House of Representatives
16 March 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 887

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

-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 residents of the State of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

The red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.

None of the Australian Slates have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.

It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

The export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

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

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

The red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.

None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.

It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

The export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Common wealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

That pressure be brought to bear on the

Queensland Government to declare a closure of season each year to permit population recovery.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable 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 Stale 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 menially handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Association 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 Stales for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 present the following petition:

To i he 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.

Thai 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 Slates for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Advertising Material

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the Division of Balaclava respectfully showeth:

That many tons of unsolicited advertising matter delivered to householders that is required to be burnt in Australia each year creates air pollution;

That such literature placed in fences litters streets which is hardly in accordance with the Don’t Rubbish Australia’ theme;

That further nuisance in caused for postmen and paper delivery boys by choking letter boxes and paper holders; and

That with the mediums of newspapers, radio and commercial television stations available, it is considered undesirable to weary the public with this additional advertising outlet.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that legislation be introduced to prevent the distribution of unsolicited advertising matter to householders.

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

Petition received and read.

page 888

QUESTION

PACIFIC ISLANDS REGIMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Defence a question which concerns the authority which he announced when Prime Minister on 20th July last had been given to the Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to call on the assistance of the Pacific Islands Regiment. I ask: Has this authority been varied since the new Administrator, the Minister for External Territories and the former Minister for Defence recommended in midSeptember that the call-out order be revoked, and, if so, in what respects has it been varied? Specifically, whether it has been varied or not, is the Administrator empowered to make a direct request to the commander of the Pacific Islands Regiment or must his request be made through or approved by higher military authorities or a Minister or the Cabinet or the Executive Council? Finally, since the Defence Act and the Australian Military Regulations and Orders make express provisions for applications by the States for Commonwealth protection against domestic violence, what steps are being taken to amend them to regularise the situation in New Guinea?

Mr GORTON:
Minister for Defence · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– As I think the House will probably be aware, the original authority was an authority which at that time and because of the circumstances which then existed allowed the Administrator to requisition forces of the Pacific

Islands Regiment to help the constabulary if he did not have time to get in touch with the Minister beforehand. After a Cabinet discussion in September, held because letters had been received from the former Minister for Defence and the Minister for External Territories, the Cabinet decided to vary that authority so that the Administrator must consult with Ministers before he is able to take any action under that Order-in-Council - not with a higher military authority but, in fact, with the Government. That was the variation which was made at that time. The Order-in-Council is still in existence. What it means is that the Government is in complete control as to whether or not troops are able to be called out in the case of emergency. But the Government can act without first securing another Order-in-Council. In regard to the last matter mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, which was a general discussion on amending the Defence Act as it affects the States, to the best of my knowledge that is not under discussion. But there has been, and is continuing to be, interdepartmental discussion in the proper governmental machinery as to the position in Papua and New Guinea and whether that should continue to be on all fours with the position in the States in Australia.

page 889

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION

Mr FOX:

– I direct a question to the Treasurer, and preface it by drawing the Minister’s attention to the fact that a branch of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation within the electorate of Henty closed for business last week. The reason given was that the branch had been held up by armed robbers 5 times in the past 3$ years. I ask the Minister: At what level was the decision to close the bank taken and what consideration was given to the convenience of its customers? Finally, what efforts were made to cope with the problem of armed robberies by other means than by closing the branch?

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

– It occurs to me that Henty is a somewhat rough place. I have no direct knowledge of this matter - that is the closing of the branch - because it is a matter for ordinary Commonwealth Banking Corporation administration. I would not expect to be informed about the open ing and closing of branches. This is a serious matter for the administration of the Bank as branches are not opened or closed without very careful consideration I am not aware of the reason for closing the branch, but I would imagine it is not exactly popular amongst the officers of the Commonwealth Bank as one in which to seek service. I feel sure that the convenience of customers was considered,’ because this is a prime consideration of the administration not only of the Commonwealth Bank but also of other banks. 1 will endeavour to obtain information for the honourable member, but I do not regard it as a matter in which I should intervene.

page 889

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday that Australia’s support for the South Vietnamese is giving them the opportunity for freedom and liberty. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a signed article in the ‘New York Times’ of 22nd February, headed Two Catholic Priests in Saigon get 9-monih Jail Terms for Publishing Articles Asking an End to the War? Is he aware that there is a substantial body of opinion within South Vietnam itself that the greatest barrier to freedom and liberty is the present Saigon Government, which the Australian Government is helping to uphold by armed force?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Government and members of the Government have stated on many occasions that the reasons why we and the forces of the free world are operating in South Vietnam is to give the people of that country the opportunity to determine their own future or to put this in reverse, to prevent the Communists from taking over through .bloodshed and through force. As to the second part of the question, I have not heard of the death or torture in Vietnam of 2 priests. I hope that such things have not occurred. If they have they are matters to be deeply regretted by every Government supporter and, I hope, by every member of the House. The Government’s attitude is clear: We will stand with South Vietnam to the maximum of our capacity. The South Vietnamese are doing remarkably well in Laos and Cambodia and we think that the views of the people of South Vietnamese will prevail.

page 890

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that more than 2,900 questions have been placed on the notice paper since the 27th Parliament first met in February 1970 and in view of the fact that many of those questions are very long, very involved and very costly to answer, will the Prime Minister ask Mr Speaker to call a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee so that it might consider amendments to the Standing Orders in order to bring them into line with those of the House of Commons, where every question is limited to a certain number of words? Has the right honourable gentleman noted that of the questions on the notice paper more than 500 are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and more than 200 in the name of the honourable member for Hindmarsh? As large numbers of public servants are obliged to neglect their legitimate duties to prepare, at great expense, answers to many unnecessary questions, will he extend his anti-inflation policy into this field of Commonwealth expenditure?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is too lengthy.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The honourable member’s question should be welcomed by every thoughtful member of the House. We should recognise such questioning as a method of obstruction which appears to have been adopted by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I think the suggestion of the honourable member for Corangamite is a sensible one and I will take steps to have it referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

page 890

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, may I ask you a question? When the Standing Orders Committee meets to discuss the matter which the new Prime Minister proposes to refer to it will you see that the Committee considers also the adoption of the House of Commons procedure whereby every question on the notice paper is answered not later than the week after it is put on the notice paper? In particular, since many of the questions on the notice paper are directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service, will the Committee deal with the situation in which questions directed by me to the Minister have been awaiting answers since 11th June last year?

Mr SPEAKER:

– When the Prime Minister approaches me about calling a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee I will consider the matters that he may raise with me. Additionally 1 believe it would be in the interests of the House for the Committee to study the length of questions, the length of answers and the time taken to provide answers.

page 890

QUESTION

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry advise me whether all Slates have agreed to the Commonwealth’s $100m rural reconstruction scheme? In view of the vital importance of the scheme to the rural economy will the Minister give some indication as to when funds will be available to the respective Slate governments?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The States have agreed in principle to the SI 00m rural reconstrucT tion scheme as submitted to them except that in the case of Victoria there has still not been any final communication, as I understand the position, between the Premier of that State and the Prime Minister. However, I have had considerable correspondence with the Victorian Minister for Lands, who, I believe, is the responsible Minister, regarding some details of the scheme about which he was initially uncertain. I am hopeful that soon we will be able to announce that all States have agreed to the scheme as originally announced by my predecessor. As regards the availability of funds, the honourable member may know that all States have some funds still available from various schemes which were initiated during the 1930s and the post-depression days. These are available, generally speaking, where the administrative mechanism is established for immediate advances in terms of the rural reconstruction part of the loan.

As to the $100m fund itself, negotiations are well advanced between officers of the respective administrative State departments and my officers and the Commonwealth Treasury concerning the agreement. When this is finalised we will be in a position to introduce legislation into this place. In addition, I understand, in some States it may also be necessary for complementary legislation to be lodged. I can assure the honourable gentleman of the recognition by the Commonwealth of the urgency with which these measures are regarded by the farming community and 1 can assure him that every effort will be made to introduce the necessary legislation and to finalise the agreements as soon as possible.

page 891

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION PTY LTD

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I preface it by reminding the right honourable gentleman that there is considerable concern in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd about possible retrenchments as the present programme draws to an end. I ask the. right honourable gentleman: Wilt he bring forward the light observation helicopter programme to prevent these heavy retrenchments from the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I have not as yet had time fully to go into all details of a rather intricate department.

Mr Bryant:

– You have to be quick.

