately considered. They have not been adequately considered. I repeat that Sydney Airport has the most insufficient area of any international airport in the world. It has a mere 1,500 acres. Every other international airport would have 5 or 10 times as much area. Even England, with its small area, is planning another airport of 15,000 acres. It has to be about that area to solve the problem of noise. Ansett Airlines of Australia, for which I have no brief, at least gave evidence that it was a problem not of aircraft noise but of airport noise.

Until such time as we get proper land use we will not solve the problem of noise. So it is mandatory that the responsble people who have the reins of office, particularly the Minister for Civil Aviation, immediately say that there should be a second airport for the metropolis of Sydney. It would have to be located some distance out of the city. That could create some inconvenience. But by international standards it is not considered a great hardship for a passenger to have to travel for 1 hour in getting from his home to the airport. People living in Blacktown have to travel for an hour to get home from work, so there is no problem there.

Mr Irwin:

– It takes them an hour and a half.

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

– My colleague says it- takes them an hour and a half. He would know, because he travels that distance. I emphasise that had it been given the term of reference the Committee could have been able to say whether any airport in Australia met international standards. The answer would have been no. Tullamarine does not qualify, despite the advantage of having some open areas around it, because it will affect Keilor. It is a pity that we spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money on capital investments of this nature which cannot achieve a good result. The world situation is that if a minimum of 10,000 acres can be acquired, and preferably 15,000 acres, for an airport, within the framework of that airport can be developed commercial and living facilities that are ancillary to an airport. In other words if the Commonwealth observed that trend it could make money from developing its own airport city. It could plan the airport in such a way that people could live within the flight paths and not be inundated by noise, because they would not be there basically on a residential, school, university or hospital basis but for commercial purposes. In Germany they are planning for car showrooms, transport facilities and even major motels for passengers within the airport area. Would it not provide a major economic return for any government if it invested in land? The key is the investment in land and we must continue to drive this home to the Government.

In respect of the acute problem of aircraft noise the people of Kingsford-Smith ask for the reduction of flights over the residential areas. The noise’ level can be reduced if the flight paths over the Bay are used and if the curfew on night flights is maintained. It is an elementary fact that noise increases at night because of the mere fact of it being night. The plan for parallel runways at Kingsford-Smith airport, announced some years ago by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) when he was Minister for Civil Aviation, should be abandoned immediately because with increased flights the present acute noise from this small area of 1,500 acres will be much worse. It is not fair that the people of Kingsford-Smith should have to subsidise the Commonwealth Government because it has not been able to plan a second airport for Sydney. In 1958 it was able to plan a second airport for Melbourne but it has not been able in 1970 to plan a second airport for Sydney. It is an indictment of the Government’s lethargy and its failure to look at the predicament of people in the Sydney area. Why should the people of Kingsford Smith be expected to continue to subsidise the Commonwealth Government’s lethargy, delay and failure to plan properly? While we are in Opposition we will continue to encourage the Government to act, but until the Government acts the people in this area will suffer. I hope that we assume government because then, and I say this on behalf of my colleagues, Mascot will not be allowed to continue to expand. There will be a second airport for Sydney and it will be to the economic advantage of the nation and of benefit particularly to the people T represent.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– by leave- I want to comment on the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. It has been an interesting, exhilarating and wonderful experience for members of the Committee because they have obtained much evidence and been informed by people of great stature. Noise is a psychological and social problem which affects some people but which is of no great disadvantage to other people. The Committee questioned people who reside quite close to airports. In Adelaide, where planes come in to land at a height not much above 150 feet, nearby residents offered no objection to the noise but, on the contrary, stated that if the flight paths were altered they would miss the noise and would be affected in a reverse way. Aircraft noise is a difficult problem. Australia has the great distinction of being one of the forerunners in the investigation of the alleviation of this nuisance.

It is very difficult to protect Australian airport workers who, like most Australians, are carefree. Earguards are provided to protect them from hearing disabilities but it is difficult for management and even for unions to persuade the workers to use earpads. This morning we have listened to the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) but I point out that it was never intended that the Committee should investigate the problem of the positioning of future airports. This subject matter was not incorporated in the Commitee’s terms of reference and the Committee did not report thereon. The Chairman of the Committee suggests to me that should the Parliament require it, all members of the Committee would be pleased to serve on a committee appointed to investigate the siting of airports in Australia and on Norfolk Island.

Members of the Committee have been happy in their deliberations. Of course we have differed on occasions, but this has been an informative and educational exercise. Now that we have completed our work I think it would be advisable perhaps to form some sort of mutual admiration society and express complimentary remarks about those people who have been associated with the Committee. All members of the Committee would agree that we were astounded and astonished at the perception of our Chairman and at the quick way he took up the cudgels when we first met in December of last year. To the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) I express our thanks for his guidance and assistance during the time we were investigating this problem. I compliment also Mr Jack Rose. Frequently it is brought home to us how little we know, not only about’ the universe and things in general but about ourselves. In Jack Rose we had perhaps one of the most learned scientists in the acoustics field in Australia, and to him we express our thanks. He was able to speak in a layman’s language that we could understand and we are all better informed by our association with him. Mr Keith Leonard and Mr Gross from the Department of Civil Aviation were always willing to assist. They are intelligent and informed men and we congratulate them on their work. No matter how good a chairman is, unless an organisation has a good secretary it falls down. I pay my tribute to the dedication of Mr Bruce Chapman and of his assistant, Mr Ken Hale, and to the clerical staff that assisted us during our deliberations.

The manufacturers of aircraft engines have spent millions of dollars in an endeavour to construct an engine that is not as noisy as existing engines and they have made a wonderful contribution, as evidenced by the fact that the jumbo jet makes less noise than the 707 or the 727. There is a great effort being made in aircraft and engine construction to reduce noise and it is meeting with reasonable success. Hand in hand with the reduction of noise goes a reduction in efficiency and an increase in the cost of maintenance and operation. I commend the report to the House and again thank the Chairman of the Committee for the very excellent job that he did.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– by leave - As a member of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise I would like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation to the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) and the staff. In his statement the Chairman said that Australia has been in the vanguard of world wide efforts to reduce aircraft noise. I have the utmost respect for the honourable member for McMillan but I beg to differ with him on this point. For instance, the United Kingdom some 12 years ago introduced a plan of noise monitoring at Heathrow Airport and a large number of international airports have regulations affecting aircraft noise which are far more stringent than those currently in operation in Australia. To my mind the interests of people living in the vicinity of airports is running a very poor second to the interests of airline operators. This is particularly true in view of the Government’s refusal to carry out one of the recommendations relating to the curfews made in an earlier report of the Aircraft Noise Committee.

Recomendation 12 of the interim report which was tabled last June very clearly stated:

  1. . criteria authorising jet movements in curfew hours be applied more stringently to ensure the preservation of the original intention of the regulation.

It seems to me that we are paying only lip service to this recommendation. 1 appeal to the Government and the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to act in accordance with that recommendation of the Aircraft Noise Committee. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has indicated the limitations under which members of the Committee operated because the terms of reference were not expanded in accordance with an amendment moved by the Opposition to include an inquiry into the siting of airports. What we on this Committee have had to do is deal with the effects rather than the causes and this has been a limitation we have all felt. A further difficulty that has become apparent in recent months is the possibility of duplication of runways at Mascot. I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds), the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), when I say that we on this side of the House are diametrically opposed to the duplication of runways at Mascot.

There is this great problem of Sydney requiring a second airport. A second airport is essential because if one looks at the situation from the traffic point of view there will be a saturation of aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in the very foreseeable future. That is one point. But before we have that situation of saturation of aircraft movements, the people in my electorate of St George will be saturated by aircraft noise. I would like to refer to recommendation 19 of the report now before us. It states:

Monitoring of aircraft noise should be introduced in Australia with Sydney airport as a first priority.

In recommending the introduction of monitoring, in the first instance at Kingsford-Smith Airport, we look to the development of an effective procedure of requiring pilots and operators te conform to standards that will substantially reduce the present level of noise. There is a disconcerting variation in the noise made by the same type of aircraft under similar flying conditions. Hitherto, economy and safety have been the main criteria of operations, but one would hope that henceforth safety, noise abatement and economy in that order will constitute the criteria.

In the report we have recognised the necessity for an experimental period in setting up a noise monitoring system. Many problems have to be resolved. We have to get our criteria straight; we have to know what we are doing. I urge the Department of Civil Aviation to give this recommendation the highest of priorities so that the experimental work may be carried out quickly and effectively. I hope that the noise limit that will be set will be based on the premise of minimising the discomfort of thousands of people living in my electorate and the other electorates adjacent to Sydney Airport. 1 feel that as members of Parliament we should be concerning ourselves with pointing out that progress should not feed on the sacrifices of the people. We have heard a lot about how progress is assisting in the development of Australia. But after all. Australia is only Australians. When technological progress detrimentally affects the lives and amenities of people, it is about time we had a good look at the criteria on which we judge progress. 1 commend the report to the House, particularly to the Minister for Civil Aviation, and I hope that it is not a vague hope that the Minister for Civil Aviation will lose no time in effectively implementing the major recommendations of the report.

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

– by leave - In accordance with the arrangements my comments will be brief. I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing thanks on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), and the Government to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise and to the staff and advisors who have worked with it over such a long period of time. It has produced in what is a brief time a report which is obviously of a very high standard indeed. ( was very proud to be associated with the formation of the first committee. In formulating the terms of reference which were eventually adopted by this House the Government consulted the various members of Parliament who were interested in this matter.

There was no suggestion at that time of an extension into the question of siting of -airports. That is a matter that has emerged from the considerations of the Committee.

We should be proud that Australia was the first member nation of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to raise this matter on an official level , at the last General Assembly of ICAO and have it incorporated as an annexe to the convention, thus placing it on a level which this Committee has now recognised and which we considered should be recommended at that time. As Australia was the first in the international field in the recognition of airport noise and in setting a lead to other countries in ICAO at that time, we should also be proud that this is the first - I think I am right ‘ in saying this - report of a select committee of a parliament of this type. There have been other investigations arranged by parliaments themselves but none specifically by a. select committee so I think Australia is first again in this field and the report which we have obtained, as I say, is of a very high standard indeed and is a tribute to those who were associated with it. There were one or two matters that I think should be referred to very quickly because they have some relationship to the actual report and I think require some answering at this point of time. The Chairman, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan), gave a summary of the principal matters contained in the report in what was a very constructive speech indeed. I am sure we all appreciate the way he placed the matter before the House.

The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) referred to the need, which is outlined in the report, for cooperation between the Commonwealth departments concerned in this matter and the State and local authorities. 1 am sure we all agree that this is highly desirable. In fact, it is now a matter of urgency that this type of co-operation be extended in the future. Reference was made also to the curfew application at certain airports including Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and this was also taken up during this debate by several other speakers. My only comment is that to the best of my knowledge this curfew has been strictly applied, particularly since the interim report of the Select Committee was tabled in this Parlia ment. Any particular individual cases that may arise on which it is felt there is some problem should be taken up on an individual basis, but I have been assured that it has been strictly applied in accordance with the conditions which have been laid down. The honourable member for Newcastle made reference to the use of protective equipment. This, I understand, is a general condition laid down by the operators and, with the co-operation of the unions concerned, it is, I think, necessary to see that a type of education programme is introduced to ensure that there is an extension of the use of this type of equipment to which attention was drawn in the report.

I did mention that the question of site selection for future airports was one matter that emerged during this debate and was not, of course, included in the terms of reference of the Committee. The terms of reference applied to noise at airports already established, but it is quite obvious that very careful consideration must be given to the points that have been raised by the Committee in the selection of any future sites, particularly of airports intended for major operations. No doubt the information that has been provided will be of extreme value when the report of the other interdepartmental committee on a second airport site for Sydney is being considered in the future. The honourable member for Kingsford Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) raised several matters but I will refer to only one. That was the question of an international standard being laid down for the area which is desirable for the establishment of an airport up to international standard. He referred to an area of 9,000 acres. To my knowledge there is no international standard applying in this particular field. There are international standards applying in other fields but not in this field. He referred also to the area of the new Melbourne Airport as being about 4,500 acres. In fact the area which was purchased and which is being utilised is 5,300 acres.

However, the principal problems of noise are those adjacent to airports and are related to the actual flight paths themselves. The actual area of the airport has some relationship because of the internal problems of ground running and operations of that type, but the principal problem relating to airport noise is in the areas which are adjacent to it. This, quite rightly, has been pointed out by the Committee as being a matter of great significance for consideration. There were other very constructive comments made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) and by other speakers, including the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), all of whom, of course, were members of this Committee, but 1 will refer to only one of the points raised by the honourable member for St George and that is the question of the provision of parallel runways at Sydney Airport. I would just refer to something I said in this House in a debate recently - it could have been during the debate on the estimates or during some other debate - in which I indicated that it had always been in the planning for the future development of Sydney Airport that there would be 2 sets of parallel runways. However, I did indicate that this is, of course, subject to review with the changing conditions and the points that have been raised in relation to this report will be taken into consideration.

There is a point in time when the Mascot site will reach saturation point, and on the basis of parallel runways that was considered to be 1985 or somewhere about that time. If changes are made, of course, the time taken to reach saturation point will vary and there will also be a variation of the priority for consideration of an additional major site for an airport to service Sydney and districts. So these things are flexible. Variations have been made to the planning in the past and I can assure the honourable member that the points he has made will certainly be taken into consideration. I conclude by again expressing thanks from the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Government to the Chairman and members of the Committee and all those associated with it for a splendid effort.

page 2995

AVALON AIRPORT

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:

Development of Avalon Airport to Boeing 747/Concorde standard.

The work includes strengthening of the existing runway and part of the existing taxiway, extension of the runway to 10,000 feet, and construction of a parallel taxiway and parking apron. The estimated cost of the work is $6.4m. In reporting on the proposal the Committee concluded that there is a need for the immediate provision of the facilities. As regards future planning for commercial jet pilot training facilities and present operational arrangements at Avalon the Government will give consideration to the Committee’s observations and recommendations. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, immediate steps can be taken to proceed with the works in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: because insufficient foresight has been exercised in planning Australia’s present and future commercial jet pilot training facilities so as to avoid adverse effects from aircraft noise on established and expanding communities and immediate steps should be taken to plan and construct elsewhere a facility for commercial jet pilot training, the development of Avalon Airport be referred hack to the Public Works Committee*.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– ls there a seconder of the amendment?

Mr Beazley:

– I second the amendment.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Id my opinion the proposition from the Public Works Committee to extend the runway at Avalon airport and to spend $6,409,000 is completely unreal and is a further indication of the lack of planning by the Department of Civil Aviation. The effects of aircraft noise on people are already known to the Government. If not, why did it recommend the establishment of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise? As early as 1969 when the Committee was meeting in Perth the problem of pilot training was brought, to the fore when local residents in Perth complained about Royal Australian Air Force pilots carrying out exercises, particularly at night time, using the instrument landing system approach of the Perth airport. Even at that point the Department of Civil Aviation should have been taking note of the problem.

I want to incorporate in Hansard a letter received by the former member for Lalor. Mr M. W. Lee, and signed by Mr I. D. V. Ralfe, the Deputy Director of Qantas flight operations. Is the Minister prepared to allow me to incorporate the whole of this letter from Qantas in Hansard? I would like the whole of the letter incorporated, because it puts the whole of the problem of Avalon airport in its true context along with the attitude of the people and, most important of all, what Qantas had to say about this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted for the incorporation.

Dear Mr Lee,

Your letter of 26th February, attaching a copy of the Little River and Districts Development Association complaint with regard to noise in the Avalon area is acknowledged.

From time to time this Association has brought the matter of noise to our attention and we are fully appreciative of the problems it creates, not only for the residents of Little River, but also to all residents who live in close proximity to Avalon aerodrome.

We can assure you that we do everything possible to alleviate this noise problem and to minimise the nuisance caused by the training operations of our aircraft. Unfortunately, as you are probably aware, Avalon is the only training areodrome on the East Coast of Australia which can accept large jet transport aircraft, andin fact TAA and Ansett-ANA also train at Avalon with their Boeing 727 type aircraft

The township of Little River is situated close to the instrument approach path of Avalon Airport. Due to restrictions imposed upon us by the Department of Civil Aviation we are limited in our operation around Avalon to within 5 miles radius of the centre of the Airport and to a maximum height of 2,500 feet. This restriction is placed upon us because of the needs of the RAAF and their flying training requirements in the area. We have an exit corridor so that we can proceed to and from Avalon, but our general circuit work must be confined to within this relatively small area.

In addition to Little River, we do endeavour to avoid flying over Lara, the Geelong Grammar School and the Shell Refinery, all of which are effected by our noise. At times we are completely prohibited from flying over the Port William ammunition area; it therefore becomes extremely difficult to change our circuit patterns within this restricted area to avoid the noise problem of Little River.

However, we will again bring this problem to the attention of our Senior Training Captains and ask them to do everything within their power to minimise the nuisance of noise. You are aware that we restrict our hours of training to avoid annoying people late at night, and you may be assured that we are endeavouring to co-operate to the utmost with the local residents of your electorate. We have pressed the Department of Civil Aviation for another training aerodrome on the Eastern Coast of Australia in a remote area, but until such time as that airfield is built we can only do our best to alleviate this problem within the confines of the restrictions under which we operate.

Assuring you that we will do our best in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Signed: I. D. V. RALFE

Deputy Director of Flight Operations

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I thank the Minister and honourable members. In this letter, dated 8th March 1968, addressed to Mr Lee the former honourable member for Lalor, the part I want to emphasise is the last paragraph which reads:

However, we will again bring this problem to the attention of our Senior Training Captains and ask them to do everything within their power to minimise the nuisance of noise. You are aware that we restrict our hours of training to avoid annoying people late at night, and you may be assured that we are endeavouring to co-operate to the utmost with the local residents of your electorate.

I want to emphasise this sentence:

We have pressed the Department of Civil Aviation for another training aerodrome on the Eastern Coast of Australia in a remote area, but until such time as that airfield is built we can only do our best to alleviate this problem within the confines of the restrictions under which we operate.

Assuring you that we will do our best in this regard. Yours sincerely–

That is a letter from Qantas which draws attention to the fact that prior to 8th March 1968 the problems associated with Avalon were brought to the attention of the Department of Civil Aviation. What has been the result of the protests of the people of Little River and Lara and the other people who live around that area about the operations of aircraft? The whole result is that the Department of Civil Aviation is now going to construct facilities to allow pilots of probably the noisiest commercial aircraft operating in the world to be trained at Avalon. I am referring to the Concorde. The proposed development is to provide training facilities for pilots of 747 aircraft and Concorde aircraft - that is, if the 2 aircraft ever become a going proposition.

Mr Buchanan:

– The Concorde will not fly.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– As the honourable member for McMillan well knows, the Concorde is flying now. In England, which is one of the co-builders of the aircraft, serious complaints have already been received from people as to the level of noise from that aircraft.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for luncheon I was discussing my amendment to the motion which was moved for the approval of work on the extension of the runway at Avalon airport. I shall take up my remarks from that point. It has been suggested that there are no suitable sites anywhere on the east coast for the construction of a runway to be used for jet pilot training. I think it is silly to accept such a statement because honourable members who fly between Melbourne and Sydney or Sydney and Adelaide or Melbourne and Adelaide must have observed the areas of open country on which a runway could be laid and the necessary instrument landing system installed. Such a runway could be used for training jet pilots in not only Boeing 747 and Concorde aircraft but also the rest of the commercial jet aircraft, such as the Boeing 727, the DC9. the Fokker Friendship and even the Fellowship F28. The runway could be used to train pilots in all of these aircraft. To my mind it is ridiculous for officers of the Department of Civil Aviation or anyone else to argue that there, is insufficient space available in which to construct a runway.

I consider that there is a serious noise problem at Avalon airport. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, of which I was a member, saw pilots flying Boeing 707 aircraft and indulging in their normal training procedures of taking off with 1 engine out, taking off with 2 engines out, taking off with 1 engine out on 1 wing and taking off with 21 engines out on 1 wing. This created quite a considerable amount of noise. Whilst I admit that the noise level did not compared with that experienced under the flight paths to Mascot airport in Sydney or to any of the large airports in the capital cities, at the same time there was a substantial amount of noise created over the townships of Little River and Lara. Some readings of noise levels which were taken at the time indicate that a Boeing 707 belonging to Qantas Airways Ltd which was carrying out these exercises created an overall sound pressure level of 99 decibels. This is quite a lot of noise, particularly when one realises that there is a substantial number of aircraft movements at Avalon. The number of movements at Essendon airport in 1969-70 was 115,105, and the number of movements at Avalon airport for the same period was 37,230. So even though Avalon airport is located outside the city of Melbourne, at the same time there is a quite considerable number of aircraft movements from the airport. The figures which I have quoted clearly indicate that there is approximately one-third the number of movements at Avalon as there are at Essendon.

One of the responsibilities of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise was to investigate the noise problems associated with major airports throughout Australia. Essendon was a serious noise problem which will be overcome, to a great extent, when the Melbourne airport is transferred from Essendon to Tullamarine. In my opinion, the people near this airport have a serious complaint, and this Parliament should not allow the cause of the complaint to continue. I want to emphasise 1 point which I think is important. Whilst I am advocating the removal of jet pilot training from Avalon airport, I am not - and I emphasise the word ‘not’ - advocating the closure of this airport because I believe that the runway should be retained for the testing of aircraft which are being built by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, the Government Aircraft Factory and the assembly plant which is adjacent to the Avalon airport. I believe that the runway should be retained for the testing of aircraft but not for the training of pilots. When aircraft are being tested they take off and fly at a much higher level. They do not cause the noise problem which would be associated with the training of pilots, particularly in large jets.

Another matter will be raised. It will be stated that if we do not agree to the extension of the runway at Avalon airport, it will hold up the training of pilots in Boeing 747 and Concorde aircraft. I believe that the amount of $6.4m which will be required to extend this runway should be used for the construction of another runway in a remote area which will not cause any noise problems to people. The runway could be designed to suit the prevailing winds in the locality. The flight paths could be designed so that aircraft would not fly over even small townships of 300 or 400 people, as in the case of Lara and Little River. This is something that has to be done in the future. As I said a moment ago, it will be stated that if we do not agree to the extension of the runway at Avalon airport we will be holding up the training of these pilots. But I believe that rather than waste this $6.4m, it would be much cheaper if the pilots were sent overseas and trained in the United States of America or in some other country where training facilities are available. But in the meantime the Government should treat the planning and construction of a new runway in a remote area as a matter of urgency and get on with the job. lt has been said to me: ‘You are going to abandon an asset worth some $15m.’ 1 am not abandoning it. J. am not prepared to waste any more money on Avalon airport when I think that the runway should be moved elsewhere. Whilst it could be said that at the present time there is not a lot of residential development adjacent to Avalon airport or under the flight paths to the airport, there arc still the people of Lara and Little River to be considered. 1 am very concerned also for the students of the Geelong Grammar School. 1 would hate to think that some future Gorton-type Prime Minister was denied the opportunity of receiving an education at that school.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There must have been some disturbance when he was going there.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– There was a lot of disturbance, and this is what I want to overcome because the country cannot carry another Prime Minister of that type. In the not too distant future, in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of people who are concerned with Avalon airport, with the completion of the West Gate Bridge there will be a quite substantial urban development around and adjacent to Avalon airport. What will happen? There will be a repetition of what happened at Sydney, at West Beach airport in Adelaide and at Essendon. Admittedly the runway will be there, but people will still go to live there.

Unless the Victorian Government is prepared to do something positive at this stage to plan urban development so that residential development is not allowed to take place in the vicinity of Avalon airport, there will be a repetition of what has happened around most of the capital city airports in Australia today.

The opportunity is there. In my opinion, the area around Avalon airport is ideal for urban development. Therefore, that development should be permitted. I consider that this runway is too close to what will be a part of Melbourne in the not too distant future. Therefore, we should be taking steps immediately to transfer die site to a more remote area so that people will not be inconvenienced or subjected to noise nuisance and so that the natural expansion and development of the city of Melbourne will be allowed to take place.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, Mr Speaker, I second the amendment and just briefly I should like to say something about it now. Then the Chairman of the Public Works Committee will have an opportunity to answer the submissions of both the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and myself. 1 support the amendment because Avalon is a totally unsuitable site for a training airport.

Mr Graham:

– That is utter nonsense.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 think that if the honourable member for North Sydney was living in the vicinity of the Avalon airport he would be even a little more disturbed than he is now. The area in which this airport is situated is a most amenable area. It is a most suitable area for residential development. In fact there will be dramatic and rapid residential development in this area in the next decade. The situation is that Melbourne has grown to the east and to the south because transport facilities - railways, tramways and buses - have taken growth in those directions. The ability to cross the river, an ease of development and some geographical conditions also helped to push the development of Melbourne to the east and to the south, but the construction of the West Gate Bridge - one of the most dramatic pieces of engineering work undertaken in this country - will have the effect of bringing within 14 minutes drive of the centre of the city of Melbourne areas which are now 45 minutes drive from the centre of the city. It will cut down by half an hour the driving time.

Those areas to which I refer are completely undeveloped. There will be areas of open fields within 14 minutes driving time of the centre of the city of Melbourne after that bridge is constructed. The city of Melbourne will expand dramatically to the west and it will not be long before the whole area between Melbourne and Geelong is one complete metropolis. What the Government is proposing to do is dramatically ridiculous, lt proposes to put a commercial jet pilot training facility in the middle of that development and in the years that pass up to the next decade we will have countless speeches made in this Parliament pointing out the inconvenience that is caused by aircraft flying over this developing area, lt is absolutely ridiculous to propose a thing like this. Of course the Government has shown insufficient foresight in planning Australia’s present and future commercial jet pilot training facilities.

What ought to be done to train jet pilots is to have a special airport for that purpose situated somewhere in an area, probably in New South Wales, where there will not be development for the next half century. Surely we can do more than look a year or two ahead. Surely we can look half a century ahead when we are considering a proposal such as this. It will waste $6£m when we could completely build a new training airport facility for $15m. This is the most shortsighted proposition I have ever known to come from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works which in its time has made some excellent recommendations. Avalon is the centre of aircraft construction and it is the logica] centre for aircraft industry. In my opinion it is more logical than is the built up area of Fishermen’s Bend. I think that the development of aircraft construction in Victoria can well take place at Avalon. It is ideally suited for this purpose. Before long a large number of residences will be built in the Truganina and Little River areas and around Werribee.

Mr Graham:

– Can they not be built elsewhere?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Of course they could be built elsewhere. They could be built up near Broken Hill, Cobar or some other place like that but homes have to be built for the people who will do the work. Whilst Avalon is an ideal site for the development of an aircraft industry, it is not an ideal site for the development of a training airport. I do want to point out to the House that the opinion of the people who live in that area is not completely at one on this. Some of these people who live in this area think that if this strip is extended it will result in development of the area and that development might benefit them. There are people who live in the area who do not oppose this proposal and that is something I want to bring to the notice -of the House. There are a great many people who live in this area now who are strongly opposed to this development and that is something which I want to emphasise to the House too. But it seems to me that, apart from the attitude of the people who are in that area now and how they might look at future development, it is illogical to build a great airport in the centre of this future metropolis between Melbourne and Geelong.

The final point I want to make is that there is an international airport only 10 or 12 miles or a little more away from Avalon and $80m has been spent on it. As I fly over that international airport day after day, I hardly ever see an aircraft at the most expensive reception bays there. The airport was most expensive. The construction cost was $80m and the Government is now proposing to spend $6£m more on an airport that is only a few miles away from it. I do not think that there can be any case for the development of Avalon Airport for jet pilot training. As a centre for the manufacture of aircraft it is ideally situated and as a residential area it could supply the labour for such a development and it is a developing community. But the residential areas around Little River and over to the You Yangs in Victoria are some of the most attractive parts of that State and there will be dramatic development of residential construction in those areas in the next decade or so. Yet the Government is proposing to put this facility in the middle of this development. This proposition seems to exhibit a lack of foresight in planning Australia’s present and future jet training facilities. I think it is time that we called upon the Government through a decision of this House to plan and construct elsewhere a facility for commercial jet pilot training and to refer the development of Avalon airport back to the Public Works Committee. I have pleasure in seconding the motion moved by the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– Speaking as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I hope the Government will reject this amendment. I would like to point out that th: Committee, in its unanimous report, said that immediate steps should bc taken to plan elsewhere a training facility for commercial jet aircraft. The significant difference between what the Committee said in its report and what is contained in the amendment is that the amendment says ‘to plan and construct’. I would like to make the obvious point that anybody who does not plan before he constructs is basically foolish. Obviously the first step is to plan. The Committee has pointed out to the Government that it should plan a training airfield in another area for the reasons which are set out quite clearly in the report, including the problem of aircraft noise.

The Committee examined both the site in question and the problems with very great care. I also point out that the 3 Australian Labor Party members of the Committee - and they are excellent members of the Committee - supported the Committee in its unanimous decision that it recommend to the Government that it should plan an airfield in another area. If this amendment is carried it will mean that this matter will be referred back to the Committee for consideration. I know the quality of the members of the Committee well enough to know that the same answer will come out of it. One important point is that if this amendment is carried inevitably the very light programme to enable this facility to be constructed in time to take Boeing 747 aircraft and to enable pilots to complete their training will be delayed. It has been said that we could send pilots overseas for training. I have been informed that the training of 747 pilots, or for that matter any commercial passenger pilots, is a continuing process. I have been informed thai pilots would have to be sent overseas about once a week for training. A commercial passenger pilot needs to be continually trained. My information is that commercial passenger pilots are put on a continuous training roster. Therefore, it is quite clear that if this amendment is accepted the proposal will come back to the Committee again and the training of pilots who will fly 747 aircraft will inevitably be delayed. If the report is not accepted we will have 747 aircraft which cannot be down.

This is the kind of problem which the Committee faced. We were aware of the problem of aircraft noise. We were also aware that we were dealing with a very tight programme. We made it crystal clear in our recommendations that there was a problem. I think it would be useful if I read to the House 2 paragraphs which deal with this matter. Paragraph 51 of the report slates:

We feel it is necessary to point out that the Committee received the reference at a point in time which made it. difficult, if not impossible, not to endorse the work. Not to do so would mean that the training of Qantas air crew on Boeing 747 aircraft could only be done under considerable penalties after their delivery in August 1971. The Committee feel that, because of the programme, it was left with no alternative but to recommend the construction of the proposed work at Avalon.

Paragraph 52 of the report states:

It is quite probable that, if the programme had not been so demanding die Committee would have recommended the development of a training airfield in another location . . .

This is the problem which the Committee faced, lt is the problem that members of the Australian Labor Party on the Committee faced, as they always do, with commendable clarity. They joined members of the Committee from this side of the House in supporting the only possible decision that was open to a committee that had a sense of responsibility for the decisions which it was forced to make. I would like to make the complaint that the action taken by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) in my opinion places my colleagues on the Committee in an impossible position. Members of the Committee from the Australian Labor Party signed the report with members on this side of the House. However, now they will be asked to vote against their own recommendations. I have a very high appreciation of the quality of members of the Committee from the Labor Party and I can understand what this will mean to them.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has moved an amendment to the recommendations of the report of the Public Works Committee. It is true, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has pointed out, that the Committee regarded its responsibilities in this matter with the utmost seriousness. Evidence was taken from people from Lara and Little River which are the communities affected by this report. The Parliament should be made aware that the Committee took the trouble to go to the area and undertake inspections at the time when aircraft were engaging in training operations. Subsequently evidence was taken from representatives of the Geelong High School, from the local council, from the local State member of Parliament and from a number of private citizens. There is no ambiguity on my part as to what should happen on this matter. I believe that to some considerable degree we are on the hours of a dilemma. What has happened in this matter is not exceptional or unusual. Far too often we are stuck with commitments. I predict that tomorrow when another report comes down we will find similar attitudes expressed in this place because the Committee concerned will have been operating within the strictures of governmental or Prime Ministerial commitment. However, in the matter we are discussing the fact is that all of us would like to hope that government action was of such a nature that Australia would never be in a position of not being able to accommodate Boeing 747 aircraft. We would like to feel that Australia will get into the jet age and not be disadvantaged in any way.

What do conscientious members of a committee such as the Public Works Committee do in a situation like this? My attitude is that there has been a gross indifference to and betrayal of public interest so far as this matter is concerned. This is simply a perpetuation of the kind of matter about which there was considerable discussion this morning when we debated the report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. In other words, the problems that we are currently experiencing at major airports all around Australia which are the subject of great concern and anxiety on the part of many communities are now to be transplanted in greater measure than has been the case up to date into communities around Avalon. The report of the Public Works Committee on Avalon Airport indicates sufficiently that members of the Committee are gravely concerned about some matters. The transcript of evidence covers probably 300 or 400 pages. If honourable members read this report they will realise that almost everyone who gave evidence held similar points of view. Mr J. J. Doyle, the State member for the area, in effect said that his electorate was becoming neurotic. He said that many problems were being experienced by the residents of the Little River district due to the noise of low flying aircraft on training flights from Avalon. In his evidence to the Committee Mr Doyle said:

The form of aircraft noise in the case of this township is the roar of the planes’ engines actually in flight and the vibration caused by their constant and very low passage overhead. The effects are both general and particular, depending upon the persons concerned and the nature of their work and their age and physical condition. In general, the noise and vibration cause anxiety, irritation and a condition which, for the want of a better term, could be characterised as ‘jet jitters’.

This matter is beyond party politics. The gentleman to whom I have referred is a local State member and is not a member of my Party. I think it is important for us to recognise that this matter transcends the boundaries of political affiliation.

I was interested, as we all ought to be, in the views of the local government authority in this area. As one who has come from local government and had experience in this field I could not help but be impressed by the evidence given by Councillor M. W. Haines from the Shire of Corio. He told us’ that the Council unanimously opposed the extensions that are the subject of this report. In his evidence Councillor Haines said:

The Council recommends that all training carried out at Avalon should be transferred to a locality away from the urban area because of the nuisance caused to the people who reside in close proximity to the airfield.

Mr Buchanan:

– It is not in the area.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honourable member wants to argue with the local government authority be can do so, but I believe if anyone is capable of speaking effectively on behalf-

Mr Buchanan:

– Well read it to me.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 shall seek leave if you so wish, to have the councillor’s evidence incorporated in Hansard. If the honourable member wants the evidence in its entirety I will seek this course. Evidence was given along the lines at a public meeting conducted at Lara. Honourable members have heard the point of view of the local State member; they have heard the point of view of the neighbouring Federal member, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who spoke a short time ago. Doubtless honourable members will hear from the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in the near future. The councillor, the Shire, the State member, the Federal members and the public at their meeting indicated that they were very concerned. Their meeting discussed the effects of aircraft noise on education in the district, the fact that school lessons came to a complete stop, the fact that health hazards which created neuroses existed, and that adverse effects were caused to television reception, radio reception and the use of telephones. 1 was concerned to learn that the planning authorities seemed to be fairly unmindful of the future effects. An application has been made for the release of a further 160 acres in the Leura area and that the Town and Country Planning Board already has considered this proposal. We are told that already 400 residential lots have been zoned for development. One wonders what the purpose of the West Gate Bridge is. Is it not designed to open that area up for future residential development, well, just what is the purpose of this mammoth expenditure? It is quite clear that, with the increased usage of Avalon - and the effects of the present usage of Avalon are bad enough - the City of Geelong will be affected seriously.

I think that we are in a bit of a difficult situation today. I know that it is the feeling of many members on both sides of the House that the expansion of Avalon constitutes bad and undesirable development. I have a personal problem in the matter because 1 am unable to understand what would happen if this proposal was referred back to the Public Works Committee. This has been foisted upon us through the inadequacy of our Standing Orders. I would have liked to have seen something added to the report of the Committee. That is to say, I would liked to have seen this Parliament expressing a positive view on its own account. As honourable members are aware, we are unable to take such a course under the Standing Orders. All that it is possible to do is to refer the matter back to the Committee. When it is referred again to the Committee, the dilemma that faces us is: What can the Committee do if, in fact, it does not have a reference upon which to formulate a recommendation? That is our problem. Because I feel that we will at least have an expression of the Parliament by sending this reference back to the Committee - even if the Committee says: ‘Look, we have no reference upon which lo make a recommendation’ - we will have achieved something. We will have had a- clear voice from this Parliament as to the undesirability of this proposed development.

I say in conclusion that the time has come in my view when the departments which are responsible for developmental proposals of this kind should put more into planning and more into consideration of the public interest. Far too often we are confronted with a situation where a project is almost a fait accompli, where it is intended to conduct investigations after the work is undertaken or during the course of its construction. This is not good enough for me. I seek to be co-operative on this Committee, as do my colleagues. But I hope to see much better preparation. I am certainly not obsessed with the idea of sheeting this home to the Department of Civil Aviation. My experience with the officers of this Department is that they are tremendously conscientious and wonderfully informed about their obligations and responsibilities. If there is anyone to take the blame it has to be the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is sitting at the table, and it has to be this Government which has a long record of indifferance about the planning of airport facilities in Australia. I hope that the amendment is carried because I believe it will represent a landmark in regard to these things in respect of our country’s approach to the welfare of people who live or who will live in proximity to large airports.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

- Mr Speaker, I wish to say a very few words only. The reason is that I. represent people and not cows - and people who are affected by aircraft noise. That is a perfectly, obvious reason. But 1 rise for an even more important reason than this. It appears to me that, in the community at the present time, we suffer time and again from the encroachment of great organisations upon the ordinary rights of simple citizens. This is simply a case in point. I find myself utterly opposed to it, believing as I do that governments and parliaments exist for no other reason than to protect ordinary people.