Mr GORTON:

– Yes, you have to be quicker than a few hours. But 1 do understand that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation has at least this to look forward to - that the Government did decide to establish a helicopter industry in Australia and that the Corporation was to be engaged in making those helicopters - not entirely; it will not be the only place but it is a place where this is to happen. This must have some helping effect on the possibility of retrenchment there. T do not say it is a complete answer. I will look into the other points that the honourable gentleman has made. But I think the House should know that the decision to establish a helicopter industry would at least be of assistance to these people.

page 891

QUESTION

INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Is the reason behind the withdrawal of a proposal to restrict investment in non-dwelling building construction that the Government’s estimate was exaggerated? As it has been shown that the rate of growth manufacturing investment was over-estimated will he now also have the legislation suspending the investment allowance on plant and equipment used in manufacturing withdrawn?

11804/71- R-

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I can see no relationship between the building industry - that is the non-housing construction area - and the investment allowance so far as it relates to plant and equipment. We have no intention of again considering this question of reinstating the investment allowance for plant and equipment. Nonetheless it is one of those matters that can well be considered during the preparation of the next Budget.

page 891

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

- Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that quite a number of questions on the notice paper could never be answered in 7 days or even 7 months without a huge expenditure of public money; in view of the fact that many of them seek information that can be obtained by a little hard work on the part of honourable members; and also in view of the fact that over my long career I have never tried to disrupt the work of Government departments by asking questions at great length, might I now ask you to intercede on my behalf so that I can get an answer to a question I put on the notice paper on 4th March 1970, in which 1 asked the PostmasterGeneral:

Wilt he consider taking steps to establish a committee of both Houses of the Parliament to examine the question of television and radio broadcasting by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and privately-owned television and radio companies?

If I may interpolate-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable member has had the indulgence of the Chair. Whilst the question may be a very interesting one in itself it is beyond my administrative responsibility to intercede on behalf of any honourable member to obtain from a Minister an answer to a question on notice.

page 891

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Can he give the House any information following his announcement on 8th March that the abandoned freighter ‘Henna’ is presumed to be afloat 2,000 miles south west of Fremantle having been loaded with ilmenite at Bunbury on 23rd February? Is its present position known and is it regarded as a hazard to shipping?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– The ship ‘Henna’ came to Australia in the first place to load grain from South Australia. My Department inspected the vessel under the provisions of the International Safety of Life at Sea Convention and found the ship to be unsafe to carry a cargo of grain. It instructed the owners of the ship that a great deal of work would be required before it could put to sea. The owners took the ship from South Australia to Western Australia and loaded it with a cargo of ilmenite. This was the first we had heard of what had become of this ship. The Harbour Master at Bunbury reported the ship’s presence there and after an inspection of the ship he reported that the ship was still unsafe. Some repairs were made to the ship at that point to meet the provisions of the Convention and the people who were finally responsible for the ship agreed that it should be allowed to sail to sea. As it met the provisions of the Convention my Department had no further objection and it sailed to sea. As the honourable member has stated, the ship finally broke up at sea. The ship’s crew was removed satisfactorily apart from one man who was slightly injured. The ship is still adrift at sea and there is very little known of what has become of her from that point onwards. A watch is being kept for her to make sure the vessel does not create any danger to international shipping.

SIR JOHN McEWEN

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The right honourable gentleman will remember that Parliament tendered a dinner to Sir Robert Menzies a month after he retired from the Parliament. He will also remember that his predecessor, in leading the tributes on Sir John McEwen’s last day in the House last October, forecast that there would be other occasions in the future for us to pay a tribute to Sir John. I therefore ask whether arrangements will now be made for a dinner at which suitable tributes can be paid to Sir John for his great services not only to the Australian Country Party but also to the Liberal Party of Australia and the whole Parliament.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will look into the question asked by the honourable gentleman and if the answer is in the affirmative I will make certain he is invited.

page 892

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of reports emanating from Renmark, where sales of wine from stock are depressingly low, that increased overdraft facilities are required to meet added storage and intake costs? Is the Minister aware of these difficulties occurring in specific areas where essentially bulk wines are produced and sold?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– The honourable gentleman has drawn attention to a particular problem that affects some areas which, as he has stressed in the latter part of his question, produce bulk wines, as distinct from those areas which produce the more saleable wines. From the general statistics that I have obtained following the claims made by the persons to whom he has referred, I have ascertained that while there has been a very considerable annual increase in wholesale wine sales throughout Australia, the order of increase for the sales of bulk wines has not followed that overall pattern, although the State pattern in South Australia still shows a substantial increase between the September quarters of 1969 and 1970 and the December quarters of 1969 and 1970. It might be of interest to the House if I mentioned the increase. Production in the September quarter of 1969 totalled 1,150,000 gallons and in the September quarter of 1970 it totalled 1,232,000 gallons. Production in the December quarter of 1969 totalled 1,236,000 gallons and in the December quarter of 1970 it totalled 1,244,000 gallons. But it is true that within these specified areas of South Australia there seems to have been an adverse effect which is quite out of character with the general effect in the rest of the wine growing areas. For that reason I am happy to try to initiate an investigation by my Department of the circumstances to which the honourable member has referred and, of course, I assure him that I will have some discussions with the relevant officers of other departments if they should be involved.

page 892

QUESTION

CABINET DECISIONS

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Prime Minister, by saying that in recent days he has gone to great pains to build an image of himself as a man of the Cabinet, as one who believes that when a Cabinet decision is taken, that decision will be backed to the hilt.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman may not bring argument into the preface to his question. He may make a preface of a reasonable length but, as he well knows, it is out of order to introduce argument into questions.

Dr PATTERSON:

– My question is: On 1 6th April 1970 the Cabinet, or the Government, after great deliberation introduced into this Parliament the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill as a matter of urgency. The Minister who introduced it said:

The Government feels that this issue should now be decided once and for alt, and without delay.

That was 11 months ago. Will the Prime Minister see that this Cabinet decision, which was taken 11 months ago, will now in fact be proceeded with immediately, as his Minister said, and that the Bill is debated in this House without delay?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have tried to make 2 points clear: Firstly that I am a party man and secondly that I believe in Cabinet making decisions. I will most certainly consult my Party about the problem mentioned, and I will also consult the full Cabinet before anything further is done.

page 893

QUESTION

GRAIN STORAGE

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Education and Science. In the last annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation it was stated that the Federal Cabinet had approved an agreement between the CSIRO and the Australian Wheat Board to establish a laboratory for research into grain storage problems. In view of the large stocks of wheat currently being held in Australia - coupled with increasingly high standards set by overseas buyers concerning chemical residues from pesticides and weevil infestation - when is it expected that this research laboratory will be completed? Has the Stored Grains Research Liaison Committee been formed?

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

– The answer to the first part of the question asked by the honourable member for Calare is that tenders have in fact been issued for the construction of the laboratory. They close at some time which I do not carry in my head, but it is before the end of this month. Having regard to the nature of the laboratory, it is expected that construction will be completed before the end of the year. The Liaison Committee has been formed, the members have been appointed, and it will have its first meeting on 30th March.

page 893

QUESTION

CANBERRA POLICE FORCE

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has the Canberra Police Force an adequate detective and homicide arm to deal with such a case as the disappearance of Miss Keren Rowland on 26th February? Has outside assistance been obtained in this case? Is there a Canberra force for tracking missing persons in open country, such as police trackers and police using bloodhounds?

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

– I am not ministerially responsible for the activities of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. I suggest that my honourable friend should address his question to the Minister for the Interior.

Mr Beazley:

– He is not here.

Mr HUGHES:

– When he is back.

page 893

QUESTION

TRADE SHIPS

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Government considered the advantages of establishing an Australian trade ship similar to the floating fair ships used by Japan as travelling exhibitions to expand her trade?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Government has from time to time chartered trade ships to assist, it in the promotion of the export sales of Australian products. I believe that between 1958 and 1965 five such ships were chartered and used for this purpose. However, there is no intention at the moment of using trade ships, because of the expense involved compared with other means of promoting Australian products. The feeling of the Department of Trade and Industry at the moment is that we can more effectively promote Australian products by specialised campaigns into selected markets.

page 894

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: RECRUITMENT

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Arising out of the current economic position, what restrictions have been placed on recruitment to the Commonwealth Public Service? How long will these restrictions remain in force? Is the Prime Minister aware that many young people who intended to enter the Public Service as a career are being penalised unfairly and for an indefinite period?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The former Prime Minister announced to the House that the percentage increase in the Commonwealth Public Service would be reduced this year compared with last year. I think the figure he gave was 4i per cent. We will not know how long this will be continued until we see the results of the efforts being made by the Government to restrain inflationary forces. In answer to the third question asked by the honourable gentleman, I will discuss this matter with the Chairman of the Public Service Board as soon as I can.

page 894

QUESTION

ACADEMIC SALARIES

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. I remind the Minister of the 1970 Eggleston Committee report on academic salaries which recommended future adjustments in accordance with national wage case decisions. I ask the Minister: Firstly, did the Commonwealth inform the States that it would provide a share of the funds required to implement the recommendation? Secondly, which State governments have so far accepted the recommendation? Thirdly, in which universities has salary adjustment been provided for in consequence of the recent national wage case decision?

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

– The Eggleston Committee report recommended certain increases in the salaries of professors and teachers at universities and recommended that, when percentage increases in wages generally were laid down in a national wage case, in future they should flow on to these professors and academic people in universities. The report was received and considered by the Commonwealth Government. A letter was then written to each of the State Premiers stating that the Commonwealth accepted the report, including the recommendation that percentage increases should flow on, and would support any State that was prepared to make its own matching contribution to such a rise. When the increase of 6 per cent was announced, which was somewhat larger than many people had anticipated, the Commonwealth Government again communicated with the Premiers and stated that it would maintain its support for any State Government that wished to support its universities in paying an increase of 6 per cent to its academic staff.

In response to that, I understand that all States except one have announced that they will make this additional payment to the universities to enable them to pay the increase of 6 per cent to their academic staff. There was a slight restriction in the case of Tasmania in that the Premier of that State indicated that this decision was related to the current year. In the case of Victoria, which was the exception, Sir Henry Bolte indicated that the State would not make its contribution but that the universities had recently raised their fees, and insofar as these attract a contribution from the Commonwealth, the universities would be entitled to make their own decision as to whether they would give the increase to their own academic staffs. That is where the matter rests in Victoria. The honourable member also asked me which universities were paying at the increased rates. They are autonomous institutions and I do not know which are in fact paying those increased rates. However, I have outlined the position in respect of these funds.

page 894

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House what action he intends to take to give effect to the timeworn election promises to decentralise industry and population in Australia. Does the right honourable gentleman intend to await the final report of the CommonwealthState officials committee which, I may add, met only three times in 6 years to the end of last year, or does he intend to initiate measures to disperse industry and to encourage this process by reducing country telephone charges and abolishing the payroll tax on country industries?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– This matter is deserving of consideration. I will discuss it with the Deputy Prime Minister and if we think it is desirable we will take a submission on it to Cabinet.

page 895

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN STATE SHIPPING SERVICE

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to my previous representations to the Government concerning the continuation of the service to Darwin by the Western Australian State Shipping Service. Can the Minister advise of any development in the efforts by the CommonWealth and Slate Governments to keep State ships on the northern run beyond Wyndham to Darwin? Further, will he make every effort to prevent the cessation of this service as such a backward step will greatly raise costs in north Australia?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The Western Australian State Shipping Service has recognised the problems it has with its ships in servicing the coastal run to Darwin, lt recently sought tenders for the purchase of some LASH type ships. / understand that, unfortunately from their point of view, the tenders were considered to be too high. The net tender price per ship was something of the order of $9m and the Service had been hoping to purchase these ships for a net price of about $6m. The Service has not yet confirmed this with me officially but this is the understanding that I have. The Commonwealth has made it plain that it is prepared to assist the Western Australian State Shipping Service to overcome its problems and in fact we have put the Service in touch with some ship brokers who may be able to supply modern conventional ships that would more satisfactorily handle the trade to Darwin. The honourable member may be assured that we are interested in seeing the trade to Darwin maintained, lt represents something of the order of 20 per cent of the total trade of the Western Australian State Shipping Service. I think I saw a report recently that the new Premier of Western Australia had indicated that it is his desire to see the State Shipping Service continue trading to Darwin, so I think there may well be a joint effort by the Commonwealth and the State Government to try to overcome the problem.

page 895

QUESTION

BANKING

Mr GARRICK:

– The Treasurer will be aware that bankers have stated that what is known as the Minsec affair has restricted bank credit for sound propositions and that at least one of the trading banks is a creditor of Mineral Securities Ltd. In the light of Government powers restricting bank lending, how is it possible for a trading bank to advance sums of the magnitude of several million dollars without effective security?

Mr BURY:
LP

– The control over money does not apply to specified advances.

Mr Garrick:

– lt ought to.

Mr BURY:

– 1 know that any Socialist would like to arrange the whole thing, to arrange all bank loans in the country; but that is not our policy nor will it be. Our control is general, and within those general lines the banks select their own customers, judge their credit position and solvency and make all the other judgments applying to banking.

page 895

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral studied the new telephone accounts, which are the print-out of a computer? Does the Minister agree that they are extremely difficult for the average citizen to understand? Will he consider the preparation of a simpler form of account which does not require a subscriber to be a computer programmer to understand?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have to admit that there is some difficulty in relation to the first account which is prepared by the computer as against the normal accounting machine, and it is a fact that the Post Office is using computers in the preparation of telephone accounts for metropolitan subscribers in both Sydney and Melbourne. Because of the varying dates on which telephones are installed and because we have endeavoured to get a fixed date for the rendering of accounts on the first account coming off a computer there is apparently a confusing debit and credit. But at the same time I understand that with items in the miscellaneous area there is more description than there was on the old accounts. 1 will speak to the Department, which is always very willing to consider representations from members of Parliament or members of the public in relation to improvements in the system which we adopt.

page 896

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORY

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address to the Minister for Defence a question which is supplementary to the one asked by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Are any retrenchments likely in the immediate future at the Government Aircraft Factory, Port Melbourne? Will he consult with his colleague, the Minister for Supply, in an endeavour to bring stability to this vital but currently declining aircraft industry?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– 1 know that the Minister for Supply is aware of the situation in the factory to which the honourable member has referred. 1 have had some preliminary discussion with him about it but have not been able to discuss it in sufficient depth to give a more meaningful answer than that to the question which the honourable member has asked. There are some actions which are being taken as I have indicated to the House which should help to maintain this factory in production. Whether or not it will be possible to maintain it in full production, or for everybody employed there to be continued to be employed, 1 cannot yet answer, but 1 know that it is under study by the Minister for Supply.

page 896

QUESTION

FACILITIES

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it true that coal loading facilities at the port of Newcastle are not adequate for the large quantities of coal available for export from the Hunter Valley? Has the New South Wales Government been responsible for the establishment of the existing facilities? Is it the intention of the New South Wales Government to build further coal loading facilities in the port of Newcastle or at an adjacent locality, and has any approach been made to the Federal Government for financial assistance for this project? Can the Minister inform the House as to the present situation?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The Maritime Services Board presently is handling between 6 million and 7 million tons of coal per annum from the area mentioned by the honourable member. I understand that further facilities have been provided at Newcastle in order to increase this to 10.5 million tons and that the Martime Services Board believes that this will cater for the situation as it is at the moment. I believe the

New South Wales Government has got together a consortium of companies which are interested in the export of coal to see whether it will be prepared to install further facilities to take care of the growth of the coal industry, and negotiations are under way at this point of time. The Commonwealth has previously assisted the New South Wales Government financially. That Government received $5. 3m, S2m of which came from the Joint Coal Board Coal Industry Fund and the balance from this Government on a term loan. No request has been received up to this point of time from the New South Wales Government for further financial assistance.

page 896

QUESTION

GAZELLE PENINSULA

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister whether units of the 3 arms of our defence Services have already been deployed in respect of civil distrubances on the Gazelle’ Peninsula. Did these involve Air Force Hercules aircraft, naval patrol boats and Army signalmen? Is the Prime Minister satisfied that this deployment was preceded by the fulfilment of all legal obligations? Why did the Government fail to consult the House of Assembly of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, the United Nations Trusteeship Council and this Parliament about this important matter which could result in another Sharpeville?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– All legal requirements were fulfilled when this matter was considered and I have been advised within the course of the last 24 hours that the existing order has legal effect and has been properly executed. Nonetheless, the question of revocation will be under constant consideration. I repeat what the former Prime Minister has said: No action whatsoever can be taken under this order without reference to Cabinet and until Cabinet approval is communicated to the Administrator.