Now, I propose to. support the motion before the House - not the amendment - for the reasons given in the report. May I remind honourable members of the relevant paragraphs. The Joint Committee on Public Works in paragraph 47 of its report recommends) . . because of the time factor, it is obvious that the upgrading of the facilities at Avalon is the only practicable way of satisfactorily providing for Boeing 747 training. We therefore believe that the work in this reference should be carried out without further unnecessary delay.

In paragraph 52 of its report, the Committee states - and I underline this paragraph heavily:

As the Department of Civil Aviation has known of the Qantas Boeing 747 programme since 1968, we feel it is necessary to protest yet again at the apparent inability of the Department to do its forward planning effectively and at its apparent indifference to the requirements and possible implications of a Committee investigation.

May 1 say in passing that if ever a parliamentary committee was justified in overseeing what departments are doing, this Committee is justified, and we should have more of them.

I make my protest together with the Committee itself at the indifference, the insensitivity and the gross obtuseness whether of the Department of Civil Aviation or of the Minister for Civil Aviation I do not know and I do not care, but the Minister is responsible. We have this problem at Avalon. We certainly have it at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, as it affects my electorate. There is only one thing to be done about these existing problems. When mistakes have been made, they have been made and there is nothing much that we can do about them except that we can make some reparation as regards the future. A mistake has been made beyond doubt or question. But it is time that the Minister for Civil Aviation, or his Department, or both, should get busy in relocating airports that ought not to be where they are. This goes for Avalon; it goes for Kingsford-Smith; and possibly it goes for other airports as well - I do not know. But I do know that the Department or the Minister should be taking steps now to ensure that other locations, are settled upon without delay.

The longer we wait, the more does development go on and the more expensive it becomes, and the longer these people must suffer from this kind of pollution - that is, noise pollution. The Department or the Minister should make it clear forthwith beyond any doubt or question that steps are openly and plainly being taken to’ remedy the defects of the past. This is all that can be done at this stage for the protection of little people, for be it always remembered that, under our system of government, the little people always have a vote. If there are a lot of people, they have a lot of little votes. In the long run, the sins and omissions of Ministers will be visited upon the Parties that they represent. I hope that this little exercise over Avalon will shake the Minister and his officials to their foundations and that they will get on with this work without delay and without any doubt that remedial action is being taken.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– This proposal is for extensions to Avalon Airport. This is in my electorate. Whilst there is some commercial advantage on a short term basis to some people in my electorate from this proposal, I think that, on a long term basis, the adoption of this report and the construction of these facilities would have an extremely damaging effect on the future development of the area. I think that that far outweighs any short term’ benefits which may accrue. The last set of figures which I obtained from the then Minister for Civil Aviation - the present Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) - indicated that at Avalon airfield 41,000 aircraft movements occurred in one year. The report indicates that at the present time the airfield is capable of accepting 25 movements an hour. Qantas Airways Ltd has 12 landings and 12 takeoffs an hour, which is 24 movements an hour. lt is proposed to extend the capacity of the airport so that 38 movements an hour can take place, and it is also proposed to strengthen the runways to take Boeing 747 aircraft and, as also mentioned in the report, Concorde aircraft.

The Department of Civil Aviation, in referring this matter to the Public Works Committee at such a late stage, has obviously tried to create a situation in which there can be no alternatives. Most likely it has successfully done this. But the facts of the matter are that the Department and the Minister were aware 2 years ago that this development was to take place. In an answer to a question I asked the then Minister he indicated that for some time after the arrival of Boeing 747 jets it was expected that training operations would be carried out at Avalon. The report indicates that the new facility at Avalon will be a temporary one that will operate for about 5 years. If this is so, it is still unsatisfactory, because both international commercial jets and the domestic jet fleet will be carrying out their training operations from an airfield which, despite what the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) says, is in a built-up area and is so located that, according to the experts of the Department of Civil Aviation, training is not possible on flight paths which do not take the aircraft directly over the townships of Lara and Little River or very close to them. If we increase the number of aircraft operating in the area and the rapidity with which those aircraft operate, we are automatically militating against the future development of the area and asking those people who have built their homes or who are building their homes in the area to accept a situation which no person should, if it is avoidable, be asked to accept.

I believe that the part of the report which criticises the Department for its tardiness in development is well warranted criticism. It is obvious to everyone concerned that to spend $6.4m on temporary extensions to an airfield in an unsatisfactory position, thereby causing serious inconvenience and retarding development in an area, is a very poor way to spend Government funds when, according to the report, for the expenditure of something in excess of $15m a proper training facility could be provided which would for many years adequately serve the airlines of Australia and the international operator, Qantas. No-one is so stupid that he wants to retard the progress of Australian airlines. We do not want to do that. But to place a training facility in a centre which has within a radius of 15 miles from it about 150,000 people - within 5 years there will be in excess of 200,000 people, most of whom will at times be under the flight paths and some of whom will be constantly under the flight paths of training aircraft - is an act of criminal negligence by the Department concerned.

I believe that this House should censure the Government, not the Public Works Committee because it was placed in the unenviable position of being given no chance to consider the proposal because it was presented with a timetable which made it impossible for it to bring down a recommendation which really fitted the situation. I realise, and I think anyone who knows the area concerned realises, that there are people who, because of their employment or because of their prospects of employment in the future, consider this development a worthwhile proposition. But having heard at close range the Concorde flying, and having seen the outcries in the British papers over the noise levels of the Concorde, I can assure the House that the 120,000 or 130,000 people in the Geelong area will not be very happy to find that they are likely to be guinea pigs in the training operations of this aircraft in Australia. The Concorde is a high noise level aircraft. It may well be that in the future the noise levels will be reduced.

It is not satisfactory to place the training facilities for the Concorde, the Boeing 747 jets and the Australian commercial fleet in close proximity to a rapidly growing community which, according to the State Planning Authority in Victoria, is part of the urban development. It is zoned for urban development. To place a training facility in this position in the manner in which it has been done is an act which should be condemned by this Parliament. The honourable member for McMillan, who is carrying on a conversation, would complain if the facility were put at Warragul or Beaconsfield, but it is to be a long way from his area. The present circuits take the aircraft almost directly over Lara and almost directly over Little River. Lara has a population of about 3,000 people and Little River most likely has a population of something less than 300. But the flight paths are unable adequately to avoid the town of Little River. Mr Doyle and the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) represent this area. Despite the fact that Little River is not more than i mile in length and not more than 200 yeards in width, these aircraft in their training operations have to pass almost directly over this town. According to the technical experts, they cannot avoid it. The Department can do what it likes. Tt can take note of the report, but if the training programmes are such that this cannot be avoided, the people in these areas will have to put up with the additional noise of a minimum increase of 20 per cent in flight operations in their area.

The other thing of which I think this House should be aware - 1 raised this up to 2 years ago in this House - is that these aircraft fly at heights of only 1,500 feet and lower. They pass quite often directly over St Laurence Park, which is an elderly citizens housing area under the control of the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The constant noise is extremely disturbing to these people as it is to other people in the area. With the advent of these other aircraft - I am not in a position to know exactly what the training requirements will be and I do not know whether the Minister for National Development, who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation, is able to inform us - it is not unreasonable to expect that the training requirements of the Concorde aircraft or the Boeing 747s will take in a considerably wider circuit than the one presently used by the Boeing 707s.

Within 4 miles of the outskirts of the township of Lara and much closer to the normal flight paths are the present northern areas of the city of Geelong. Quite properly the Shire of Corio, which covers this area, has protested against this development. Most likely it is concerned both because this airport is being developed and because it does not get any rates for the land on which the airport is built, but that is beside the point. The fact is that

Geelong is developing in a northerly direction towards the township of Lara. In 5 years time a great percentage of the flight paths of these training aircraft will be over highly developed urban areas. I suggest that it is totally unsuitable to develop a training airfield in such a location, and all I can say is that the lack of foresight and planning by the Department in preparing for the Boeing 747s and the entry into the Australian international air operations of the Concorde and other supersonic aircraft is lamentable, to say the least.

It may well be that the Department has made recommendations and that they have been rejected as policy matters by the Treasury or some other Government department. This may well be the true situation. Irrespective of the reason, we are throwing $6im down the drain on development to provide a facility that will destroy the development and peace of mind of a considerable number of residents in my electorate and adjoining electorates.

I believe that the Parliament should censure severely the Government or the Minister concerned, whichever happens to be totally responsible, for the complete lack of foresight and planning which has led to this situation and to the recommendations of the Committee. The people of this area are entitled to a full and proper explanation from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) as to why, when it was known at least 2 years ago that this facility was to be developed, the Government did not carry out an investigation instead of waiting until such time as it was impossible for new facilities, if they were found to be necessary, to be developed in time for the training programme to begin.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– With due deference to my friends and colleagues on both sides of the chamber and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, I feel that at some stage of this fascinating debate some comments must be made on behalf of the professionals. With great respect to the integrity and political consciousness of my friends and colleagues, there are some comments to be made about the practicalities and realities of life. I can well understand why honourable members should find it encumbent upon them to rise to speak on behalf of what my honourable and gallant friend from Bradfield (Mr Turner) described as the common man. He talked in terms of the intrusion of modern technological developments upon the common man. He talked in terms of government indecision in planning in relation to the avoidance of this intrusion. He mentioned the burden of the noise problem with which we are all concerned. But the House must have on record comments which relate to the realities.

We are in a growing and advancing economy. It is not easy to plan ahead, in terms of time. It is not easy to be able to say that We will select certain areas and keep them, with the approval of State government and of local government authorities, as international airports, aware of the fact that if the urban development over the next 20 to 40 years becomes so great we will have to restrict such development and keep it away from these particular zones. It cannot be done. Honourable members rise in their places to speak on this subject and I say with all due deference, complete sympathy and absolute understanding of the problems that face my friends and colleagues on this side as well as the honourable members for Barton (Mr Reynolds) and St George (Mr Morrison), having been a member for St George in this House, that I am very conscious of the political pressures. But Sydney Airport has been established for a long time and many hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in Sydney Airport. I suggest, with great respect, that it is utmost nonsence for any honourable member to talk in terms of an absolute change - of a moving away from Sydney Airport. I realise that my friend, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has his social problems resulting from these facts, but the truth is that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) were Prime Minister of Australia and members opposite sat on this side of the Parliament there would not be one single utterance within their ranks about a movement.

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

– That is not true. We recommended the removal in 1955.

Mr GRAHAM:

– Let us be practical. The honourable member knows very well that nothing would be done by a Labor government to move the greatest international airport in Australia.

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

– We recommended its removal in 1955.

Mr GRAHAM:

– If a Labor government recommended such a proposal I am sure that the leading members of Qantas Airways would find it difficult to remain in that organisation. They would all be going to Fiji for a holiday, because that government would be ruining the organisation. There is* no likelihood of this happening and somebody has to say it here and now. It may be that in some, of the subdivisions of St George which are close to the boundaries of the airport there are people who are highly sensitive, but there are other subdivisions in the electorate and one must be consistent with reality in political considerations. 1 can understand, in relation to the Avalon area, the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the leader for the Labor Party in this debate, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). This is an area close to the great city of Melbourne. It is the best flying training area close to that great metropolis. Whilst the international and local airlines have been looking for training areas which are fairly close to the areas in which their employees have to live it has become apparent to them, over a long period of time, that this is the ideal area. It is utterly wrong to say that Avalon is the worst possible place because the fact of the matter is that from the flying man’s point of view it is the best place. Somehow we have to work out a reasonably comprehensible pattern of understanding between those who will suffer from noise and those who want to reside close to airports. I am not at all satisfied as to the validity of the argument that noise will remain an everlasting problem. I have every reason to believe that the technical efforts that are being made to solve the problem will, over the next decade, become reasonably successful, and more successful as time passes. We will find many hundreds of people who want to reside close to airports. There are people who work at great international airports who want their homes in and about an area in which there is a noise problem. It is in their commercial economic interest to be there. Is the Department of Civil Aviation to be criticised for not being able to look into a crystal ball? Someone said that the airport could be moved out to Bourke or Dubbo. In 100 years time it may be that the same type of problem that is existent now at Avalon, and which is manifest in Sydney, will also exist in New South Wales at Dubbo and people will be standing in this House repeating the same arguments as we have heard today.

We must face the fact that we cannot have advancement and the improvement of the technical services that are vital in a growing economy like Australia’s economy in 1970 without some burden resting upon the shoulders of the average man. After ali, he carries the burden of defending the country; he carries the burden of being in the country, he carries the burden, in effect, of developing a heritage for the future of his own children. In these circumstances it is my judgment that reality and practicality will prove that, apart from all the emotional political arguments, be must face up to the situation. I believe that he will face up to it and will either deal with it personally or will suffer from the advances of technology and derive the benefits from the advances of technology. lt is, I think, an eternal verity that the average man in Australia wants to see his country advance. He does not want to see it become stagnant. He does, not want to see it remain in a backward condition. Let me illustrate this to the honourable gentleman and to you, Mr Speaker, by saying that when the emerging nations that are arising throughout the world, those in the great continents of Asia and Africa, are developing, the very first thing they establish is an international airline. They get an aeroplane and put their name on it and fly it all around the world. Do they have arguments about noise? Do they have arguments about problems in relation to the suffering that follows the advancement of technology? Certainly they do. But they put up with it because the advancement implicit in the shining representation of technology that is to be seen in a mckern aeroplane is important to them in their governments, in their homes and in their countries. That is why at their first opportunity they establish an international airline. T am confident the Minister will confirm what I have said.

Mr Turner:

– T wish lo make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr TURNER (Bradfield)- Yes. I claim the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) has misrepresented me. In the course of his speech he referred to me, the honourable member for Bradfield, and said he understood the political pressures upon his friends and colleagues, implying that the reason why I rose and said what I have said in this debate was that I wished to win support among ray constituents. Admittedly, this is a thing that all members like to do. However, as I will not be a candidate at the next election for the seat of Bradfield I wish to refute any suggestion that 1 am concerned with winning votes from people whose suffrages ! shall not be seeking. The second point I wish to make is that the honourable member impugned roy loyalty. He said that if the boot had been on the other foot and if honourable members opposite had been on this side of the House when this report had been produced by the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise no honourable member opposite would have protested against it and, therefore, I was disloyal. This was the plain implication. Let me say this: Loyalty must be to somebody or to something; it must be to one’s party or one’s constituents, to an institution or to one’s country. I have sometimes found loyalty to party a little narrow.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– T have listened to all the speakers in this debate and 1 agree with them all. We on the Public Works Committee when it inquired info aircraft noise, had evidence from which it appeared that no matter where an airport or runway is built there will always be this noise trouble. 1 do not think the Public Works Committee should be censured for its recommendations and I will give the reasons why. The evidence indicated that the need to have a runway operating at a certain time was a main factor. Another factor was that the whole of the Committee went into these areas, stood under the flight paths of aircraft and listened to the noise. We agreed with a lot of the people. Some people are not affected as much as others. 1 agree with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) that now is the time Australia should be looking - it may be past the time but at least we should delay it no longer - for areas for runways that will not affect the people in any way.

Aircraft noise is not confined only to Australia. It is a problem all over the world but we as a young nation should take the first step towards solving it. We have more areas available than possibly any other country; we have a small population and vast tracts of land. I think that the Department of Civil Aviation and the aircraft companies and factories should be doing more research into problems connected with the taking off, and landing of aircraft. Every session we hear of a new aircraft requiring another 600 feet or another 1,000 feet of runway. Where is it going to end? I have seen aircraft in operation at Farnworth rising straight off the ground to a height of 2,000 feet before moving forward. More research should be done on this technique. It would not only eliminate noise over houses and people but would also eliminate the need to extend runways. More hazards are created every time we extend a runway.

I do not think the Public Works Committee could have reached any other recommendation than the one it has produced and referring the recommendations back to the Committee will not make any difference. I am forced to vote for the amendment and I do not think the Public Works Committee, if the reference goes back to the Committee, can bring down any recommendation other than the one it has presented. As the honourable member for Bradfield said, it recommended that facilities for training purposes should be made available immediately and that the Avalon runway be made redundant as far as training services are concerned. The people of Avalon are not against the factory being there and the facilities, except those for training Qantas pilots being there. Honourable members have said in this House that they do not want the Qantas pilots to be jeopardised in any way; they want the pilots to have this training. We agree with that.

After all, the people who travel with Qantas are our responsibility and these pilots must be trained. In view of the timetable set down for the training of pilots and in view of the new aircraft coming into service, these things were so evident and prominent to the Committee that it was forced to bring in the recommendation it has. It has recommended that the Department look for further grounds which would not cause trouble through noisy aircraft flying over people. That recommendation is partly contained in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I support the amendment but I consider the Committee should never be censured for the recommendations it brought down because it could bring down no other- recommendation than the one it has.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I would like to participate in this debate as a member of the Public Works Committee and to support the concluding remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton). I believe that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) moved this amendment as a form of protest against the absence of foresight by the Government in not planning for the foreseeable future. I join with the honourable member for Leichhardt in saying that the Public Works Committee is not prepared to be censured by anybody in this House. It is a dedicated Committee and the members of it have worked very hard. We have examined every possible aspect of the proposals set out in the report now before the Parliament. We flew over Avalon in light aircraft. We stood in the classrooms of Geelong Grammar School. We went into the streets and into the shops of Lara and Little River and made one of the most thorough examinations that could be made by any committee in connection with the problems of aircraft noise.

The executive officers of Geelong Grammar were not hostile about aircraft noise. I thought they were very decent in thenoutlook. But they did express an opinion that it would be better if the 707 jet pilots under training kept closer to the organised and restricted pattern of flight, which would keep them about a mile away from Geelong Grammar. But they said in all fairness that they realised the difficulty in training pilots who occasionally drifted over Geelong Grammar and sometimes caused up to 11 interruptions to student classes in a matter of an hour. We realised this difficulty but we also realised, as every member of this Parliament acknowledges, the rapid advances that have been made in the aircraft industry in recent years. Probably our Committee was a little overcensorious in the concluding pages of its report when censuring the Department of Civil Aviation.

The aircraft industry is one of the most rapidly changing industries. We planned and prepared the Amberley air base for the FI 1 1 bomber, but no-one now knows whether the Fill bomber will ever be used there. One can plan too far ahead at times in connection with the aircraft industry. Aircraft engineers are talking about designing a vertical takeoff aircraft.

Mr Griffiths:

– And they have done.

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member for Shortland says they have done it. I do not think it has come on to the commercial market or will do so in the foreseeable future. To use the vernacular, what a bunny the Government would be if it built great expensive airstrips and then aeronautical engineers came out with a vertical takeoff aircraft. We would look rather stupid. The great concern of the Committee was that our great international airline, Qantas, would not be held up with the conversion courses to the jumbo jets of its pilots. 1 endorse the remarks made by my colleagues that the Department of Civil Aviation officials have shown great courtesy and are skilled and dedicated men. Under cross-examination before the Committee the DCA officials said that there was no suitable training airfield site on the east coast between Sydney and Melbourne. This makes it difficult. We must accept this testimony on oath from men of great integrity and learning.

Despite the irritations caused to certain people in the area by aircraft noise, if we are to advance in this industry the unfortunate people who find the aircraft noise causing them mental distress will have to put up with it. f say that with deep feeling for their problem. The honourable member for Newcastle raised an interesting point when he said that the pilots could be trained overseas while we search around for another airfield. But I recollect evidence being given to the Public Works Committee from members of the Department of Civil Aviation to the effect that Avalon airport is ideal for training our jet pilots because of the crosswinds and because of the low cloud that settles over Avalon airport at frequent intervals throughout the year. That gives the pilots the opportunity of flying and making land ings where there is a cloud hazard which they frequently encounter at overseas airports. Climatically, from the crosswinds and the cloud cover, Avalon airport is ideal for the purpose of training these pilots.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They have to descent to 500 feet.

Mr JAMES:

– At times, as the honourable member for Hughes reminds me, the pilots have to descent to 500 feet. Under cross-examination we asked DCA officials why the pilots have to fly so low during their training periods. The answer was that at certain airports throughout the world which do not have modern landing instruments the pilots have to make visual landings. Therefore they have to practise low flying below cloud to become skilled in bringing these giant planes down when electronic facilities are non-existent in some of the airports throughout the world. I have said, and I reiterate, I consider that the referring back of this report to the Public Works Committee will be futile. But I appreciate the motives which inspired the honourable member for Newcastle to bring forward this amendment.

As I conclude my remarks I desire to point out also to the House that backgrading the Avalon airport is something that we cannot afford to do. When the jumbo jets, the 707s and, later, the Concordes come onto the international runs, if a plane catches fire at Tullamarine the only alternative international airport where another plane could be brought down would be Avalon. The same would apply if Tullamarine were closed by fog. The alternate airport, which is nearby, would he Avalon. These are important things which I do not think have been brought forward in this debate, despite the great skill and knowledge displayed by Government supporters and honourable members on this side of the House. Therefore, the Parliament should be very clear about my attitude to the situation. Unfortunately. 1 find myself and the Committee - particularly the Labor members of the Public Works Committee - generally over the barrel, in virtually having to support the amendment because of a Party decision when we feel that, if the amendment were carried and the report referred back to the Public Works Committee, it would be rather futile.

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

-I have agreed that my comments will be restricted to a few minutes, in view of the time factor.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker, is the Minister closing the debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The Minister did not move the original motion, and he is therefore not closing the debate.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government for a number of reasons that have been mentioned by the last speaker and also by previous speakers. I think the main thing is that there is a requirement that the training programme for Qantas pilots be commenced in August next year. If this work does not proceed as a matter of urgency it will not be possible to commence this programme for the Boeing 747s. This brings us to the question of planning. There has been criticism in the report and by a number of honourable members today in relation to forward planning by the Department of Civil Aviation for these training facilities. We must understand that the rapid growth and development of new types of aircraft in both the civil and military fields makes it very difficult to keep up with the training requirements as well as the normal airport requirements.

The evaluation of training requirements at Avalon airport went on for some considerable time. It was not until the evaluation had been completed, in consultation with the authorities and the aircraft manufacturers, that the final decision was made, just a short time before the submission was made to this Parliament. It is regretted that the Public Works Committee had short notice on this occasion, but this was unavoidable under the circumstances. A number of matters were raised in relation to noise problem and operational problems at Avalon. It must be taken into consideration that, despite the fact that in this area there are pockets of population at Little River and Lara and there is the grammar school in the district, as has been referred to, Avalon is still in a rural area. From one point of view this presents certain advantages.

These matters were studied very carefully at considerable length by the Department before the final decision was made to proceed with the additional work in this locality. In addition to this it is a fact that cannot be denied that industry is expanding from Geelong into this region, which means that aircraft movement problems will become less obvious as this industrial expansion takes place. In addition to this, noise levels - except for 5 close low-level, special training circuits each week - are not high by normal comparisons as far as airports are concerned. They can be further reduced with further adjustments to and the monitoring of the training circuits. This will be undertaken to see that the best possible arrangements are made to overcome this problem. Also I think we should remember that even without civil flying training programmes there, the military testflights would cause about the same noise problem in the locality. So there would be no great advantage in shifting civil flying training from the locality as far as the noise problem is concerned. I merely draw attention to these facts but I also recognise that paragraphs 48 and 49 of the report recommend that some steps of an immediate nature be taken by the Government to plan for a facility for commercial jet pilot training in some other locality.I will see that this is referred to my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in another place and I can give an assurance to the House that the Minister will study the recommendation that has been made. But, as I said at the outset for a variety of reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

- Mr Acting Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed, to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3010

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October (vide page 2212), on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The measure before us is perhaps more important for what the Minister for

Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) foreshadows about the power to award degrees that will be conferred upon the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and also the establishment of a national accrediting body which will certify graduation degrees from colleges of advanced education around Australia, than it is for the measures contained in the Bill to change the composition of the Council which governs the Canberra College of Advanced Education. 1 want to say immediately that it is my conviction that the line of evolution which is being followed in this college will be quite simple. There will develop from it, first of all, a university of Canberra, a teachers’ college and an institute of technology, and if the Government confers upon a college of advanced education the power to award degrees then that sector of it will develop and develop until it becomes a university, f would welcome this. 1 think that a university of Canberra should be created in the very near future and 1 believe we will find that there is no abiding place in this present structure for the College of Advanced Education. At the same time it is the desire of the Opposition to enhance the status of the College of Advanced Education and in the committee stage of the Bill 1 propose to move amendments to the clauses which refer to the Council governing the College of Advanced Education. These clauses are taken from the legislation which sets out the Council of the Australian National University.

The Council of the Australian National University has 2 members of the Senate, elected by the Senate, within its composition and, in a proposed amendment, we will attempt to change the composition of the Council of the College of Advanced Education in the same way. It should have 2 representatives of the Senate. It should also have 2 representatives of the House of Representatives, as does the Australian National University Council. In addition to that we want to provide for 3 representatives of the community of the Australian Capital Territory to be elected in a manner to be prescribed. The Australian Capital Territory is very conscious of its own educational problems. It has, I would say, an exceptionally enlightened group of people con cerned about education within i’.iL community as one might expect having regard to the nature of the community, and we believe there should be 3 representatives of the Canberra community on the governing Council of the College of Advanced Education.

These proposals will, of course, enlarge the Council of the College of Advanced Education but the Australian National University is now run by a sanhedrin of 41 as its governing Council so it does not seem to be unreasonable to assume that the Council of the College of Advanced Education should be enlarged also. I think that if Canberra had a lord mayor and a city council they might have something to do with the selection of the members of the Council of the College of Advanced Education, but the Australian Capital Territory is accustomed to electing people to governing bodies within it. There is the rather unusual procedure, for instance, which elects members of the Hospital Board.

There is no reason why a community which is as alert on the subject of education as is the Canberra community should not itself directly elect 3 members of the’ Council of the College of Advanced Education. 1 hope that the Minister will succeed in persuading the States to establish the national accrediting body which he foreshadowed in his second reading speech. I hope that the States, if they are responsible for delaying the establishment of that body, will change their attitude very quickly. Now I shall have a look at the changes which the Government itself proposes, lt proposes that there shall be 2 students to be elected to the Council by the student body, for the Council to be empowered to arrange, if it wishes, for separate representation of part time and full time students, and because it is providing for the representation of students it lowers the age of membership of the Council from 21 years to 18 years. I think this is a welcome development, lt also provides that the ViceChancellor of the Australian National University may have an alternate on the Council because of the pressures under which the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University works. This means apparently that very often he must be absent from the meetings of the Council of the College of Advanced Education. That seems to us to be quite reasonable.

The Bill also provides for teaching staff representation on the Council to be increased from 2 to 3 members. I suppose one might as well note the new trend which is now developing within universities for the students not to want separate student representation but for them to want the whole university to be regarded as one corporate body and for the students to be electing the staff representatives in conjunction with the staff and the staff to be electing the student representatives in conjunction with the students. I do not know how the staffs will accept this since they are greatly outnumbered by the student body. We are assured that the student body is not a solid bloc and that there would be a very clear division between them so that staffs do not have reason to fear that they will be swamped by the students. But I could well imagine that members of the staff who may be very competent to be on the Council but who are not tremendously popular with the students could find themselves not elected. However, that is a matter for the future. But it is a new trend within the National Union of Australian University Students and within student representative councils.

We welcome the Bill. We hope that the Government will accept our amendments. After all, there is a very good reason why this Parliament should be interested in the College of Advanced Education in Canberra. It is in many ways a model institution for all these institutions throughout Australia. This Parliament has a traditional association with bodies that are developed within Canberra. I suspect that there will be a line of evolution to a Canberra university out of the measures that the Government is now taking or the changes that are envisaged by recognising the right of the College of Advanced Education in Canberra to award degrees. We believe that by providing for representation from the Senate and the House of Representatives on the College of Advanced Education in Canberra, the College will be greatly benefited. We also believe that the presence of Canberra representatives, vigilant of the needs of education in their own area, will benefit the College of Advanced Education and help the community of Canberra to take an informed and intelligent interest in the College. The principle of parliamentary representation is, as I say, one which the Government has already accepted with regard to the Australian National University, and we hope that the Government will accept it with regard to the Canberra College of Advanced Education.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– This is not a matter, I think, involving a very considerable depth of policy. At the same time, it opens up the field, insofar as we want to do so, of this whole new area of education in colleges of advanced education. Properly enough, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has drawn attention to and has foreshadowed that he will move amendments on some of the provisions for the Canberra College of Advanced Education, as shown in the Bill. I am not sure that the status of a college such as this is greatly enhanced by varying, to any great degree, the number of people who are appointed to the Council. I think rather that the status of these institutions is to be gained from their products, and their products will be of first quality only if in fact their courses and their staffs are of first quality. Nevertheless, one could hardly regard as reprehensible the suggestion or proposition of the honourable member for Fremantle that certain additions be made to the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, notably, of course, because that would include members of this place and of the chamber not far distant from here.

However, having had at least a short experience on the council of 1 university in this country and having been involved more thoroughly in a process similar to that in which the College of Advanced Education in Canberra is involved, or for that matter, in which similar institutions elsewhere are involved, I believe that the less government intervention there is directly in the affairs of such bodies, the better. This could be misinterpreted, and I would not want that. But I notice that already there is provision on the Council of the College of Advanced Education in Canberra for persons, not exceeding eight in number, appointed by the GovernorGeneral. Presumably they will have some sort of governmental influence behind them. So while, on the face of it, the suggestion that 2 senators and 2 members of this House should be appointed as members of the Council is a good and proper one, I would tread warily in that direction and try to hold that sort of thing to an absolute minimum, as in fact is apparent from the presently proposed constitution of the Council.

Given, as I think it must be, that the lay members of the hierarchy of such a council or such a governing body will be people of intelligence and good standing in the community, whoever they are, it seems to me that the more important area is the staff representation on the governing body, because the staff members are the people most directly and most constantly concerned. In fact, usually by contract for the whole of their lives they are engaged in the institution in which they are employed. They are the people who are most likely to direct into the proper channels what the institution is doing, whatever we may think of the public utterances of some of their number. As a body they will be the ones most directly involved in what the institution is doing. So I think it is more important that the staff representation should be increased from 2 to 3 and that the student representation should be provided for at the number of two.

This, of course, opens up a very big field. It varies right across the board internationally amongst institutions of this kind. I think that the most unhierarchical, as it were, representation of any such institution of which I am aware is perhaps that of the University of Sussex where, if I remember rightly, the statute provides that not more than one-third of the governing body shall be of the professoriate or above - if there is an ‘above’. In other words, they shall be members of the teaching staff and people of that order, of sub-professorial rank. It takes a lot of cognisance of the per capita involvement of any member of the staff of such an institution - whether it be a professor, a vice-chancellor or anybody else - in its affairs generally. That is a very extensive and perhaps quite atypical provision. But, nevertheless, if we look at the universities, colleges and tertiary institutions in the United Kingdom we find a great deal more liberality in that direction titan is usually found in Australia; than in fact is probably characteristic of any of our Australian institutions. Nevertheless, the point is that provision is being made.

Recently mention has been made also of student representation at the Australian National University, which is not totally irrelevant to the matter in hand. It seems to me that one can take two points of view on this. One is that you can have any number - reasonably demanded - of students on a governing body, and in a sort of political sense you can say: ‘Okay, the students are represented.’ The second is that you should be concerned that the students’ point of view is made known on the council. That, to me, can be done by one person - the president of the students representative council or whatever the equivalent may be. Perhaps you might like to shore him up to some extent and have a second representative. But beyond that, I believe that unless the intention is to get a voting bloc on the governing body, the purpose of the exercise is served; that is to say, the students’ view will be known to be represented on the governing body, and people out of touch with student thought and student needs will not be capable of making decisions without knowing what this great body of people, for which the institution is run, are thinking. That can be done quite adequately by one or two student leaders, and not necessarily by eight or nine or so many others.

That, of course, also involves the question of the lowering of the age of possible representatives from 21 years to 18 years. I do not propose to spend any time on that. My personal inclination would be that the longer they have been around the more they are likely to know. But having the age of 21 years may well exclude some very useful and some very community oriented and institutional oriented students of less than that age. So I think that on the whole the provision for lowering the age from 21 years to 18 years is a proper one. This brings me to the other main provision of this Bill, and that is the question of degree powers. It bears on the matter which I took up from the honourable member for Fremantle at the beginning of my speech on this matter. As with status, I believe that this is an area which will be shown to be right and proper by its product, by what it turns out, rather than by a provision put down in black and white on a piece of paper. The fact that somebody gets a degree or gets a qualification which is called a degree is not the problem or is not the proof. What you have to do is to ensure that the degree or the diploma or whatever the exercise turns out to provide will stand up with comparable qualifications in any other part of the country and, perhaps preferably, in any part of the world. Therefore if we say this institution may now have the power of conferring degrees it means not one whit or one jot if in fact the degree is not worth anything or at least is not worth what we expect of a normal undergraduate degree.

So the question then hinges on the comparability of degree giving status which has come in this case from the findings of the Wiltshire Committee and 1 understand the provision is to make the Canberra College of Advanced Education comparable in this way and in this capacity with other colleges which have developed a little later and which have already been given that provision. There is, of course, a little bit of movement in this area in the sense that when provision was first made for these colleges there was not - as in fact the case in point proves - the intention at that time of their granting degrees, so called. I think it would be certainly true that people in universities at the time, if nowhere else, saw that, perhaps with some personal bias, to be the right and proper thing to do and that universities would grant degrees and perhaps other lesser institutions or certainly different institutions in the tertiary sphere would grant diplomas or whatever they might be called. This means to me that if colleges of advanced education are to grant degrees it is absolutely imperative that they be degrees certainly of directly comparable status to those granted by the universities or if not of directly comparable status they shall be seen to be something which is different and shall be said to be something which is different. I have seen this process happen elsewhere.

I think that perhaps the United States of America affords the best example. I can recall clearly to my mind at the moment only one case. I recall the Illinois State Normal College. The word ‘normal’ has now gone out of vogue but it was the word applied to a teaching institution. It became by a natural process of evolution, not educationally but by nomenclature, the Illinois State College. Then some years later, lo and behold, the pressure of political events was such that it became the

Illinois State University. I think 1 am right in saying this. There may have been some other qualifying word and I may be doing some other, institution an injustice, if not that institution. But just by changing the name the institution was apparently upgraded from a teaching college of sorts to a fully fledged university. The educational implications of that are very considerable indeed. As I said earlier you cannot change the capacity or product of an institution merely by changing its name. The important thing is to see that what it provides and what it turns out is commensurate with the name which it is given. So this is the point which I make, and 1 hope forcibly, as far as degree giving powers are concerned.

The only further comment I have is that 1 hope that the conferral of these powers on this college, in keeping wim some of the others, will be followed up by the members of the councils and staffs with as much rigour and as much attention to the educative process and as much professional integrity as I believe in the main, and almost perhaps exclusively, has been carried out among the Australian universities in the now lengthening period of their histories, at least of the older ones but much shorter histories for the younger ones. I do not wish to take up the time of the House much longer on this matter. My points on this matter are: The crucial (bing as far as this Bill is concerned is that degree giving powers should result in degrees worthy of the name, whether they are selectively given as between disciplines or whether they are given in all disciplines and that, I hope, will be seen into with discrimation. Secondly, the representation on the council is, I believe, very important and it should be levelled at the staff representation and to a lesser extent the student representation area, along with the usual sorts of people in relationship to the governing heads or executive type heads of the college. Further to this, the status of such an institution as this may well be upgraded, at least on paper, by the provisions which the honourable member for Fremantle put forward, although I am not convinced on bis proposal that the status of the college would be in any significant way enhanced. It is of course true to say that it would perhaps be given more direct attention and more direct interest would be created in the 2 chambers of this Parliament if they were represented specifically on the council and of course it may also be true that, if there were direct representatives from the community of the Australian Capital Territory as such on that body, again this might be a further advance. But at the same time one would imagine that all those people at present provided for will see themselves as members of the ACT community and there may be a very fine line indeed in deciding who in fact is the more representative type of person coming out of the ACT on to the governing body of the Canberra College of Advanced Education.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– 1 would think that if we were sitting around a table after a series of conferences ,we would probably find there was pretty much of a consensus between the thoughts of the people who make up the Australian Labor Party’s Education Committee and the thoughts expressed by the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon). However, in supporting the amendment we have put forward, I remind the honourable member that, by suggesting that members of Parliament ought to be put on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, we are not adding to the Government’s control of the situation. In fact 1 should think we are keeping a closer watch upon the Government. In general, particularly in this Parliament, we have very little to do with the Government. It ignores us in large measure. I will describe later, perhaps in the Committee stage of the Bill, exactly why we want to do this. The honourable member did sm that he thought a comparison with the representation on the Council of the Australian National University would be irrelevant. 1 do not think it would be irrelevant. I would think that it is highly relevant in a community such as Canberra.

Dr Solomon:

– I did not say that

Mr BRYANT:

– Then I withdraw my remark. If the honourable member agrees with me on that matter he is making continuing progress in this place. We are discussing the Council of a major educational institution and one that I have no doubt will have increasing importance in the Australian education scene. No-one anywhere seems to have resolved the question of what might be called the problem of institutional control. What is a university? What is a college? . Is it a community of students? Is it a community of students and staff? Is it a part of the community? We have not resolved these questions anywhere. There have been continuing tumults in major, institutions throughout the world. Strangely enough most of them have been in universities. This is possibly because universities also attract a different kind of person, the structure of them is different and the freedom inside them is different from that implied in technical institutions of the sort we are speaking about today.