Mr Speaker, I suggest that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 896

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Yet he has now asked that there be more.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 897

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minis ter for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962-1966 I present the 7th Annual Report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements. The interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 27th August 1970.

page 897

QUESTION

CONDUCT OF THE HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Before 1 call the

Minister for Labour and National Service 1 would remind honourable members of a request I made to them before the House adjourned last week. If honourable members wish to have a conversation immediately after question time they should do so as quietly as they can. If they have to debate a matter will they please do so outside the chamber. It is impossible to carry on the business of the House with the high level of tone of the conversations being carried on in the chamber.

page 897

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the International Labour Conference Fifty-Second Session - 1968.

page 897

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT 1968

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

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Preschool Teachers Colleges) Act 1968, 1 present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the year ended 30th June 1970 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 897

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) ACT 1969

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

– Pursuant to Section 8 of the Independent

Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I present a statement containing particulars of the guarantees that have been given under this Act during the year ended 30th June 1970 and payments made under any guarantee given under this Act.

page 897

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr NIXON (Gippsland - Minister for

Shipping and Transport) - For the information of honourable members, I present the Financial and Statistical Bulletin of the Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30th June 1970. The annual report on the Commonwealth Railways operations was tabled on 16th February 1971.

page 897

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Bills of Exchange Bill 1971

Immigration (Education) Bill 1971

Sugar Agreement Bill 1971

Defence Pay Bill 1971

page 897

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Defence Pay Bill 1971

Immigration (Education) Bill 1971

Bills of Exchange Bill 1971

page 897

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

General Report

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accor dance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the thirty-third general report.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 897

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr ERWIN:
Ballaarat

– I present the sixth report of the Publications Committee. Report - by leave - adopted.

page 897

EDUCATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to deal with the deficiencies revealed in the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

-In March 1969 the 6 State Ministers for Education and the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) agreed to conduct a nationwide survey of educational needs. Five months later, on 8th August, they resolved as an afterthought to include the needs of non-government schools in that survey and they announced the terms of reference for the survey. The Premier of South Australia wrote within a week of that decision - on 14th August - to nongovernment schools in his State, asking them to participate in the survey. The Premier of New South Wales was the last to write to the schools in his State. It took him 3 months to do so. It was 7th November when Mr Askin finally wrote to the Catholic Education Office, the Association of Headmistresses of Independent Schools and the Headmasters’ Conference of Independent Schools. It was thus not until 8 months after the Minister’s decision that the nationwide survey really commenced.

On 25th May 1970 the Ministers for Education received the report on the needs of government schools and on 1st December they released a censored, bowdlerised version of that report. The Ministers revealed that State governments require Si, 143m in Commonwealth aid between 1971 and 1975 to meet the needs of government schools over and above their own predictable resources. Subsequent announcements indicate that at least $264m is heeded for non-government schools in the same period. On 7 September the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, wrote to the premiers seeking their reactions to the survey and asking them to state their priorities. On 12th October he received a reply from the Premier of Queensland and on 16th October a reply from the Premier of South Australia. Subsequently there have been replies from the Premiers of Western Australia and Tasmania but not from the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales. Sir Henry Bolte and Mr Askin have had 6 months to state their reactions and priorities and have produced, as yet, nothing. The former Prime Minister gave an undertaking in his 1969 policy speech in these words:

When the survey is completed the States and ourselves will discuss the assistance we should each provide to promote the further development of education in all schools.

Sir Henry Bolte and Mr Askin let Mr Gorton off the hook. On 23rd January 1971 the Acting Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen, told the Premier of South Australia:

You will appreciate that before the Commonwealth’s position on the survey can be determined we will have to take into account the reaction of those State Premiers who have not yet replied to Mr Gorton’s letter as well as further details of needs which are being sought from State Ministers for Education and independent schools by the Minister for Education and Science.

Sir John would not have found it so easy to procrastinate if the 2 Premiers had replied promptly to the former Prime Minister’s letter. He would have had less excuse for inaction if Mr Askin had not so long delayed initiating his State’s report on non-government schools. lt is now 17 years since I first drew attention here to the inevitability of Commonwealth involvement in schools. It is 2 years since the Ministers decided to conduct their survey. It is a year since they received their report on government schools. The inadequacies and inequities of Australian schools are no longer merely well known: They are notorious. It is no secret that children, irrespective of their age, faith or family income, encounter in pre-school centres, primary schools, high schools and technical schools unnecessary barriers and avoidable handicaps. At no level of the education system are students properly housed or taught by properly qualified staff. At no level is there proper provision for equipment or open space. Not even Liberals now dispute that there are gross discrepancies in the quality of education, not so much between the public and private sectors as within each sector. There is not one aspect of Australian education which would be regarded as satisfactory in any of the countries with which we compare ourselves. Virtually all our educational arrangements would be thought deficient in Europe. North America or Japan.

Liberals have had 21 years in which to shape Australian education. The poverty of their imagination, the inadequacy of their approach, is apparent even at the system’s base. Pre-school education enhances the value of all later education. It transforms the prospects of children who are economically disadvantaged or culturally deprived. Liberals make pre-school education available on the basis not of needs or even of means but of geography. The chances of any Australian child receiving a pre-school education are determined above all by the State in which he happens to live. A recognised pre-school education is denied to all but 2.9 per cent of the eligible children in New South Wales, to all but 7.3 per cent in Queensland, 9.9 per cent in Western Australia, 14.3 per cent in Tasmania, 14.5 per cent in South Australia and 27.1 per cent in Victoria. Compare and contrast pre-school education in each and any of those States and in Canberra, where 1 year of pre-school education is available to all children. Moreover, the proportion of qualified pre-school teachers varies from State to State. Liberals are so little aware of the importance of pre-school education that they omitted it altogether from the terms of reference for their nation-wide survey of educational needs. The former Prime Minister included proposals for child minding centres cum kindergartens’ in his speech opening the campaign for the Senate elections. Is it the intention of his successor that this pledge should now be honoured?

Disparities are apparent in primary schools and high schools not only between States but within States. They are apparent both between and within the public and private sectors. The number of pupils per teacher varies in government primary schools from 22.7 in Victoria to 32.6 in Western Australia, in Catholic primary schools from 32.6 in South Australia to 44 in the Northern Territory, and in other non-government primary schools from 16.3 in the Australian Capital Territory to 22.3 in Queensland. The number of pupils per teacher in Catholic primary schools exceeds the number in government schools in Western Australia by 12 per cent, in Queensland by 13 per cent, in South Australia by 18 per cent, in Tasmania by 29 per cent, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory by 32 per cent, in Victoria by 74 per cent and in the Northern Territory by 76 per cent. It exceeds the number in other nongovernment primary schools in South Australia by 50 per cent, in Queensland by 59 per cent, in Western Australia by 68 per cent, in New South Wales by 76 per cent, in Tasmania by 80 per cent, in the Australian Capital Territory by 106 per cent and in Victoria by 110 per cent.

The number of pupils per teacher varies in government secondary schools from 15.9 in Victoria to 19.4 in Western Australia, in Catholic secondary schools from 15.7 in the Northern Territory to 27.1 in Victoria and in other non-government secondary schools from 13 in the Australian Capital Territory to 18.8 in Queensland. The number of pupils per teacher in government secondary schools exceeds the number in non-government secondary schools other than Catholic schools in Victoria by 7 per cent, in Queensland by 11 per cent, in South Australia by 12 per cent, in Tasmania by 14 per cent, in Western Australia by 27 per cent and in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory by 31 per cent. The number of pupils per teacher in Catholic secondary schools exceeds the number in other nongovernment schools in Queensland by 32 per cent, in South Australia by 50 per cent, in Western Australia by 60 per cent, in the Australian Capital Territory by 62 per cent, in Tasmania by 64 per cent, in Victoria by 80 per cent and in New South Wales by 85 per cent. By what feat of casuistry do Liberals justify the fact that teachers in Western Australian government primary schools are responsible for half again as many pupils as teachers in Victorian schools? How do they justify the fact that Victorian Catholic primary schools have twice as many pupils for every teacher as other non-government schools within that State?

The Prime Minister and the 4 Liberal Party and 1 Country Party Premiers all have suppressed information on the state of schools gained through the nationwide survey of educational needs. Until a week ago South Australia was the only State with a Labor Government and South Australia is the only State which has released in detail the results of its survey. I anticipate that Western Australia will now follow suit. Results of the South Australian survey were published on 1st December in the South Australian ‘Education Gazette’. They indicate that the State is faced with increases in its annual outlay for education between 1971 and 1975 amounting in the case of teaching staff to $28m, in the case of ancilliary staff to $16.6m, in the case of buildings to $27.8m, in the case of preservice training to $3.6m and for text books to S1.4m. These are increases respectively of 52 per cent. 456 per cent, 91 per cent, 24 per cent and 50 per cent. In all annual expenditure on items covered by the survey will rise from $11 1.4m this year to $190.8m in 1975- an increase of 71 per cent. It will total over the 5 year period $761. 5m - an amount greater by at least $178m than the maximum available from the State’s own resources. Let me remind the House that these figures were prepared during 1969. Taking into account subsequent modifications and price increases, the gap is now at least $200m. Let me further remind the House that the survey made provision neither for pre-school education nor technical education.

The consequences of failing to provide for this essential expenditure are apparent on every side. In Victoria, for example, any primary school with more than 320 pupils is entitled in theory to a central library. In fact there are central libraries in only 350 of the State’s 500 eligible schools and fewer than 12 per cent of those libraries are satisfactory by standards laid down in the Slates Grants (School Libraries) Act. Only 51 per cent of their librarians are formally qualified. The Victorian Department of Education spends on library books an average of only 40c per child per year - less than 5 per cent of the amount required to maintain proper book stocks. Libraries are the key to contemporary education. How can we expect schools to provide such education with libraries which are inadequate to the point of irrelevance. National governments already assist all schools, government and non-government, in every country to which Australians compare themselves. The Commonwealth has assumed the sole or major role in all the other important fields which used to be described as State responsibilities, lt provides all the finance for housing and rail standardisation and half the finance for road construction, health services and universities. Schools are the only substantial exception in the postwar pattern and they represent the greatest single item in every State budget.

In the last 10 years the number of pupils in the last 2 years of secondary education has trebled. Higher secondary education has been no more a traditional or prominent State activity or preoccupation than preschool or university education has been. They must all become primarily Commonwealth responsibilities. The rise in expenditure on such levels of education is certain to outpace any growth tax which the Commonwealth might forgo in favour of the States.

The nationwide survey of educational needs was devised by Liberals to postpone acceptance by the Commonwealth of a continuing commitment to schools. It was restricted as an act of Liberal policy to independent self-examinations conducted by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science, 6 State Departments of Education and 28 non-government school authorities. While not detracting from the value of such self-examination, Labor believes that it is no substitute for the establishment of an Australian schools commission, which would conduct a continuing inquiry into all aspects of education, including the goals of pre-school, primary, secondary, technical and special schools.

At the same time Labor believes that the needs of schools as revealed already by the survey are too clear and pressing for the Commonwealth response to be any longer postponed. Students in government schools of the 4 States which have answered Mr Gorton’s letter should not be fobbed off any longer on the grounds that New South Wales and Victoria are still recalcitrant. They should not any longer be denied essential assistance because the dilatory Mr Askin has held up completion of his State’s non-government schools report. A Labor government will establish an Australian schools commission. Pending receipt of the commission’s first report a Labor government will assist government and nongovernment schools on the basis of the needs disclosed by the nationwide survey.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), in the field of education, can read the statistics which have been handed to him; but when he comes to describe the state of education in Australia as it actually is he indulges in the grossest exaggeration. Sometimes we find writers on education who should know better, such as professors of education who have perhaps very little physical experience in the field of primary and secondary education throughout Australia but who make statements based perhaps on the physical state of one or a few schools. It is true that one can look at the absence of maths teachers here and the absence of science teachers there. One can look at bad classrooms in a certain place. However, if one extrapolates that across the whole field of education in Australia one is making a very serious mistake. It would be equally silly to pick the best classroom or a school that has a surplus of teachers and to say that this is the state of education in Australia.

Since I have undertaken this portfolio in 1969 I have made it my business to travel the length and breadth of Australia looking at schools. The places I have visited include schools in the Territories, I have visited Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin in the Northern Territory, and Kunnunurra, Port Hedland and further south in Western Australia. When I hear people such as the Leader of the Opposition holding forth in such a grossly exaggerated way about the state of schools in Australia I despair and regard what is said as nonsense and I will not answer that type of argument any further.

Let us come to the survey which is the subject of this matter of public importance. Even the way in which it is framed shows that the Opposition does not know very much about this matter. The Opposition talks about the deficiencies disclosed in the survey of needs. The survey of needs when it was prepared was a projection of future needs and not an examination of current deficiencies. Of course, if one reads the survey one may be able to agrue that deficiencies are reflected in it and one may have a view about the deficiencies. But it is a complete mistake to think that this was in fact a statement of current deficiencies. It was not. It was a statement of future needs.

Leaving this on one side - it is apparent that what has come from the other side of the House so far has been based on a lack of understanding - and treating the survey as a statement of needs over the years 1971 to 1975, it is a statement of needs primarily in primary and secondary schools in the State education systems. This is a responsibility of the States, although I know that the Leader of the Opposition and his party would like to take over and centralise in

Canberra the whole administration, They would like to say what the needs are of a school at Broken Hill, Wilcannia or Rockhampton and not allow the State education department to control this matter. They want a commission that would go round dealing with matters currently carried out by the State education departments and centralise these functions with some officials in Canberra.

In point of fact, we believe in partnership. We believe in co-operative federalism with the States. This is an example of it. What has happened is that the Australian Education Commission commissioned this survey to be undertaken in March 1969. The Commonwealth promised its co-operation; and offered it in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. It also asked that at the same time, because the education system in Australia is made up of independent and State schools which are educating Australians, that their needs should be looked at. The States agreed. When the figures first came out in February 1970 those for the independent schools were not fully available and those of the States were not on an entirely comparable basis. Some of the States had provided for replacement only where something was extraordinarily old, others where it was not economically viable and others where it was just desirable to replace something to improve the schools. The work of the formulation of the report was adjourned and a working party was introduced in order to bring about a rationalisation and improvement of the figures. The survey was produced on 25th May 1970 and presented to the Ministers for Education.

The survey disclosed that an amount of about $8,000m was required for primary and secondary education over the 5-year period. By a statistical projection the State Ministers for Education calculated that if they received a 10 per cent increase each year on the amount from their colleagues in their own State governments they still would not have enough to completely raise the $8,000m and that there would be a shortfall of approximately $ 1, 400m to which they would look to the Commonwealth for support.

Let me remind honourable members opposite again, because I do not think from listening to the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition understands it. that this was a statistical projection of future needs; it was not a statement of current deficiencies. It was not a government decision by States that they would do what was in the survey. lt was a statistical projection. The Premiers who attended the Premiers Conference in 1 une were aware of these figures. The Commonwealth Cabinet was aware that a shortfall of SI, 400m was revealed in the projection. lt influenced the amount that the Commonwealth was prepared to negotiate with the States when the agreement for the next 5 years was reached in June of that year.

As the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), who was at that time the Prime Minister, pointed out when he met the Premiers, the States would now, after the rearrangement of June - -of course which was after the survey - be in a much better position to discharge their own responsibilities than they were before that renegotiation of the agreement. Indeed, they would get additional moneys of the order of $800m over the next 5-year period. Instead of a 10 per cent increase which the Ministers for Education had used, the States were, on the renegotiated formula, going to get a 15 per cent increase this year.

What happened following the Premiers Conference was that the Stales began to bring in their budgets, and certainly New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia allotted to education an increase of more than 10 per cent - more than had been set out in the statistical projection. This proportion verged generally towards a 14 per cent and 15 per cent increase.

There is also the question of the publication of this survey. Already in the Press - one never knows why - the Leader of the Opposition has been reported as having criticised the Commonwealth Government for not publishing the survey. We were not a party to it. We were not a member of the Australian Education Council which produced the report. The Council has to decide whether to publish the report. I have no objection whatever to its publication. But neither is that my responsibility. It is entirely false to try to score cheap political points by saying that the Commonwealth would not publish it. lt was not our report to publish. In point of fact the States convened a committee to prepare a report and publish it, and as the Leader of the Opposition said it was published on 1st September 1970.

In the policy speech for the 1969 election a promise was made to co-operate with the States and when that survey is completed - these are the actual words - the States and ourselves will discuss the assistance we should each provide to promote the further development of education in all schools’. Eight days after the report of the survey was published the then Prime Minister wrote to each of the Premiers, carrying out this promise on behalf of the Commonwealth and asking; ‘What is your Government’s reaction?’ In addition, because the figures for independent schools were incomplete, he said: T think we should also have these figures and consider them at the same time.’ That was the proper thing to do. As the Leader of the Opposition said 2 States al present have not replied, but he cast a lot of aspersions, particularly on the New South Wales Premier, Mr Askin. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the complexity of this matter. This is a matter of the State Governments making a decision on the 5- year plan for education and the expenditure of this enormous amount of money.

What has to be considered is not only the amount of money but the resources available, the teachers available, the builders available, the bricks and mortar available and the strains on the economy that may have to be taken into account. Will we get more buildings by pushing in more money? All these aspects have to be taken into account by each State in relation to its own situation and then ultimately by the Commonwealth. This is a proper and responsible way to deal with this matter. Tn the report on the survey it states:

The amounts described as desirable expenditure’ over the next 5 years include the costs of projects of an extremely urgent nature and projects of an urgent nature as well as others which are regarded as necessary changes. . . .

The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) who was Acting Minister for Education and Science on 11th September 1970 wrote to each of the Ministers for Education asking for details of these categories. It is true that a prompt reply was received from South Australia, and indeed replies have now been received from all States except Tasmania. But the amount of information that has come forward varies as between South Australia and other States. As I said, the information has not yet been received from Tasmania.