I would like to see more students and staff participation on this Council. I want to see some community participation on the Council. But so far the question of where an institution of this sort fits into a community has not been resolved. It is not anybody’s particular property. It does not belong to the Government, although this has been the attitude adopted by governments in the past, particularly in Australia. In looking through the directory of the Commonwealth Universities Year Book I find that throughout the British Commonwealth - to use an out of date term - generally speaking universities have been pretty restricted in the kind of council structure that they have. The Opposition takes this opportunity - and we are glad of it - to bring the whole issue out into the open. Perhaps the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) might give some thought as to a way in which this Parliament could examine this matter more thoroughly. On this side of the House our Committee proposes to examine it as thoroughly as it can. But if it were given the imprimatur of the Parliament by some sort of joint effort by both sides of this House I think that it would be a very valuable contribution to Australian education thought.

I think I can say quite fairly that nobody in the world seems to have resolved this problem. Here in Australia we might have more chance of doing so than anybody else has and here in Canberra we probably have the ideal area in which to experiment. The characteristics of Australian education have always been unduly centralised and bureaucratic. There are lots of reasons for this. If it had not been centralised and to a large measure bureaucratic the people out in the bush would not have received the quality education to which they were entitled over the last century. On the other hand we have traditions in the universities of Australia which on the whole have had a much freer rein. They have had a different kind of council structure. It is interesting to look at the different set-ups in universities. For example, the Sydney University has on its controlling body 10 representatives of the graduates, 3 of the fellows, the Vice-Chancellor of the time, 5 representatives of the teaching staff, 1 representative of the undergraduates, and so on. Compare that, for instance, with the structure that was established in Victoria. I think the Melbourne University is much the same as the Sydney University in this regard. However, the Swinburne College of Technology, which is a very high-powered institution, does not have student representatives on the College council. The statutes of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, which is even more high-powered and much more redoubtable as an institution, prevent the academic staff being members of the governing council. However, staff and students are. allowed to attend meetings as observers. That is a fair sample of what we want to avoid.

It is pleasing to note that at least in this case we have arrived at the conclusion that colleges of advanced education should not be treated in quite that way. Looking through the Universities’ Year Book very few universities, whether they be in Montreal, whether they be some of the East African universities which are relatively new, or whether they be in India, have students or staff on their controlling bodies. Our proposals are that 2 special groups should be represented on the council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Firstly, the membership of this Parliament should be represented. I believe that with a smallish community such as Canberra where we have 2 major institutions, one fairly well developed and one getting off the ground, the imprimatur of this Parliament does add something to tha status of the Australian National University. If we do not think that the Canberra Advanced College of Education is entitled to this kind of consideration, I think we are writing it down.

I do not suggest that this will seriously prejudice the progress of the institution, but 1 believe that members of a Parliament can contribute something which is not easily obtained from elsewhere. In the firs: instance, members of Parliament represent the community at large; we represent Australia at large. This is an important point. Secondly, members of Parliament are free in a large measure of some of the inhibitions that prevail in other areas of selection. No matter how highly placed a person is whom we extract from the community and place on a board such as this, it is very difficult for such a person to walk in here and say to the Minister: ‘Hey, how about this?’ It is the question of access which 1 believe, irrespective of the present instance, is one of the challenges of a modern democratic society.

While there may be other ways of resolving this matter I believe that it would be to the advantage of this Parliament and the Canberra College of Advanced Education for Parliament to be represented on it. To save making another speech on the same matter during the committee stages 1 would remind honourable members that the Parliament is represented on the Australian National University; it is represented on the Institute of Aboriginal Studies; it used to be represented, but not any longer, on the Australian War Memorial; it is represented on the National Library Council and in other areas, but not many. I have found representation on such bodies the most useful and satisfying function which has been conferred upon me during my IS years in this Parliament. I would presume that this kind of employment would be gratifying to most honourable members. Therefore, I believe there is a strong case for this Parliament being represented on the council of the Canberra College for Advanced Education. 1 now would like to refer to the question of community representation. The Canberra College of Advanced Education, of course, does not belong exclusively to the Canberra community. The College would largely be a community education institution, rather more so - or it should be rather more so - than the Australian National University. But we believe that some system of electing people from the local community to this body would be of great advantage. Again, Australia has been very inhibited in this regard throughout its educational institutions. This is particularly so in secondary and primary education. I think that there should be more public participation in secondary education in Australia. I believe it would be worth while involving the community in the management of the Canberra College of Advanced Education by means of someone directly representing the community. I believe it would not be terribly difficult to have a person elected by the local community.

I now would like to deal with the question of degrees. The Martin Committee’s report suggested that colleges of advanced education should be established with degree conferring powers. Shudders of despair, horror and disgust ran through a large measure of the academic community of Australia when it heard of this recommendation. Being a product of what one might regard as the senior superior university of Australia - I refer to Melbourne University - by the grace of the Labor Party after the war - and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) also had this singular advantage - I could not sympathise in any way with the suggestion that a university was so superior in quality to an advanced college type of establishment that we would be unable to produce the same sort of results from a college. Therefore, we are conferring a very important power upon colleges of advanced education. This is the imprimatur for entering the professions. Therefore, the people who make the decisions about what the quality is to be, the standards, the status and academic excellence have a very high trusteeship conferred upon them.

I suppose the essence of the contract is what kind of faith you have in the staff. This goes back to some other issues that we discussed in the Parliament this afternoon. It is connected with the payment of academic salaries throughout Australia. Therefore, 2 things will decide whether the degrees of institutions such as the one we are discussing will be of any use. The first one, of course, is the standards. None of us can tell what will happen. When an architect turns up and says that he is a Bachelor of Architecture from Canberra, Melbourne or somewhere else who am I to tell what standard he is. He must be taken at the face value of his degree or the piece of paper which he has. In the long run it will be the acceptance by the com munity of the standards that are produced by the products of these institutions that will matter.

In the last few years we have had in Australia the development of a number of new universities. One of the first of these universities to get off the ground was Monash University. Monash University was established 12 or IS miles out of the city of Melbourne on the way to Dandenong. This was out of the academic area, one might say. The first result of the establishment of this university was, of course, that people felt that you were going off perhaps to a second-rate institution; if you could not get into Melbourne University you ended up at Monash. I think Monash University is in its 10th year. I can remember the despair and dismay of a number of people around my electorate when they were told that this was the institution to which they were drafted. Knowing many of the academic staff who had been appointed to the Monash University I could only hope to convince the people I met that they would receive the same quality of education there as they would from anywhere else in Australia. Indeed, that is how it has turned out. I think there is no challenge whatsoever to the standards of Monash as a university in most of the disciplines, as far as I know. This university has had an important influence in the way many people think about new institutions. On the other hand, Monash is an interesting example of the problems of control that are faced by a completely new institution.

This is a university which has grown and grown in the last 10 years without all of the stabilising conservatism and institutionalised establishment of places such as Melbourne and Sydney. One has to admit that Melbourne University and Sydney University have been functioning for 100 years and they have ingrained into them all of the standards and attitudes of the community. This is why they are conservative institutions. I would suggest that honourable members read articles that were published in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ over the last week about the control of Monash University. So, this afternoon we are taking new steps in regard to a very important new institution. I would hope that we would start to look upon the Australian Capital Territory as an important educational laboratory. Here is the opportunity of experimenting in a community which is largely self contained and which gives us the opportunity to do things that are probably not available anywhere else in Australia. Of course, the resources of the Commonwealth Government are at the disposal of this institution. 1 have no doubt that it will be one of the most richly endowed institutions of this sort in Australia. Nobody will begrudge it that. I only hope that eventually we will reach the stage where all Australians, wherever they are, will receive equal educational effort. I hope all honourable members opposite will give serious consideration to the proposals that the Opposition will put forward in the Committee stages.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– -My only regret is that the recommendations of the Wiltshire report are to be implemented in such a piecemeal way - that is assuming that they are implemented in their entirety in any case. The Wiltshire Committee which looked into the status of colleges of advanced education and the kind of awards that should be given with respect to their courses, reported to the Federal Minister for Education and Science in June 1969. In September of last year, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) convened a meeting with the State Ministers responsible for education to consider these recommendations. Here we are, over 12 months later, and we do not seem to be any nearer resolution of these matters than when they started. I have seen Press releases from time to time indicating some anxiety on the part of the States to achieve some kind of resolution of the problem but nothing apparently is yet in sight to this end.

I cannot help feeling that the old, old problem of Commonwealth-State jealousy comes into this situation. Some of the States have misgivings about what the status of the national accrediting committee will be and what sovereignty it will take away from the States in respect of their own colleges of advanced education. So, we see by this Bill that the position has been reached where the Commonwealth has had to go it alone to introduce legislation to set up in the Australian Capital Territory a college of advanced education with the right to confer degrees in respect of some courses. 1 can only think of what must be the perplexity and concern of students in colleges of advanced education up and down this country who are wondering what kind of an award they will receive at the completion of their courses. Will they receive a degree, a diploma or some other kind of certificate? This is a matter that I would like to see resolved soon. 1 hope that the States will be big enough to come to an early decision on the matter.

Naturally too in this same context I regret - and I notice a good many other critics do - that a national co-ordinating committee regarding tertiary education in general has not been established. We remember that the Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia, commonly known as the Martin Committee, recommended this very thing back in 1965 when it submitted its report. We are still not sure what is the province of a college of advanced education visavis a university today. I only hope that the Government may still get around to establishing some kind of national tertiary commission which will try to co-ordinate the development and to clarify the status of such tertiary institutions as universities, colleges of advanced education and, where they exist as separate bodies, teachers’ colleges.

At the moment, there seems <o be a certain amount of experimentalism as far as teacher education is concerned. In some cases teachers colleges are being absorbed into colleges of advanced education. In other cases they are still remaining within education departments. There are other propositions that teachers’ colleges should become some degree granting institutions in their own right. A fourth proposition is that they may be attached to universities and benefit by the status of the universities in their particular awards. All these are things to be sorted out. I notice that at a meeting at the University of New England late last year at which the National Union of Australian University Students was represented, persons spoke out about this absence of some kind of co-ordination or some kind of clarification of the province of these educational bodies.

I wish 10 quote from ‘Vestes 1970’ an article by Professor John Wood of the

University of New South Wales which states:

For higher education the Conference recommended the establishment of a single Higher Education Commission to replace the two existing Commonwealth committees. This was not meant to imply that they had been ineffective; on the contrary, the opinion was that as agencies concerned with sectional planning they had done an excellent job. But sectional planning it had been and it was believed that a co-ordinated and integrated system was not possible with such a structure.

The article goes on to indicate the necessity for some such national co-ordinating tertiary body.

To me it seems even more urgent now than ever it was. It seemed that we had this clear in our minds when a former Prime Minister rose in this place and indicated what he believed was the province on the one hand of a university and on the other hand a college of advanced education. This dichotomy, this division of labour between the two bodies is not nearly so obvious now. Certainly, Sir Robert Menzies did not envisage colleges of advanced education as being degree granting bodies - not in the immediate future, for sure. So, we have come a distance but we still seem to be rather up in the air about the whole matter. 1 would like to see some high powered national body sort out what we wish colleges of advanced education to be and what we want them to do as distinct, say, from universities or determine whether they should in fact be much more closely related than they have been to universities at this time. These are matters that still need to be resolved.

I come to the other matter of the representation on the controlling body at the College. I notice that the Wark Committee recommended a form of government for colleges in which it asked that there should be provided: ‘Adequate procedures for the voice of the community and the voice of the staff to be heard on major policy matters’. Probably, I would go a little bit further than a good many others would, in asking that there should be a democratisation - if I can mention that rather clumsy and over-used word - of the controlling bodies at such institutions.

The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) made quite an eloquent plea that members of both houses of the Parliament should have some distinctive contribution to make to such bodies. I could think of other people in the community who also could make contributions and who are not represented directly on this body. When I look at some of the university controlling bodies, I see representatives of industry and commerce on them. These are representatives from both the employers and the employees. As it was represented to us in their inauguration, colleges of advanced education had not an exclusive but a particular role to play in catering for the needs of commerce and industry. I would have been the first to resent that they should bond themselves so very deliberately in catering for such bodies. But I do think that there is a place for the community to become involved in our educational institutions. Members of our community should not be precluded because a college of advanced education happens to be a higher educational institution.

I had a good deal of difficulty, as a matter of fact, in discovering what was the background of the membership of the present Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Let us have a look at the people comprising the Council. I will not name them. I do not do this in any way to denegrate the present members. Far be it. I hope that my modesty would certainly preclude me from doing that. I wish to indicate the kinds of people they are.

The Chairman of the Council is the Chief of the Division of Entomology of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I cannot avoid disclosing the name of the Deputy Chairman of this body. The Deputy Chairman is Mrs Crisp, certainly a distinguished woman who, besides being the wife of a former professor, is also a very highly educated woman in her own right and associated with a number of very worthwhile community organisations. The members of the Council include the technical director of an important industry in this country - the one person in this group, I see, from such a background - a Senior Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Science in Canberra, the Deputy Vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, a former Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, an Associate Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, the Professor of Accounting and Public Finance at the School of General Studies, again of the Australian National University - I would focus attention on just how strongly represented on this body is the Australian National University - the Principal of the Canberra College of Education, the manager of a State electricity commission branch who also has a good deal of professional engineering experience, a Commissioner of the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales up until 1967, and a Reader in Education at the University of Melbourne.

These are the kinds of people who make up the membership of the Council. They represent a fair sprinkling, I think honourable members will admit, of high-powered academic people. 1 again say that there is a place, not a dominating place but certainly a place, for representation of the community at large. I would like to see people selected from parents’ organisations in the community to serve on this body. I have mentioned commerce and industry, at both the employer and the employee level. If we look at the body which controls the University of New South Wales - in some ways 1 suppose it is a parallel type of body - we see how the representation on it is spread beyond the academic circles. If we wanted this College of Advanced Education to be something distinctive from a university, I cannot understand why there is on the controlling body such a heavy representation of the Australian National University and some of the other universities. I should have thought that it would require something broader than this. I am hoping that our amendment will bring in some new representation, including parliamentarians, more staff representation and student representation - all wholesome additions to the Council. We go further, as 1 have indicated, and suggest also that there should be 3 representatives of the Canberra community. I think that is well and truly justified, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition on this matter.

I summarise by saying that I would like to see a more deliberate attempt to clarify what we are to expect from colleges of advanced education. T hope the States will come to the party soon and relieve the anxiety not only of students but also of the staff and of people who might be inclined to apply for positions on these bodies. I am sure that the colleges themselves would like to have clarified just what is to be their role in their efforts to attract suitable staff. I would like to see, even at this belated stage, some kind of national tertiary body that would bring about a co-ordination as well as a clarification of the respective roles of these various tertiary institutions. I certainly would like to think that our colleges of advanced education will have a broad and, I hope, a rich source of strength from the kinds of people who serve on their controlling bodies.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I speak in support of the amendment. Having listened to the various honourable members who have been speaking in support of the amendment and to the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) and others on the Government side, the principal thought that emerges, it seems to me, is the remarkable degree of general concensus that exists in this House on the questions posed by the Bill and the amendment. The problem is one which we have had in the Australian Capital Territory since 1967. The Canberra College of Advanced Education was set up at a time when the role that colleges of advanced education were to play in the community had not been really thought out in great detail or depth.

We have had our universities since time immemorial, and we have gone through the blossoming period in the postwar years when universities were increasing in numbers, were being extended and were facing problems of their own such as deciding whether they should go into particular fields. I am mindful, for example, that the law faculty at the Australian National University considered whether it should institute some kind of workshop practice to make up for the old fashioned system of articles. But there seemed to be a general movement toward a common ideal - a general upgrading of the colleges of advanced education - that their purposes should be more technical and more professional and that there should be a movement of the universities perhaps in the same direction, coupled of course, with a desire on the part of colleges of advanced education to attain to the ideals of independence, free inquiry and research that are so often associated with universities but which traditionally have not been found in technical colleges, at least not to the same extent.

We live in changing times, and today even in our high schools, let alone in the colleges of advanced education, one gets a planting of these ideals of inquiry, independence and thinking things out for oneself which at one time we tended to associate almost exclusively with the university ideal. So the whole pattern and landscape is changing enormously. If we can get concensus on that we can get consensus on the trend that is taking place in the colleges and in the high schools of moving ever forward to this ideal which I think we would all agree upon.

One only has to look at the purpose of the Bill to see what it sets out to do. Of course it sets out to a very laudable thing, and that is why the members on this side of the House do not oppose it. lt sets out to give a degree awarding power to the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, to put it more on the level of universities. This power has been sought after and demanded. H was not given when the College was set up in 1967. lt was not Government policy to grant such power then, but the Government has now changed its policy and is giving a degree awarding power to the College. We on this side of the House ask the Government to go one step further and encourage this trend so that greater fulfilment and greater representation can be achieved between the colleges and outside bodies, members of Parliament, and indeed representative interests in the community - commerce, industry, staff, scholastic bodies and other interested bodies - so there can be this interchange of ideas that we have traditionally tended to associate with universities. The Australian National University has this written into its statute. We ask that the Government accept the amendment so that a similar sort of standard can be applied to the colleges of advanced education and so that they can continue to move forward.

I could go on and discuss the question: What is education? It seems to me that it is not merely the following of formal courses, whether they be at colleges of advanced education, universities or high schools. It has to be put on some sort of broader plane. It is really not only a course of formal study but an enrichment that comes from experience. If enrichment comes from experience brought about by the following of courses, it comes from exchange of ideas. If exchanges of ideas are beneficial, the more interchange and the more interrelationship there is between colleges and outsiders such as members of Parliament, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said, the better.

Yesterday a new Bill concerning the Australian National University, dealing with questions of representation, was introduced in this House. Already 2 young men have been to see me asking whether it will come on today or whether it will come on tomorrow because they are vitally interested in it. This indicates the degree of concern and of interest in matters of education that exists in this city. If one goes back to the original enactment of the Canberra College of Advanced Education in 1967, one sees the way that the purposes of the College were then spell out. Its functions were set out in this way, and they are still in this form: to conduct … an institution for the provision of education and training of such kinds, and in such departments of science, technology, arts, administration, commerce and other fields of knowledge or of the application of knowledge, as the Council with the approval of the Minister, determines or as the Minister requires, and, in particular, education and training appropriate to professional and other occupations requiring advanced education;

We see the use of a large number of words in that passage. There is the repeated use of the word ‘education’. As I have said, education, it seems to me. means not only formal education but also the acquisition of experience and being exposed to experience in a setting, ideally, where there is a tradition of mutuality, independence, free inquiry and things of this sort. The functions of the Canberra College of Advanced Education also include: to use the facilities and resources of the College to advance and develop knowledge and skills in the fields with which the College is concerned;

When it was originally formed it had no power to award degrees, and as part of the general trend it is now to be given that power. One can gain some advantage if one looks at the relevant statute which created the Australian National University. Other speakers have asked: What was the difference, what is the difference and what will be the difference, if any, between universities and colleges of advanced education? The statute for the Australian National University, which was enacted in 1946, gave the university the function of providing facilities for university education. It was spelt out in no more detail than that. This drives me back, I suppose, to the question: What is university education? I think I have said enough to indicate my thoughts on that and to indicate also that in colleges of advanced education we - are getting a movement. The two ideals are coming closer together and ultimately will blend. It is a question of encouraging or not encouraging them. The structure of the Australian National University, of course, was changed in 1960 when it was divided into an Institute of Advanced Studies and a School of General Studies. The ordinary graduate work has been given to the School of General Studies. But the point is that we must give encouragement to it.

In this city there is great interest in representation: It seems to me that if we can put members of this House on the Council of the College of Advanced Education that Council will benefit because, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said, the Council will take to it members of this House, properly elected by this House, who will bring with them a width of experience and knowledge from whatever particular field they come. It can only be of benefit. Indeed, it will work both ways, because it will give back to this House through members not cut off from the community - not, of course, that members of the Parliament should be cut off from the community - their experience on the Council. That experience will add to the weight of their arguments, whether it be in some educational committee of the Party to which they belong or whether it be in some joint parliamentary committee. They will add to the weight of their words the experience that they have gained from sitting on the Council of the College of Advanced Education. Much as members of this House who sit on the Council of the Australian National University are enriched by it. and indeed the Senators who sit on the Council of the Australian National University are enriched by it, so, too, will the members of the Council of the College of Advanced Education be enriched. To gain this mutuality, this exchange of ideas, this fertilisation of ideas, members of the Parliament should be on the Council. This is terribly important and it will hasten the uplifting and upgrading of the College of Advanced Education until eventually the time will come when it will be undertaking research just as much as the universities undertake it. We cannot stop it. It is inevitable, but the process should be hastened and not be discouraged.

In the amendment, there is reference to 3 other representatives on the Council from interests in the community. As it stands at the moment, of course, we are giving the power of appointment in an unfettered way. The discretion is unfettered. What we suggest . should be done is to define the interests in a prescribed way in this House so that they can be given weight to by the appointing body. In that way it seems to us that there will be a greater trend to a democratic process. Instead of leaving it to the discretion of a particular person or group of persons, who may or may not exercise it wisely, a direction will be given that weight should be given to this particular interest of commerce, that particular interest of industry or other academia. As it works out at the moment there is a weighting in favour of the Australian National University personnel. No-one would argue otherwise. We suggest only that other interested bodies be represented because of the arguments I have put.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to take this opportunity, when we are discussing changes in the potential control of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, to raise some points of political philosophy which seem terribly self-evident and obvious to me but which are hardly ever raised and rarely discussed either here, in the general journal and media which concentrate on the sensational aspects of our universities and on the sort of things that are happening in our universities and tertiary institutions. Most of us would agree that there is too much paternalism in many institutions in this community. This applies to schools and tertiary institutions. The aim surely must be to have a condition as close as possible to participatory democracy in these institutions as in all other institutions in the community. Therefore we should have a maximum of staff-student representation from all areas involved at the University.

Although this need not necessarily be accepted by everybody, the aims should be to foster what I call the spirit of critical inquiry at these institutions. It is generally suggested that we are dealing with a student body which consists of radicals or where a significant proportion of the students are radicals. They are right wing radicals or left wing radicals, whatever position one ascribes to the different groups. There are fights and arguments between the supporters of what are regarded as left wing radicals, and who are described as Maoists, and right wing radicals, who are- described as followers of Santamaria. This certainly applies in the sort of arguments that are going on in many of our universities.

I do not accept the proposition that these people are progressive or are, in fact, radical progressives. All these groups are really quite reactionary. In trying to obtain the maximum amount of freedom in these institutions they behave in quite a reactionary fashion. The small 1 liberals - and I should like to include myself among those, and I emphasise the small 1 - and there are many of us in this House, in the political community, and involved at tertiary institutions in this country, argue that they are not, as is continuously suggested, between the left and the right. They are the really radical extremists in the community. They believe that there should be a maximum amount of freedom in the community. They believe that people should not be controlled. They try to avoid paternalism and force. They try to encourage reasonable discussion instead of mass meetings with shows of hands and so forth. By taking that sort of line we are much closer to taking a radical position than either of those other 2 groups. This point must be made continuously.

One of the aspects to which I object very strongly is that people who regard themselves as left radicals or right radicals look down on us and allege that we cannot make up our mind between their two positions. This is just not true. We have made up our minds on the positions. We have made up our minds that both those positions are completely wrong - that those 2 positions are really close together and that our position is the position that should be aimed for in society and in all sub-groups of society. I think this is an extremely difficult position to bring about in a tertiary institution, such as a university, because of the fragility of democracy. What does one do when the other groups in that organisation will not play ball according to one’s terms? What does one do when they occupy buildings and do things which, in the long run, involve the use of force, whether it be the real use of force or by stopping the processes for which the institution is established and for which the vast majority are prepared to vote? What does one do to remove them from that organisation? As far as I can see, Monash University has certainly had that problem in the past few months. The people who believe that the university should be able to come to a concensus and make some reasonable decision about the running of that university are opposed by a relatively small group of people who counteract that belief and play on the feelings of the small liberals who do not wish to use force and do not wish to exclude them from the educational process or punish them for what they have done, because we do not believe that that is the proper way to treat that situation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! I ask the honourable member for Prospect to relate his remarks more closely to the Bill. He is getting very wide of the subject matter of the Bill which relates to representation on the Council of the College of Advanced Education.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– As I understand it, the proposed changes to the legislation to alter the Council come about as a result of a request by students or other groups within the university to make the Council more democratic. It is when one goes into the details of how these Councils behave that one gets into that extremely difficult position. I have no solution to this. I am not suggesting I have ever seen anybody who has a complete solution to it. But at the same time one of the ways that those of us who do believe in the maximum amount of freedom inside institutions should behave is continuously to deny the proposition that we are somewhere between the right and left wings and to make it quite clear that the right and left wings are together and that we are in a radical position so far as those other groups are concerned. We are dealing with a university community which, in theory at leastI would hope, should be run as an almost anarchist type of society. If there is any sort of institution in the community in which it should be possible to have the minimum number of rules in relation to controls and quality of starters, then the universities and colleges of advanced education should be those sorts of institutions. I hope the adding of undergraduate representation to this Council will ease any tensions that may be developing at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I hope that people who are generally concerned with the running of tertiary institutions in this country will try to come up with a policy to sell the position which I have outlined to as many of the students as possible.

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

– One or two matters have been raised on which I wish to comment. The Government does not accept the proposed amendment, but I will deal with that secondly. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) spoke of the power to confer degrees. He suggested that this is evidence of a trend which he saw by which the Canberra College, for instance, would develop into a university of Canberra, a teachers’ college and a technical institute. I suggest that with the advice of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Colleges of Advanced Education there is a quite separate role for them. This has been discussed before. I will not detain the House by entering into a debate on that subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! I think the proper time to discuss the amendments is during the Committee stages.

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

– I am not discussing the amendments but dealing with a matter raised outside the amendments by the honourable member for Fremantle. I also want to deal very briefly with this question of the national accrediting body and to give the House some information about it. Several honourable members have referred to the Wiltshire Committee which recommended the establishment of a national accrediting body for awards given by these colleges. As has been mentioned, it presented its report last year. Following that report State and Commonwealth ministers for education decided to appoint a working party to work out the machinery for the establishment of this national body. This had not been done in the report. This working party presented its report, which was available at the Australian Educational Council meeting on 25th May, but there was some disagreement as to its implementation. Since then talks have been taking place as there is a difference of view among some of the States, partly owing to the diversity of their colleges and their past administration of them. It has not been resolved. It is because of the need in the meantime to provide for the situation at the Canberra college that this step is being taken. It would have had to be taken even if there were a national body. It only gives a power; it does not say what degrees will be awarded. It gives the power and capacity to enter into that field under certain circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

Section 8 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “8.- (1.) The Council shall consist of-

  1. the Principal of the College;
  2. the Vice-Chancellor and (subject to the restriction on his right to attend meetings contained in sub-section (5.) of this section) the Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
  3. three members of the teaching staff of the College elected by that teaching staff;
  4. two students of the College elected by the students of the College;
  5. persons not exceeding eight in number appointed by the Governor-General;
  6. persons not exceeding four in number appointed by the Council; and
  7. if a person other than a person who is already a member of the Council is appointed, in accordance with section 13 of this Act, to be the Chairman of the Council, the person so appointed.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-I move:

In proposed section 8, sub-section (1.) before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraphs: “(aa) two senators elected by the Senate; (ab) two members of the House of Representatives elected by that House;”.

I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) has not seen fit to accept this amendment. If there is anything that experience of tertiary education in institutions around Australia has shown it is the need for a community interest and a close community knowledge through its representatives. The Opposition proposes to ensure this in 2 ways, by representation of the Parliament and the Canberra community in the governing of these tertiary bodies. I think this is a very great advantage. These bodies are very much under attack. We had an example of the stupidity of such attacks during the Returned Services League conference in relation to what is really a city, the University of New South Wales which has some 15,000 students. Some student off the campus produced a publication called Tharunka’, and solemn statements were made to the effect that something should be done about the university. I mean by that that this type of critical view shows the same misunderstanding as is expressed when in a country town a resident misbehaves and it is then suggested that the whole town is involved in what has been done. As an observation this kind of criticism is just about as intelligent. That is why I feel that community representation on the governing bodies of these tertiary educational institutes is quite important. In any event, I do not know why we have to differentiate between the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian National University. The Minister has said that the Government does not accept that there should be no differentiation but I have been given no clear reason why the Government does not accept it. Why it is regarded as undesirable that this Government have an interest in the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I do not know. I presume the Canberra community representation proposal will also he rejected by the Government. I would like to know why.

Mr Bryant:

– Because we thought of it.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Well, that may be true. 1 do. not know that the Bill will be rejected in the Senate in which case we may be discussing this matter again when the Bill comes back to us. It seems to me there is an analogy between the Council of the Australian National University and this body. I think there is no doubt that the Australian National University has gained as a result of Parliamentary representation upon the Council. Certainly that is the impression I have had over all the years I have been on it, and I have been on it since 1949. 1 believe the College of Advanced Education would gain from the representation of this Parliament on it. So I move the amendment which has been circulated and which provides for the representation of 2 senators and 2 members of the House of Representatives.

Mr Bryant:

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

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

– In speaking on the second reading debate I said that I would not give my reasons then. 1 received the amendment only today. It will be understood that the time left in the sitting is very short and that the proposals which have been incorporated in the Bill as it stands, before amendment, are those which have been considered for a long period of time and submitted by the College itself. They are the amendments which the College, after careful consideration, desires. Therefore, the Government is not convinced that at this stage it should adopt these amendments which would involve a substantial increase in the members of the Council, which is relatively small. If all the amendments were adopted the Council would be increased by nearly a quarter.

While I can appreciate the desire of members of this Parliament to serve on bodies of this kind, and while I think the experience would be valuable, it is a twoway exchange. 1 think that the attempt to compare the Canberra College of Advanced Education with the Australian National University fails as a true analogy because the Australian National University was set up as a truly national university. For this reason, members of the national Parliament are involved on the governing body of that national university. On the other hand, the Canberra College of Advanced Education is a local, not a national, body. If that reason is relied on, the amendment has no application. Maybe the argument could be put purely on grounds of usefulness. But to suggest that members of the national Parliament are required to be brought into a local college council does not hold water. One might as well suggest that it would be interesting and useful for honourable members to go on to the council of any one of the other colleges of advanced education around Australia. None of them is a national college. It was suggested that there should be other representatives. I think this is contained in a subsequent amendment which is not at present before us. Perhaps I could continue the discussion on the general totality of the proposed amendments when that amendment is before us.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– First of all, I think that the analogy of the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian National University is fair enough. The Australian National University is part of Canberra, part of the national capital, established for Australia. The Canberra College of Advanced Education is a part of Canberra and it is part of Australia. No matter what we say or do. it is going to become, in a certain measure, a national institution. One cannot just look at the Australian scene and divorce Canberra from it as a piece of the community on the one hand and as the national . capital on the other. This Parliament is responsible for Canberra. Do we not have the ACT Committee? Do we not keep an eye on Canberra? Is Canberra not tha responsibility of a Minister of this Parliament? Canberra is our responsibility, it exists for the Parliament.

Canberra has been developed by Parliament. Therefore we have a different relationship to Canberra from, the ones we have to Launceston, Hobart or Melbourne. 1 expect various honourable members to be invited to join various college councils and university councils around Australia, as some of them do in their own right. A former honourable member for New England was either the Chancellor of the New England University or played a part in the formation of that University. In a very much more humble way, I am the chairman of a high school advisory council in my electorate. There are various functions that honourable members can perform.

The Canberra College of Advanced Education is our baby, we might say. Therefore I think that this Parliament ought to be involved with it. On the other hand, 1 suppose I must refer to this delicate, parliamentary, ministerial question of protocol. It is true that the Opposition did not consult the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) beforehand. Perhaps it is an error in the way this place works. But the Minister did not consult us either. I have been here long enough to know- that this is a fundamental difficulty and therefore one is inclined to accept it. But I wish that we could reach the stage where ideas could flow across the floor of the House and sometimes be accepted. This again is an error of structure. For instance, if standing committees had been appointed to inquire into the business on the notice paper this matter might well have come before the House in a different way. The consensus between the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) and members of the Opposition might have reached the point where he advanced right up to the gate of true justice. So we put forward this serious proposal. Both the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and I represent this Parliament on a statutory authority. I believe that we are gainfully employed there and that we have learnt something from it. I am certain that it is a useful function for a parliamentarian to perform. So, I support the amendment that has been put before the House.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– The matter before the House raises a difficult problem, as do many matters in the educational sphere. As the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) opposite and others on this side of the House will be aware, I saw these proposals only at the beginning of this debate. Therefore I have not had the opportunity to consider them deeply. I would not want to be misunderstood in what I have to say in this regard, because I find the interest of the honourable member for Fremantle, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and any others who share their views entirely admirable, in that they want to take a direct part and participate actively in the processes of some of our leading educational institutions. I think that the honourable member for the Australian Capita) Territory even said that, to his knowledge, honourable members who have sat on the Council of the Australian National University have been enriched by the experience. I have no doubt whatever that this is the case, just as I am sure that I have been enriched by the experience of being in this chamber for a year. As I understand it, universities or colleges of advanced education do not exist primarily to enrich the experience of members of Parliament. They exist for other reasons which I do not need to dilate on at the moment. 1 submit, with all due respect to the honourable members whom I mentioned earlier and to any others who are equally well . intentioned and interested and who no doubt have done a stirling job in the past, that there is no prima facie case to suggest that 2 senators or 2 members of this House will necessarily add anything to the councils of governing bodies of the kind we are discussing than any other interested and experienced lay members of the community. Such members of Parliament may add as much as, and more than, some, but these governing bodies are framed on a basis of educational expertise, leavened by lay experience, good sense and other areas of experience which may be incidental to the argument, to make some kind of balanced plans for the governing of the institutions. I am well aware that it is possible for an institution - a long standing one or a new one such as the Canberra College of Advanced Education -to create an atmosphere, if not of nepotistic flavour then certainly of some kind of incestuous relationship, in the sense that the same people with the same sort of training are teaching themselves and those under their control the same sort of things. So the process goes on. ] believe that the fundamental philosophy of the matter is that councils of governing bodies of this kind have been leavened in their educational experience, such as it is, by the introduction of lay members. 1 adhere to the point I made in my speech on the second reading of this Bill, that there is a provision for 8 people, appointed by the Governor-General, on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I would not like to appear to be the greatest fuddy-duddy and reactionary of all time, but quite frankly 1 cannot see that apart from indulging members of Parliament, who may be very well intentioned, very helpful, and any other useful adjective one can think of appropriate to the occasion, the proposal serves any useful purpose. It is not the prime purpose of the institutions to indulge the interests of members of Parliament, however profitable that might be. It seems to me that if there are 20 or so people on such a governing body who are well balanced - at least on paper - and who appear to be capable of offering a balance of governorship, control or whatever you like to call it, for such an institution, then I see not very much point in loading the cart further by adding people specifically from this House. I can say at the same time that I would be most interested to join the honourable member for Fremantle or somebody else on such a body, but that is not to make a case necessarily for the amendment which is before us.

As far as the Australian National University is concerned, I suppose it is a fair parallel, but if wc take it even as far as it has already been taken we start to query, as I think the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory particularly did and some others touched upon, the function of these institutions and the marginal line as between whether they are basically supposed to be institutions for inquiry or institutions for teaching. Certainly as of this moment the colleges of advanced education are slanted in the direction of teaching the gaining of knowledge, mainly of a practical kind, whereas it is well known, and often said to their detriment in fact, that universities are basically there for gaining knowledge for its own sake and not for direct application. I am well aware that there are faculties such as engineering, medicine and so on, but - and it does not matter whether the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) sniffs or not - the plain fact of the matter is that some of us have done a little thinking about this over the years and it is, as are so many problems on education, totally insoluble in terms of rights or wrongs. That is my point of view. It may vary from that of the honourable member for Fremantle.

  1. think I. will leave it at that. I hope that I do not do the proposals an injustice, but I believe that as they read they are not essential, however admirable they might be and however much they may cement and integrate a better relationship between a body such as the one under discussion and members of Parliament per se. 1 still believe it is possible for those members of

Parliament to take just as much interest, or very nearly as much interest, in the general workings of our educational institutions without necessarily being put by Parliament on their governing bodies. If the governing bodies wish to fill vacant places among their number under their control they will sometimes, of course, ask members of the public to fill those places, and I am quite sure that on occasion members of Parliament will be asked to do so.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) has said that there is not an analogy between the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian National University. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has just made a case - unintentionally I presume - for removing the members of Parliament from the Council of the Australian National University. The Minister said that there was no more case for having members of this Parliament on the Canberra College of Advanced Education Council than on any of the other Councils of colleges of advanced education round Australia. I am not able to follow that argument. The Canberra College of Advanced Education is entirely financed by the appropriations of this Parliament. This Parliament is therefore entirely responsible for it. It makes grants towards colleges of advanced education elsewhere, but they are primarily financed by the States. The Parliament is also exclusively responsible for the financing of the Australian National University. We do not have members of this Parliament on the councils of the State universities because we make grants through the States to those universities and the primary responsibility rests on the States. But there is no State to be responsible here in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory was created for this national Parliament and our responsibility towards every institution in the Territory is quite direct It has no other parliament. I feel that we do have a most direct responsibility towards the Canberra College of Advanced Education.

I feel it is tragic when a new member comes into this Parliament and has so low an esteem for fellow members of this Parliament. I have seen members of Parliament from both sides of the House on the Council of the Australian National Univer sity, as I say, over 21 years. I think 1 am the only one who is original; the others have constantly been changing. The contribution that they have made to the Council of the Australian National University has been very considerable indeed. It was in some respects a contribution that nobody else could have made. Members have been invited on to all sorts of sub-committees, some with peculiar responsibilities such as those that determine fees, and I have been on a finance committee over a good many years. This low esteem for Parliament is, of course, what the Westminster system of Parliament is constantly leading to. Parliament i? nothing, the ministry is everything. On the other hand the United States with its Congressional system recognises very much the importance of having elected representatives of the people on all sorts of bodies determining policy, whether it is in regard to education, defence or anything else, and I do not believe that the trend in the Westminster system of Parliament is a healthy one. When we have a new member of Parliament coming in and suggesting a poor sort of valuation on politicians that is put out all the way round the country I think it is very sad.