The question of priorities is important in terms of building and I stress the complexity of it. It is not simply a matter of money. We have seen that with the teachers colleges. A Bill which passed through this House and through the Senate in the first session of last year provided for $30m to be spent over the next 3 years on building teacher training colleges. The States assured us that their plans were well advanced and they thought we ought not to spend it at a regular sum of $10m a year but make available $llm for the first year, with discretion to make available $llm for the next year. They thought $10m might not be enough. We made the money available. Honourable members may recall that Bill passing through this House. What is the position today? The States’ plans were prepared in 1969. When that Act came into force the money was available from 1st July 1970 - nearly a year ago. The States together, due to the complexity of planning, of getting their Departments of Public Works on to this, and of getting the labour and materials - matters on which the Ministers for Education in statistical projections cannot be experts - now advise us that they will be able to spend a total in all States of only $4im. 1 know that there are 2 simple solutions one can propose when one is on the Opposition side. One is to appoint a commission which will fix it and the other is to give just a bit more money. I can assure honourable members that those are not the proper solutions. A responsible approach to this matter requires that we should act in cooperative federalism in just the way we are doing and in furtherance of the promise made before the 1969 election.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– The Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) has, I am sure, shown quite clearly to every parent, to every teacher and to every educator in this country just how out of touch he is with his portfolio. I came to a clear recognition of this in his own electorate late last year. I went along with the Minister to appear at a public meeting of parents and teachers at Parramatta. I hope that I do not say this uncharitably but I recall that the Minister was practically counted out of the hall for expressing the same sorts of sentiments as he expressed here this afternoon. The S 1,443m that is required is required as from this current year and not for some time in the indefinite future. That amount of money is required to cover the very urgent needs, the urgent needs and other needs of education at the primary, secondary and teacher education levels. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it does not take into account the needs of pre-school education, of the special needs of handicapped children, of technical education or education at any other level. That money is required now and it is required for those 3 segments of education I have just mentioned. How can the Minister stand in this place and say that this is only a projection of the needs ahead?

The Minister will know from reading the report, insufficient as it is, that it refers to a backlog of educational deficiencies at every level of education in this country. It refers to buildings in poor states of repair that need to be repaired or even bulldozed to the ground and replaced by new buildings. It refers to all those schools, primary and secondary alike, which need assembly halls, libraries and all the other types of equipment which modern education requires. Something has to be done to arrest the wastage of teachers from our educational service. The wastage is running at a record level. The report furnished to the Minister informed him that the position will get worse rather than better. How can the Minister be so complacent in the face of such testimony?

The Government is cynically stalling any implementation of the recommendations of the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs. This report was tabled last May after several revisions. It was presented to the Premiers’ Conference last June. There was then no referral back to the Premiers. The Premiers did not indicate that they would need a second look at the report. Then came a further stalling incident in the Budget debate last year when the then Prime Minister said: “We are not going to do anything about it now. We are going to refer it back to the States for them to have a look at it and to judge their priorities.’ But the report itself at page 3, amongst other things, states that the terms of reference included the determination of priorities for the fulfilment of these needs. Why is the Government stalling? Why is there this backlog?

As I said this report was presented to the Premiers but it was not dealt with at the Budget session last year. Then the Prime Minister stalled in 2 ways - by referring it back to the States and by saying: ‘We still have to await a reply from the private sector of education’. When I raised the matter with the Minister in January of this year he told me that 3 States - apparently Western Australia has since come in - had not replied even after all that time. Furthermore, he said that he had to ask the private schools to go over their requirements again because they had not come in in a uniform manner. When I visited a private school about 2 weeks ago I found that it had only just received the form which it has to complete. So provision for the welfare of 78 per cent of Australia’s children has to wait. This dillydallying, shilly-shallying is going on while some other sector of education receives consideration. What will be the position of these children while they wait for the Government to implement the recommendations contained in this report?

I remind the Minister that the report, on page 4, states:

In all cases the planning has been done with an eye to feasibility.

In other words, the people who compiled this report decided in their deliberations that these were the things that could be done. This report was not compiled by some outside body, lt was compiled by the Education Ministers from each of the States and the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science, supported of course by their departmental officers. Now the Minister gets up and says that we need to look at what can feasibly be done over the next 5 years.

I remind the Minister that the report mentions such terms as ‘very urgent, urgent and other” needs of primary and secondary teacher education. As I have said, the report takes no account of preschool education, important as it is. It takes no account of the thing about which this country ought to be ever shameful - the non-acceptance of our governmental responsibility for handicapped children.

The report itself is pathetic and inadequate. It is designed to cover up more than it reveals about the educational scene in Australia. It contains little indications of the assumptions or bases of its generalised statistical calculations. Still the report arrived at this estimate of the colossal amount of $l,443m which would be needed over and above what is currently being provided by the States, plus an annual increase of 10 per cent which the States will have to provide.

It is no wonder that education in Australia probably has never been in such a demoralised state, which is quite different from the impression which the Minister has endeavoured to give to this House. Let me quote, in the few minutes remaining to me, what a very celebrated educationist in Australia had to say on this question. I refer to Professor R. Goldman. He is reported in the ‘Australian’ of 12th February 1971 as having said:

If God had wanted to create a poverty-stricken shambles with the greatest education inequalities possible in an affluent society, lie would have invented Australia.

He said further:

The children in this country are being crucified upon the politics of Slate versus Federal interest.

I could refer to other equally eminent educationists in this country who bear testimony to the deficiencies in education. The Minister seems to brush aside these deficiencies and say: ‘We will get around them when the States, in their belated manner, come in with their reports.’ The dissatisfaction with education is so widespread that 1 have never seen so many strikes among professional teachers as I have seen in the last year or two. There are insufficient numbers of teachers and there are ill qualified teachers in classrooms throughout Australia. Parents all over the nation could bear testimony to this fact. Their children are coming home and saying: ‘We have not had a science teacher for 4 weeks’, or ‘We have not had a mathematics teacher’.

How many high schools at the present time have had to cut down on their teaching periods? How many children are sent home half a day a week to do private study because there are no teachers to teach them? In fact, if study is to be done properly it should be supervised. What is the good of study if there is no follow up by the teacher to see what impressions the students have gained and to clarify the results? Private study done properly needs more teachers, not fewer teachers. In the face of this situation young people are coming to me - and I am sure to most members of Federal and State parliaments - expressing regret that they cannot gain entry to teachers colleges. A few have come to me in the last week. Although they have high qualifications there are no places in teachers colleges for them. That is not altogether the blame of the Commonwealth Government. I realise that the States - and some in particular - have been very laggard in using the funds which have been made available to them. There is a grossly insufficient number of subject masters. There are virtually no subject masters in some schools.

I have referred to the cut down in lesson periods, particularly in the subjects of mathematics and science. These were the fields about which the Commonwealth Government indicated a sense of priority. The Government created a science laboratory grants scheme, yet at the same time it did nothing to ensure that there would be a supply of qualified teachers to teach in these expensive laboratories and to use the expensive equipment which had been provided. As I have said, there has been a delay in the building of teachers colleges. As I have gone around schools in my electorate in the last 2 weeks I have found that primary schools are very resentful of the fact that they have been neglected altogether. No laboratories have been provided for them. They have received no library grants with which to provide decent libraries for children who are learning library habits. It is a bit late in the day to start introducing children to the proper use of libraries - books and references - in secondary schools. This ought to be started well and truly in the early part of a child’s education in primary school.

Very few ancillary services have been provided for primary schools. Too many headmasters and principals are trying to administer their schools and at the same time teach. Every parliamentarian knows that more often than not when he visits a school the principal has to come away from a class so that he can talk to the parliamentarian. These are the areas in which deficiencies exist. There is a woeful inequality of opportunity in our schools. This matter could be the subject of a dissertation for hours. There is a need for a programme of positive discrimination to help children in backward areas, in the less affluent areas and in the culturally deprived areas. There are many reasons why honourable members should support the Opposition in the matter of public importance which it has raised today.

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

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

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

Mr Deputy Speaker, in sitting here I have found some difficulty in trying to draw any correlation between the remarks of the 2 Opposition members who have spoken and the matter which is allegedly before us for discussion. Let me read the terms of the matter of public importance which has been raised so that everybody will be clear as to what we are discussing this afternoon. It refers to:

The Government’s failure to deal with the deficiencies revealed in the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs.

This is the matter about which we are talking. It has 3 aspects. Firstly, it refers to the Government’s failure. I take it that means this Government’s failure. Secondly, it refers to revealed deficiencies and, thirdly, it refers to the survey of educational needs. Let me deal with these points one by one. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) already has referred to the survey, but I should like to make one point which many honourable members opposite fail to realise or fail to give due credence to. The report on the survey states that the survey was initiated by the State Ministers but it was given full encouragement by the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science who asked that private schools and schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory be included. I want to make this point because many people have said that the Commonwealth was not involved in and did not take any responsibility for the survey. The statement in the report of this nationwide survey on educational needs to which I have referred gives the lie to that view.

I do not want to go back over the history of the survey, except to point out that in May 1970 agreement was reached on the actual manner of presentation of this report, and this much vaunted figure of $ J, 443m was arrived at. This is most important because, as honourable members will remember, this was shortly before the 1970 Premiers conference with which I will deal later. We have heard the history of the survey. Everybody knows that the Commonwealth Government was closely involved in it and that it encouraged it. Let mc refer now to the question of revealed deficiencies. The Minister has already pointed out - I think very graphically and clearly - that in fact these are projected estimates. They do not attempt to delineate the present situation. They were of 3 types: Projects of an extremely urgent nature and projects of an urgent nature as well as others which are regarded as necessary changes.

Anybody must admit that there are differences in these categories, yet this final figure of % 1,443m was arrived at by considering all these different types of projects and totalling the expenditure. Reference has been made to the question of revealed deficiencies, but if we look at this report on the national survey of educational needs we find the details provided are extremely meagre, and 1 am being kind in calling them ‘extremely meagre’. No responsible government could act on the figures revealed in this publication without seeking further details.

Let us look at the other part of the matter before the House, this alleged failure to act. Firstly, as 1 said, the Commonwealth was closely involved in the survey right from the start. Secondly, when the report was submitted the results were known to the Premiers and the then Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) shortly before the Premiers Conference in 1970. As everybody knows, at that Premiers Conference the States received additional amounts of money which were quite considerable. They received $800m, over the next 5 years above what would have been available under the previous financial arrangements. That is a not inconsiderable amount. Surely it can be argued logically that this additional amount must have placed the States in a better position to deal with their own educational financial arrangements, but the Opposition will not concede us that point. The Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers, as we all know, and asked them what, in view of the changed financial circumstances, they considered they could contribute. In other words this much touted figure of $ 1,143m shortfall was no longer a logical or realistic figure. Also, if one were to attack this problem on a Commonwealth basis it would be only logical that the needs of the independent schools should be included in the discussions with the Commonwealth. So the then Prime Minister, far from failing to act, did act and he sought this opinion from the State Premiers and from the independent schools. This was not a failure to act. This was acting in a responsible manner. What happened? The States, for reasons of which 1 am not aware, in some cases have not yet replied to this request. How can the Commonwealth be blamed for the States’ dilatoriness in replying to this letter? I cannot conceive how this criticism can be levelled at the Commonwealth when the States did not act.

What else was done? In the replies of the Slates there is, 1 am told, a lack of detail which must be required by any responsible government department before expenditure of public money can be made. If the Commonwealth is to expend public money in large slabs then realistic details of how it is to be expended and where it is to be expended must be known. Let us look further at what the Commonwealth did. The Minister who was acting for the Minister for Education and and Science in September of last year wrote to the State Education Ministers seeking their detailed replies in relation to the projects of an extremely urgent nature. In other words, the Minister was saying: ‘We may not be able to make up the leeway fully but let us have the details of the projects of an extremely urgent nature so that we can act.’ What happened? The States again have not yet revealed these details. Perhaps one can level criticism at the States for this, but I do not see how criticism can be levelled at the Commonwealth. In all these matters the Commonwealth has acted in a logical and responsible manner. What are being sought are detailed statistics, detailed projections of expenditure, so that realistic decisions can be made.

In marked contrast to honourable members opposite 1 have confined myself to the matter under discussion. At this stage i am not going to talk about the other advances that the Commonwealth has made in education in general throughout Australia. These are well known and well documented. The extremely large increase in Commonwealth expenditure on education in the last Budget has already been noted. On the specific matter before the House I believe that the assertion that the Commonwealth has failed to act is absolutely wrong and cannot be supported. Rather, the Commonwealth has acted in a most highly responsible and realistic manner, one which I believe is in the best long term interests not only of the school children of Australia but also of all those people who contribute money in taxes. I reject the proposition.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– The honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar) has revealed a tendency that is all too apparent in the policies of the Government when faced with a national crisis and a national problem. Government members look at the letter of the law. They read the fine print and they say: ‘Well, we have done everything that was required of us, because there it is. We have followed that logically and responsibly’. The Opposition does not look at it in such simple terms.

Mr MacKellar:

– Logically and responsibly?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– We do not look at it in such simple terms. We are prepared to be logical and responsible beyond the fine print and the matters laid down in the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs referred to in the matter before the House. We are not just concerned with the printed matter in th:it survey. We read between the lines. We read beyond it. We look at the actualities to which it refers and the actual conditions of the schools and of education in this country. We do not look just at what is spelt out in the limited view apparent in that document. The Opposition believes that those deficiencies are revealed to someone who can read the document imaginatively and not just quote sentences out of it. If we are going to deal with the matters that have led to this request for urgent aid then, as the honourable member himself said, we have to look for more details. Why these additional funds are required and why these urgent needs are developing must be spelt out.

The honourable member’s answer is: ‘We have written to the States’. This is an irresponsible reaction. It is not good enough to say, as the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) said: ‘We believe in a Federal and State partnership where the States have got to play their full part. They are not playing their full part’. This is the whole reason for the urgent situation that has arisen. We are appealing to the Commonwealth to take more of a lead in this matter. It is no good saying: ‘We are partners and we cannot do anything until we get an answer to our letters. We cannot act on the answers to the letters before we get more details’. The Government should be pushing, crying out and screaming at the States by all possible means to see that this situation is attended to, to be sure that it gets the details, lt is the same old stopgap excuse of passing the buck, as was done this morning when it was said that there were too many questions on the notice paper and getting the answers was using up the valuable time of the Public Service.

This sort of ‘do nothing approach’ on the part of the Government is the reason for the existence of the Opposition. We are trying to get the Government to do something. The terms of reference of the survey were approved by the Commonwealth, as the honourable member for Warringah said. Of course they were approved by the Commonwealth. There is nothing in them that could disturb the Government’s serenity. The survey follows the same old pattern of the Budgets that have been prepared by taxation departments for. the last - I do not know how many - hundred years. The administrative structure is referred to on page 3 of the report. What great imaginative planning that shows. The Government is going to investigate what is needed for the administrative structure. The next item referred to is teaching staff. Previous speakers from this side of the House have referred to the hopeless situation there. There is less being spent on teacher training than in the previous year because the States cannot see their way clear to take up the Commonwealth money to increase teacher training. They cannot train the perfectly good people offering themselves for teaching. Other items referred to are ancillary staff, buildings, land, equipment, pre-service education of teachers, in-service education, scholarships, provision of textbooks and transport. But nowhere is there a basic reappraisal of education needs, methods and philosophy. So we will continue to be saddled with the same sort of ways of spending money; we will not be given a more efficient way of educating people by using new methods and new approaches. Perhaps it is not the function of this kind of a survey to do this but nevertheless it is the function of the Department of Education and Science to look at such a survey in the light of devising more efficient methods and to act on it in that light. Other countries appear to be capable of doing this; yet the terms of reference of the committee precluded it from examining such new methods. It should not have been so excluded and this Government should see that it goes into other points that were not covered in the survey; for example, the amount of expenditure on education per head and the proportion of public spending on education in different countries. In the United States from 1962 to 1965 the expenditure per head went up from SUS145 to $US189 and the proportion of public spending increased from 16 to 19 per cent. Although the United States is having trouble with a major war, the most costly war it has ever fought, it was able to channel 19 per cent of public spending into education in 1965, which was the last year for which figures were given to me by the ex-Prime Minister. That was in answer to question No. 940 which appeared in Hansard of 6th March 1969. As far back as 1961 Sweden was spending SUS90 a head, or 13i per cent of its public spending, on education. In Czechoslovakia expenditure on education increased from $US76 a head in 1962 to SUS91 in 1965.

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

– Do they include the training of their police in that?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– They have no doubt included quite a number of things that we do not include in our figures but these are as close to comparable figures as the former Prime Minister could obtain. I know that Czechoslovakia is the most advanced of the Communist countries in its education policies and programmes and in the proportion of educated people that it has. It has, for instance, more doctors per head of population than we have. That is why I asked specifically for figures for Czechoslovakia. In 1962 Japan was spend- ing as rauch per head on education as we were - $33 - but that represented more than twice our percentage of national expenditure. Japan’s proportion of national expenditure was 23 per cent compared to our 11 per cent. In 1965 our percentage had grown to a little over 11 per cent whereas Japan’s had remained at roughly 23 per cent. But by 1964 Japan was spending $44 a head, the same amount as we spent one year later. We were falling behind the Japanese rate of increase. I will not quote the figures from some of the other countries, but this is the sort of comparison the Leader of the Opposition is criticising. This is the sort of inquiry that ought to have been included by the Government in the nationwide survey of educational needs and in the terms of reference of the committee. It is not only the professors, the pedagogues and the politicians who have been protesting about this situation but also the Press. On 19th August last, the day after the Budget Speech, ‘The Canberra Times’ said:

A major disappointment in the Budget was the lack of realisation by the Government of the deterioration of the State education systems.