The honourable member himself has had a distinguished record in universities. He has a special experience and a special expertise. I could not imagine a better man to be put on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education as representing the Government side of the House than the honourable member for Denison and I am sure that as his experience here develops he will be able to give to the Council a special degree of information, advice and counsel thai would be valuable to them. In addition to that he would have an understanding of the problems of the institution when it is discussed in this Parliament. I am sorry that the Minister does not see fit to accept the amendment. We believe that it is right and that it is valuable for the Council itself. The Council is not just a field in which members of Parliament can indulge a hobby and get experience. This Parliament exclusively provides the money for this institution and it should be represented on the Council.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Beazley’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 47

NOES: 52

Majority…… 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

In proposed section 8, sub-section (1.), after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: (ba) three representatives of the community of the Australian Capital Territory elected in a manner to be prescribed;’

Should this amendment fail, amendments (3) and (4) which were circulated in my name and which are consequential to the first 2 amendments will not be relevant any further. The members of the Opposition’s education committee have been extremely impressed by the deputations which have come to us from Canberra citizens concerned about education. We have been impressed by the high level of expertise in these deputations. We have seen the controversies they have conducted with the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) in letters in the ‘Canberra Times’, and if the Minister will forgive us, we have come to the conclusion that in the main they have had the better of the argument. As a consequence, we have been impressed by the possibility of direct representation of the Canberra community on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I think that the College would gain from such a direct link with the community. I know that provision is made for the Governor-General to make appointments to the Council, which means Cabinet appointments. People who are distinguished locally can be appointed to the Council of the College, but I think that if the Canberra community had a direct interest in the Council it would be a gain for both the community and the institution. We think it is a very good thing that in this capital city a body distinctively belonging to it, like the College of Advanced Education, should have a direct link with the community. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr Bryant:

– I second the amendment.

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

– I understand the idea behind this amendment, and I am not in disagreement with the general notion that there should be involvement of the community on the governing Council of this institution. But it will be appreciated that there is no restriction upon the appointment to the Council of members of the community. Of the members who formally are to be appointed by the Governor-General, seven have been appointed, and of these, six are in fact members of the Canberra community. Six of them are residents of Canberra. The seventh is the chairman of a college of advanced education. Of the seven only one is a departmental representative. I should perhaps mention the chairman. The others are just general members of the community; they are not connected with my Department. Then there is the opportunity for the Council itself to co-opt 4 people and it has to date co-opted 3. Two of those people are professional people from Sydney. The third person is an educator from Melbourne. Some reference was made during the second reading debate to these members of the Council. lt is not necessary to adopt this amendment to secure the appointment of members of the Canberra community to the Council. If this amendment were adopted it would mean that there would be an election to be prescribed by regulation and conducted presumably amongst the general body of electors in Canberra to select these 3 representatives. 1 am not prepared to accept this amendment. 1 am not convinced that it is necessary to go through the expense of an election in order to secure 3 persons who can adequately represent the Canberra community. However, as I say, there is already provision in a general way and the Council itself has this power to co-opt. This again, with a very heavy weighting of Canberra residents, on it would enable it, if it so desired, to use that power to secure able people from the Canberra community to add to the Council. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I would like to raise a few points. J am extremely disappointed at the attitude adopted by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) so far. 1 can only explain his attitude in terms of excessive conservatism and over-cautiousness. The Minister has this afternoon been presented by the Australian Labor Party - admittedly at short notice - a number of propositions which I think are very reasonable. Our aim broadly is to widen the representation that there is on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The reasons he has given so far for rejecting the suggestion that there should be 2 senators and 2 members of the House of Representatives on the Council have, I think, not been convincing by any means. The reasons which he just gave for rejecting the suggestion that the Canberra people should be specifically represented as a community are not convincing either. It does not make sense to say that just because they come from Canberra they represent the Canberra people. These people are elected specifically because of their known professional skills and their background. What we are asking is that the people of Canberra be represented for themselves.

I think that one of the worst diseases that has ever afflicted Australia’s education system is that which has divided educators from the people. In Australia the education system has grown up in a most over-centralised fashion and it has grown up in a way that has divorced it from the people. Education in Australia is run by bureaucracies and by governments. This is a very dangerous thing. Contact between the people for whom education is provided and the people who provide the education has been lost. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) referred to an example in the United States. There have been many defects in the way people in the United States have representation in their own education systems. Quite often I think it is due to excessive conservatism but one must accept that there is one very valuable principle of service and that is that education is for the people. This is the purest and simplest principle we are advocating here. Education is not simply a mystery to be understood only by those who have been initiated by bureaucratic experience. It is something that refers particularly to the people.

I come back to the Canberra situation. We have a community here which from my own very small experience I would suggest is one of the most educated communities in Australia, one of the most informed communities and one of the most interested communities. This community is being denied the opportunity of having some direct representation on this Council. One might add also that the Australian Capital Territory is the most underrepresented area in the whole of this nation because the only significant representation this Territory has is through its Federal member in this House. It does not have a senator.

Dr Klugman:

– A very good representative, too.

Mr KENNEDY:

– A very good member indeed. Its local government is a farce. It has no power or authority whatsoever. There is very little connection between the people of Canberra and the people who govern the Territory. The only people who form a link between the governors and the governed in this Territory are those in this Parliament. Our suggestion that the Parliament should be represented on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education has already been rejected. The Minister is now about to reject another suggestion. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why education should not be opened up to the people themselves. It is a good thing that people should be interested in education. If the Government intends to continue to treat education as a mystery and as something only for those . who are specially qualified, the professionals - and that is the argument that is being put forward - it will continue to maintain the gap between the people and the educators. This will lead to continuing ignorance. It will lead to continuing apathy and this is a situation which should not be tolerated in the nation’s capital. I think that if the Government has any imagination whatsoever - obviously it has very little - and if it has any sense of responsibility it will accept this recommendation of the Australian Labor Party. I have very great pleasure in supporting this amendment.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I regret again having to be cast in the role, as it were, by force of circumstances of opposing assiduously the remarks of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy). I am very sorry that the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), for whose views on these matters I have considerable respect, has taken so severely, as it were, the loss of the previous amendment. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I did not at any stage deny, and in fact I did admire the inclination and capacity of anybody from here or in this case - as we are now talking to a further amendment - members of the Canberra community to be represented on the Council and to take a direct interest in such a body as the Canberra College of Advanced Education. But the fact of the matter is that hard headed educational thinking, insofar as it is possible in the field of education to be hard headed, will not be assisted by the honourable member for Bendigo or anybody else tossing off a string of epithets which include words like bureaucracy’, ‘democratisation’ and so on practically without qualification. lt is very nice to think of the community at large taking unto itself the processes of higher education and having equal participation in them. But that proposition in itself is self-defeating because it is by definition the purpose of such an organisation as the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and then on to universities and the rest, to bring people into them so that they will learn enough about particular disciplines and about the processes of life itself, as it were, to be able to exercise some reasonable control and to voice opinions, with due humility no doubt all the time, on these matters. It is not possible, apart from a known interest which is very nice, to pull someone off the street, as it were, and say: ‘You will be able equally to pronounce your views on the council of the college of advanced education’ or whatever it might be called. But that is not the case and it does not have to be the case.

With due respect that the honourable member for Fremantle studiously ignored my proposition that there were 8 persons appointed by the Governor-General and he took to heart the fact that I opposed these other measures and I am now, I think, opposing this one. The fact is that we have people such as Mrs Crisp who has already been mentioned. We have an Emeritus Professor but being a professor does not invalidate him in an educational institution. I refer to Emeritus Professor Sir Leonard Huxley, who is a very well known, distinguished citizen of this community. They are members of the community. Perhaps they are the sort of people who would be put up by the various delegations that were mentioned if given the opportunity, although I cannot say that this would occur. Also on the Council is Mr Robert Broughton Lansdown whose power base, as it were, is the National Capital Development Commission. Another Australian National University professor, Professor Matthews, is a member of the Council. Also, on the Council is Mr Sandow who is from Bendigo and who I believe will be on the Council until the end of this year. There is also Dr Waterhouse who is the representative from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and who again is well known in that particular sphere. One might argue that these people tend to have somewhat of an educational bias and one might then subscribe to the proposition which I raised earlier - at least an awareness which I wanted to indicate, so that I would not be misunderstood any more than necessary - that it is possible for such institutions to become inbred. But surely if their purpose is education we should be looking for the highest possible educational expertise leavened by some good solid down to earth experience in other fields so that this thing does not run riot.

I think it would be difficult to show that the 20 or so members of the proposed college council would not fulfil that form of definition. I am totally unimpressed by the way the honourable member for Bendigo tossed great lumpy words at me of a kind I mentioned before and which were supposed to suggest that his case is more profound than mine. But the fact that the Labor Party put up a proposition is not good and sufficient reason for us to take it to heart. Whether or not that is a worthy proposition is totally uninfluenced, as far as I am concerned, by the fact of who put it up. 1 would like to say that this is a worthy proposition. But we are talking about a Council of 20 and not, as I believe, an overloaded council of 43 or thereabouts as is the case with the Australian National University. I think it would be unwise, unless the reasons are totally compelling, to add to that body at this stage any more than is necessary. If I were to be persuaded that the nominees of the GovernorGeneral, for example, or the other 4 nominees of the Council - in all making 12 out of 20 or so of the total - were unrepresentative of the total Canberra community, that they were bad eggs educationally and were otherwise unsuited to the position to which they had been appointed, I would find a great deal more force in the propositions which have been put before us and particularly the proposition concerning the membership of 3 representatives in the community.

I can only say that I hope I do no-one who is interested in this matter an injus tice. 1 hope that the honourable member for Fremantle and others will ensure that people of sufficient interest and people with a continuing interest in this sort of matter will be accommodated through the force of their representations in the right quarters at the appropriate times when these vacancies arise. I do not believe that I am naive in- the matter; the master spoke earlier and as the new boy I will listen. But the fact of the matter is that there are possibilities for wide representation as was indicated by the present incumbents. If that situation were to worsen [ think there would be more cause to worry about the possibility of unrepresentativeness on this body.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– 1 cannot but feel depressed by the fact that the Government has rejected yet again a proposition to broaden this council. It seems to me that this is a vote of no confidence in the Canberra community. The people of Canberra would not recognise professors, with all due respect, as being typical or representative of the. community. They are particular people in the community. All that the Opposition is asking for is that the wide scope of the community should be represented on the Council. The Wark Committee recommended a more direct and intimate relationship between education and industry and other relevant organisations. That is plain enough. Surely the Government is prepared to make some gesture. It used its ingenuity on the previous proposition about parliamentarians to have it defeated by saying: ‘Well, this is not a national body as is the Australian National University’. But we are now considering a different situation. Yet, another reason or reasons have been found not to accept representatives of the local community.

Wherever we go throughout Australia there is regret that there is not more community participation in the educational process. I remember when Dr Wyndham espoused this participation very strongly in New South Wales. He was very regretful that parent and citizens organisations took up so much time working out what would be the requirements of their next fete instead of looking at the content of education and how education could be better organised. We live in a democracy and we pretend that we are educating people to live in that democracy, but we use anything but democratic procedures in order to arrange or run our educational processes. The Minister for Education and Science mentioned the cost of the proposal put forward by the Opposition. This seems to be the last refuge of conservatives. The Minister was concerned about the cost that would be involved in electing community representatives to the Council. If this would cost so much why not run it concurrently with the other local elections that take place in Canberra? For instance, the election of community representatives to the Council could be run in conjunction with the election of members to the Canberra Community Hospital Board or the Advisory Council. I suppose there are a number of organisations that are elected by the community. For the Minister to dig up such petty reasons for rejecting our proposal is a contempt of the whole proposition. We are asking for the Council to be broadened. We are not asking that this should be done for any philosophical reason called democracy or something like that. We are suggesting that community representatives should be members of the Council because they would enrich the advice that would be coming to that body. The advice would be much more representative. After all, this is what the Wark Committee envisaged. But it did not need the Wark Committee to recommend this. As I said before, educators up and down this country regret that there is a tradition in this country of bureaucratic control, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy). We seem to have grown up in this tradition and there seems to be an unwillingness, unfortunately, in too many places to give people the opportunity to have a say in education. Education is too precious a thing to leave to the elite. If education means anything in a democratic society it ought to reach out and use the advice, the suggestions, the active participation and the interest of so many other people in the community. As the honourable member for Bendigo said, the community in Canberra has tremendous advantages. It has the most qualifications of any community in Australia. As the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has said, the most interested and active people which the education commit tee of the Australian Labor Party has run into have been people from the Canberra community. Why should they not be encouraged to participate in something that is peculiar to Canberra? After all, does the Minister not envisage that the Canberra College of Advanced Education will make its products available not only to Canberra - I refer here particularly to teachers - but to the whole of Australia? If we have people in Canberra who are prepared to contribute we ought to be encouraging them to do so.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I think the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) spoke with the authentic voice of the Australian philosophy of educational administration when he suggested that the community should be kept at bay. This is something that is uniquely Australian. In the United Kingdom - in England and Scotland specifically - local government has authority over education. There are usually education boards as an associated part of education. The locality elects representatives to govern local education. This is equally true in the United States of America. In Australia we have a steel determination to keep this type of system at bay and education has always been centralised on the State governments except in the case of private schools. What is the consequence? If we went around the constituencies which have had Ministers for Education as their representatives - I specifically mention Broken Hill which I recently visited - we would see beautiful high schools and beautiful facilities that Ministers had acquired for their constituencies. I believe that if there had been much more localised control over education with a discussion of educational issues there would not have been what is the most marked feature of Australian education. I refer to educational slums in certain areas and very good educational facilities in others - the appalling unevenness of educational facilities.

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

– You get that anywhere. You get it in America and you get it in England.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Yes, but where we have a local authority with a national government, as is the case in the United Kingdom, and grants are made, each local authority presses for its grant. They do not tend to fall so far behind merely because they are an underprivileged area.

However, I do not wish to argue that. What I do wish to argue is this: I think that it would be an extremely good thing for all the issues of education to be debated. In the terminology that the Press has popularised, there are supposed to be shadow ministers. Insofar as I am a shadow Minister for Education and Science, let me say that if I have authority and if there were a change of Government, there would be an elected local authority here governing education here and set up as a model. Whether the model would be imitated by the States that so far wish to go on centralising administration or not, I do not know. But I certainly believe that education in the Australian Capital Territory should be governed by a body elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. That is what I will try to enact.

It is a feature of such a policy. Here, on a very important educational body, it would be a very good thing if in the Canberra community there were controversies - electoral controversies - as to what ought to be policy about this place and in the election of these representatives educational issues would come into focus. I did mention the 8 persons who were nominated by the Governor-General, may I inform the honourable member for Denison. I did mention that they could be distinguished local people. Of course, they are distinguished, in the case of Mrs Crisp and others. I have not any doubt that this process of co-opting is a very important part of forming this Council. I have not suggested that the entire Council should be elected. But I have suggested that it should contain an elected element. This is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I would like to add a word to this debate. One of the points that I made earlier was that Canberra in some ways is a special community. We ought to use it as a laboratory on this instance. It is an area in which the community is more or less self contained. We can get at it in one go. The people are intensely interested in almost every area of social enterprise. But when, on the other argument, we pose the question of putting members of Parliament on the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, it is said: ‘Well, it belongs to Canberra’. So, when we suggest: ‘Let us put some local Canberra people on it’, we find that for some strange reason they have some disability which does not fit them to become the equivalent of, say, our colleague the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) who has been whipped from the Bar, lobbed in here and is now capable and competent to administer Australian education and science. There is some mystical difference between him and the rest of us and between him now and when he was an ordinary citizen back home. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) would not even put him on the local kindergarten association apparently from what he had to say about ordinary citizens in these matters. Surely the principles that we apply to ministerial representatives as the representatives of elected people should be applied in this instance also. If we could only start, as my friend from Fremantle (Mr Beazley) suggests, and set up attitudes and systems which could flow throughout the rest of the community, we would be doing a great service to Australian education.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Beazley’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 45

NOES: 51

Majority…. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 3035

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon-

Minister for Defence) - by leave - I informed the House on 16th October last of the Government’s decision to establish a committee of inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Kerr, to examine and advise on some of the more fundamental aspects of financial terms and conditions of service in the armed forces. I now want to inform the House of the names of the 4 remaining members of the Committee. They are:

Mr H. T. Rogers ; Personnel Manager of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd. Mr Rogers has had wide experience in wage fixation and industrial relations matters generally and has been an active member of associations concerned with personnel administration.

Commissioner E. G. Deverall - Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr Deverall has had a long and varied association with industrial affairs. Before his appointment to the Commission in 1968, he had been engaged for many years in the preparation and conduct of trade union claims before industrial tribunals.

Mr S. Landau, C.B.E. ; Secretary to the Department of the Navy.

General Sir John Wilton, K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O.- Formerly Chief of the General Staff. Presently Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee who retires from that office in 3 weeks time and who has agreed to serve on the Committee.

page 3035

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October (vide page 2462), on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– The Bill before the House deals with a few slight odds and ends and, as a reflection of the Government’s ability and willingness to deal with the real problems facing tertiary education today, it deserves very little consideration. The first point I make about the Bill relating to State grants for advanced education is that the Bill is concerned with giving grants to States to compensate for the differences in salaries that have arisen due to the implementation or partial implementation of the Sweeney report and of the Eggleston report. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) is a statement that the States have either implemented or partially implemented these reports. In fact, from the evidence available to me the States generally appear to have failed to have implemented the Sweeney report. I stress the importance of the report that was brought down by the Sweeney committee. Its aim was to ensure that the quality and standards of education in colleges of advanced education were equal to those in universities. With that fundamental objective in mind it stated that the salaries of lecturers and senior lecturers in colleges of advanced education should be comparable with those in universities if the qualifications, experience and responsibilities involved were equal. The disturbing feature, as far as I can see, is that only Queensland has accepted the parity between the 2 types of salaries as was laid down in the report. This is a very worrying situation because obviously fundamental to the future status of these fairly new colleges of advanced education ls the necessity to ensure that the salaries provided for the staff are equal with salaries provided for staff in universities.

I emphasise that from the very beginning the Commonwealth has taken a prominent part in the launching and establishment of colleges of advanced education. We have the report of the Martin Committee which was established by the Commonwealth. We have also the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education. We have the Sweeney report on salaries and we have had the Wiltshire report on standards. These 3 reports and 1 body show just how important the role of the Commonwealth has been in establishing and founding colleges of advanced education. No doubt there will be members from the other side of the House who will say that if the States have not fully implemented the Sweeney report it is, of course, the fault of the States. But is this a sufficient argument to use? I do not think it is because basically at the root of the problem of the States’ refusal to implement these reports is the financial poverty of the States. It is all very well for the Commonwealth to suggest that the obligation is upon the States to provide the salaries involved, but the States are experiencing severe financial times. I should like to deal with this aspect later, but I make that point first of all.

The most important point that I want to stress is that the Bill does not deal with the outstanding issues facing colleges of advanced education. The Minister or a spokesman for the Government may take the point that it does not intend to do so. My point is that the colleges of advanced education are going through a crisis and it is up to the Government to recognise this situation and provide the necessary action. But this just is not being done. What is the situation facing colleges of advanced education? If we look at the position in Victoria we will see it quite clearly. Last year the Victorian Institute of Colleges requested a grant of $58m for capital expenditure and $74m for recurrent expenditure for the development of Victorian colleges of advanced education. In fact the Victorian Institute of Colleges received not $58m which it required for capital expenditure but $30m - in other words, a cut of approximately 50 per cent. Instead of the $74m which it required for recurrent expenditure it got $52m, a cut of some 30 per cent. I stress that these colleges are fairly newly launched and it is most essential that they should have the capital necessary for their development. The grants that were made for the 1970-72 triennium obviously have not been adequate to the needs as laid down by the Victorian Institute of Colleges. The institute simply has not got the money. What is the situation as a result of that? If honourable members look at the ‘Age’ of 2nd October this year they will see the headline: ‘Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Appeals for $lm to Buy New Equipment’. This illustrates clearly just how inadequate is the money that has been provided by the Commonwealth and the State Governments. The fact that one of the most important advanced educational institutions in Victoria has been forced to go to the people to beg for money to carry out its function is a very sad reflection on the seriousness with which this Government treats advanced education.I wish now to refer to a report which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of a statement made by Mr George Brown, President of the Institute’s Council. The report said that equipment is needed in every one of the Institute’s tertiary departments: It went on to say:

While the current rale of Government support continues the RMIT can only look to industry and commerceto provide the money to fill the gaps existing in the present grants system.

Later on the report in the ‘Age’ said:

The Acting vice president of the Victorian Institute of Colleges (Mr R. D. Parry) said that the rmit had become progressively more overcrowded and its equipment more obsolete.

There is a very clear reference to the attitude of the Victorian Minister for Education. He congratulated the Council for its initiative in organising the appeal. What a reflection this is upon a government that claims to be serious about tertiary education, when one of the more advanced institutes has to go to the public and beg for money.I refer to a letter which was published in the ‘Age’ on 28th May. The letter was written by the Chairman and Secretary of the Association of Professional Staff of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. This shows how desperate the plight of that institution is; it is short of recurrent funds. In their letter the gentlemen say:

RMIT, despite its huge size, operates on a shoestring budget and would need several times what it gets to provide the parity with a university recommended by the Sweeney Inquiry.

I emphasise that. That has been the whole stated objective of the Government’s policy, to bring these institutions up to parity with universities. Yet these two responsible people are saying that the RMIT is relying on a shoestring budget. The letter continues:

Consequently, staff requests for work loads to permit better quality of lecturing have been refused. Since the VIC was established, staff conditions, staff morale and quality of lecturing have not improved. Dedicated lecturers are having their enthusiasm stifled by the ‘establishment formula’ for senior lecturers which seems to have been forced on Victorian colleges by financial limitations.

What is happening is that these new institutions at the very beginning of their development are being progressively strangled by the Commonwealth Government.I lay much of the blame at the door of the Commonwealth Government for this situation. The letter of these 2 gentlemen of the Professional Staff Association continues:

As a society of professional staff we are con cerned that only the symptoms of the real disease are made known and not the basic reason.

Obviously the basic reason is the fact that last year the request of the Victorian Institute of Colleges for capital recurrent expenditure was slashed by State governments and the Commonwealth Government. The situation has become quite desperate in these institutes of technology and other colleges of advanced education. We know that they are operating on a shoestring budget. These are multi-million dollar investments yet they are operating on shoestring budgets. They are desperately in need of recurrent funds. I asked the Minister for Education and Science a question recently concerning the situation of recurrent funds in these institutions.I received a reply on 28th August. My question was:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the severe shortage of recurrent funds in colleges of advanced education.

  2. Have any (a) State Ministers for Education,

    1. administrations of colleges, (c) staff associations of colleges or (d) other bodies made any requests to him for additional grants of recurrent funds by the Commonwealth; if so, who made the requests.

The Minister gave an honest reply. He stated what the situation had been. In his reply the Minister said that the recurrent budget for colleges had risen from $57. 4m in the 1967-69 triennium to a figure of $l28.3m in the 1970-72 triennium. The latter figure does not include adjustments with which we are dealing today caused by the Sweeney Report and the Eggleston Report. The reply of the Minister continued:

No official approach has been made for an overall increase in the recurrent programmes agreed to for this triennium by Commonwealth and State governments. The Staff Association of the Colleges has raised this and a number of other questions with me and they no doubt have also approached the State authorities. I have also received a number of personal representations on behalf of the Staff Association of the Colleges in this matter.

There was a recognition there that many people involved in the field of advanced education were very concerned about the financial situation in these institutions. However, nothing has been done. I want now to go back to the situation that arose last year. Why is it that the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, the Committee established by this Government to advise on the capital and recurrent needs of institutes of technology and colleges of advanced education, has not accurately reported to the Government what the needs of these institutions are? There is something fundamentally wrong with an organisation that can go to the Commonwealth Government and say: This is what we recommend’ - implicit in that, of course, is ‘This is what the institutions need’ - only to turn around a year later and find that this expenditure which was recommended is obviously hopelessly inadequate. I recommend that the constitution of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education be very closely re-examined by the Government. It should be made clear that the function of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee is to advise the Commonwealth and this Parliament of the needs of these institutions. But what has happened is that the Committee has evolved itself into a creature of the Commonwealth and State governments because the report that is finally submitted to this Parliament is the end product of a series of consultations between the States and the Commonwealth.

Mr Reynolds:

– Are you suggesting that it has been pruned down?

Mr KENNEDY:

– 1 am very definitely suggesting that the final result with which we are presented here is the result of pruning down. We are not told what the institutions need; we are told only what the State and Commonwealth governments are prepared to provide. I do not think this is a satisfactory or acceptable task to give to a committee on advanced education. I return to the reply of the Minister for Education and Science to my question in which the Minister said that no official approach had been made for an overall increase. Obviously the State governments simply are not going to come to the Commonwealth and ask for additional recur rent funds, for one very simple reason: They know that for every $1 that the Commonwealth gives to them they will have to provide $1.85. In the state of financial poverty that is affecting State governments at the present moment they are not in a position to provide that.

Mr Giles:

– Rot.

Mr KENNEDY:

– ‘Rot’ says the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). Perhaps he would like to follow me and elaborate in detail the situation of the State governments. Perhaps he can provide a philosophy for Commonwealth-State relationships which will get over the problem for which his Government is responsible. I believe that the o’nly way to deal with this situation is for the Commonwealth to accept full financial responsibility for tertiary education. As a poor alternative to that I believe the Commonwealth Government, as it does in the field of capital expenditure, should provide $1 for every $1 the State governments provide. I doubt whether even this would deal with the situation that has arisen. Nevertheless it is a suggestion that has been made by the Victorian Institute of Colleges; it has been made by staff associations; it was even made last year by the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education. Unless that is done there will not be a fair balance between the financial responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States.

I think the situation has become very dangerous and very threatening to the future development of these young institutions of technology. I believe that the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education should be called upon by the Government to make an urgent report on the needs of the States. The Commonwealth should act immediately to make unmatched emergency grants to colleges of advanced education. I say that they should be unmatched grants because obviously if the State governments are required to match the grants they simply will not be interested ia paying their share. Unless this is done immediately the development of these institutions will be strangled by the very Commonwealth Government which has taken so prominent a part in the establishment and launching of these colleges.

When I look at the holiday period which is now facing the Parliament, between now and March, I see that there are 4 months in which Government action of this kind could be taken. I am very reluctant to see such a long period of recess between the 2 sessions of Parliament when there is so much that needs to be done in this one field alone. Unless the Commonwealth is prepared to make these emergency grams for capital and recurrent expenditure, what will the situation be? Already these colleges are applying quotas on students intakes. The Minister replied to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on 25th September. The reply concerned quotas in colleges. It is a rather startling and frightening prospect that has been opened up, that despite the youth oi these institutions they are already being forced to apply quotas. In New South Wales 4 colleges of advanced education are applying quotas on student intakes. There may be people on the other side of the House who will say: ‘Well, there are quotas in universities. So what? Why worry?’

My belief is that there should not be quotas anywhere. There certainly should not bc quotas at these institutions. Nine colleges Of advanced education in Victoria ace applying quotas and 4 colleges in South Australia are applying quotas. Quotas are also being applied in the Western Australian Institute of Technology and in the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. Unless urgent action is taken by the Commonwealth to deal with this desperate financial position, the threat of increased restriction through quotas will hang over the heads of the colleges. I believe that unless this action is. taken there will be continuing restrictions on the development and progress of these institutions. They will not get the quality and numbers of staff they require, nor will they provide the conditions of service essential for the staff to fulfil their roles sufficiently, according to the lines established by the Commonwealth Government itself, by its own advisory committee, by the Martin report, the Sweeney report and the Wiltshire report.

These Colleges of advanced education will not be able to provide the variety of courses needed to meet their commitment or provide the distinctive variety of vocationally oriented courses. One might compare the situation there with that of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. It is difficult to imagine that such restrictions would be placed upon the development of the Canberra college. It is in a very fortunate position where the Commonwealth accepts full responsibility for capital and recurrent expenditure. I am very concerned also at the high cost of education at all levels of tertiary education. 1 am particularly concerned by the fact that the number of scholarships available for students attending colleges of advanced education is grossly inadequate. Recently the Commonwealth has taken very great pride in the fact that the number of scholarships available has been raised from 1.500 to 2,500. That is very good. It is an increase of 66$ per cent. But just how seriously does this deal with the problem? How seriously does it deal with the demand by students wanting to go to colleges and to have their way paid.

This year the total number of enrolments of students at colleges of advanced education was 44.356. This year only 3,734 have scholarships, which is 8.4 per cent of the attendance. Let us look at how many students have applied for these scholarships. We must bear in mind that students in applying for advanced education scholarships would perhaps also apply for other kinds of awards. This year 43.375 applied for scholarships. The number offered was 5,491, according to the Minister’s own figures. The number accepted was 2,653, of which 1,932 were entering their first year. This means that only 6 per cent of the total number of applicants received scholarships.

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

– Over 60,000 hold scholarships.

Mr Reynolds:

– In colleges of advanced education?

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

– No; in the universities and colleges of advanced education.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I am not talking about universities and colleges of advanced education. The Minister has interjected with a very good point. The point is that students who attend universities are. on the whole, far better off.

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

– 1 am speaking about tertiary education. Over 60,000 hold scholarships. You are talking about 2,000.

Mr KENNEDY:

– The point I am making is that students who attend these institutions are doing less well than students who attend universities. I repeat that only 6 per cent of the total number of applicants are receiving scholarships.

Mr Beazley:

– In colleges of advanced education, you mean.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Yes. I am sorry. I have got the point. There is a far greater proportion of students at universities who are receiving scholarships. If my memory serves me correctly, last year approximately 30 per cent of the students who were attending Melbourne University were receiving Commonwealth scholarships. I do not think one could find many colleges of advanced education with an equal ratio of students in the advantageous position of receiving scholarships. One last point that I would like to refer to is that in his second reading speech the Minister for Education and Science referred to the establishment of teacher training facilities within the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. The situation of teacher training also is going through a very desperate situation. The Commonwealth Government still has not accepted full responsibility towards tertiary education as a whole. It accepts a responsibility towards universities; it accepts a responsibility towards colleges of advanced education, but it is totally artificial to accept 2 aspects of tertiary education and to ignore the third. They are to be treated as equal partners in tertiary education.

Unless that is done the position of teacher training will be at a disadvantage. I make that statement on these grounds: If the salaries of staff at colleges of advanced education are raised to bring them up to university status, without the salaries of people attending teachers colleges being raised, those people in the teachers colleges will be enticed away from those institutions. They will leave the job, and people who are not of the same quality will be attracted to it. Morale within the teacher training institutions will be low. That is the situation that has occurred throughout Australia. It has certainly occurred in Victoria. There has been a sequence of letters to the ‘Age’ over recent months in which lecturers at teachers colleges have highlighted this very point They have been stressing the inequality of a situation where people with the same qualifications, possibly the same experience and the same responsibility who are employed at colleges of advanced education are receiving higher salaries simply because they are at colleges of advanced education. Lecturers are leaving the teachers colleges to go to the colleges of advanced education. One letter showed that a senior lecturer at a secondary teachers’ college in Victoria was receiving an income of $2,000 lower than that of a senior lecturer at a college of advanced education. This blow to the morale of the teaching service, this confusion that will be felt by others within the colleges has to be dealt with. I believe that the situation cannot be dealt with properly until the Commonwealth accepts the responsibility for these colleges because while teachers colleges are under the control of financially tight State treasuries then the salaries paid by them will continue to remain low.

Last year when the Armidale conference was held one of the most important points that was brought down was something that has been obvious to the Labor Party for quite a long time but still has not been accepted by the Government. This was that the 3 types of tertiary education have to be accepted as equal partners, and they are certainly not being treated as equal partners at the moment while the Commonwealth refuses to accept any responsibility for them. The Commonwealth may on the other hand say that the colleges are still very much under the control of the education departments which are reluctant to give them the sort of autonomy which would justify the Commonwealth granting the sort of financial assistance that it gives to colleges of advanced education and universities. But I would like to see the Commonwealth take more initiative in this field and let the State governments know that if they are prepared to grant the autonomy necessary to teachers’ colleges then the Commonwealth would enter the field and accept the financial responsibility for them.

We have a quite arbitrary system at the present moment. Those teachers colleges which have attached themselves to colleges of advanced education are finding, as is mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister, that the Commonwealth largesse will fall upon them. Those which, on the other hand, by a quite fortuitous set of circumstances, have remained under the control of the State governments will not receive that generosity from the Commonwealth. It is quite an artificial situation because obviously people who are lecturing at a State teachers’ college under the authority of the education department are doing exactly the same sort of work as those people, we will say, who are attached to the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education mentioned in the Minister’s speech or those people who are lecturing in the Canberra College of Advanced Education. It is quite an anomalous situation and I do not think the problem of placing staff at teachers’ colleges will be properly dealt with until the Commonwealth is prepared to come in and accept a financial responsibility for them in the same way that it has accepted a responsibility for colleges of advanced education and universities. Nevertheless, one has to accept - speaking broadly about the Bill that is before the House - that it has come to the rescue of the State governments in the problem of finding extra finance as a result of the Sweeney and Eggleston reports, but I still believe that the problem is far, far greater than the one that is dealt with in the Bill. The Minister may say that the Bill is limited. Of course it is limited. I recognise this. Nevertheless, the problem is one that is affecting colleges of advanced educaation throughout the nation and I would like to see very urgent action taken to examine the financial needs of these institutions and I would like the Commonwealth to make emergency grants accordingly. Otherwise, 1 believe, these institutions will continue to suffer strangulation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– In characteristic fashion the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) moves From disaster to disaster liberally interspersed with crises and strangulations. I find it hard to believe that the situation is as gloomy as he paints it although 1 have no doubt that there is at least an element of truth in what he says. We well know that education institutions, whether they are new advanced colleges or older institutions at any level, can always use more money. 1 do not want to be seen to suggest thateducation is not in need of more funds. But as the honourable member for Bendigo and others well know, the question is one which has been with us in the field of education since anybody can remember and I would have thought that certainly as far as colleges of advanced education are concerned - and they are our main concern in this Bill - the problem was not one so much of finance at this stage but of organisation and definition of what their role is and of developing them in an educative sense.

It alarms me a little to see that the honourable member for Bendigo accepts unequivocally and without qualification, and even without critical analysis, all educational demands which are made known to him or to which he is party. Last of all, if I may say so with respect, it worries me that he takes bis crises from newspaper headlines. 1 think one can say that almost by definition - with very few exceptions - education is not the sort of field in which crises suddenly occur because of the production of a newspaper headline. There are problems and needs which can be defined as the months go by and they can be dealt with or not dealt with. It may be true that ultimately they develop to a point where you think that the word ‘‘crisis’ is deserved, but I think it is deserved very many fewer times than the honourable member for Bendigo and some of his confreres on the other side of the House would like to have us believe.

May 1 confine my remarks to these cognate Bills? They relate particularly to the development of the colleges of advanced education and to university salaries. As fac as colleges are concerned, and this is a matter we touched on in relation to tha Canberra College before the suspension of the sitting, the problem is one, as I see it, of defining the role of these institutions. lt may be argued, and I am sure the honourable member for Bendigo would argue it if he has not already, that we should know precisely where we are going, exactly how many people are going to be where, and precisely what will happen when they get there. That is a very nice sort of Utopian field to behold, but I rather fear that this is beyond the ability of this or any other government. What we have to look at is whether or not we can keep pace with the genuine demands of qualified people for education in advanced colleges in lieu or instead of universities or other institutions of higher learning.

As we have already identified in a previous debate, the question seems to me to be that all colleges of advanced education touch on several already established fields. They are taking unto themselves already at least part of the field of teacher training. That, I think, is quite a sensible if not an admirable development. They are touching already on the fields already identified with technical colleges and institutes of technology and . they are in some respects taking from those fields of a more practical kind which were hitherto the occupation, or partly so, of universities. In a previous debate on this subject the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) talked of critical inquiry as regards colleges of advanced education. Nobody would deny the right: or the desirability of students of these colleges to be engaged in and to be learning critical inquiry. But we do have to make some definition and some identification of aptness and placement and one must, I think, immediately see that universities have traditionally been those institutions engaged in inquiry for its own sake. To a much greater degree the colleges of advanced education are, as I understand it, advised and defined, or should be defined, to cope with problems of a more applied nature - accounting courses, business management and matters of that kind and many other fields which would come to mind if one applied oneself to the task. But while this area of critical inquiry is desirable at all levels we have to have regard to the fact that one sort of institution is the best in that field while another is, as it were, taking it marginally. We have to regard this as of direct relevance to the question of the salaries of those people who work in them and also, perhaps, to some extent the nature of the buildings and the institutions which are being developed.

As against the proposition put by the honourable member for Bendigo of vast wastelands of new colleges of advanced education and somewhat older technological institutions in Victoria we have, for example, the college of advanced education on Mount Nelson in Hobart. There, to the best of my knowledge, the building is lagging about a year behind schedule - not, as far as I know, because of inadequate finance but rather because of problems of building, organisation and so on. I do not want to run a local example unduly, but it is, I think, relevant to what I am saying. To me it raises the problem of appropriateness as to where these things are and what they are going to do. The question which raised itself as soon as this institution was proposed was: ‘Why not have it in Launceston?’ I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) would be only too ready to agree with me that Launceston would have been an ideal place.

I believe in that regard that insufficient cognisance was taken of the psychological atmosphere, the ethos of the moment. Launceston was very much wanting a university college in-built for home grown tertiary education. It was seen to be inappropriate, in the light of the size of the University of Tasmania, but it appeared that Launceston would have been an entirely appropriate city in which te build Tasmania’s first college of advanced education. 1 understand that the decision was made, on the grounds of the relative location of the numbers of students, to put that new institution within a stone’s throw - literally, I mean - of the University of Tasmania. I still have a suspicion that it would have been better placed, certainly in terms of public demand - I am not quite so sure on the educational basis - in Launceston. lt would have been taken very readily unto the bosom of the people of Launceston, there to match, perhaps, the new Launceston teachers college.

That is just one example, and I do not want to take it any further. But to me these new institutions are presented with more serious problems than those outlined by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mt Kennedy) who preceded me. At this stage I will not take any further the question of the difference in the definition of colleges of advanced education and universities because that is a broad field and we are here really dealing with a fairly specific field. 1 do not want further to open up the whole field. But I want to say a few words about the second Bill which we are discussing in this debate. It is certainly a related Bill. It concerns entirely the question of university salaries. The salaries are set out in the appropriate part of the Bill. As I am sure honourable members will recall, it sets out that professorial salaries are to be approximately $5,000 above the base rate paid to honourable members, and I am sure that honourable members will regard that in a true altruistic light. However, the problem, if there is a problem, is not at the professorial level; it is further down the scale. I should say in passing that it is. quite necessary that we should validate this Bill because I understand that the newly elected member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) may be in some difficulty with his back salary. I think that he has been paid the new salary since the beginning of the year. So 1 hope that honourable members opposite will co-operate so that the new member will not be embarrassed.

I believe that the question of salaries in universities and, for that matter, in colleges of advanced education is more appropriately discussed lower down the scale. I believe that universities - and I hope that colleges of advanced education will not follow suit - have for many years made the mistake qf arguing their salaries from the point of view of the professional level. That is bad politics and bad publicity because somebody always knows a professor who manages to mow his lawn in the middle of the week and thereby that person concludes that the professor works only about 20 hours a week. Some professors may work such hours, but most of those I know work probably closer to 50 or 60 hours a week. The fact that they arc not working behind a desk from 9 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the afternoon is really quite irrelevant to the issue.

The problem regarding salaries in these institutions arises really at the lecturing level rather than at the top end of the scale. In fact, even larger problems arise just . below the lecturing level. I take it thai the amounts involved in this Bill in fact make provision for people in the demonstrator categories who are nevertheless academics but are less identifiably so than the junior lecturers. But in both of those categories it is absolutely essential that we should be paying as much as we can pay because we are talking here - and T make no bones about this or apologies for saying it - of the best qualified people hi the community in terms of educational qualifications; in terms of what should be paid for having a certificate or passing an examination or something ot that nature. Of course, 1 know that there are other people in the community who have been educated in the university of hard knocks and that sort of thing. But here we are dealing with education per se, and it is absolutely important that universities and colleges of advanced education should be able to compete with industry, with the community at large, for the best possible skills in this area.

Of course I know that there arc other problems. Those skills are not always equally identified with teaching skills, but 1 will leave that matter for the time being and talk in terms of buying, as it were, the best brains or some of the best brains, anyway, for teaching other people; for passing on their capacity in a particular discipline. The honourable member for Bendigo has raised quite rightly the question of salaries in colleges of advanced education. 1 do not want to sound as though I am talking like an old university type in this matter, but it should be quite clearly seen that in their present role of fairly substantially applied educators, these colleges of advanced education should in my opinion quite definitely be paying salaries which are demonstrably lower than those paid in universities.

I think that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) mentioned earlier that he could envisage the ultimate blending of colleges of advanced education with universities. That may be a great thing, although I should like him tj identify what he means by that a lot more closely before I could concur. But before he does so, I think that we have to take the opposite view; that we are not in fact seeking to blend them. We do not want to make undue and unnecessary compartmentisation. We want to see universities, which are essentially research plus teaching institutions, and colleges of advanced education fulfilling a need which was not previously fulfilled. If we do not see it in that way, then colleges of advanced education are redundant, to some extent, because I do not think than anybody could make out an immediate case that everybody who is to be found in any of the tertiary institutions should be put in a university. We have to make a discrimination, whoever it does not suit. Perhaps some of the honourable members opposite on occasions tend to be more concerned with equality than with equality of opportunity. I believe that it is not right to envisage everybody immediately entering universities. We all have our role to play, and I think it would be a pity if in fact it were assumed immediately that colleges of advanced education should become universities overnight. I say that for reasons which I have outlined, I think, in an earlier debate.

It is important that the salaries of staff at colleges of advanced education should be kept at the highest possible levels. It is equally important, I should think, that the salaries of staff at universities should be a little distance away. Of course, the honourable member for Bendigo already has raised the question of teachers salaries. The whole structure is integrated. It is quite simply a question of supply and demand. As I see it, the reason why we pay relatively high salaries to people in universities is that they are hard to find. In the last few years in nearly all of the disciplines of which I am aware, it has been hard to find people with the appropriate formal qualifications for appointment to university positions. Some few years ago, 10, 30 or 40 people applied for positions but in the last few years only 2, 3 or 4 people have applied for positions. That situation has changed in a few fields. We already know that the science boom in schools has, for example, produced the result that 20, 30 or 40 people apply for a lectureship in chemistry or physics. But that is the way these things go, and we need to keep the situation under observation and perhaps under control. I believe that it is impossible to iron out totally fluctuations in this sort of filing.

Finally, I believe that these 2 Bills are indeed appropriately taken as cognate Bills. The whole question of the development of colleges of advanced education must be integrated with the wellbeing of the staffs who man them. The whole process of education must be seen as one continuum. It is an easy matter to identify particular areas of need and forget that they have a relationship to the rest It is equally an easy matter to talk in terms of crises. I certainly do not suggest that all is rosy in the education field. I receive a sufficient number of letters from people around the country to move me to realise that there are teachers who have very considerable problems of conscience, as it were, when they find themselves inadequately placed in certain schools. I think that has always been so. It is so in the United States of America and in Britain. It is so in almost any area in which you like to look. It is not of course so in the universities or in any of those entities. But the situation in such a broad field as education is as variable as you would like to find it

I commend these 2 Bills to the House. I believe that their object is entirely proper and that they will be one more link in the chain - extensive as it has become - of educational promotion in Australia. It may leave certain inadequacies in the field of advanced colleges but I am as yet unpersuaded that this field is the most needy still remaining in the whole educational entity of Australia.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I think that there needs to be some clear thinking about and analysis of the resources which the Australian nation should devote to education. We also need to make a comparative analysis of our expenditure on education and that of other countries. I refer in particular to the percentage of gross national product. Over 5 or 6 years in this Parliament there have been controversies about how Australia stands as a country spending a percentage of its gross national product on education within a table of the nations. It is time that there was an authoritative analysis to see exactly what percentage we do spend and how it really does compare, if we can get a genuinely comparative figure. Commonwealth intervention in education has tended to be ad hoc. We came in when the universities were in a state of crisis, when we had the findings of the Murray Commission, and we have come in at election times with Commonwealth scholarships, with science grants, with grants for school libraries and so on. It has been very much a build-up of pieces rather than a consistent attack or philosophy of education on the part of the Commonwealth.

The problem between the Commonwealth and the States appears to me to be that the Commonwealth has the revenue producing powers of levying income tax, sales tax customs and excise, payroll tax and company tax. They are clear advantages that it has over the States. The Commonwealth and the States have departments which may become bottomless pits. For the Com monwealth they are defence, if we should continue to go on spending and spending, social services and health. The Government can spend the entire national income on health if it wants to, and in this field the more successful a doctor is in prolonging our lives the more we have to have a need for a doctor over a longer life. So we can go on with indefinite increases in that expenditure in the health’ fields. The States have possible bottomless pits such as education, roads and health and again there is the expenditure on hospitals. These things need to be looked at and I will have all of these things in mind when I make comments on these 2 Bills.

In the resent election there was a tendency to discover something dreadfully sinister in a proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that universities shall be free. I went to a free university. My father being on the basic wage at the time and also in part-time employment, 1 would not have been able to attend a university in any other State but Western Australia where, thanks to the Hacket! bequests, endowments and so on, at that stage of history the University of Western Australia was free, and it was free fori about 47 years. Of course there was a steel determination on the part of some professions that if new faculties were added to the university they should no! be free. One of the rewards that the Western Australian community received for its generosity in raising £580,000 or $1,160,000 by private collection to establish a medical school was that the University of Western Australia ceased to be free. There would, I think, be some resistance to the idea of a free faculty of medicine. For nearly 50 years the University was free, without any sinister results. What really happened was that the calibre of the Stale civil service in Western Australia as a consequence was very high. In its administration it was extremely well governed. The State engineering was extremely good, as I think we can see in the roads in Western Australia. I know there is a certain amount of resentment about the share of Common- wealth money which that State received to build its roads but it does have extreme!) good engineers.

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

– It is mainly Commonwealth money.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Yes, but I might also say that its bridges did not fall down! We had a very high percentage of sciencegraduates in teaching in the days when 1 was a student at school. Admittedly not so high a percentage went to the high schools in those days but it was far higher than that in other States.. Because the University was free, there was a higher percentage of graduates among the teachers and so on. None of these things were sinister but it is quite astonishing that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in his attacks on the Leader of the Opposition discussed the idea of a free university as some kind of a plot. As I say it existed for nearly 50 years in Western Australia and it is regrettable that it has gone. There would have to be additional expenditure to make universities free but it would not be a great expenditure and the component that goes into commonwealth scholarships for fees would not then be necessary, although they would still be necessarily the component of living allowances.

There is also another question that we need to look at. There is a very great tendency when we are discussing social services - and I have mentioned that they could be a bottomless pit - not to ask the further question of whether Australia is getting a fair return on the resources that are being taken out of it. I do not think, for instance, that the State of Western Australia is getting a fair return out of its mineral wealth. This is a historic attitude on the part of Western Australian governments. We had Lord Forrest as our Premier at one stage and he rather had a tendency to believe that loyalty was to pour everything into mother Britain’s lap. In the days when a man’s wage for a week was £1 we had’ £500m taken out of the Golden Mile. On the Golden Mile there were the most miserable schools and the most miserable hospitals one could imagine. The people of the State paid taxes for water schemes and so forth so that this wealth could be taken by overseas companies. This has been the Western Australian attitude and it has been the attitude of a great many of the States.

When we are discussing what we can afford to spend on education and social services we need to ask whether we do not have a series of State governments making a series of mug’s bargains, compared with a good many other countries, about the resources that are being developed in Australia by overseas interests.

The Sweeney and Eggleston adjustments to salaries merely register the process of inflation. Let us face the fact that the expenditure in these Bills which applies to the salaries of university staffs and the staffs of colleges of advanced education are not actual increases in salaries. They are cost of living adjustments and the increased expenditure in these measures is to a very considerable extent the registering of the process of inflation. If that is true about salaries it is also necessarily true about capital expenditure on university buildings and halls of residences, those attached to schools of mines, and so on. I remember that at one stage when I was on the Council of the Australia National University in the era when value was being put back into the £1 there was scarcely any building for the Australian National University that did not end up costing about twice as much as the original estimate, because the process of inflation was going on and of course going in to building costs. If we have to register the process of inflation in expenditure for increased salary we should remember that there is the same factor affecting the actual purchasing power of money appropriated for university and college of advanced education buildings.

The crisis in education would be precisely what the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) said. In denying the existence of a crisis he said how very difficult it is to get adequate university staff. The crisis in educataion is, of course, the inability of institutions to adjust very quickly to a complete change in the values in the Australian community. In the last decade we have experienced the phenonemon of a much higher percentage of people expecting their children to get a tertiary education. Obviously we have as a consequence a crisis in trying to adjust our universities, colleges of advanced education, and technical schools to the new demand. The crisis of adjustment is not only in new buildings and in new student places; it is, of course, in the effort to attract staff. As the honourable member for Denison said in denying that there is a crisis, it is extremely difficult for universities and colleges of advanced education to get staff.

If colleges of advanced education are to award degrees, I cannot see the logic of the position of the honourable member for Denison in saying that the staffs of those colleges - at least those colleges which will conduct degree courses - should be lower than those in universities. If a Bachelor of Science degree awarded by a college of advanced education is to be the equivalent of that of a university on the basis of our national accrediting system, obviously the people who will be lecturing and providing tuition and guidance to students must be of the same calibre as those in the universities. At least that element in colleges of advanced education which are conducting degree courses should be equally paid.

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

– That is what the Bill does.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Yes, but I am dealing with what the honourable member for Denison said. I agree that this is recognised. 1 want to move on to another point that should be recognised. I will not say that someone who is of high quality and who is a genius for giving forms of education immensely valuable to the community but which do not lead to degree courses must be rated as less valuable in the community than someone in a university who is a lecturer. The whole of our education system in Australia seems to me to be riddled with certain false assumptions. We may have someone outside our teritiary education system who is a genius-

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

– How do you test that?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Well, we may have someone who is a genius in the field of country teaching. Under our system this person must get promoted into the metropolitan area. There are many education systems in the world - in Scotland and elsewhere - which will give a man promotion in the position where he is without translating him to another position, if he has a genius for a particular job. The point I want to make is that a large part of our educational tragedy is that we ultimately decide that we have to translate someone who is a darned good headmaster into being a very bad Director of Education which is an entirely different job - it is an administrative job. My point is that we need to analyse promotions. We need to make an analysis of the values of certain jobs without declaring straight out that someone in a college of advanced education should necessarily be paid a lower salary than someone in a university.

Dr Solomon:

– Do not forget research obligations.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– Yes, of course there is the ability to inspire in research, but there is also a need for universities to stop pro- 1 moting people simply on the masses of sometimes boring or sometimes redundant publications that they put out. The weight of papers they produce has no particular bearing on the salary they should receive. It is time that a value better than slighting was put on the work of those who have a genius for teaching and inspiring students.

I still think there is a role for teaching in universities as well as a role for research. I think that somehow or other we can come back to this position. I realise there is a problem here. Today a professor of engineering who has a capacity to teach the fundamentals over a wide field will very quickly find that a student who is not a graduate but who specialises in some new direction goes way beyond him in the salar)’ that he receives. But that does not alter the fact that his teaching inspiration, even if he is not at that time engaged in research to try to keep up with everyone else in all of these directions, is of high value. We need to evaluate rather differently some of these questions of research.

The Canberra College of Advanced Education and some other colleges of advanced education, including the college at Hobart, are apparently developing what would normally be called teachers colleges, schools of teaching or schools of education. I hope that the Canberra College of Advanced Education will develop a full teachers college in conjunction with a Faculty of Education at the Australian National University which ought to be developing. The Commonwealth has to take a fresh approach to this aspect of tertiary education. I refer here to the training of teachers. Too often we have tried to get from the States teachers for Papua and New Guinea and for the Northern Territory. Of course, we get teachers from New South Wales for the Australian Capital Territory. We should try to attract to training institutions within the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and I hope to a Faculty of Education at the Australian National University, candidates for teacher training who would serve in the Commonwealth Territories - to serve in Papua and New Guinea in that country’s last gallop towards independence, when education will become even more important. If, in the course of time, these teachers are phased out of the Territories, as they will be in Papua and New Guinea, 1 have no doubt that the demand for teachers in the States is so great that they would not have any problem in finding employment. 1 think that the Commonwealth, which now has a large number of children under its authority in Papua and New Guinea. Canberra and elsewhere, should be contributing to a greater extent to the training of teachers than it has done hitherto. I hope that my observations will not be taken as meaning that I do not congratulate the Minister on introducing these 2 Bills. I think they are necessary and that they are making necessary adjustments. They perhaps do not set the Thames on fire but they are part of the mechinery of good government. 1 believe the Commonwealth has developed a rather piecemeal approach in education. We need a much more systematic approach to education.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– As usual the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has given the House a thoughtful and interesting contribution. I listened with interest to what he said, although there are one or two points on which I would take issue with him. For example, I doubt the validity of a comparison on the basis of the gross national product of this country with that of other countries. I am inclined to think that in this young, growing and developing country with so many demands upon our resources, the Government needs annually in drawing up its budget to give prime consideration to the total outlay that it can make in the ensuing 12 months in relation to the total amount available for expenditure. Bearing -in mind the fundamental point that governments do not have any moneys of their own - they have only the moneys that are obtained from the people by way of taxation or some other form of revenue - I doubt whether a comparison on the basis of gross national product is really a reliable one. 1 believe the honourable member had a point when he said that education in Australia had developed on a more or less ad hoc basis. Having regard to the fact that the Commonwealth has not been in the education field for many years I think we can look back with pride on a record of achievement which would, I think, be the envy of some other countries. The honourable member did not make any reference to the fact that the total estimated expenditure by the Commonwealth in the current financial year is expected to be an increase of 25 per cent on the expenditure for 1969-70. I believe that this alone indicates that we are moving forward at a considerable rate. I do not want to trespass and go outside the limits of the Bill. I would first of all like to say to the House and to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) that I for one welcome the introduction of these 2 Bills. I regard them as an earnest of the Government’s desire to help the cause of tertiary education in general. I also regard the Bills as a fulfilment of undertakings given by the Commonwealth to the States. I wish to quote a brief paragraph from the speech made by the Minister for Education and Science when he presented to this House on 19th August of this year a ministerial statement on the Commonwealth education programme for 1970-71. Under the heading: ‘Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education’, which are the 2 heads under which these Bills appear, the Minister said:

The proposed Commonwealth expenditure during the financial year on universities am/ colleges of advanced education reflects its support for the continued expansion of tertiary education facilities. Grants to colleges of advanced education are expected to total almost $40m, which is more than 75 per cent above the figure for 1969-1970, while those to universities will total approximately $11 Om, as compared with just under 594m during the past financial year. With respect to the colleges, a significant development for which funds will be provided in the current financial year is the provision of residential accommodation at institutions in country areas.

Moving back to (he Bill, we find that, in the Schedules, the increases State by State in respect of all the various tertiary institu tions are set out clearly. I feel that the Government is fulfilling its promise. It is moving forward steadily, surely and carefully in the wide field of education. I think that this is a field in which the Government is wise to hasten reasonably slowly. Certainly there is much yet to be done and I know that there is no-one more aware of this fact than the Minister himself. After all, Rome was not built in a day. As I said earlier, I believe that we have made good progress in the period that the Commonwealth has been assisting actively in an increasingly big way in the overall field of education.

In his second reading speech on the State Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) 1970, the Minister explained that the additional Commonwealth contribution is in accordance with the recommendations made by Mr Justice Eggleston and is designed to meet the new levels of academic salaries in universities and also salary increases in relation to certain university officers in medical schools. The Bills, as I commented earlier, are relatively narrow in scope. Therefore, I do not wish to go outside that scope and to try to cover the wide field of education in the course of my remarks because I know that there are other speakers who wish to take part in this debate and that we have still a heavy legislative programme ahead of us.

I am sure that the additional Commonwealth assistance that is being provided by these 2 Bills will be appreciated by the governing bodies of the institutions concerned. They are, as the Minister has said in his statement, responsible for determining the actual levels of remuneration of their own staff. While it is true that these levels may vary - and no doubt do vary from university to university - there is, I suggest, a common factor that has to be borne in mind. That is the need to attract and to retain sufficient high quality staff. This can be done only if pay and conditions are adequate. This is one of the main points that the Government has had in mind in the preparation and submission of these 2 Bills.

I hope that, before long, assistance will be given with regard to the greatest single financial problem of all. That is the steep increases in non-academic salaries and wages for which no help at all is provided at the present time. There is, I believe, a strong case for a review of the grants formula in relation to grants to the States for tertiary education. I say this with particular regard to my own State of Queensland with which I am more familiar than 1 am with any other State. The university at St Lucia, as I have said before in this chamber, is in an extremely difficult financial position. The need for a second university in Brisbane is becoming more and more urgent each year.

Colleges of advanced education which, as we know are still evolving, will be assisted and strengthened by the adoption of the Sweeney Report and the willingness of the Commonwealth Government to assist with the establishment and maintenance of residential colleges. I have in my hand a cutting from the ‘Australian’ of 1st October 1970. This is an interesting article by Mr Graham Williams under the heading: ‘College degree issue divides States’. This article deals with the very matter on which I am just touching, that is, the evolving state of the various colleges of advanced education. I am sure that we all hope very much that the Commonwealth and the States can work on the basis of a co-operative partnership in the development of these colleges as in the other fields of tertiary education. 1 believe that, by this means, we can achieve the maximum results.

I make one final plea before I conclude. It is now 13 years since a wide ranging inquiry was held into tertiary education in Australia. I urge once again that in the interests of the universities, in the interests of colleges of advanced education and in the interests of tertiary education in general, early consideration be given to holding another full scale inquiry with a view to rectifying anomalies, streamlining and co-ordinating development and providing the nation with the best possible facilities in all fields of tertiary education.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– First, I wish to take up the question of scholarships and tertiary scholarships particularly. I understood the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) to say by way of interjection earlier that the number of tertiary scholarships on issue at the moment is approximately 67,000. Was that the figure?

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

– No. The total number of scholarships was over 60,000.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I thought that, at the time, the Minister said tertiary scholarships. The number of scholarships in circulation as at 30th June of this year was 61,048, of which 30,510 were for Commonwealth university scholarships and 4,656 were advanced education scholarships. In total, tertiary scholarships available reached approximately 35,000 which is somewhat less than the figure that I thought was intimated’-

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

– Well, the honourable member has left out post graduate scholarships.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– They must be added too, but they do not amount to that many. The point is to recognise that we are looking at this matter of scholarships and that a factor relevant to the 2 Bills under consideration is the number of people who will gain entry to these institutions which the Commonwealth is supporting. Looking at the matter of university scholarships - and I do not intend to go into this subject in any detail - we find that this year 7,500 open entrance scholarships ate available. I think that these scholarships cater for not much more than 20 per cent of applicants for such scholarships.

It is notorious that Commonwealth reports on scholarships always indicate the number of scholarships that were made available but do not tell us how many people applied for those scholarships. This information is very important. I would recommend that, in future reports, an indication should be given of the extent to which the number of scholarships being made available caters for the need. This year, there was an increase in later year awards at university level up to 4,000. But I understand that those 4,000 later year awards are to cater for 70,000 university students. Obviously they will not go around that number of university students who are in second or later years of their university courses. I suggest that 4,000 scholarships is not a very generous number to whack up among 70,000 students.

I turn to the field of Commonwealth advanced education scholarships. The number was increased this year to 2,500. But as my colleague, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy), mentioned earlier, there were 43,375 applicants for those 2,500 scholarships. In other words, 6.1 per cent of the total number of applicants could expect to obtain a scholarship. As a matter of fact, I am concerned as to what is happening to these advanced education scholarships. Last year, 1,500 were available and, speaking from recollection, 1 think there were 37,000 applicants. Yet, the Commonwealth could not dispose of the whole 1,500 available scholarships. lt is a fact that out of a total of 1,500 open entrance scholarships which were available last year the Commonwealth was able to award 840 only; yet, there were 37,000 applicants. It must be admitted that some of these people - presumably a great many of these people - do apply for more than one kind of scholarship. But I do not understand why such a low proportion of students - I think the figure given in answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was 8.4 per cent - attending colleges of advanced education is in receipt of Commonwealth scholarships. Yet some of the rather small number of scholarships - 1,500 - that were available last year could not be awarded. I am wondering what is happening. Whatkind of conditions are being imposed on the award of such scholarships? Even of those scholarships that are awarded, we have to ask ourselves whether they are going to the people most in need of them. The categoric answer must be: Certainly not. They are being awarded on merit, and this means that a big proportion of the relatively scarce number of scholarships is going to the sons and daughters of parents in the upper income groups, particularly the professional classes. The sad thing as far as I am concerned is that the trend is not getting any better. The trend is just as bad now as it was about 7 years ago. There are still comparatively few youngsters from the low income groups getting through and doing a tertiary education course. I am talking about youngsters who have been assessed as quite capable of undertaking such a course.

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

– Would the honourable member cut out giving the scholarships on merit?

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I certainly would. I make no bones about it, and the Labor

Party makes no bones about it. If we are to give only a small number of scholarships in relation to the number of applicants I would rather help the person for whom a scholarship was absolutely critical in deciding whether he could go on with his education or not. Now that the Minister has asked this question, 1 refer also to our policy on scholarships for secondary education. We are not confronted with that position, and we are not confronted with the position that the Minister posed to me a moment ago. In the 1963 elections we promised to give secondary scholarships to every child for the last 2 years of senior school. We were not confronted with this kind of selection and if we had been we would have given these scholarships to people who qualified and for whom a scholarship was necessary to enable them to go on. We would not be interested if we had only scarce number of scholarships available in giving them to parents who could afford to buy extra tuition for their sons and daughters who could afford to get the best textbooks and reference books and to take their children on travels and to provide them with all the things to give extra advantage to those who are already advantaged.

That is where our approach is distinctly different from that of the Government. We have said that we will give scholarships to every secondary school child in the last 2 years of school and we will make places in universities free. As recently as last night the Leader of the Opposition announced also that we would make all tertiary education free. We are not faced with that kind of selection process but I am indicating what we would have done if we had been in the position of the Government with a relatively small number of scholarships available and having to choose between the sons and daughters of wealthy people and those of people who may be needy. I know, and the Minister and every member in this House must know, that for many of the comparatively wealthy people this scholarship allowance is no more than pin money to use as a deposit on a new model sports car. Yet, to take it to the other extreme, the sons and daughters of widows are going out to work. For them that scholarship would be a tremendous value, yet they are deprived of it. Research has been done into this matter - not enough, but there has been research. Professor Fensham in Victoria has done some research - the Commonwealth has not done nearly enough - to show what kind of people are getting scholarships and to establish whether they are the people we want to get them. If we are looking at this business of who gets to university and who gets to colleges of advanced education we have to look at student assistance while we are on the job.

I come back to this Bill. I have been following a long line of people who have talked around the subject, but 1 suggest that what I have said is relevant. That part of the Bill which relates to university salaries is based on an inquiry carried out by Mr Justice Eggleston. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to some other things that Mr Justice Eggleston bad to say in his report. He recommended that future inquiries should not be forced upon him at such short notice and under such pressure of urgency. In March this year he and his assistants were called upon to carry out this inquiry to determine a salary adjustment that was to date back to 1st January this year. Here we are nearly at the end of the year making salary adjustments dating back to 1st January. Even this has been made possible only because the inquiry was carried out in haste and, as Mr Justice Eggleston himself indicates, without facing up to all the kinds of questions that might have been dealt with.

He also suggests the need for a more general inquiry o deal with such matters as the possible need for extra classifications or categories in the staff structure. For instance, he noted that in the medical field there is a differential available. There is a loading available for persons in the faculty of medicine. It applies only at the professorial level; it does not apply at the subprofessorial level. He thinks that it might well be applied at this level. There are loadings also for professors in other faculties. There could be loadings for those who have extra responsibility, more students or more staff under their care than some other professor in a comparatively limited faculty. He thinks that these matters of differentials and loadings should be faced up to, but under the pressures of his inquiry he was not able to deal with them. He stated on page 17 of the copy of the report that 1 have:

If a general inquiry is to be held it should be set in train in the not too distant future.

He said that it should be undertaken not when the triennium is under way but well before the triennial provisions start. Instead it has been left not to the last minute but well past the last minute. The provisions in this Bill relating to professors and associate professors and readers are a direct result of his recommendations. Quite frankly, I cannot follow how we derived the salary levels for senior lecturers, lecturers and junior lecturers. He makes a straight out recommendation for the 2 categories I have mentioned, that is professor and associate professor or reader. I commend to the Government’s notice his warnings or his advice in the matter of carrying out a general inquiry and setting it in train shortly.

While we are talking about these salaries and the provisions for universities, I mention that I came across some figures that to me are quite startling, even making allowance for the fact that at the Australian National .University we have a higher proportion of post graduate training than at the State universities. I want the House to take notice of the allocations to universities in the various States. In New South Wales the annual recurrent grant per equivalent full time student at the universities was $1,428. In Victoria it was $1,447 and in Queensland $1,428. Honourable members will notice that the amounts are all in the same range. The amount for South Australia was a little higher. It was $1,511. For Western Australia it was $1,472 and for Tasmania it was a little higher still - $1,617. The average for all States was $1,493 per equivalent full time student. But what was the amount in the Australian Capital Territory at the Australian National University? It was $5,700 per equivalent full time student. In other words, the allocation from all government sources is 4 times as great per full time student at the ANU as it is at the State universities. Is it any wonder that there are plenty of cries, probably not from the Australian National University, but certainly from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury) about the University of Queensland at St Lucia?

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

– Has the honourable member included the Institute of Advanced Studies?

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I have allowed for that. It is not so much a case of what I think; it is a case of what the universities think, what their staff associations think and what the State governments think about the kind of generosity that apparently is available from the Commonwealth in respect of the ANU as compared with State universities. If honourable members think that the honourable member for Ryan was telling a sad story about the University of Queensland, let me quote a little from the 1969 report of the University of New South Wales. It states:

An analysis of the recurrent budget position for the period 1970-1972 shows that the University would experience very considerable difficulty in meeting its commitments if the planned student numbers were accepted. The University, therefore, in the later part of 1969 look drastic steps to limit its expenditure including deferring the appointment of teaching staff until 1970, suspending action on the filling of non-academic staff vacancies, and limiting expenditure on materials, major plant and books to 90 per cent of allocations.

Later the report stated:

The State Government has been sympathetic with the University’s problems and has renewed its approach to the Commonwealth Government on the matter of supplementation of grants in connection with non-academic salary increases to date. 1 see nothing about provision for nonacademic salaries in the Bills before us. If the universities are in this sorry plight, what is wrong with the Australian Universities Commission? Tertiary education - colleges of advanced education and universities - is doing well from this Government compared to what happens to primary, secondary and pre-school education, education of the handicapped and technical education. They are poverty ridden so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. We are now talking about the area in which the Commonwealth is most generous, yet this is the situation in at least 2 universities that we have mentioned - the Queensland University and the University of New South Wales. I am sure that if we made inquiries we would find that most other universities have complaints, not about academic luxuries but about the absolute necessities of academic and non-academic staff - about the material requirements of the universi ties. The Commonwealth has a pretty high power body, the Australian Universities Commission, which is supposed to make the triennial grants. Was my colleague from Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) right when he said that for political purposes the recommendations of the Australian Universities Commission are being pruned to meet what the Government is prepared to make available? If this is so, it is no wonder our universities are struggling. The honourable member for Bendigo recounted the even sorrier plight of the new colleges of advanced education. 1 have examined the schedule to the Bill which contains details of allocations for each of the universities, but the Parliament has not been told anything about what these amounts mean in relation to the number of staff at the various levels. We have been given no information about what kind of staff-student ratio will be provided for over the triennium. We do not get any of this kind of information. Whence are we supposed to derive it? It is about time the Government recognised that if these matters are to be considered in a serious vein - if they are to be considered in a sensible way - honourable members must have the sort of information that I am suggesting should have been made available. Even in the field where the Government prides itself on being relatively generous there are distinct problems. I am not sure that the grants that are being made under the provisions of these 2 Bills will remedy the problems.

Before I resume my seat I warn to add my words to the pleas that have been made in so many other places already, that it. is about time the Commonwealth shared 50-50 with the universities in respect of recurrent grants - the running costs of universities and the salaries and that sort of thing. These are really big items for any institution and it is not good enough for the Commonwealth to ask the States to meet these costs on the basis of a Si commonwealth contribution for every SI. 85 that the State spends. This is an almost $2 for Si relationship. I do not think the States will ever overcome their problems, and their lower levels of education will not improve while the States are required to spend $1.85 to obtain a grant of SI from the Commonwealth. I think that the Wark Committee and various other committees recommended that the Commonwealth should contribute $1 for $1 for recurrent grants just as it does with respect to capital grants.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to mention only 2 quick points. During the remarks of the last speaker, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) it was obvious that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) was stung by the attacks on the preference which is given to students from private schools in receiving scholarships and subsidies for university education. These are given to students-

Mr Birrell:

– From privileged homes.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– To children coming from privileged homes, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide points out. It may be of interest to honourable members to know that last year, when 1 was in medical practice in the Parramatta district, I received an invitation to an afternoon tea reception at Kings School. The function was organised by the Parramatta Federal Electorate Council of the Liberal Party, ft was, 1 understand, a fund-raising function at which, for $5 to help the Minister for Education and Science, T was permitted to go to the school and meet the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and Mrs Gorton and have afternoon tea with them. It was interesting that this private school, a nonpolitical school, should be used for the purposes of raising money for the Liberal Party. It is not surprising that the Government replies in kind to such schools. When we applied to the same school to use its services for a political function, since the school was apparently available for such purposes, we received an unsatisfactory reply. The school did not seem to be keen to hold a function for the Australian Labor Party to raise funds for its candidate.

I said that I wanted to raise 2 points. The first concerns the question of salaries. There has been a significant increase in the salaries of university lecturers and professors, and I am not criticising this, but when we talk about difficulties in education, problems in education and the crisis in education, it is interesting to note that in 1952 the salary of a subject master in the New South Wales Department of Education was approximately equal to that of a university lecturer whereas in 1970 the salary of the subject master is approximately only two-thirds of that of a university lecturer. In 1952 the salary of a headmaster in a secondary school in New South Wales was approximately 90 per cent of that of a university professor, but now it has dropped to 61 per cent of the salary of a professor. It is quite obvious that there is a tendency for teachers in secondary schools, and more so, no doubt, for teachers in primary schools, to be treated as second rate teachers in respect of salaries and conditions.

My second point concerns a reference in the Minister’s second reading speech to the fact that the Bill includes funds lo certain university officers in medical schools. This raises again the question of the payment of honorary medical officers. Those honourable members who know the setup in medical schools attached to universities are probably aware that the teaching at these medical schools, inasmuch as it is clinical teaching, is carried out by the honorary medical officers of the hospitals attached to the universities. Until fairly recently it was accepted that only an honorarium was to be paid to those medical officers. Now the position has changed. A recent statement by the President of the Royal College of Physicians in Victoria shows that there are now only 27 per cent of physicians in completely private practice in that State. I am nol objecting to this. T think it is a trend which is inevitable and in the interests of the patients, but it is certainly a trend which must be considered by the Government in conjunction with the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes). The whole question arises of bow to reimburse the clinical teachers of the medical students. The surgeons are probably able to look after themselves reasonably well because of the general bias in fees under the National Health Scheme towards surgeons; there is a return of most of the expenditure of the patients. As far as teaching physicians are concerned a relatively large amount of time is spent on teaching and they are unable to earn enough money in the time that is available for seeing patients. Therefore, the question of payments must be considered.

I am pleased to see that the Government has decided to subsidise the universities to pay sessional fees to those medical teachers.

I hope the State Governments, when they decide on a change in the method of honorary medical officers in hospitals other than teaching hospitals, will also adopt that system of sessional fees rather than the proposition put up by the Australian Medical Association in New South Wales for payment on the basis of fees for services which would give huge incomes to those medical officers in these hospitals who probably least deserve the extra income.

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

– in reply - These 2 Bills do 2 things. Firstly, they carry out the recommendations of the Sweeney Committee which recommended that where a college of advanced education employed a lecturer who had the same qualifications or was doing the same work as his opposite number in a university he should have the same salary. This involved an increase in the salaries of these people in colleges of advanced education and this Bill provides for the Commonwealth’s share of that increase. All the States to a greater or lesser degree have agreed to carry out the Sweeney Committee’s recommendations and this Bill will enable the Commonwealth to do its part in raising that range of salaries. Secondly, the Eggleston Committee recommended certain increases in the salaries of University professors, readers and lecturers as from 1st January. We announced that we would pay our share of this increase to any States which adopted this particular recommendation of the Eggleston Committee. All the States now have adopted it and this Bill will enable us to carry out our promise and meet our share of the increase in salaries. This flows across to the colleges of advanced education.

Two matters were raised on which perhaps I should comment. Some observations were made about the percentage of gross national product which this country devotes to education. I do point out that this country is very often compared with countries whose figures include such items as the following in their educational expenses: school meals, free milk, the nation’s cultural activities, scientific research, sport, youth activities, child welfare, armed services colleges, radio and television and so on. We do not include any of these things in our educational expenses. If we compare our figures with those of countries which load up their education expenses with these items of course we will not compare favourably. If one travels around the world and looks at the other educational systems one sees a different picture comparatively. Of course, whilst there are problems in this country which is advancing faster now under the present Government than it has done in its history, it is in fact giving a better education than most other countries.

Another point I wish to refer to concerns the abolition of universty fees. This has been mentioned and it has been suggested that this would be beneficial to people who could not go to the university at the present time. I do not want to take up the time of the House but I would point out a number of simple facts. If we abolish university fees we will not create one more place at a university; not one more place. To do that we would have to have capital to erect buildings, and provide recurrent expenses to employ lecturers. We will not create one more place by abolishing university fees so whoever is getting the university education free will have to compete for the existing number of places. The National Union of University Students has estimated that of the total cost of going to the university, fees represent, in the case of people living at home, about 25 per cent. For those who are not living at home the fees represent about 20 per cent of the total cost, about one fifth. What honourable members are talking about is approximately one fifth of the cost of going to the university. They are not even starting with the problem. And this alone would cost very close to $15m a year. The Opposition needs to know what it is talking about. It is talking about a very much larger figure than $15m a year.