The ‘Australian’ of 23rd June last year recorded dissatisfaction among teachers, saying that more than 11,500 of Australia’s 90,000 Government school teachers were expected to resign in 1970, and that they represented about 12.5 per cent of the total Government teaching forces. The article then gave the figures for the different States.

The situation is one of crisis and the position is worse this year than it was last year, with the lack of adequately trained teachers and the increasing use of stopgap teachers. The Commonwealth Government’s answer is: ‘The States do not answer our letters. They do not give us enough details.’ This is not good enough and the survey of educational needs should have been a spur and a whip to get the Government doing something more than giving the answers it has been giving for years and which the Australian people are getting heartily sick of and will no longer tolerate, as they will demonstrate at the next general election.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– As the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) has already pointed out this proposal for a discussion of a matter of urgency has been based on wrong premises altogether. This is not unusual with Opposition urgency discussions; Opposition members propose a matter for discussion and then talk about everything but the subject in question. The Opposition has accused the Government of failing to act on the deficiencies shown in this nationwide survey on education, but the survey is something which so far Opposition speakers have not dealt with in any detail. This survey was set up by the States, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, when they realised the need for some assessment of the varied needs of education throughout the Commonwealth. The survey was undertaken to give a complete picture of the needs of education in many fields over a 5 year period. Although it was initiated by the States the Federal Government has played a very active part in conducting the survey, which has come up with the answer that the States expect their expenditure on education to rise at around 10 per cent a year, lt is estimated that an amount of 3 1,400m will be needed to close the gap and the States, as usual, expect to get that amount from the Commonwealth. If the States cannot provide enough money then no matter how much more money the Commonwealth provides the States still come back to the Commonwealth for any additional money they need. I think we must remember that education is a State responsibility. This is not something that the Commonwealth has said; this is what the States have said. They are very jealous of their responsibility for education. Despite the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that there should be a survey conducted by the Commonwealth, the fact is that the Stales wanted to conduct their own surveys and this is what has been done, and they have now come together with the Commonwealth Government in an attempt to assess the needs of the future. This is very different from the centralist policies which the Opposition would attempt to put into practice. There is no question that the Commonwealth Government is carrying out the promises made by the former Prime Minister in his policy speech that everything possible would be done in the field of education. It is a fact, of course, that at this moment the States have not been able to enumerate the fields in which are their most urgent need for expenditure.

Obviously these must be pinpointed before we can proceed to spend the vast sums of money that are obviously required in education.

The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘We should spend the money’. Other Opposition speakers have said that we should spend the money. Honourable members know of the proposals for free education, free hospitals and free everything else, but members of the Opposition can never answer the question: Who pays? Even the man in the street asks who is going to pay, and he is not the fool that I think sometimes the Leader of the Opposition and many other speakers from that side of the House take him to be. I say that the States still do not know where their most urgent needs lie, and the Federal Government has still been unable to obtain details of this. There is a very real problem in education and we know that the States are not able to raise the money that they would like to spend on education but we also know that there is today a tremendous shortage of material and labour, and as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar) has pointed out - I think the Minister also referred to it - for this very reason the States have been unable to spend a lot of the money that has been made available to them. We know also that, particularly in relation to New South Wales, there is a tremendous backlog to be caught up with due to the complete lack of planning by the previous Labor Government when no preparations whatsoever were made, in buildings, equipment or the training of teachers, for the introduction of the Wyndham scheme. Teachers who are members of this House know only too well that we cannot train teachers overnight. The Opposition even objects to the use of teachers who are not fully trained. They seem to think that a situation of no teachers at all is better than having some who are not fully trained. To provide adequate training and to provide buildings and equipment poses a tremendous problem when we realise that so many more children than formerly are going on to higher education. I think, however, that there has been a levelling out recently following a sharp increase in the number of children going on to secondary and tertiary education. I have come to this conclusion after talking to school principals in my electorate. Many children decided over the past few years that they wanted to go on. But now this rising tendency is levelling out. I believe that the demands may not be as heavy as we first thought.

The Federal Government has entered into the field of education in a very real way. It is the first government to institute or promote research into the needs of education in all fields. It has provided a tremendous amount of money for the training of many adult people who have found that because of technological advances in industry they have now become superfluous and who are looking for training in other jobs, lt is providing many millions of dollars for technical skills and technical education. Of course we know that it is providing an increasing amount of money for State controlled teachers colleges, education research and vocational schemes, to which I have already referred. It is providing money even for such things as education in marine science because this has a very important place in employment and is a field in which additional education is required. A new field that has developed only in the last few years is pre-school education. This requires vast sums of money. The Federal Government is contributing not only to the capital expenditure but to the running costs of preschools.

Grants have been made by the Commonwealth for school libraries. One of the previous speakers referred to the need for libraries. We recognise the need for libraries, and the Commonwealth Government asked the State Ministers where they would like this money spent and, whether they were right or not. The State Departments of Education said that they would prefer the money to be spent in the secondary field. I know from speaking to many of the principals of primary schools in my electorate that they feel that maybe this was not quite the right decision, but that was the recommendation of the State Departments of Education.

Let us not forget the tremendous aid that the Commonwealth has provided to independent schools. This is extremely important from an economic point of view apart from anything else because, without the Commonwealth’s very great contribution of buildings, equipment and staff, the problems of public education would be very much greater indeed. These are just a few of the areas in which the Federal Government has shown an ever increasing interest and a completely new approach to education. Colleges of advanced education, grants to universities, Commonwealth scholarships and many other fields which were never thought to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth have now become the subject of consideration by the Federal Government.

This Government is determined, as the former Prime Minister promised, to do all it can to bring up to date as quickly as humanly possible the fulfilment of the needs of the young people in this growing and developing community. We have to keep in mind that education covers a wider field than mere tertiary education. Education means fitting a man to play his part in his chosen life work, whatever that may be, or training him in skills for any other occupation. I have always believed it is true that very few people in this world cannot do something a little better than the average. Education aims to help a person develop his particular talent so that he may enjoy that to which he is entitled - a worthwhile life of service, a life that gives him satisfaction, a happy and complete life. Unless education provides for fulfilment of personal achievement and the enjoyment of a full life, it has fallen down. It has been the aim of this Government, in conjunction with the States, to educate people to enable them to live this kind of life.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I agree with the last sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt). I am sure that the Government aims or hopes to ensure that all young people receive the best possible education so that they can lead a full and productive life. I am not so silly as to think that honourable members opposite do not believe in this sort of thing- Of course they do. The whole point is that they are not succeeding in their aims. That is what we are arguing about. We are not doubting their intentions or aims, but they do not appear to be coping with the problem.

The honourable member for Hume mentioned also that education is basically a State responsibility, not a Commonwealth responsibility. We have all heard that argument before. When parents question their local State members about why the schools in their States are not good enough the answer is: ‘We would like to do all the glorious things that everybody promises in relation to education but we do not have the money. That is a Commonwealth responsibility’. So it goes round and round in a circle. Of course, parents do not give a damn whether it is a State or Federal responsibility. All they are interested in is an adequate education for their children. What would be the view of the inadequately educated young people trying to make their place in the world when they realise that they have not been educated adequately for an increasingly technological society? They will not care whether it is a State or Federal responsibility. To them, alt governments will have failed them. That is the problem.

The Minister said that we should not extrapolate from either the worst schools or the best schools. That is self evident; I agree. He then said that the report entitled A Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs’, which wc have suggested has revealed deficiencies is not a survey of present deficiencies but a survey of future needs. What does that mean? What does the report say about some of our projected needs? On page 4 of the copy of the report 1 have it stales:

Expenditure of the order thought necessary over the 5 years raised the question whether the building industries and the State economics would bc able to absorb the rapid increases in building activity required.

Either there is a fantastic revolution on the horizon for education, something that no other industrial state has contemplated before, or else, if that statement is true, wc must be a long way behind right now. 1 admit thai the report has not stated explicitly what the deficiencies are today, but. by implication, surely that sort of statement in the report can mean only that there is a very serious deficiency right nowThe report under the heading ‘Category 4. Buildings’ continues:

However it was thought desirable to set out not the total replacement cost but only that part considered feasible in the 5 year period.

So despite all the talk earlier about a crisis we have not been given the ideal requirements; we have been given only what the Ministers think might be possible. 1 would like to know just how much of a gap there is between the ideal and the possible. Surely this statement also implies severe deficiencies right now. If not. what does it mean?

The Minister then, in a rather emotional outburst, with which I completely sympathise, said that the problem is very complicated; there are many factors to be considered; one needs more teachers; for more teachers we need