When they are considering this they need also to consider that one of the reasons why some people have difficulty in attending a university is that they do not want to forgo the earning capacity they would have if they did not go to the university. They could be earning money. They have to give that away and go to the university and we cannot cure that by abolishing fees, except in only a fraction of the cases. Therefore, all we are doing is allowing some additional people, a fraction of them, to compete for the existing number of places. What would actually happen in the main is that the same people would get these places. All that would be occurring would be that we are giving them a bonus whereas at the moment they can afford fees and do pay them.I think there are other ways of dealing with those who are in need and they are much better ways. This looks simple enough but in fact it is a complex problem and the Opposition is endeavouring to oversimplify it. It is not the way to cure this particular problem. It is a gross oversimplification.

Mr Beazley:

– Does the figure of$15m allow for the abolition of fees under scholarships? Is this a net increase?

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

– I will not take up the time of the House other than to say that if we abolish the fees in universities it will cost $11. 5m and this would be after making the adjustment of the saving to the Commonwealth through having abolished certain income tax collections. There are a number of such matters with which the Opposition will be familiar. We cannot abolish those fees without abolishing the fees to colleges of advanced education and if we did that the adjusted figure would be of the order of $3m a year after adjustments for income tax. This would involve a total cost of $14.5m a year without the Government actually achieving anything for the people in need. This is one of these terribly sad matters which hold out expectations to the people - ‘independence for New Guinea in 1972’, ‘free education at tertiary level’. They sound simple. They can be said in a sentence and they do not mean a thing.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3055

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 October (vide page 2645), on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3055

EDUCATION RESEARCH BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 October (vide page 1976) on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– This measure does not actually set up the body that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) mentions in the attachment to his second reading speech. If one goes through the Bill one finds no mention of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education. As far as the Bill is concerned the responsible granting authority is the Minister himself. Behind the Minister is this advisory committee consisting of a number of distinguished academics, educationalists and administrators. In his second reading speech the Minister pointed out that the Commonwealth is already assisting educational research through a number of bodies. The Australian Research Grants Committee conducts research into some aspects of education. The Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, the Australian Council for Educational Research and the Australian science education project conduct research into education. The tertiary education entrance project researches some aspects.

There now appears to be the addition of a sixth force in granting assistance to education. I do not say it is a body because the Bill does not set up the body. The sixth force is the Minister himself. The Minister also draws our attention to the fact that the Government made an election promise to stimulate educational research by special assistance commencing with the allocation of $250,000 in the 1970-71 Budget. This Bill provides the fulfilment of the promise of $250,000 in this first year.

The Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), in the days when he was a private member was passionately interested in Aboriginal culture. He succeeded in inducing the Government to set up the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. This research body was set up as a statutory body. Applications are made to it for research into Aboriginal music, languages, rituals or any aspect of Aboriginal culture. A tremendous development has taken place in the study of the Aboriginal people because of grants made by this body which was very largely the work of the Minister for Social Services. Originally he was on its council.

The Opposition feels that there should be a statutory body - not an advisory body - behind the Minister for Education and Science, to which body applications could be made by those who wish to do significant educational research. What is needed in this country is virtually a royal society of education. Accordingly, the Opposition will move a second reading amendment to the effect that what the Minister has made an advisory body should be a statutory body and that it should report annually to Parliament the principles on which it is operating, the research projects it has approved and the whole of its operations. We do not want to oppose the Bill. What we want to do is shift the basis of the Minister’s advisory committee. We believe that this will be a more fruitful approach. We believe that people would feel more free to approach an educational body in applying for assistance for significant research than they would if the fundamental approach was to the Minister and, behind the Minister, this advisory committee.

I do not want to delay the House over this measure. I stress mat the Opposition supports the second reading of the Bill. I propose to make a second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘the House while not refusing a second reading to the Education .Research Bill is of the opinion that the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education should be a statutory body reporting its principles, actions and recommendations annually to Parliament’.

Mr Bryant:

– I second the amendment.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– The purpose of this Bill is to provide a basis for legislation in the programme of assistance to research in education which was outlined to the Parliament by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) in April of this year and introduced in accordance with the statement of policy made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) during last year’s election campaign. lt is very nice to see that the Opposition, headed by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), is almost totally in accord with the provisions of this Bill. We will doubtless argue at a later stage in Committee the rights and wrongs of the proposed amendment by which the honourable member for Fremantle wishes to change this body from an advisory capacity to a statutory body. To me at the moment that is of reasonably marginal significance. The greater purport of this Bill is in fact that it provides for research in the field of education itself. We might well ask why it is necessary to provide $250,000 for this purpose but if we look to see what, for example, the field of education per se has received from the Australian Research Grants Committee we find that the amounts have been relatively small, varying recently between about $32,000 and $80,000. Compared with individual science projects which receive amounts of the order of $40.000-odd, that is small peas.

There are 2 reasons, perhaps, why that is so and why this provision is the more necessary. One is that the area of educational research is, to some extent, selfdefeating. It is a field in which practically everybody thinks he knows, and sometimes does know, what the researchers are talking about because they are talking about people, about teaching them, about entrance qualifications and leaving qualifications and these sorts of things, and almost any member of the community with an IQ of average’ level or above is likely to understand what is being talked. This is different from a scientific field like chemistry or physics, where the more rarefied the subject the less likely is the public to understand. Another discipline has previously run into this problem, that of sociology. To some extent it avoided the problem by developing an enormous jargon so that very simple propositions were dressed up in very complex words. I do not need to provide illustrations for honourable members to know what I am talking about.

Something of the same sort of thing came to pass in the field of education. It is, of course, a self-defeating process because if in fact the terminology - the technical terms - becomes jargon it is seen to be fairly unnecessary for the purpose of the research or the teaching at issue and it tends to bring a certain disrepute on the science, discipline or art concerned. That is the responsibility of the field itself labouring, as it were, under certain difficulties. There is another problem which is not the making of the discipline, and that is one which is common to the arts, the humanities and the social sciences as distinct from the pure and the applied sciences. It is simply the problem of quantification versus qualification.

When one can show figures, when one can produce formulae, when one can get all sorts of impressive results - whether or not they are in scientific terms impressive - it is fairly easy to make a case and it is fairly easy to get equipment of a tangible kind, often very expensive, to proceed with a particular project or series of projects. Also it has become the case that because of the complexity of these things there has been a tendency for team work, for numbers of people to link up and put a joint case and thereby to strengthen that particular case for funds. The same has not been true of the humanities where, for the most part, people have tended to work individually, although in the social sciences - admittedly to a lesser extent than in the sciences - there is this team work tendency.

So, both for reasons of its own fallibility and for reasons which are more or less beyond its control the field of education has found it difficult, I believe, to commandeer the funds for research into education which some other fields, notably the scientific fields, have been able to command for their research processes. The provision of this $250,000, in terms of what I have already said, obviously puts pressure upon the educationists who are involved in the research which may come about, and puts them on their mettle, not only to justify their projects but also to minimise their jargon and to minimise those aspects of their findings which may make them incomprehensible to the people and the public who are most interested in seeing those findings appear.

We do not wish to keep the House unduly long in this debate because the 2 sides of the House are in fairly substantial agreement that the provision is a good one. But may I just touch very briefly on several fields which may well be of interest to the educational researchers. We have already had mention somewhere in one of the relevant debates of the question of entrance qualifications. There is in progress under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science, and through certain State authorities working in collaboration, investigation into the tertiary entrance education project known to those in the trade as TEEP, and this is rather a gratifying development in the light of the fairly considerable criticism which has been made from time to time of the fallibility and the imperfection of testing to get people into universities.

It is also very heartening if one looks a little further afield to see that we recognise some of our imperfections and are looking constantly for better ways to identify those people who are suitable for further education beyond the secondary sphere, lt makes a very nice contrast, for example - if I may be a little irrelevant - to the resurgence of university attendance in the last few weeks or months in mainland China. The universities have once again opened but unfortunately their entrance qualifications have political connotation and are by adherence to the thoughts of Chairman Mao. We are a long way from that sort of entrance qualification and it is rather nice to see that we realise that we have not yet reached perfection. That is one of the fields which can be and is being pursued.

One of the others I might mention is, for example, the question of class sizes. I do not want to dwell upon this but there has been a report produced recently to suggest that small class sizes do not necessarily produce totally good effects on the students involved in them compared with large class sizes. It has been assumed for a long time that a figure of 30 was an admirable optimum class size in, say, a seconday or even primary school and anything beyond that created all sorts of tensions and pressures which were inimical to the process of education. That may not be so although one suspects that there are a number of factors at work and a good deal of results such as this one will be required to refute the long standing assumption that classes of more than 30 produce problems.

The main points which I want to touch on are in relation to the possibilities for educational research - and I only just raise a few to bring to people’s minds the sorts of fairly basic things which are of some consequence to the Commonwealth and the well-being of the country, its students and its educators. I refer in particular to the field of comprehensive schooling, something which is now widespread in this country following on its introduction longsince in the United States and then its fairly wholesale application under a Labour Government in the United Kingdom. If honourable members were to read a paper titled ‘Black Paper 2’ produced by Cox and others which is in the Parliamentary Library, they would see some of the most cogent arguments which I have yet read of an educational kind and which in the main refute many of the previous assumptions that comprehensiveness is best and the basic problem here is that there tends to be an assumption, for those particularly interested in equality as against equality of opportunity, that to provide comprehensiveness means that those who would otherwise be disadvantaged may in fact be advantaged.

Mr Beazley:

– Your Government abolished the selective entry into Canberra high schools and Liberal governments did the same thing in the States.

Dr SOLOMON:

– -That may be. Whichever government may have initiated these things in whichever country, there is now significant evidence to indicate that it may have been in error. I submit that a very interesting anomaly can be shown here. The comprehensive basis or judgment of education suggests that there is a very considerable infusion of social awareness that academic judgment alone - I mean the testing of academic ability - is insufficient or inadequate. We know that to be true, but the problem is what to substitute. I am rather of the opinion that to substitute an area from which you take all the people, whatever they are like, as it were, and put them into one institution is not necessarily the best answer.

In Tasmania we have something which is almost in direct contrast with that. It provides, as I see it, something of an educational anomaly. There are institutions - only a few - known as matriculation colleges. Their function simply is to get together into one concentrated institution the leading classes of secondary schooling of the last couple of years or so and to provide better teaching facilities and better teaching personnel. The obvious advantage of that can be seen in terms of the specialisation and the economies of scale which may be involved. But the basis of this has an academic emphasis. It is the taking of an academic judgment so as to put into the one pot all the people who can best benefit intellectually from a particular concentrated environment. It almost completely negates the great interest in the social context, which I have just outlined in relation to comprehensive schools. In other words, in matriculation colleges academic interest or academic ability is paramount. You cut off the tail of the school. You have people from only the upper levels of the secondary school. They have no lesser lights to which to be kind. You have cut off the tail of the social environment.

Even though many people look at these institutions, as yet in their infancy, and say: ‘That looks to be academically very good’, they may also have looked at the old Fort Street High School or the old Sydney High School and said exactly the same, but there the social tail had not been cut off. I hope that I have not obscured the point. On the one hand, we have an academic judgment with the rebuff of social judgments. On the other hand we have social infusions which tend to dilute academic judgments. These are fields which 1 think properly can stand a great deal more investigation and testing. Of course, there are many other fields. We could call to mind, for example, the problems which are known to plague some country people whose children have to go to city schools. These people may be still not adequately provided for financially in the sense that they have to keep their children away from home; there is no local high school to which to send them, and so on. This is an area which might well be looked at even further than has been the case up to the present time.

We may even take on a field which was mentioned by several honourable members in an earlier debate today. They spoke of the democratisation of institutions by the placing of lay people on the governing bodies of these institutions. It may even lend itself to educational research. Perhaps we .could look into the question of what is the optimum composition of the governing body of institutions of a largely autonomous kind. This, as I say, may be yet another field of a seemingly marginal nature, but perhaps an important one in the light of earlier discussions in this chamber. Perhaps money might be expended in this field. I do not wish to take up the time of the House further. I merely say that the appearance of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education, which the Minister has set up, is to all intents and purposes very good. Professor Partridge, the Chairman of the Committee, is well known, I think, to most honourable members by name if not in person. I think that I know only one other member of the Committee personally - Mr Bob Coggins from South Australia. He being a person of considerable integrity personally and in the education sphere, I was only too happy to see him on the Committee. I cannot speak for the other members, and perhaps we should not judge a committee such as this by the numbers of its personnel. But of course, when we have the names in front of us it is rather nice to see that at least the members known to us have a high standing. Therefore it can be suggested that this Advisory Committee might well fulfil the task for which the Minister has inaugurated it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has raised some important matters for, 1 should think, public debate, academic consideration and so on. They are subjects which perhaps we ought to debate more freely and which ought to be thrown into the educational arena more often. I question 1 point which he made. He asked: Who can benefit most from education? So far as I can tell from recent reading and recent research, it appears that no-one is quite sure who will benefit most from any form of education. We do not know how a person who performs in a certain way at the age of 17 years will perform at the age of 22 years. We do not know what kind of talent lies wasting in the minds of so many children who have left school. All these questions remain unanswered. For myself, I would be very reluctant to accept a special streaming for gifted children or anything of that sort, although I think you can make a strong case for the provision of specialised treatment inside schools. These are questions which I suppose have not been resolved satisfactorily in most parts of the world.

Turning to the Bill that is before us - and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has placed an amendment before the House in relation to the Bill - this is an important new venture. One might say that the Education Research Bill is almost a landmark in the educational attitudes of this Government. It is a new venture to that extent. What we have to understand is the importance of Commonwealth initiative in this field. We are not playing for small stakes. Education is a tremendous undertaking. I think that approximately 100,000 employees are involved in education in Australia. That covers the teaching staffs and everybody else involved in education. There are between 2i million and 3 million children. Education costs about $ 1,200m a year. Some 10,000 buildings are occupied for educational purposes. Some of these buildings are very expensive and some are very humble.

So the task of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education, if it is going to gather the threads of thinking in the community and point them in the direction of effective research in education, is awe inspiring. I wonder whether the Committee has been provided with the necessary machinery. I wonder whether the beginning is not too tentative. We on this side of the chamber know quite well some of the personnel on the Committee, and we would respect all of them for their academic attainments. But there might be some narrowing of the field. Are there on the Committee enough practical people from the various areas of education? Of course, we could probably broaden such a committee in an almost limitless way, when we consider the whole breadth of education. My complaint is that the Commonwealth approaches this matter not so much with an effective responsibility of its own but rather by scattering largesse. It leaves it for somebody else to get on with the job. This has been the way in which the Commonwealth has approached education ever sinceI came to this Parliament and probably before then, too.

The Committee’s powers are purely advisory. When my friend the honourable member for Denison was referring to admission to universities he mentioned,I think, Chairman Mao. Admission to the research system will be on the commendation of Chairman Nigel in this regard, and he will not have much chance to initiate anything himself. The Committee is a purely advisory one. It will gather in those things which are happening, it will look at them and it will say: ‘We will support this one and we will not support that one.’ We in this House will not know who has applied for admission. We will know only the final results from a kind of perfunctory report which often comes to this House from this area. We believe that the Committee ought to be given a statutory life of itsown. Of course, the important criticism of this Government’s attitude to education at the Commonwealth level is that it farms out responsibility to somebody else.It waits for somebody else to take the initiative somewhere. The result then flows through the system. It seeps through and it is sieved along the line somewhere. We pick it up and say: ‘We will give that one a little encouragement.’

Australian educational research, like educational research throughout the world, is pretty perfunctory, but we are probably the worst of the lot.I have gathered a few comments from people who ought to know something about these matters. The comments come from the universities magazine of this year. One comment was:

  1. . our knowledge of the teaching process remains fragmentary, and asurvey of the literature on higher education in Australia reveals that teaching has been a relatively neglected area of research Perhaps the large number of variables which must be considered has discouraged such studies.

Let me refer to some comments made by Professor Sir Hugh Ennor when he was speaking at a memorial seminar on Australian education. He said:

It is a simple enough exercise to determine the size of the education industry but it is a much more difficult task to get an accurate picture of the research effort

I think this supports the view that this Committee ought to be given some kind of life of its own in which it can gather these strands together and take some executive initiative. Sir Hugh Ennor went on to say:

In 1966,as near as I can determine, there were about 300 people at the professional level, engaged in educational research.

He pointed out that about half of them were engaged in part time operations in the field and then went on to say: . . 80-90 per cent of educational research (in Australia) is carried out by the State Departments of Education, university Departments of Education and by post-graduate students working in these latter departments. The remainder of the research is covered mostly by the Australian Council for Educational Research and to a lesser extent by other agencies such as the small research group in my own Department in Canberra.

We want to see a little more effective research group established in that Department in Canberra. Of course education departments have a limited view of education in many regards. Their job is to try to get the most effective use of the resources at their disposal. Education departments would often be fairly narrow on this but this is no reflection upon the calibre of the people involved in the field. What has the Australian Council for Educational Research to say on this? These are the President’s views as expressed in his 1968 Frank Tate Memorial Lecture:

The conclusions, then, arising from my quick summary of the position are:

that there is an acute need for research into many problems in Australian education:

that the existing facilities, though soundly based and full of possibilities, are quite inadequate to cope with the many problems awaiting solution:

that the finance available for educational research is also quite inadequate if any progress is to be made in the solution of the many problems confronting educationists:

that there is a serious shortage in the numbers of educators trained in the techniques of research.

The President of ACER made some suggestions about the way we should handle the problem.I do not believe that the tentative steps we are taking here tonight will do enough in this direction.

What is needed? As Sir Hugh Ennor points out Australia has been very effective in research in the biological sciences, in the physical sciences and in certain areas of government but in educational research we are almost non-starters. There are lots of things we could do at the Commonwealth level. I am one of those who have been campaigning in this Parliament for a long time to get the Commonwealth to take direct steps, to take the initiative and to get on with the job itself. I think that we should examine some of the things that have occurred in the United States of America which has an even more complicated federal scheme than we have in some ways. For instance there is the Educational Research Information Centre, commonly known as ERIC in the American fashion, from which anybody can retrieve research and which of course embodies all kinds of systems for recording, collating and co-ordinating research.

We want research done in new teaching methods. We want curricula research done. We want to know more about the teaching process and bow knowledge is formed. We want to know a good deal about the economics of education. This is a pretty important field. We want to know whether we are getting full value for our $1 No-one wants to introduce a system of slavery into our education system, but we should know how much we are spending in the various areas of education. What is its productivity capacity? When we are talking about $ 1,200m and when we think of the countless thousands of buildings that are used and all the other capital works involved it is terribly important to understand the full economics of education. Can we take up the issue that was raised earlier tonight? Just what is the significance of the abolition of university fees? Is it just simply a matter of the abolition of the $15m that might be collected in university fees? ls the flow-back through the family that gets advantage out of that, whether the family is rich or poor, enough to warrant it? For my part 1 believe that as a social exercise it is; but what are the economic consequences?

Today is an important constitutional day in the history of the Australian Parliament We have been discussing 4 Bills this afternoon. One Bill was the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill, another dealt with universities, one with research - which is the one we are now debating - and one referred to Canberra. This happened in the institution which for so long was told it had no constitutional responsibility for edu cation. I suppose thai it was the high water mark when these Bills came into this House at the one time. Therefore I hope that this House will give serious consideration to the amendment now before us. The fact that we are taking some steps in this direction is important. I hope that the House will give earnest consideration to our proposition that this research unit should become a statutory body of its own, as was outlined by the honourable member for Fremantle, and that the Commonwealth should exercise the greatest initiative.

There is only one other comment t would like to make at this stage. It is an interesting commentary on the way this Parliament and this society and the political parties look at education. This afternoon we had the lone Horatius keeping the bridge on behalf of the Government parties, our friend the honourable member for Denison. He is a new member in this House but at least he has battled on manfully steeped in conservatism as he appears to be. He could have done with a little more support. All those people who want thousands of millions of dollars poured into wool, wheat, airports and so on might have given some thought to what ought to be done for the young people of Australia and our lagging and staggering education system. ,

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

would be good enough to tell me why the Commonwealth grant to the Australian Council for Educational Research was reduced from $50,000 as it was last year to $40,000 for this year. For those people who are interested in educational research the work of ACER is quite legendary. I will quote the titles of some of the big projects which ACER has taken on in “the last year or two. They include: junior secondary science projects; tertiary education entrance project; learning and teaching in colleges of advanced education; international study of educational achievement; study skills at primary levels; Commonwealth secondary scholarship examination; writing ability of secondary school pupils; closed-circuit television - the Malvern project; and the New South Wales basic skills testing programme. They are some of the projects which ACER investigated in the last few years. Perhaps I should have noticed during the estimates debate that the grant for ACER was reduced from $50,000 to $40,000. However I am rather perplexed as to the reason for the reduction in the grant. It is my view that it should be increased rather than reduced.

I certainly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) to give statutory authority to this Advisory Committee. The only other comment I want to make about that Advisory Committee is that I was wondering whether there could be a place on that Committee for representatives of practising teachers or of professional organisations. I am not necessarily thinking of teachers’ federations or teachers’ unions. I am thinking of bodies like the Australian College of Education or the various State institutes of educational research. These people are in the job of teaching and many of them are practitioners in the field. Part of the charter of this Committee is to promote not only the conduct of research but also the communication of research results - the application - as it is called. It is also part of its charter to help people to develop research techniques, to do courses, to help them with fees and to grant them allowances. This is quite an important part of the work and one that I applaud. I cannot help thinking that there might have been a place on the Committee for the people I have mentioned. I know some of the members of the Committee. They include Professor Mitchell and Mr David Verco, who unfortunately is rather ill at the moment and I hope that he will recover very shortly and take his place on the Committee, and Mr Albert Webster, Director of Planning, Department of Education in New South Wales. These people are suitable members for this Committee but I think that there should be a place on the Committee for someone who is in more direct daily contact with the action of teaching and the communication of research results in an acceptable form, or in a consumable form, if 1 may put it that way, for practising teachers in the field. A number of suggestions have been made as to the kind of projects that might be supported. I hope that when they get around to projects they will look at some of those that are widely embracing.

We have said before that there is still scope for carrying out a research project on the educational system as a whole. Whether this could be done by a group project I would not be prepared to say. The Minister might appreciate my remarks having regard to the meeting that we attended together on Sunday night last. There is a place for looking at education not only at levels but in particular localities. I am talking about education in socially, culturally, educationally and economically depressed areas. What has been talked about is a positive programme of discrimination in favour of such areas. We have looked at parts of the western region of Sydney. Unfortunately there are a lot of regions in our capital cities where something drastic has to be done. Such a project will embrace not only material educational provisions but also other associated matters involving social workers, housing, health provisions and so on.

We have examples of such projects being carried out in the United States. For instance, a project called ‘Headstart’ is being undertaken in that country. Such a project would tend to assist people in depressed or deprived areas. I hope that something might be done in the field of handicapped children. There are quite a number of projects that could be taken up there. I promised that I would not delay the House. However, I want to ask a question of the Minister about the survey which has been conducted by the Australian Education Council. It is entitled National Survey of Educational Needs’. People have said that the survey was not completed and that it is still in progress. They have said that the report that has been tabled is a rather faked report. As a matter of fact, it has been said by the President of the New South Wales Parents and Citizens Federation that the committee is still in operation on this matter and that the figure of expenditure needed over the next 5 years to bring education up to scratch is not a reliable figure because the research has not been completed. I wonder whether the Minister might give me some information on this matter.

Finally I want to correct some figures I gave in a speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 24th September. The Minister for Education and Science came into this House the other night and was manful enough to correct something he said in the House. I have to admit that I also made a mistake. In my speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) I referred to science laboratory and equipment grants. On that occasion, in speaking about what was granted in the last triennium, I said:

The amount .per head granted in private schools was $63.50 and the amount granted in State schools was $29.70, 46.7 per cent of what was granted in private schools.

I was in error. I had divided the total by the number of New South Wales students in secondary education instead of the total in the whole of Australia. However the broad argument still holds good; the correct figure should be in private secondary schools the amount is $23.64 per head and in government schools $10.90, which is 46.2 per cent of what was spent in private schools. My argument is still that this is a gross inequality of provision. However, I did want to take this opportunity to correct the figures. Apart from that, I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle.

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

– 1 want to make a couple of points in respect of this legislation. Firstly, the Bill seems to indicate that the research projects will be authorised by the Minister for Education and. Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) by making payments out. Clause 4 of the Bill indicates that these payments would be made to the States. I understand that the appropriate advisory committee will also be able to approve of projects. At the moment I would assume that this provision is contained somewhere in the Bill but I cannot find it. A publication entitled ‘Education News Gazette’ states that this committee may give financial assistance to educational research submitted to it or it may initiate research in areas of importance where little is being done. It is in this respect that I would like to make a couple of points which I think are very appropriate to the problems of New South Wales as I know them.

Education is the biggest business in any State. As it is the biggest business in all States it is the biggest business in the Commonwealth. The Minister for Education and Science has a very responsible portfolio. He has a big problem in the allocation of funds. If we look at lectures recently given we find that in the fields of research not enough has been done. We know the problems associated wilh school populations and universities. The real issues are: Are we getting the best from our education system? What is the best system? Why are there so many failures? What is the cause of drop-outs? What should be done to try to alleviate some of these problems? It was indicated in the course of submissions made to the Australian National University that in 1966 we had in Australia about 3 million students at all levels and that they were taught by an estimated 135,000 lecturers. These are significant figures. Further it was said that every State department has research teams, but all States are undertaking research within a limited field and to a large extent they are overwhelmed by the immediate problems referred to them. So, within the large problem that they have there are a number of immediate problems that they have to solve with their own research teams.

The question arises as to whether we are looking at the overall situation as it appears to me as a parent. We have a system which has encouraged the streaming of children in the sense of what might be called their aptitudes or their intelligence. I can be contradicted in this, but it appears that if a child is classified too early - say at first form at the age of 12 or 13 - as being only of pass level, research shows that this child is not motivated any more to try very hard. It has been proved that when a child has been classified as not being of the highest grade he thinks there is no need for him to make the application that others are making. This also creates an inferiority complex. This is particularly so when a child is at a school with other children who are undertaking studies at a higher level. I think research on this subject would show that some examinations at the lower level are producing marks as low as 10 or 12. It follows that that youngster obviously has a problem and the system itself is not really giving any education. The system merely classifies that unfortunate youngster who says: ‘I am not able to apply myself because I am not making the progress that other youngsters in the class are making’. Teachers, of course, are aware of the different intelligence levels of children. This problem has been mentioned in a publication called ‘Map of Educational Research’. It has been stated that there is a wide range of difference in intelligence levels which creates educational problems. It has been shown that by streaming children into what are deemed to be the brighter, the less bright and the dull, the bright certainly improve. This research has been undertaken by a gentleman named G. R. Cross. With the concurrence of honourable members 1 incorporate in Hansard a table headed ‘Achievement Quotients of Children in Different Streams at Various Stages of Schooling’.

Over a 2-year period the bright youngster between the ages of 8 and 10 years improved and the middle-of-the-road child did not show any change. But the child who was not making the same progress as the child at the highest level in fact dropped back. Mr Cross indicates that it is obviously not a good thing to stream or classify children too early because the one who is not so bright gets worse. He goes on to say that there has been further research done by a gentleman named Daniels in 1961 where, without the screening process, the youngsters were intermingled and very splendid progress was made by all of them.

That leads me to this comment: Could we not have some good look at what is known, without mentioning its name, as the present scheme in New South Wales? Could we not have a look at the problem of these youngsters and whether they are classified too early? Is it not true that in many cases a latent factor is involved? Obviously, many people go to university who might have just scraped into the entry faculty. Having got to that faculty, they really shine in it because they apply themselves to it. At that stage, they are more mature. They have matured at the age of 18 years or 19 years. They all know what they want to do and they are able to apply themselves to that end. It would have been unfair to classify them at the age of 12 years or 13 years because they might not have been interested then in history, geography, science or something of that nature and it might have been said that they should not pursue those subjects any further. 1 would like to think that this matter might be considered further and that it might be studied, not in any critical evaluation of the scheme but in seeking to have a look at the way in which it has worked especially with regard to examination results and with regard to young ladies who need every encouragement to continue their studies but who, if they obtain a bad rating on an early classification, are not likely to develop any aptitude for study.

We are spending a lot of money in the fields of science. This brings me to this point: 1 have a letter here from certain Ph. D. students at the University of New South Wales indicating that they expect to make the grade but that no employment opportunities are available for them. They wonder why so much money is being spent on science when our top men in this field who are about to graduate are not able to find opportunity for employment because they are classified as being in the ‘employee status’ which most of them are as scientists. Surely some research ought to be done to discover whether we are encouraging too many students to undertake study in a field in which no vacancies exist. One would like to think that there is something wrong in the fact that no vacancies are available and that more research ought to be done on the question of creating further vacancies.

I wish to deal with one final matter. I will do so briefly because the Opposition has made a promise not to delay the House. I did a bit of research myself into prisons in New South Wales. One of the striking failures of the human race when it comes to prisons is that inmates in prisons are all uneducated. It was startling in my limited research to find that 10 per cent of the prison population was illiterate. One can hardly imagine that this could have happened. It did not follow that they were all dull or mentally deficient. Many of them were quite bright.

Most of them were under the age of 23 years. It was quite evident that 70 per cent of them have been before the Children’s Court. So, they had failed at the time when they normally would have been at school. It was pretty evident also that the failure in most cases was due to the fact that they had not remained at school. It was further evident in most of the cases that the reason why they had not remained at school or succeeded was that there were problems at home in their environment. These problems were due to broken homes, neurotic parents, delinquent parents, alcoholism or a sheer inability on the part of parents to take an interest in their children. I would say that a splendid opportunity exists in this respect for research into the problems of youngsters. Teachers would know that certain youngsters were not necessarily making the grade at school and might look at the parents to see whether the problem rested there. As we.l as educating the parents, an opportunity might be taken to try to improve the home environment or to try to improve the attitude of the parents, in other words, because they might need further assistance as well.

A splendid example of the point I am making is to be found at the Chino Prison in California which has achieved an 80 per cent success rate with inmates by saturating culprits with education and classifying them as to vocational guidance. Throughout the whole prison system in New South Wales, there is an 80 per cent failure. We read now of further disasters because nothing but disasters could follow from this system as a result of the fact that no research has been carried out into it.

The solution to the problem is education. lt is not the punitive power of sending someone to prison. This is no deterrent. These people keep going back. Society thinks that by sending a person to prison that person will be redeemed and reformed. In fact, he is not, because he is not taught anything. One New South Wales penitentiary with 1,400 inmates has one tutor for all of those inmates. The situation is ridiculous. I would like to think that a research grant could be provided for investigations in this field. Research could show one way in which the crime hazard could be reduced. Many splendid people, if some money was provided to research this problem, would try to seek a solution. State Governments could be encouraged to look at it. This can be done only in the way in which a research student could encourage them. The imprimatur of somebody of high quality would be needed. Somebody who would obtain grants for this purpose would be required so that this work could be done.

There are many fields in which research is essential now. I have mentioned just one or two of them. They are very important. I think that it is vital also that we try to set up the statutory advisory committee chat our amendment proposes. I am not critical of the members that we have. But I would like to think that the membership might be a little wider. No harm would be done if a member of Parliament was a member of the committee as well. A number of members might be appointed to the committee. These members might assist in an advisory way because they are mixing at all levels of society and they are mixing with the problems of life. They know perhaps where some need exists which could well be evaluated by splendid research. To that extent, I support the amendment.

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

– in reply - Before dealing with the proposed amendment and the general topic of the Bill, perhaps I might refer to a couple of points raised by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). He suggested that, whereas the Australian Council for Education Research had had $50,000 in I year - according to his figures - the amount appeared to have been reduced to $40;000. This is an accountancy conclusion. I wish to inform the honourable member that this arose in the following way. The former figure that we supplied to the Council was $30,000 a year. This was increased during 1969 to an annual rate of $40,000. It remains at that figure, lt happened that 2 of the additional payments of $10,000 were made in the one financial year. This is why it appeared that the Council received $50,000 in the year in question.

The second point which the honourable member raised was the question of the survey of needs. He pointed out that some member of a parents organisation, I think, had suggested that it was a faked report or that the figures in it were not reliable because the inquiry was still continuing.

I point out that this survey was one conducted by the State governments and. to that extent, it is not one for which I have or the Commonwealth has responsibility. On the other hand, I was invited to the meeting of the Australian Educational Council on 25th May of this year at which the report was presented to the State Ministers. I was there by invitation. It was, in its way, a complete report. I do not think that it would be correct to say that the figures are faked or wrong. It may be said to some extent that there is a difference between the States in the way in which they made valued judgments in relation to arriving at the figures of the buildings that would be needed. It was complete as regards government schools.

There was 1 area in which it was incomplete. We had asked them whether they would cover in the survey the needs for the next 5 years not only of government schools but also of independent schools. In May of this year, the figures for the independent schools were not complete. It is true that inquiries are still proceeding to obtain those figures. But that is the only respect in which in a formal sense the figures were not complete.

Coming to the question of the amendment, I state first that I hope that this advisory committee will do very valuable work. It is one of the committees - and there are a number - which will be concerned with the quality of education and with the objectives and the methods of education. A couple of weeks ago, I announced the appointment of a national committee to advise on social science teaching. For some time now, we have been supporting the Australian science education project looking at the curriculum and the materials for science teaching. This particular committee will be directing its attention towards high level research into education which I think has been inadequately covered in Australia. I have great hopes that it will do extremely valuable work.I think that honourable members will agree that the calibre of the people appointed to the committee - they have been announced independently - indicate that it is a high level committee.

The amendment really suggests 2 things. Firstly, it suggests that the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and

Development in Education should be a statutory body. Perhaps time will tell whether it should have any more formal structure than it has at the moment. At present it is an advisory body. It advises the Minister, who on that advice makes the final decision.I should point out that in our form of government there is at least the advantage, in having that kind of structure, that the Minister is directly responsible from day to day in the Parliament. He can be asked questions on notice or without notice as to details. He can be challenged in the House at any time. He is politically responsible. I think, therefore, that the present structure, particularly in the initial stages, is an adequate structure. The second point which the amendment raises is whether this body should report annually to the Parliament its principles, actions and recommendations. I suggest to the House that this matter is sufficiently covered in clause 8 of the Bill. This clause provides that the Minister shall report annually the operations of this scheme, giving the following particulars:

  1. a description of each research project. . . .

He is required to give a great deal of other detailed information, including the following:

  1. in respect of each research project so approved, the name of the person by whom, or the body or institution by which, the research project is to be carried out;
  2. the amount of the payments made. . . .
  3. a description of each course of training . . .
  4. the rate and amount of any living allowance, and the amount of any payments. . . .

Finally, clause 8 (2.) states:

Each report shall include a statement of the principles and procedures followed by the Minister during the year to which the report relates in approving research projects.

This is one of the most detailed requirements of reporting to this House that is contained in any modern Bill that has passed through the House. If we pass this Bill, this report will be about as detailed as any report required by legislation passed in recent years. It will be broader. I think that the Parliament should see, from a report laid on the table of the House, exactly what has been done in this field, and it should have an opportunity to ask questions on it and to debate it. I think that if honourable members look at clause 8 they will find that the present provisions of the Bill are entirely adequate in this respect. For these reasons the Government does not feel that it should accept the amendment which has been proposed by the honourable member for Fremantle.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 47

Majority…… 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Debate interrupted.

page 3067

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! It being after 11 p.m. and in accordance with the order of the House of 26th August I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3068

EDUCATION RESEARCH BILL 1970

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3068

LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1.5 October (vide page 2227), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– This is only a minor Bill. The Lighthouses Act probably has been amended on fewer occasions than any other piece of Commonwealth legislation. The Bill sets out to modernise the terminology of the Act by deleting the definition marine mark.’ and substituting ‘marine navigational aid’; to bring the Act up to date in accordance with the requirements of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1960; and to extend the provisions of the Act to cover a lighthouse and 2 beacons established in the Coral Sea Islands territory. The Lighthouses Act is concerned with the provision, operation and maintenance of aids to marine navigation On and in waters around the coast of Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Throughout Australia there are 56 manned light stations, 194 unattended lights. 25 light buoys, 3 unlighted buoys, 2 light vessels, 27 day beacons, 11 radio beacons, 1 high frequency direction finding station. 1 electronic ship guidance system recently installed in Western Australia and in Papua and New Guinea there are 67 night and 65 day beacons, all unattended. All these aids are. serviced by three 1.500-ton lightships- the ‘Cape Pillar’, the Cape Moreton’ and the ‘Cape Don’. These 3 ships were built at the State dockyard in Newcastle, if I may give the establishment a little commercial. They are 3 good ships which are well built. As well as these lightships there are 2 smaller ships, one on Thursday Island and one on Samarai, which are charged with the responsibility of maintaining all these lights.

Shipping on the Australian coast over recent years has had to rely for navigation on the standard compass radar directional finding equipment without the assitance of modern electronic equipment. There have been very few navigational aids introduced to the Australian coast for many years with the exception of the Decca system to cover the approaches to Port Hedland on the Western Australian coast. Over recent years there have been numerous statements by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) and his Department. As far back as 17th October 1967 there was an announcement that some $15m to $20m would be spent to modernise and re-equip Australia’s marine navigation system and that the Government intended examining the world’s most comprehensive and sophisticated marine navigational aid system. The Government then sponsored a symposium in Sydney by the Decca Navigating Company in London and its Australian partner, Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Ltd from 25th to 29th March 1968. At that symposium over 370 representatives ot Government service department.1!, marine aviation and commercial interests attended, and it appeared at that time that at least something was going to happen and that the Government would get on with the job of providing modern navigational aids for the coast.

Then there was a deathly silence until 1st September 1968 when the Minister made another of his longwinded statements wherein he repeated what had been released by the Department back in February of the same year. At that time when he made this further statement the measures which he announced were to be taken were to speed up the installation of additional basic aids such as lights, beacons, buoys and radio aids. This was considered necessary both to meet the present everyday needs of shipping and to reduce travelling time between ports; to initiate a detailed study of the applicability to Australian conditions of advanced systems of electronic aids to shipping such as the

Decca and Lawrence systems; to modernise progressively existing aids and servicing facilities with appropriate use of new instruction techniques, automation and remote control and progressively to improve all transport involved in ensuring maximum effectiveness in the operation of these aids. One was entitled to feel at that time that something was at last under way. By that time the shipping industry felt that the Government was going to get on with the job. But it was not until 11th May this year that the Decca electronic navigational aid became operative for the narrow channels leading to Port Hedland, 2i years after the first announcement early in 1968 and in all probability somewhere around about 3 years from the time the first statement was made by the former Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Honourable Gordon Freeth. Today there is a strong feeling of urgency in shipping and naval circles for the Government to undertake a substantial development programme having in mind that over the years insufficient money has been spent in this field. I am advised by people in this industry that lights are very old. radio beacons are very limited, weak and not very effective.

The old days of small ships trading on the coast and overseas have gone. I personally recall that in pre-war and early post-war times iron ore was carried in ships of less than 10,000 tons. When the first 10,000-tonner was put on the coast run carrying ore from South Australia to Port Kembla and Newcastle we thought it was a really large ship. Today ore carriers larger than 100.000 tons are operating on the west coast, and ore carriers of from 50,000 tons to 70.000 tons are carrying ore from Western Australia to Port Kembla and Newcastle. Wheat carrying ships of up to 50,000 tons dead weight are lifting wheat from Australian ports. Bulk carriers of between 50.000 tons and 60.000 tons are shipping coal to Japan.

When Australian ports are enlarged much bigger ships will be introduced to this trade. Inquiries, investigations and negotiations are being carried out at present to decide whether deep sea loading ramps or jetties can be built out into the ocean so that ships much larger than those already on the trade may be introduced. This will mean that coal and other bulk cargoes can be carried much cheaper than at present. Ships of this size are carrying not only coal but also bauxite and alumina. In 1969 213 tankers of between 18,000 and 101,000 tons carried 5,226,000 gallons of our total imports of crude oil. To this must be added the volume of petroleum products and crude oil carried on the Australian coast.

It is obvious that there is a need for more modern and up to date navigational aids to be introduced on the Australian coast. In addition to the ships I have detailed faster and larger tankers are now operating between Australia and Europe. Additional ships will be brought into the trade, not only for the Australia to Europe trade but also for the shipping trade between Australia and Japan and Australia and the United States. I believe that these ships should have on the Australian coast the navigational aids that are available to them in other countries. Ships are not only larger today but also much faster. What is more, they will become larger and faster. In the main, the industry has to rely on antiquated navigational systems around our 12.000 miles of coastline. Ships are sailing in many cases in waters not previously frequented by shipping of the size of present day vessels. There is a great need for the Government to follow up what it commenced at Port Hedland.

I do not propose to say what system should be introduced. Several types of electronic aids are available. This decision is a matter for people well versed in the field, with the necessary training and qualifications to make these decision. I will not say at this stage what system should be selected. It appears that the Decca system is one of the most suitable systems, having been in operation in all areas of the United Kingdom for about 20 years. I understand that the system was perfected for the Allied landing at Normandy during World War II. Without being critical of the excellent service provided by the Torres Strait pilot service, I believe that there is a strong claim for the installation of an electronic navigational system in Torres Strait and Barrier Reef waters.

On 12th May the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) in a reply to a question I had asked advised me that the figures for 1966-67 - the latest available at that time - showed that 1,259 ships with a total dead weight tonnage of 23,251,931 tons, and an average per ship tonnage of 18,469 dead weight used those waters. Further, 212 vessels of over 30,000 tons dead weight, with a total tonnage of 9,274,643 tons dead weight and an average dead weight per ship of 43,748 tons were carrying bulk commodities in those waters. They carried 2.5 million tons of iron ore; 3 million tons of petroleum and crude oil; 530,000 tons of sugar and 280,000 tons of steel products. As I have mentioned, these figures were for the year 1966-67. The position is that here we have limited channels. Let us take the case of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ which went aground earlier this year and which could have caused a considerable amount of damage to marine life, to the Australian coast and to the Great Barrier Reef. It is the general opinion that if an electronic aid of the quality of the Decca system recently installed by the Government on the approaches to Port Hedland had been available in these waters this accident would not have occurred.

Large ships are using waters of limited depth From the figures made available by the Minister in his statement, it would appear that in many parts the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ was almost literally skimming the bottom. Where it went aground it seemed that the ship was being taken through water which was too shallow. The other place which should be considered for the installation of this type of navigational aid is Bass Strait where we have oil and gas platforms from 15 to 50 miles from the shore. The sea lanes here arc subjected to bad weather. It is a well known fact that Bass Strait has some of our worst weather. We have some oil platforms out there in the sea lanes. It is probably good luck that up to date there have been no fatalities or accidents. Of course, we always adopt the attitude - up to date we have been fairly lucky - that this cannot happen here; it can only happen to the other fellow.

We do not want to see another ‘Torrey Canyon’ incident. We do not want to see ships colliding with the oil platforms. A collision with a gas platform would be bad enough, but I would hate to think what would happen to the Tasmanian and Victorian coastlines if a ship collided with an oil platform. It is time a system of naviga tional aids was introduced. There is a need for this thpe of system on the east coast of Australia also. People in shipping circles and in the maritime industry all assure me that, as far as they are concerned, they would be delighted to see the Government undertaking at an early stage, and treating as a matter of urgency, the installation of an electronic navigational system on the east coast of Australia. Furthermore, these aids are also required for Darwin, Gove and Weipa where radar is sometimes unserviceable and useless as a result of torrential downpours. Ships’ captains have advised me that they have experienced the screen being subject to clutter as a result of torrential downpours of rain in the areas I have just mentioned, as well as at Thursday Island and the Barrier Reef areas. These are areas where up to the present time we have been lucky.

While it is compulsory for ships of less than 1,600 tons to be equipped with radio telephones, if they are over 1,600 tons they are required to have radio telegraphy installed. But there is no compulsion, even though nearly all the ships on the Australian coast are fitted with radar, for ships to have radar installed. There is no requirement in the Navigation Act, as there is for radio, that the ship owner must have radar installed on his ship. As I said, even though most of them are equipped, there is no reason why all ships should not be equipped with radar. All the major trading countries of the world have various types of electronic navigational aids. The Decca system which, as I said, has been installed on the approaches to Port Hedland, is operating on the west coast of Europe, the United Kingdom and the Atlantic coast of Canada and, in recent months, a new system has been completed at Los Angeles and on the Florida coast. At present a survey is under way along the coast of Alaska to see what protection should be given to ships carrying ore and other commodities in those waters.

The oil companies have been instrumental in having a system installed in the Persian Gulf, but there is no similar system operating on the Australian coast. There should be a system to guide large bulk ships and tankers through Torres Strait and down past the Barrier Reef or, as the case may be, through Bass Strait. If oil companies can get these things installed in the Persian Gulf why cannot they get them in Australian waters? 1 am concerned not about the oil companies as companies but about the possible loss of life and the damage that could be caused to the Australian coastline if there was a sinking or a collision between ships involving fatalities. There are 2 sections on the coast of India where these aids have been installed - one on the west coast and the other in the vicinity of Calcutta. They also are available on the lower western and southern sections of the coast of South Africa.

Japan probably has as good a system as exists anywhere. Japan recently completed the installation of more equipment. Now all the waters surrounding Japan are adequately covered by this type of electronic navigational aid. Australia has only one installation and large areas of our surrounding waters have not been re-chartered since Captain Cook and the early navigators carried out their work, lt may be claimed that they did a good job but the people in a position to advise me on the subject say that checks carried out with electronic aids have revealed many discrepancies in existing charts. There are plenty of reasons why something should be done about this matter. I believe there are about 14,000 ships today which are equipped with Decca navigation equipment but none of it can be used in Australian waters apart from that area near the system recently installed at the approaches to Port Hedland in Western Australia. We are well and truly lagging behind the rest of the world in this field of modern navigational aids. The old days of lighthouses and beacons have gone. It is time the Government did something positive about these things.

I am led to believe that at present there is considerable unrest among people working in the lighthouse service because their wages and conditions are far below those of their counterparts in trading ships. I understand that negotiations have been under way between the representatives of the men on lightships and lighthouses and the Public Service Board. People in merchant ships have had their increases for some time now whereas negotiations are still going on between the Public Service Board and the unions representing these men. As far as I know they have an excellent record of service. There are numerous instances of their carrying out rescue and salvage work in addition to their normal duties. The work that these men do requires special skills. They are required to possess the skills necessary for the servicing of lighthouses, lightships and the lighters and in addition they are subject to long periods away from their homes. They have no home life and often are away for 3 or 4 months at a time. In itself this is sufficient reason for them to be paid wages and have conditions more favourable than those normally paid in other positions.

When one looks into the wages paid to these people one can well and truly understand why there is discontent and unrest in the service today. For example, the master of a lightship receives an annual salary of $6,309 while his counterpart in a merchant ship receives $11,800. The salary of the chief officer on a lightship is $3,531, ranging up to $3,792, while his counterpart receives $9,891. A seaman on a lightship receives from $2,632 to $2,914 a year while his counterpart on a merchant ship receives $6,600 a year. So when one compares these figures it is easy to understand, as 1 said a moment ago, why there is so much discontent and dissatisfaction amongst these men. I hope that the Minister will at least pay heed to what these people have been saying to his Department and to what I have been saying here tonight and that is that serious consideration will be given to setting an early date for lifting the salaries of these men up to what they should be. The rates should be more comparable with those in outside industry so that they will receive better recognition for the work they do.

As I said earlier, this Bill is of limited importance. It is a minor Bill designed to bring the Act into the electronic age and so I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we will not oppose the Bill. I ask the Minister to get on with the job. The Department of Shipping and Transport has been talking about introducing electronic navigational aids for 3 years now. It should get on with the job of providing these facilities where they should be provided and I have already stated where I think they should be installed. At the same time let us have an amendment to the Navigation Act so as to ensure that all ships operating on the Australian coast are forced to install radar because it is obvious that this is a most important and essential piece of equipment as far as navigation is concerned. We support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3072

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2780), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. As the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stated:

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the guarantee by the Commonwealth of $US4.5m, or$A4m, borrowing by the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The proceeds of the loan . . .. will assist in the financing of a major highways project in the highlands of New Guinea.

As we know, Australia is still partly responsible for the development of New Guinea. Some 2.5 million people are our responsibility, and to advance them to a more significant stage of economic development requires an infrastructure, health, education, road systems and so on and the measure that is before us now will assist us in doing this.

I regret that this sort of measure comes on at this time of the night. I might say that with the exception of a period of 3 hours I have been on deck in this place since 9 o’clock yesterday morning and I think it is rather absurd that the business of this Parliament is transacted in this way. It is a pity that measures of this kind cannot receive the sort of merit that they deserve. If Australia is regarded as having a responsibility for Papua and New Guinea I think that a measure of this sort of significance at least demands a better time for debate and a better opportunity for use to sum up its implications. However, if most honourable members feel as I do at this time of the night it is a little difficult to follow the significant ramifications of the Bill that we ought to be discussing. As I say, we offer no objection to the measure. It is necessary for the development of Papua and New Guinea, and we support it

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That Order of the Day No. 7, Government Buisness, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– BeforeI agree to this motion I should like to know the reason for it. So far as I knew, I was to speak on the Loan (Defence) Bill.

Mr Snedden:

– I will give an explanation.

Mr CREAN:

– I should hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service would do so.

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

– With the indulgence of the House, I indicate the explanation is that I agreed to this proposal at the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). It would have been my preference to deal with the Bills as they appear on the notice paper.

Mr Crean:

– Will we deal with the Loan (Defence) Bill tonight or tomorrow?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We will deal with it tonight. After the Bankruptcy Bill has been dealt with, the arrangement is that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports should then speak on the Loan (Defence) Bill. After he has spoken on it and after a member on the Government side of the House has spoken on it the debate will be adjourned and tomorrow morning it will be relisted as the first item on the notice paper and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will speak to it then. It is an arrangement to meet his convenience.

Dr Patterson:

– We were not told about that.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That was the arrangement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3073

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2804), on motion by Mr Hughes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Mr Speaker, the Opposition supports the Bill. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) referred to the need to make certain that compositions or schemes of arrangement entered into under State or Territory legislation will not be ruled invalid becauseof the present laws. The Attorney-General said his inquiries had indicated that under present laws it is unlikely that arrangements made between farmers and their creditors under State legislation would be in accordance with Part X of the Bankruptcy Act. I would assume that the principal reason for introducing this measure is because of the serious and deteriorating economic conditions in the rural areas of Australia. It would seem that if the States or Territories are going to implement legislation in respect of debt adjustment, there are some problems regarding the validity of assistance given to a farmer by a State or Territory. Because of that it would appear that the States themselves are reluctant to go ahead with their own schemes until the Federal laws have been changed. As I see it, that is the principal reason why the Government has decided to introduce this Bill. Something has to be done in the field of debt adjustment in the States. The staggering increase in rural debts in Australia has reached such a serious level that it is very clear that urgent Federal action, in addition to this Bill, will have to be taken to stop the collapse of rural areas and country towns throughout Australia. This is particularly so in the wheat and sheep areas which have been subjected to devastating drought over the last 3 or 4 years.

The debt figures in Australia are rather staggering. In fact, they are almost unbelievable. When I first had a look at them I could not believe them; I thought there must have been a misprint in them. In the last 5 years the indebtedness of the rural sector has increased by more than 500 per cent. It is necessary, of course, to give the figures because 500 per cent may not mean much when one looks at the absolute figures. Net rural debts have risen from a relatively low figure of$1 20m 5 years ago to more than $ 1,250m today. If anybody doubts the seriousness of the debt structure in the rural areas, I think those figures speak for themselves. They are net figures. As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the effects of the drought are particularly severe in some States, and it is those conditions, associated with the indebtedness, that has prompted the Slates to introduce as quickly as possible accelerated rates of debt adjustment.

Among the primary industries, only the sugar and beef industries are not in serious trouble at this time. With deteriorating world prices and shrinking market outlets, the financial position of even those 2 industries is in some doubt. The major export industries of wool, wheat and dairy products are in very serious financial trouble, and another 2 major industries - beef and sugar - which today look reasonably sound, have ahead of them futures that could be somewhat bleak in relation to the European Common Market and the high powered political tactics on the American scene with respect to meat.

It is obvious, therefore, that in association with this Bill progressive and dynamic farm reconstruction and debt adjustment policies have to be adopted. They should be translated into immediate action. In many areas it is probably too late to help many of the farmers. I refer particularly to the wheat and sheep areas which have been affected by drought, because there the debt liability has reached saturation point or, we might say, bankruptcy point. The granting of further loans, irrespective of the interest rate, will only place these people further into debt. They have passed the point of no return in many areas in Australia today. Some private banks have emphasised this point in their reports from time to time.

I think that the Federal Government should take urgent action in this field. It could perhaps set up, in conjunction with the rural construction boards of the States, a Federal rural commission. Such a commission could work in co-operation with the State reconstruction boards. There would be 2 objectives of such a commission. They would be complementary and supplementary. The first objective would be reconstruction or rehabilitation and the second, debt adjustment. Both these things would work together. To me it is obvious that some sort of Federal commission will have to be set up in conjunction with the State authorities if the financial position of the farmers deteriorates any further, as we think it will. 1 have already referred to the increase in the net debt structure. In the last 5 years it has increased from $120m to $1 .250m. In gross terms the figure is over $2.000m. This level of debt illustrates the very serious position which faces the rural industries today. Progressive rehabilitation of farms with the emphasis on increased productivity as distinct from increased production, the amalgamation of farm enterprise and the streamlining of marketing techniques are all matters which should be given urgent consideration by this Government. As the debt position in the rural sector is growing so fast, the most urgent priority is to introduce a financial measure for debt alleviation. This action is more urgent than any reconstruction or rehabilitation schemes. I believe that the priorities in the field of reconstruction or debt adjustment should be ranked accordingly. That is, the top priority must be given to the objectives of this Bill or the provisions contained in it for debt adjustment. This would have to be followed by long term rehabilitation measures. It is clear to me that there should be Federal or State complementary action.

In addition to providing loans to farmers or wiping out their debts there will have to be some provision for the immediate freezing of the principal and interest repayments on loans. This would mean that the farmers who are in very serious trouble would at least have enough cash in their hands with which to continue paying their immediate debts. They would at least have some amount of money in hands without having to worry about the repayment of the principal and interest until the reconstruction scheme became more positive. It also appears clear to me that in any Federa] commission set up in conjunction with State reconstruction boards the whole basis of financing primary industry will have to be gone into again. lt must be obvious to the Government that the primary producers cannot afford to pay high interest rates on loans obtained under short-term conditions. Although some arrangements are made through the Commonwealth Development Bank and the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank, in the main the great majority of the debts in the rural sector are with pastoral houses or trading banks. As far as agricultural areas are concerned a considerable amount of all the debts are with hire purchase companies. One has only to look at the rate of increase - and this is an important thing - in debt structure to see the seriousness of the situation. It is not just some gentle trend. The increase is staggering. One can only wonder just how much longer this debt structure can continue, lt is estimated that less than 10 per cent of farmers in Australia are free from debt. All evidence suggests that the small traditional farmer today is falling deeper into debt. It is imperative that this Bill be passed without delay so that the States may go ahead and bring in whatever legislation is necessary to ensure that the operation of compositions or schemes of arrangement entered into by the States or a Territory will be valid under the Bankruptcy Act. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I too welcome the Bill. I should like to pay a tribute to the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) for the efforts made by him and those who assisted him to have this Bill brought down during this session. It was very important that this should be done. I think he deserves credit for being able to achieve this result in the time that has been available to him. It is necessary, as he pointed out in his second reading speech, to remove any obstacle that the Bankruptcy Act may present to the operation of compositions or schemes of arrangement entered into. It is rather a striking testimony to the change in rural industry to note that this provision which is being brought back into the Bankruptcy Act was first inserted in 1933. In 1962 the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee presented its report which stated that the affairs of very few farmers were administered under various State Acts to which section 57a of the repealed Bankruptcy Act applied. Because of the changing circumstances that have come over much of primary industry an alteration to the Bankruptcy Act has become necessary.

It is common knowledge that the drought in Queensland is the worst ever experienced in that State, both in intensity and in the area affected. Only by the strenuous efforts of the State Government in farm reconstruction and debt reconstruction can many areas of primary” industry be retained and the people concerned be enabled to remain on their property. The situation is as serious as that; it is a matter of great concern to Queenslanders generally. Quite some time ago, in recognition of the problem which was facing primary producers in Queensland, Country Party members of the Federal Parliament formed a drought committee. We have been conferring with the Queensland Government and the Federal Government to bring about, the co-operation which will be required if worthwhile assistance is to be provided. There is no doubt that if the amount of assistance which is required is to be made available, the Federal Government will have to provide some of it. 1 should like to pay a tribute to Senator Lawrie for the work he has done in this field. 1 am sure that the Minister will agree that Senator Lawrie approached him on a number of occasions on behalf of the Committee.

There is no doubt that reconstruction in Queensland is vital. It is equally certain that an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act is necessary to enable the Rural Reconstruction Board in that State to operate effectively. I appreciate what the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has said on this subject. He mentioned a number of factors that were worthy of mention but which I will not repeat except perhaps to emphasise the great increase in indebtedness that has come over the rural community.

Mention has been made of the need for some further action. Of course, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) is presently and urgently engaged in a review of this situation to find the best methods to approach this position. It is a very serious position and of course we have to look at it from the Federal angle - from a Commonwealth wide point of view. The Parliament may decide to give measures application over all of the Commonwealth. I believe that very often there has been a good deal of criticism of people who represent rural areas. It is said that these honourable members have a parochial outlook. I want to say that in recent times the order of priority of the work of members of Parliament from rural constituencies, however broad their outlook may be, has necessitated their concentrating on rural matters. 1 reject the suggestion that because honourable members who represent rural constituencies speak quite a lot on rural matters we do not have as broad a national outlook as any other member in this House.

The value of rural industry to the Commonwealth hardly needs emphasising. Although the wool industry is suffering hardships it is still providing 20 per cent of our export income. Where would our economy be without this contribution? What will happen to our economy if the wool industry collapses? However, these remarks are widening out a little from what I intended to say. The hour is late and I shall not expand this subject as much as I would like to expand it. However, I would like to mention that the methods by which finance has been arranged comes under various measures. Finance is secured mainly from the trading banks, pastoral finance companies, life assurance companies, the Commonwealth Development Bank and non-institutional lending. The problem that we face in this field is that the normal sources of finance for rural industry are drying up. The demands on these financial institutions have reached a maximum capacity. I do not condemn the institutions for what they have done. I believe that they have endeavoured to try to cope with the demand but that it is getting beyond them.

There will be a need to cover the requirements of rural industry. I believe that this will be done under such measures as the proposed rural reconstruction board in Queensland. I would like to quote from an article by F. G. Jarrett of the University of Adelaide. This article is contained in a book entitled ‘Agriculture in the Australian Economy’ which was first printed in 1967. The article indicates what the trends should be if we are to maintain our primary industries, lt was fairly obvious even when this book was printed what means would have to be applied to keep our primary industries moving as they should and as we would like to see them move. 1 want to quote inter alia from this article. Mr Jarrett states:

The bulk of institutional credit provided to agriculture conies from the trading banks and to a less extent, the pastoral firms. The overdraft form of lending has undoubtedly served agriculture well but it is questionable whether it is the most appropriate credit instrument for presentday agriculture. Since many of the new technologies in agriculture require relatively longer periods than in secondary industry to ‘pay off, farmers need to be assured of a continuity in credit availablity which is not always assured under the overdraft form. Yet it is probably the technologies most needing intermediate credit which will make the greatest contribution to agricultural productivity and through it to economic development A beginning was made with term lending^-

Of course, this is well known; it was done in this Parliament - in 1962, and the speed with which these resources were committed suggests farmers’ needs for inter-, mediate length loans for stated periods were not being met by the then existing credit arrangements. The increase in March 1966 in the term lending fund and the establishment of a farm development loan fund will provide useful additions to the supply of intermediate and long-term lending funds available to agriculture.

So it was patently clear then that this was developing. Of course, the very grave fall in prices and the very unfavourable seasonal conditions have aggravated the position tremendously since that time. In the last 2 paragraphs of his article Mr Jarrett stated:

In the context of low-income agriculture, the distributive aspect of credit would suggest the provision of credit with some element of subsidy. The identification of the low-income farmer presents a puzzle but presumably they could be identified if sufficient efforts were put into the task of finding just who or where the low-income farmers are.

It would not be very difficult to find them today. The article continues:

Recently work by Hoffman and Hume suggests that the income disparity between farm and nonfarm incomes in Australia is nowhere near as large as exists in countries such as the United States, for example.

I believe that situation has developed very considerably since this article was written. It continues:

Even so, there may be pockets of poverty in Australian agriculture. It may be doubted whether subsidised credit is the most effective way of tackling any low-income problem, generally associated with inadequate farm sizes. Indeed, the provision of such credit may delay the consolidation of farms into economic units and perpetuate the resource misallocations which already exist.

That article sets out very well the need for farm reconstruction even then and the need for a different approach to rural finance. So I indicate to honourable members how very much I welcome this measure. 1 have spoken with the object of trying to give some appreciation of the need for this Commonwealth Government to take an interest in rural finance, particularly under the conditions which exist today. 1 want to draw attention to the fact that there have been fluctuations in rural industries over many years. The crisis which is facing Queensland at the present time is the worst it has known. I know that other States are affected as well but perhaps not to the same extent because the drought position has not been as bad in other States as it is in Queensland. In these circumstances, 1 believe that the Commonwealth Government should come to the assistance of primary industry. The situation has fluctuated. I believe that the man has not been born who can accurately forecast world markets in almost any field. Only recently we saw a dramatic change in the wheat situation in world markets. Because of the tremendous value of agriculture to the Commonwealth of Australia we must preserve our agricultural income; we must preserve our agricultural industry. We can do this only if the Commonwealth Government makes some contribution. I believe that the industry has earned this help over the years. To my mind, the present situation is only a passing phase, although it is probably worse than it has been before. But with the growth of the world’s population we will be looking to our agricultural industry to continue to make this country the nation that it can become.

Friday, 30 October 1970

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

The time has passed midnight but I rise to speak on this matter with no sense of apology because to me and to half the nation it is a pretty important one. We have the incredible situation where half the nation is showing a situation of buoyancy and presenting a shining face to the world, with some exceptions. The other half of the nation is in trouble. I want specifically to pinpoint 2 factors associated with this measure. As indicated by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Hughes) in his second reading speech:

The purpose of the Bill is to remove any obstacle that the Bankruptcy Act may present to the operation of compositions or schemes of arrangement entered into under State or Territory legislation providing for assistance to farmers in respect of their debts.

I have heard my distinguished colleague from Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the other Queensland member who has spoken, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), talk about the situation in respect of Queensland legislation and the position of that State. A state of crisis exists in the drought areas of Queensland.

I rise to put to the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) who, I am delighted to see, is here for the debate on this Bill, that we have had operating very successfully in New South Wales for 2 generations the Rural Reconstruction Board. The Rural Reconstruction Board in the State of New South Wales has brought about a revolution in the countryside, where it has been needed. It has been a revolution of reorganisation and of restructuring - all of the modern terms - but in fact the Board brought about such changes as were revolutionary and were successful. The Board was successful in the south-west reconstruction scheme in New South Wales. This scheme is a model for farming reconstruction wherever it may have to be implemented in our country or in any other country.

Now, as a member of the House of Representatives, I find a Federal Act being proposed through a Federal Bill which seems to be saying: ‘We will validate that legislation’. This is a cause of surprise to me. I would like the Attorney-General specifically to direct his attention to the statutes which have established the Rural Reconstruction Board in the State of New South Wales, under which it has operated for 2 generations and is operating now. I hope that he will comment and perhaps particularly will indicate why this legislation may be necessary in relation to those statutes and what effect if any this legislation will have on those State statutes touching on the Rural Reconstruction Board of New South Wales.

This is a most important matter for New South Wales. 1 must admit that, as a layman, I have examined the Bill and I have not been able to relate what it says to what I know of the State Act and the State statutes. I would be grateful if, in his reply at the conclusion of the second reading debate, the Attorney-General would direct his attention to the State statutes governing the Rural Reconstruction Board and pronounce his opinion on them as the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia in relation to this legislation and the legislation which has existed for 2 generations under which the Rural Reconstruction Board is operating so successfully in New South Wales. I make this almost as a plea at the committee stage of consideration of this Bill, but I know that we do not wish to prolong the proceedings after the hour of midnight. So, I put the matter at the second reading stage so that the Attorney-General may apply himself to the queries I have raised and clear them up.

Having posed that question, I direct attention to a broader matter in relation to bankruptcies or potential bankruptcies that was raised by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Askin. Now, Mr Askin is not a man who is in touch at all with the rural scene. In fact, he is distinguished and famous for a statement that he once made very early one morning - and I forgive him for it, I suppose, on the basis - when he was telephoned and asked to comment on the fact that 2 inches of rain had fallen in the Sydney area. At a very early hour in the morning he said: ‘Oh, this is a wonderful thing. It is a tremendous thing. It will mean millions to the countryside’. I think that by the time he got out of bed and reached Parliament House he had realised that the rain had not extended past Parramatta. I forgive him. He is a suburbanite. Two months ago in the New South Wales Parliament he was asked by a colleague of mine the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, Mr Gordon, whether he would apply himself to the needs of the Rural Reconstruction Board and whether he would take note of the fact that the Board was no longer able to meet the requirements of the situation in the countryside. The Premier replied: ‘All is well. There are no problems because there has not been anyone who has applied who has been refused.’ I am sorry to say that the

Premier was misinformed. I do not say that in any political carping sense.

As a matter of fact, I am reminded that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in this House possibly 12 weeks ago addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) about the state of the countryside. He asked: ‘Has the Prime Minister directed his attention to any requests from the State of New South Wales for assistance?’ On that occasion the Prime Minister said: ‘I have not had any requests. When I get one I will consider it.’ I hope I have not done the honourable member an injustice.

Mr Hunt:

– The Prime Minister added: To my knowledge’.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The Prime Minister said that to his knowledge he had not received a request and therefore he was not in a position to give a reply to the honourable member who asked the question. Tonight we meet under different circumstances. The Premier of New South Wales, after saying that there were no real problems and that no-one had been refused, now says: ‘We are in a considerable difficulty because of the crisis in the countryside. We are in need of money.’I confirm that statement with all the sincerity that I can summon up at this hour. It is true that there are possibly 100 unsatisfied applications at this moment. Another 100 people would be in the queue. There are people who desperately need the expertise and the money which has been available in the last 2 decades from the Rural Reconstruction Board of New South Wales. At the moment the Board is not in a position to satisfy the needs of the people from every part of New South Wales who are standing in that queue. I did not hear the interjection made by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). I will be delighted to deal with it if he speaks up a little later on.

Mr Cope:

– He was bouncing. He had meat rissoles for tea.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am always glad when a man has eaten well.

Mr Jess:

– That would not apply here.

Mr GRASSBY:

– It may not be well but it is sufficient. At the present time there are families who wonder whether they are going to eat at all in the future. They are wondering about the needs of their children. We have reached the situation where the Rural Reconstruction Board which has been a magnificent instrument in the countryside of New South Wales for 2 generations has reached the end of its resources. It is not in a position to open the door and admit further people. Where the New South Wales Government and Public Service are involved obviously the Director of the Board and the servants associated with it cannot invite a man in, sit him down, listen to his needs and say: ‘I am terribly sorry. We are broke. We are bankrupt ourselves. We cannot help you.’ They have a formula. They say:’We are not in a position to assist you because of your relative needs.’ This does not mean anything. It is a good formula for saying: ‘We have first, second and third priorities. We are not in a position to assist those following the people who are first in the queue.’ I do not blame the Board or the Director, but a request has been made to the Commonwealth by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Askin, who, asI say, is a well known suburbanite who has now at least recognised that there is a need in this sector for this agency.

On behalf of all sides of the Parliament. I ask the Attorney-General, who is tonight with us, to take to the Prime Minister this message which I am putting forward. I am sure that it is not an exclusive message. I am sure that if the Attorney-General doubts me other people from all sides of the Parliament will rise and say: ‘Yes, this is a valid message’. I ask the AttorneyGeneral to go to the Prime Minister and say that the Premier of New South Wales has asked for assistance because the Board has run out of money. It is a crisis situation. I make a sincere appeal to the AttorneyGeneral, as the representative of the Prime Minister in the House tonight, to take to the Prime Minister the plea thatI have made on behalf of a lot of people - not one Party or another - who are in trouble and ask that the applications be dealt with as urgently as possible so that the work of this Board can be revitalised. It is a wonderful instrument. I am sorry that Queensland does not have something similar.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not have sufficient knowledge of what the honourable member is talking about to be able to say whether it comes under this Bill or not, bat I remind him that we are debating the Bankruptcy Bill. It is concerned with bankruptcy, and if the Reconstruction Board about which he has been talking at length is an authority to give financial assistance, he is out of order.

Mr GRASSBY:

- Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am about to sum up all the things I have said to the Attorney-General. 1 hope he will reply, because they are interlocking matters. I know it is late, but they are interlocking matters.

Mr King:

– I think the honourable member had better finish. That is the best way out.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I will do that. I hope the honourable member will support me in my plea on behalf of a lot of people in trouble. First of all 1 would like an answer to my query in the first instance about the Rural Reconstruction Board and the effect of this Bill on it, and secondly about the plea and the request that has been made by the State of New South Wales. I hope the Attorney-General will convey that request to the Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance and 1 am grateful to the House for its forebearance.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– in reply - My reply will be as brief as possible because the hour is late. I can assure the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) that this Bill is not designed to impinge upon the activities of the Rural Reconstruction Board of the State of New South Wales. The legislation under which that Board is established is, as I understand it, legislation that may be declared or proclaimed under the present Bill when it becomes an Act of this Parliament, so that the protection given by this Bill will be available in the case of compositions or schemes entered into under the relevant New South Wales legislation. That is my understanding of the situation. I have taken note of the other comments made by the honourable member.

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 Hughes) read a third time.

page 3079

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motions

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

– by leave - I move:

That the following Orders of the Day, Government Business, be discharged:

No. 31 Armed services pay - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 32 British entry to the European Economic Community - Consequences tor Australian trade - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 33 Employment training scheme to assist married and single women - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 34 Education Programme 1970-71 - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 33 Wool industry assistance - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 36 Vietnam - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 37 Defence - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 38 Foreign Affairs - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 39 R.A.A.F. - Procurement of strike bomber capability - Ministerial statement and paper - Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate on the motion. That the House take note of the papers.

No. 40 High Court and National Art Gallery sites - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion. That the House take note of the paper.

No. 41 Cambodia - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 43 Aboriginal Aged Persons Homes Trust - Ministerial statement and paper - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion. That the House take note of the papers.

No. 44 Aboriginal sacred places in the Wingellina area, W.A. - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 45 Health benefits - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 46 Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly - Ministerial members - Ministerial statement and paper - Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the papers.

No. 47 Papua and New Guinea - Imputation against public servant - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate on the motion, That the House take note of the paper.

No. 48 Migration Agreement with Yugoslavia - Paper and ministerial statement - Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate on the motion. That the House take note of the papers.

No. 49 Papua and New Guinea - Warmaram group - Ministerial statement - Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate, on the motion. That the House take note of the paper.

It is customary, at no regular interval but as frequently as possible, to cleanse the notice paper. It is necessary to do this each day because, as honourable members know, the notice paper has to be printed and everything on it has to be included. Periodically it is desirable to remove certain matters from it. There have been conversations between myself and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and between people on our behalf. This is the agreed list.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I am disappointed that the Defence Statement, which has not been discussed, is to be wiped from the notice paper. I would like that to be noted.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Has the statement dealing with emergency finance for the wool industry been taken off the list?

Mr Snedden:

– What number was it? No. 35 has been taken off the list. We agreed to take it off the list because the Bill has been introduced.

Dr PATTERSON:

– No, this is a different matter. It is the ministerial statement on wool industry assistance and deals with emergency grants. Unless I am wrong, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) gave me an undertaking that this would be debated in the House.

Mr Snedden:

– Without in any way contesting the issue as to whether an undertaking was given, if the honourable gentle man has an objection to its removal from the list I will delete it from my list.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I could be wrong about this matter.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– As the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) has pointed out, there has been some discussion about the matters on the notice paper. Some have been there since the beginning of the year. I agreed that, to relieve the workload of the Hansard staff and of the employees of the Government Printing Office, who are involved in producing the notice paper each day, some of these statements could be removed from the notice paper. We agreed that the matter referred to by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) be deleted on the basis that it was covered by a Bill. If the honourable member believes, and assures the House, that an undertaking was given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) that this matter would be further discussed in the House 1 would suggest to the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) that this Order of the Day might remain on the notice paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House indicated that he would so move. That was my understanding. The Minister will now require leave to omit that Order of the Day from his motion.

Mr Snedden:

– I seek that leave, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Snedden:

– Pursuant to the leave which has just been granted I-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the Leader of the House closing the debate? Another member is on his feet.

Mr Snedden:

– No, I was following on from the granting of leave to delete Order of the Day No. 35.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– 1 should like to ask the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) to consider leaving the Defence Statement - Order of the Day No. 37 - on the notice paper. The House has had the opportunity of discussing defence only in the Estimates debate and honourable members have been restricted to speaking for 10 minutes. The only speaker on this statement from the

Opposition has been the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) when he replied to the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser). We have had no opportunity of discussing the statement and since the Government is all fired up about the importance of defence to Australia, is it not time that the Parliament had an opportunity to discuss this lengthy and detailed statement?

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce - Minister for Labour and National Service (12.27 a.m.) - in reply - My colleague, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) made a similar request. It was my intention, after we had disposed of consideration of Order of the Day No. 35, to propose that Order of the Day No. 37 remain on the notice paper. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has asked that this Order of the Day remain on the notice paper and at the appropriate time I will move for the deletion of Orders of the Day Nos 35 and 37 from the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister may do so now.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– If 1 require leave, 1 seek leave to delete Order of the Day No. 37 from the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. -

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Pursuant to that leave I move:

That orders of the Day Nos 35 and 37 be deleted from the motion.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 3081

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 October (vide page 2887), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– Mr Speaker, I am afraid that I must protest again about legislation coming on for debate at this time of night. However, I suppose that because of the way the business of the House is being dealt with this is inevitable. The Opposition intends to oppose the Bill which provides for the borrowing of $US125m for the purchase of defence equipment in the United States of America. The Opposition opposes the Bill for 2 reasons. As indicated in the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury) the Loan (Defence) Act 1968 provided for the borrowing by the Commonwealth of an amount of $US75m to assist in financing the purchase of Fill aircraft. The Treasurer indicated that no drawings have yet been made against that loan. It seems a rather curious process that sanction has been given for a loan of $US75m which has not been utilised and it is now proposed to raise a further loan of $US125m bearing an interest rate of 7.375 per cent, which is a rather substantial interest rate. It is the view of the Opposition that a sum as relatively small as this could have been financed by the current international resources of Australia. It seems to be an utterly imprudent exercise to borrow $US125m at 7.375 per cent when there is no shortage of reserves if such sums are required for expenditure in the United States.

Defence purchases are expendable items. It is not as if one is building up an asset which will return something. These items should be paid for as they are bought. I ask honourable members to consult the document entitled ‘National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure - August 1970’, which was brought down with the Budget Papers. I refer in particular to Table 2 at page 9, which relates to net expenditure on goods and services overseas. The item ‘War and defence’ shows that an amount of $151m was spent overseas on this category in 1965-66. In 1966-67 expenditure was $220m; in 1967-68 it was $3 13m; in 1968-69 it was $292m and in 1969-70 it was $189m. A further expenditure of $186m in 1970-71 is projected. These amounts aggregate somewhere in the region of $ 1,200m, being the expenditure in a period of 6 years.

As I indicated in the debate on the defence estimates the other night, when one deducts from the defence expenditure the categories of wages, salaries and maintenance one is still left with a fairly significant defence expenditure on what might be called the capital aspect. I think that this only serves to highlight how dependent we have allowed ourselves to become on what might be called military procurement .overseas. We have allowed ourselves to become too dependent upon overseas sources to equip our forces. A lot has been said in recent times about what are called offset orders. It seems to me that more lip service than substance is being paid to this aspect. It is rather glibly said that the fourth arm of defence - besides the 3 Services - is the capacity of Australian industry to supply the sinews of defence capacity. It seems that each year we are allowing ourselves to become more and more dependent on overseas sources, particularly the United States of America, for the procurement of the necessary hardware, which I think is a term that is sometimes used, to equip our forces.

We all know about the Fill aircraft. I have said before that if a Labor government had been in office and had been responsible for this episode it would have been pilloried in every newspaper in Australia. Something which was asked for in 1963 as a matter of urgency has not been delivered even in 1970 and it has cost somewhere in the region of $300m. I rather gather that the reason why the 1968 loan which was appropriated for the Fill aircraft has not been expended is because satisfactory terms have not been worked out for the delivery of this aircraft. The excuse given when new equipment is ordered overseas is, of course, that it could not be procured in Australia at reasonable terms. When the Fill proposition was first put forward in 1963 it was said that it would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $100m. The cost has now risen to $300m, but we have not received the aircraft. At least this shows that, when it is suggested rather categorically that Australian industry cannot compete, consideration has not been given to the fact that there is a great deal of difference between the first price and the final price. That is true not only of Australia’s experience overseas but also of European countries. There is a great deal of difference between the projected cost and the final cost. As indicated, the Opposition intends to oppose this measure for a variety of reasons. Firstly, at the moment there is no shortage of exchange to pay for this item and. secondly, the rate at which the borrow ing is to take place - in excess of 7 per cent - is very high for what are really expendable items.

Mr Bury:

– We earn 8i per cent on our overseas reserves.

Mr CREAN:

– That simply shows bow high interest rates are today. I wish some attempt was being made to get interest rates down instead of luxuriating on the difference between what we borrow and what we accumulate. If you are borrowing internally, at least you garner something from our usurers in internal taxation. That is not so in this instance. I stick to my point that it would be more prudent to pay cash than to incur interest payments. It would be better to become more self-reliant than to talk about offsetting orders. This was talked about when the former honourable member for Paterson was the Minister for Defence, and that is some time ago. It does not seem to me that we have done anything very practical towards achieving what is stated. If we are to buy equipment from overseas at least there is a case for the countries we buy from to give us orders within the capacity of our own interest. But at this stage of the night I do not want to labour the point any further.

When a similar measure was before us in 1968 the Opposition opposed it. On that occasion the loan was tied to the Fill venture. We said in 1968 - I think it was at about the same time of the year - that the loan should be deferred until better arrangements were made for the actual procurement of the Fills in February 1969. Since that time the situation wim the Fills has deteriorated even further. The particular equipment we are to buy with this loan is not stated in the Treasurer’s speech. It seems that we go shopping around the world. If we find that the Export-Import Bank will lend us some money for some purpose that we cannot quite define at the time we say: ‘Oh well, we will say it is for defence’. Defence does not come within the province of the loan agreement so we do not have to get the consent of the Premiers. We camouflage it on the pretence that it is for defence purposes. Indeed, the Treasurer concluded his second reading speech with this line:

Since the borrowing is for defence purposes the pproval of the Loan Council is not required.

I merely regard this as a rather convenient fiction which is being increasingly indulged in. In 1966 we had a loan of $450m from the United States of America. In 1968 we had a loan similar to this for $75m. Now we have this loan for $125m. The aggregate of these loans is $650m. As I have pointed out, in stark reality in the last 6 years we have actually spent overseas on procurement a sum of some $ 1,200m. I think it is time that we stopped this kind of folly. I make this protest on behalf of the Opposition at this stage. By opposing this measure we hope to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that we regard this sort of legislation as highly imprudent in all the circumstances.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 3083

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Bury) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Mr Speaker–

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.41 a.m. (Friday)

page 3084

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Australian Water Resources Council (Question No. 1464)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Water Resources Council in the last year.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made by the Council at these meetings for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Since the meeting of the Council held in Darwin on 7th September 1969 on which the honourable member has already been advised, the Australian Water Resources Council has met on 24th July 1970, in Sydney.
  2. As was advised the honourable member in reply to a similar question last year, the Australian Water Resources Council is an advisory and consultative body of Commonwealth and State Ministers and public pronouncements are not necessarily made on all matters that have been discussed.

Following the 11th meeting of the Council in Sydney, a Press statement was issued on behalf of the Council by the Acting Chairman, as on this occasion I was unable to be present because of Cabinet meetings, and this statement indicates the important matters discussed. A copy of this Press statement is being made available to the honourable member.

Royal Australian Navy: Repostings (Question No. 1759)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the

Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many

    1. officers, and
    2. men have been reposted within Australia in each of the past 5 years.

  2. How many

    1. families, and
    2. children have been involved in these repostings in each of the past 5 years.

  3. What has been the cost of

    1. furniture removals
    2. vehicle removals, and
    3. furniture storage for the same years.

  4. What disturbance allowance is paid to those re posted.

Mr Killen:
Minister for the Navy · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honour able members question is as follows:

  1. (a) and (b)- 1st July 1965 to 30th June 1966-387 officers, 5.363 men 1st July 1966 to 30th June 1967-516 officers, 6,207 men 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1968-470 officers, 6,124 men 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1969-632 officers, 6,674 men 1st July 1969 to 30th June 1970-653 officers, 8,076 men

These figures are for trained personnel only and do not include postings on entry, discharge or during initial training. The increase in 1969-70 sailor figures is due to the commissioning of new ships and the de-commissioning of others.

  1. (a) 1st July 1965 to 30th June 1966-2,173 1st July 1966 to 30th June 1967-2,262 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1968-2,748 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1969-3,247 1st July 1969 to 30th June 1970-3,240

These figures include families involved in initial postings on entry and final postings on discharge as records held do not enable these removals to be ascertained separately.

  1. It is not possible from available records to provide information of the number of children involved.

(3)-

  1. This allowance is payable in respect of all removals except those granted on marriage. Removals on marriage provide only for the transfer of a member, wife and effects where he marries whilst serving in an area and brings his wife and effects to that area.

In all other cases the allowance is payable at one of the following rates:

  1. A lower rate of $50. This amount is payable when only effects are moved and no furniture is involved.

  2. A higher rate. This rate is, in turn, payable at three different amounts.

    1. An amount of $100 in respect of a first and second removal;
    2. An amount of $130 in respect of a third and fourth removal;
    3. An amount of $160 in respect of a fifth and subsequent removal.

Re-establishment Loans (Question No. 1781)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

How many former conscripts

  1. applied for, and
  2. were granted re-establishment loans

  3. throughout Australia; and

    1. in each State in each year since the inception of the scheme.
Mr Holten:
CP

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

Assuming that the question relates to reestablishment loans under the Defence ate-establish. ment) Act, the relevant details in respect of applications for business loans received from former national servicemen are as follows:

Post Office (Question No. 1908)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a Service Standards and Customer Relations Section has been set up by the Post Office in each State of tte Commonwealth.
  2. Is it part of the functions of this section to tape telephone conversations from main trunk exchanges.
  3. If so, for what period of each day are these functions carried out.
  4. How many officers are engaged in this function in each State.
  5. Are recorded telephone conversations played back and analysed.
  6. For what length of time are tapes of such conversations held by his Department after recording.
Mr HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. Telephone congersations between subscribers have not been taped in trunk exchanges anywhere in Australia. However, an arrangement, now discontinued had been in operation in some States for a number of years whereby a small sample of trouble report calls made by subscribers to the Service Difficulties Centre was from time to time taped in order to improve the handling of public complaints and difficulties. In each case this was done with the knowledge and acceptance of the staff association to which the telephone operators belong. All tapes were erased under supervision immediately their operating purpose bad been served. These records were taken by officers of the Department in the course of their duties in connection with die operation of the telephone system; they were therefore within the terms of the Telephone Communications (Interception) Act. (3), (4), (5) and (6) See answer to (2).

Telephones (Question No. 1965)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many applications are outstanding for new telephone services in (a) Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Brisbane, (d) Adelaide and (e) Perth.
  2. ls it a fact that potential subscribers who have actually paid deposits for a new telephone service are having their money refunded to them in a number of capital cities because of the Department’s inability to provide a new service for them.
  3. Will be use bis good offices to ensure that the engineers’ claims for higher salaries, which are clearly responsible for the mounted backlog of applications for telephone services, is resolved and, in particular, will he impress upon the Public Service Board and the Prime Minister the need for a speedy solution of the dispute.
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. At 28th September outstanding demand for telephone services in the metropolitan areas of the cities mentioned was as follows:

Of this total, 60.6 per cent were in the process of being provided, 27.4 per cent were awaiting acceptance by the applicant of terms and conditions of service, 9.1 per cent were deferred pending major extensions of cable and/or exchange equipment and 2.9 per cent were being examined to see whether cable and exchange equipment were available to provide the service.

  1. In some cases applicants for telephone service forward payments with their applications to cover rental in advance and the service connection fee without being requested to do so. Where this happens and it is found that an application cannot be satisfied within a reasonable period due to a shortage of cable and/or exchange equipment, the money is refunded. In addition, should it happen that advance payments are requested of applicants and it is subsequently found that the application cannot be satisfied within a reasonable period due to an unexpected shortage of cable and/ or exchange equipment, the money is refunded.
  2. In regard to deferred applications for telephone service, it is not possible in the short term to separate the effects of engineers’ industrial action from other factors such as availability of material and variations in demand for new services.

On 14th September 1970, a conference was held between representatives of the Public Service Board and Staff Associations concerned to discuss industrial action taken by engineers following the Board’s decision on 18th June 1970, not to grant them further pay increases.

At the conclusion of the conference, a joint statement was issued embodying points which would serve as the basis on which the Associations might recommend to their members cessation of industrial action by engineers. In summary the statement provided for resumption of discussions on comparative rates paid to professional engineers outside the Commonwealth Service and matters associated with recruitment and retention of engineers within the service. In addition, the Engineers’ Review Team which is studying classification standards and organisation structures for engineering work in the Service would continue to press ahead with its review.

Engineer members of the three Staff Associations accepted the proposals contained in the joint statement and normal work arrangements were resumed by 22nd September 1970. The course of action mutually agreed upon is being pursued as quickly as practicable.

On your request for my intervention in the matter I draw the honourable member’s attention to comments made by the Prime Minister on 9th September 1969, in answer to a question from the late member for the Australian Capital Territory (Hansard, page 928).

Royal Australian Air Force: Stores Clerks (Question No. 1983)

Mr Enderby:

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

  1. Is it a fact that 50 clerks in the stores section of the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Williamtown went on strike on Thursday, 24th August 1970 over pay claims; if so, will the Minister give an assurance that no disciplinary action and no charges will be brought against these men.
  2. Are 2 senior officers now at Williamtown examining and reporting on the situation; if so, will the Minister make their report available.
  3. Will the Minister outline the procedure that is to be followed in considering the claim by 100 equipment assistants at the Royal Australian Air Force Tottenham Stores. Depot for increased pay and better conditions.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Forty members of the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Williamtown failed to report for duty after lunch of 24th September 1970. Ten of these members reported for duty during the afternoon of 24th September 1970 and the remainder reported for either that evening’s shift or start of duty the following morning. The 40 members were later charged with being absent from their place of duly during normal working hours without permission.
  2. Two senior officers visited the RAAF Base at Williamtown. It is not intended to make their report available.
  3. The pay entitlements for equipment assistants and other musterings in the RAAF are under active review by the Trades Grouping SubCommittee and the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee. The pay for Equipment Assistants was recently increased from Trade Group 6 to Group 8. The Minister for Defence recently announced that an independent enquiry is to be made into Service pay and conditions.

Racism and Racial Discrimination (Question No. 1915)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Government -

Formally proclaim 1971 to be the International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and observe it as such.

Issue, during the Year, special messages affirming this country’s faith in the dignity and worth of the human person and its dedication to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Take steps to arrange a special meeting of the Parliament on 21st March 1971, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Sign and ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial discrimination.

Give moral and material assistance to peoples struggling against alt forms of racial discrimination.

Promote the widest and most intensive possible dissemination of United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Ratify or accede to, if it has not yet done so, other conventions having a bearing upon the elimination of racial discrimination, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Slavery Convention of 1956 on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, the ILO Convention of 1958 concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Ensure that the curricula of schools under its control and of other educational institutions include teaching of the scientific facts about race, that invidious distinctions about peoples are not made in textbooks and in classrooms, that all material susceptible of leading to racial discrimination and prejudice is eliminated from textbooks and that instructors are taught the value of principles of equality and dignity of all men.

Promote publication of books, pamphlets, reports and other publications, both learned and popular, assist in the organisation of radio and television broadcasts on subjects connected with the Year and in the distribution of films and the utilisation of other appropriate information media and arrange for the holding of competitions if that is considered expedient.

Encourage cultural exchanges between countries of different races, hospitality programmes, opening of homes to students and visitors of different races.

Encourage sports, athletic and other similar organisations to contribute to the establishment of harmonious relations among the peoples of different races.

Issue postage stamps and first-day covers on 21st March 1971, and arrange for special cancellations during 1971.

Inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the programmes and activities undertaken during the Year.’

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I wish to assure the honourable member that careful consideration is being given to a suitable programme to observe the year 1971 in Australia as International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Australia shares the concern of the United Nations at manifestations of racial discrimination and intolerance and has frequently made this clear. It is this concern which led us in the United Nations General Assembly to vote in support of the resolution designating 1971 as International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

I note that the programme referred to by the honourable member in his question is based on ideas which the United Nations’ Secretary-General has suggested that Governments be invited to consider. Due account is being taken of these suggestions although it would not be practicable to adopt each and every one of them. In some cases, Australia has already takenthe action suggested. For example, Australia is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention of 1956 on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery and the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education. Australia has signed the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the question of its ratification is under consideration.

The Programme for observance of the Year is being considered also in conjunction with plans for its celebration at the non-Governmental level. In this regard the honourable member may be interested to know that the United Nations Association of Australia, along with other interested non-governmental associations has set up a National Committee to plan the effective observance of the year, named the Australian Committee to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. While its programme is not yet finalised, I understand that it will include the dissemination of information about the relevant United Nations documents dealing with racial discrimination.

Paris Peace Talks (Question No. 1977)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

Where, when and in what form was an announcement made of the (a) appointment and (b) withdrawal of the Australian observer at the Paris peace talks.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The Australian Embassy in Paris has been given the task of keeping in touch with the American delegation and other negotiators at the Paris meetings on Vietnam. From May 1968 until August 1970 these duties were undertaken by Mr H. D. Anderson.

As Mr Anderson was not posted as Ambassador to France, the routine public announcement that is made about the movements of heads of our diplomatic missions was not made, either when he went there or when he returned.

Information about Mr Anderson’s movements was, however, given to the Parliament in answer to questions. I refer the honourable member to the answers to questions asked by Senator Ormonde on 28th May 1968 (page 1146 of the Senate Hansard, Volume 37) and by the honourable member himself in this House on 17th September 1970 (Hansard, pages 1265-6).

Dwellings for Aged Pensioners (Question No. 2136)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

Of the maximum sum of $5m made available by the Commonwealth to the States under the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 for the period up to 30th June 1970, what expenditure has been (a) approved and (b) expended (i) in total and (ii) in each of the States.

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

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

For the period up to 30th June 1970, 37 building schemes to provide 665 single self-contained dwellings at an estimated cost of $3,537,080 were approved in accordance with the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969. The total grants paid by the Commonwealth to that date, in accordance with progress made on the building schemes, amounted to $924,847. The details by States are:

The honourable member may be interested to know that to the present 53 building schemes to provide 873 single self-contained dwellings at an estimated cost of $4,779,505 have been approved.

Shipping (Question No. 2000)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What ships working on the Australian coast have been docked or repaired overseas from 1st January 1969 to date.
  2. Can he say why these were not docked or repaired in Australia.
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. Five ships trading on the Australian coast have been docked or repaired overseas since 1st January 1969. They are:

Gerringong’ - General docking and overhaul.

Howard Smith’ - Major engine modifications.

Iron Endeavour’ - General docking and overhaul. “Kooringa’ - Major structural alterations.

  1. J. Adams’ - Cross converted.

    1. It is understood that these vessels used overseas facilities for the following reasons:

Gerringong’ - As the vessel was on a voyage to Japan and was overdue for docking, the owner decided to dock it in that country.

Howard Smith’ - The owner considered superior facilities were available in Singapore.

Iron Endeavour- To fit in with the ship’s operations in the trade to Japan, the owner decided to dock the vessel in that country.

Kooringa’- In order to maintain the then existing coastal service for as long as possible, while still having the conversion completed to coincide with the introduction of the overseas container ships, the work had to be done within the smallest possible time frame. A Japanese yard was therefore selected to undertake the alteration.

  1. J. Adams’ - At the time the work was to be undertaken, there was no Australian shipyard available or capable of performing the work.

Motor Vehicles: Safety Features (Question No. 2029)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will he confer with the State Ministers with a view to introducing legislation (a) similar to that announced by the United States Government requiring air bags in all new cars from 1st January 1972 and (b) requiring (i) nape supports, (ii) safer seat anchorages, (iii) safer door latches and (iv) petrol tanks resistant to puncture and ignition in new vehicles.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Australian Transport Advisory Council has set up a committee known as the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design. This committee is closely watching developments in the United States and elsewhere on air bag protection in motor vehicles.

The Council has already endorsed 22 Australian Motor Vehicle Design Rules which include rules for head restraints, seat anchorages and door latches and hinges. These rules are being introduced progressively into State legislation as a pre-registration requirement for new vehicles.

The matter of a Design Rule for petrol tanks is under consideration by the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design.

Equal Pay (Question No. 2032)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Is he able to say whether member countries of the European Economic Community are bound by the Treaty of Rome to observe equal pay for the same work.
  2. If so, does this mean that signatory countries are to remove wage discrimination against female employees.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Article 119 of the Treaty which member countries of the European Economic Community signed in Rome in 1957 provides that each Member State shall ensure and maintain the application of the principle of equal remuneration for equal work as between men and women workers. ‘Remuneration’ is defined in the Article as meaning ‘the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker’s employment’. Equal remuneration without discrimination based on sex means ‘(a) that remuneration for the same work at piece-rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement; and (b) that remuneration for work at time-rates shall be the same for the same job’.
  2. By a resolution of 31st December 1961 Member States agreed on a timetable for implementing Article 119 whereby discriminatory wage differentials were to be progressively reduced and finally abolished by the end of 1964. On the basis of subsequent reports of the European Commission and of comments in (he reports of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, it appears that full effect has not yet been given to Article 119 in all countries which are parties to the Treaty of Rome.

Education: Secondary School Pupils (Question No. 2047)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) total amount and (b) amount per head of secondary students enrolled, allocated to (i) government, (ii) Catholic and (iti) other private schools under the (A) States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act and (B) States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act in each year since the inception of each scheme.
  2. What were the reasons for any marked changes in the allocations.
Mr H N Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) ACTS, 1964-68

    1. (a) The total amounts allocated in each year since the inception of the scheme were:
    2. Cb) The amounts per head of secondary students * enrolled were:
  1. In the early years of the scheme the annual grant to non-government schools was $2,668,000 out of a total grant of $/Om

In the light of experience at the scheme and the fact that $10m was also available each year for technical training in State Education Departments the Government decided to double the amount payable to non-government schools to $5,336,000 per annum. This operated from the first of July 1967.

Details of the proposed changes were given in a second reading speech to the Mouse of Representatives by the Hon. A. S. Fordes on Thursday 23rd February 1967.

B STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) ACT 1968

  1. (a) The The total amounts allocated in each year since the inception of the scheme were:
  1. (b) The amounts per head of secondary students “enrolled in 1969 were:
  1. There have been no changes in allocations. The slight differences in allocations per head as between pupils in government and non-government schools reflect the fact that funds under both programmes are distributed according to enrolment figures available at the beginning of a triennium and secondary school enrolments are increasing more rapidly in government schools than in nongovernment schools.

Electoral (Question No. 2054)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What has been the increase or decrease in enrolment in each sub-division in the electoral divisions of (a) Canning and (b) Forrest since the 1968 redistribution.
  2. What is the present enrolment in each of these sub-divisions.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

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

Education: Capital Works (Question No. 2069)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. On what dates did be write to the State Ministers for Education asking them to indicate the relative urgency’ of the capital works mentioned in. the report issued by them early in September 1970 (Hansard, 15th October 1970).
  2. On what dates did each State Minister reply.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. My letters were sent on 11th September 1970.
  2. The only substantial reply has been received from the South Australian Minister of Education, dated 1st October 1970. Representatives of alt State Education Departments discussed my requests in some detail at a meeting with officers of my Department on 8th October 1970. That meeting was convened by the Secretary of the Australian Education Council.

Electoral (Question No. 2159)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What arrangements are made with the States to ensure that prisoners serving sentences or awaiting trial, but eligible to vote, are provided wilh facilities to exercise their vote at federal elections.

    1. How many prisoners eligible to vote were in Australian gaols on 25th October 1969.

  2. How many of these prisoners voted.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. No special arrangements are made with the States to enable prisoners to vote at federal elections. Unless an elector is able to attend at a polling booth or is qualified and able to make an application for a postal vote, he would be unable to record his vote.
  2. and (3) The required information is unavailable.

Canberra College of Advanced Education (Question No. 2089)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What statutes have been made by the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education.
  2. When was each statute (a) notified in the Gazette and (b) tabled in the Parliament.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) Canberra College of Advanced Education Statutes made by Council and approved by the Governor-General:

Intenational Labour Organisation: Parliamentary Delegations (Question No. 1328)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. What was the last occasion on which Government and Opposition Members of the Commonwealth Parliament were members of the Australian Delegation to the meetings of the International Labour Organisation in Geneva.
  2. On how many occasions have members from both sides of the Parliament attended these Conferences as delegates.
  3. What were the names of those who attended.
  4. In which years were these Conferences held.
  5. In view of the importance of the deliberations of the I.L.O., why has the practice of sending Parliamentary delegates been discontinued.
  6. Will he consider including delegates from Government and Opposition parties in future delegations to the Conference; if not why not.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. to (4) Opposition members of the Commonwealth Parliament have never been included in delegations to conferences or meetings of the International Labour Organisation. During the period 1944-1947 it was customary for a Minister to lead the Government delegation to conferences of the I.L.O., with one or more members of the Government as members of the delegation. Late in 1947 this practice was discontinued by a decision of the then Prime Minister, Mr Chifley. Since 1953 Ministers for Labour and National Service have attended the conference in Geneva, not as a delegate but in accordance with I.L.O. custom as ‘Minister attending the conference’. This practice was varied in 1957, when the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the late Mr Harold Holt, was included as a delegate because it was known that it was likely that he would be elected President of the Conference, and it is usual for the President of the Conference to be appointed from delegates. He was, in fact, elected President.
  2. and (6) The main business lit an l.L.O. conference is conducted by means of technical committees which sit simultaneously throughout the greater part of the conference. In order that the Government can be represented on the various committees which concern it, in appointing the delegation it is necessary to take into account their suitability in relation to the technical items on the agenda.

Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships (Question No. 1349)

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

en - An answer lo Question No. 1349, asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) appeared originally in Hansard, pages 573-574 of 26tb August 1970. The question dealt with the numbers of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships available for 1970, the number of students who competed for them and the number who received awards. Whilst the information provided in the answer was correct, 1 think that a revision of the text of part 2 is called for in order to remove any possibility of a misunderstanding arising over the year of award of these scholarships. A revision of part 2 of the answer is as follows:

The number of students who competed for these awards for 1970 totalled 83,821. Of these students, 10,034 (or 12.0 per cent) successfully competed for and accepted a Commonwealth Secondary scholarship.

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Question No. 1374)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Of the 1,411 matters dealt with by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1969, in how many cases was there a delay between filing the petition and commencement of the hearing of (a) less than one week, (b) more than one week but less than one month, (c) more than one month but less than six months and (d) more than six months.
  2. In how many of the 1,411 matters was the period between commencement of the hearing and the date of the determination (a) less than one day, (b) more than one day but less than one week, (c) more than one week but less than one month, (d) more than one month but less than six months and (e) more than six months.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2)I refer the honourable member to my news release of 26th May 1970 which announced the results of a study of alleged delays in proceedings before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The study was based on 600 sittings of the Commission in 1969 and examined the time taken, after filing, for a matter to come on for hearing and of the time taken to complete the bearing. The expenditure of staff resources needed to undertake the more extensive study suggested by the honourable member would not be justified.

Tertiary Education: Courses in Social Work (Question No. 1647)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. At which universities and other tertiary institutions are (a) career courses and (b) postgraduate courses conducted in social work.
  2. From which universities and other teritiary institutions are social work graduates (a) ableto proceed to post-graduate studies (b) accepted for employment as social workers in the Commonwealth Public Service and (c) accepted for Commonwealth cadetships.
  3. Which social work courses conducted at institutes of technology or colleges of advanced education are currently being reviewed for the purpose of professional acceptability, and when is it expected the reviews will be completed.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. (a) It is not clear what the honourable member means by ‘career courses’ in social work.

In the case of universitiesI have taken it to mean undergraduate courses and in the case of colleges of advanced education, diploma courses.

Universities: Undergraduate courses in social work are conducted at the Universities of Sydney, New South Wales, Melbourne and Queensland.

Colleges of Advanced Education: Diploma courses in social work are conducted at the South Australian Institute of Technology and the Western Australian Institute of Technology.

  1. Post-graduate courses in social work are conducted at the Universities of New South Wales, Melbourne, Queensland, the Flinders University of South Australia and the University of Western Australia. No post-graduate courses are offered by colleges of advanced education.

    1. (A) Graduates with qualifications in social work from the universities shown in the reply to part (1) (a) may proceed to post-graduate studies at the universities shown in the reply to part (1) (b). It would be necessary for diplomates from social work courses in colleges of advanced education to approach specific institutions providing post-graduate courses and for these institutions to decide the applicants’ eligibility.
  2. Graduates from university social work courses are acceptable for employment as Social Worker Class 1-3 in the Commonwealth Public Service. Diplomates holding the Diploma in Technology in Social Work from the South Australian Institute of Technology or the Associateship in Social Work from the Western Australian Institute of Technology are acceptable for employment subject to Departmental recommendation in each particular case.

  3. Any social work course offered by a university or a college of advanced education which is nominated by an applicant for a Commonwealth cadetship is acceptable but these are awarded on a competitive basis and therefore not all applicants are successful.

    1. Review of courses for the purpose of professional recognition is primarily a matter for the professional institutes themselves and information on courses under review is not available to me. However I would suggest that an inquiry directed to the Australian Association of Social Workers should bring forth up to date information on any reviews which are currently taking place.

Portnoy’s Complaint’ (Question No. 1688)

Mr Enderby:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that prosecutions may be launched in Canberra in respect of the sale of the book ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’.
  2. Is he able to say whether this possibility of prosecution has had a widespread deterrent effect on booksellers in Canberra.
  3. Is it a fact that there is a legal requirement in the Australian Capital Territory that no prosecution shall be launched under the law of the Territory without the written consent of the Attorney-General or a person authorised by him to give such consent
  4. Has he read ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’; if so, is he qualified to say whether or not the book has literary merit
  5. Ifhe has not read the book, has any officer of his Department been authorised to read it; if so, is that person qualified to decide whether or not it has literary merit
  6. As the book is widely read throughout the world and is now being sold in South Australia, will he consider this as an indication that the book has literary merit or as a reason for not giving his consent to a prosecution.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. to (6) The Objectionable Publications Ordinance 1958 of the Australian Capital Territory provides in section 10 that an offence against the Ordinance shall not be prosecuted without my consent or that of a person authorised by me to give such consent. No application has been made under the provisions of the Ordinance for my consent to prosecute anyone in respect of the sale of the book ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’.

Censorship (Question No. 1776)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

What (a) books and (b) films have been the subject of Commonwealth censorship over each of the last 10 years.

Mr Chipp:
LP

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

All imported films and books are liable to examination for censorship purposes before clearance from Customs control.

Lists of prohibited books and films are available in the Parliamentary Library for scrutiny by honourable members.

The publications list includes those prohibited over the last 10 years.

In the case of films the Parliamentary Library list cover rejections for the period 1st July 1967 onwards. The titles rejected for the balance of the period in question, namely 1st January 1960 to 30th June 1967 are as follows:

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. What means test is imposed upon applicants for education awards under the Services Trust Funds Act.
  2. Are adjustments to the means test automatic; if so, on what basis.
  3. When was the last adjustment made.

page 3093

REJECTED THEATRICAL FILMS

1st JANUARY 1960-30th JUNE 1967

1960

Bride and the Beast.

Attack of the 50 ft Woman.

Girls Disappear.

The Green Mare (La Jument Verte).

Brides of Dracula.

*Circus of Horrors.

*Key Witness.

The Game of Love (L’eau a la Boucite).

Never Let Go.

The Challenge.

*The Testament of Dr Cordelier.

Breathless (A Bout de Souffle).

*Studs Lonigan.

*13 Ghosts.

Dubbed version subsequently passed.

1961

City of the Dead.

The Flesh and the Fiends.

Terror in the Midnight Sun.

Temptation Island.

*Dr Blood’s Coffin.

Konga.

Revolt of the Slaves.

Vampire and the Ballerina.

*Beat Girl.

Curse of the Werewolf.

The House of Usher.

Black Sunday.

Hand of Death.

The Magic Sword.

Les Liaisons Dangereuses 1960.

The Mask.

Mr Sardonicus.

Some Like it Cool.

1962

Cross Trap.

During One Night.

Naked as Nature Intended (16 mm).

Pit and the Pendulum.

*The Hellions.

Look in any Window.

*Town Without Pity.

Viridiana.

Night of the Eagle.

*The Chapman Report

Subsequently passed for television (AO).

1963

The Wild Ride.

Sun Lovers’ Holiday.

White Slave Ship.

The Case of Patty Smith.

*Sweet Ecstacy.

*Twice Told Tales.

The Beatniks.

*Vice and Virtue.

Sexy Girls Sexy Nights.

Nightmare.

A Lust to Kill.

The Primitives.

The Day of the Triffids.

Yellow Teddy Beats.

Shock Corridor.

Nomos Hooo.

The Very Edge.

1964

Shock Treatment

The Last Man on Earth.

Five Minutes to Live.

Lady in a Cage.

The Evil of Frankenstein.

Kiss of the Vampire.

The Virgin of Nuremburg.

Kipling’s Women.

*Signpost to Murder.

Kitten With a Whip.

*Wheel of Fire (Pyro).

Konga.

The Black Zoo.

The Black Zoo (Reconstructed version).

Young Fury.

Strange Compulsion.

*The Gorgon.

*Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure.

*Lilith.

Sin in the Suburbs.

Witchcraft.

Shock Corridor (Reconstructed version).

*Reconstructed version subsequently passed.

1965

Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb.

*Kiss Me Stupid.

The Molesters.

Une Femme Mariee.

Curse of the Fly.

Dr Terror’s House of Horrors.

Devils of Darkness.

Under Age.

Die Die My Darling (Fanatic).

The Skull.

Tabu (16 mm).

Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster (16 mm).

Dirty Girls.

*The Naked Prey.

*Loving Couples.

Street Without End.

Town Tamer.

Lana Queen of the Amazon.

Passed on appeal.

1966

Dracula Prince of Darkness.

The Incredible Sex Revolution.

Young Dillinger.

The Premature Burial.

The Premature Burial (Reconstructed version).

Lola (The Girl From Piraeus).

*The Wild Wild Planet.

The Seductress.

The Sadist.

Right Hand of the Devil.

Hot Head.

Promises Promises,

Onibaba.

Lollipop.

The Man Who Laughs.

The Wild Angels. 52 Miles to Terror.

*Chamber of Horrors.

Lorna.

Mondo Infame.

A Virgin for the Prince.

A Maiden for the Prince.

Sinderella and the Golden Bra. §One Million Years B.C.

Shortened version passed (1970). 2nd Reconstructed version passed (1970). § Passed on appeal, 1967 (1st January-30th June)

*For a Few Dollars More.

On Her Bed of Roses.

De L’amour (16 mm).

Mystika Tis Amartis Athinias (Secrets of Sinful Athens).

Die Monster Die.

Ride to Hangman’s Tree.

Sexy Nudo.

Love is my Business.

Ulysses.

*Theatre of Death. 17 (Reconstructed version).

Mondo Infame (Reconstructed version).

*Killer on a Horse (Welcome to Hard Times).

The Amorists.

The Devil’s Own (The Witches).

The Rape.

One Silver Dollar.

One Silver Dollar (Reconstructed version).

Sirtaki Tis Amartias.

Reconstructed version passed for television (AO)

2nd reconstructed version passed (1970).

Education Awards: Means Test (Question No. 1829)

Mr Holten:
CP

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

The administration of the Services Trust Funds Act is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Defence. However, the information requested by the honourable member is being obtained from the appropriate authority andI shall let him have answers to his questions as soon as it becomes available.

Drought Relief (Question No. 1869)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Premiers have sought drought relief from the Commonwealth since he became Prime Minister.
  2. On what dates has (a) each Premier written to him and (b) he written to each Premier.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The Premiers of all States.
  2. Since becoming Prime Minister,I have received over 60 separate communications on this subject from the Premiers. I cannot see that listing all the dates of all communications would serve any meaningful purpose and do not propose to ask officers to undertake this work.

Medical and Hospital Funds Expenses (Question No. 1920)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of total medical fund membership was represented in each of the last 10 years by the 12 medical funds which exceeded the15 per cent expense rate in every year (Hansard, 18th September 1970, page 1410).
  2. What percentage ot total hospital fund membership was represented in each of the last 10 years by the 7 hospital funds which exceeded 12i per cent expense rate in every year (Hansard, 18th September 1970, page 1410).
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The 12 medical funds and 7 hospital funds which exceeded expenses rates of IS per cent and 12i per cent respectively in every year during the 10 years up to and including 1968/69, represented the following percentages of total membership in those years:

Pharmaceutical Benefit: Oxygen (Question No. 1924)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has consideration been given to the submission made to the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs on behalf of the National Tuberculosis and Chest Association on 14th September 1970 that oxygen bc supplied as a pharmaceutical benefit in certain cases where its use in the home is recommended by a specialist physician.
  2. In particular, will he give urgent consideration to the supply of oxygen free of charge in cases which involve pensioners.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. I have received a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that oxygen be made available in certain cases, as a pharmaceutical benefit. Al] pharmaceutical benefits are available free to pensioners.

My Department is currently examining the many problems which must be overcome before the Committee’s recommendation can be given effect. The main difficulties are associated with the size and weight of containers, which make impracticable the distribution of oxygen through the normal channels used to supply pharmaceutical benefits. In addition, the National Health Act currently makes no provision for the supply of apparatus and appliances necessary in administering oxygen.

Wollongong University College (Question No. 1933)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. When will Wollongong University College be granted autonomy.
  2. What funds will have been made available for expenditure on capital works prior to the date autonomy will take effect.
  3. Does the College have any unfilled staff places; if so, what are the details.
  4. Does the College have residential facilities; if so, what are the details.
  5. Can he say whether any universities or university colleges in Australia have library facilities of a poorer standard than those at the Wollongong University College; if so, which.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The New South Wales Minister for Education, the Hon. C. B. Cutler, has advised me that Wollongong University College will be granted autonomy as from 1st January 1975.
  2. Grants totalling $3,252,000 of which half will have been provided by the Commonwealth have been made available for expenditure on capital works at the Wollongong University College up to and including the 1970-72 triennium. The Commonwealth will consider any request for additional capital funds that may be required to enable the College to operate as an autonomous university from 1st January 1975.
  3. I have been advised that there are no unfilled vacancies for academic or administrative staff. Two unfilled places exist for library staff, a librarian and a library assistant.
  4. There are no residential facilities at present. A Commonwealth grant has been made available in the 1970-72 triennium to meet half the cost of establishing ah affiliated residential college at an estimated total cost of $540,000. The College will be administered by the Young Men’s Christian Association. The grant for this project is additional to the sum shown in the answer to part (2) of this question.
  5. The Commonwealth has recognised the need for a new library building at the College and has provided a grant in the 1970-72 triennium to meet half the cost of the first stage of such a building. The first stage will provide additional reader and book space and is estimated to cost $350,000.

Public Service Arbitration Cases (Question No. 2042)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What hearings are at present being conducted before the Public Service Arbitrator and his deputies.
  2. Who are the parties to each claim.
  3. How many positions are the subject of each claim.
  4. How many claims are pending under the Public Service Arbitration Act in respect of which memorials have been filed but no determination issued.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am advised that as at 19th October 1970, the following hearings were current before the Public Service Arbitrator and Deputy Public Service Arbitrators involving the parties shown:
  1. I am advised that the bearings referred to in (1) and (2), above, would involve several thousand officers and employees. A great deal of research would be required to produce a precise figure and I do not believe that the effort involved in such research would be warranted.
  2. Fifteen.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19701029_reps_27_hor70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant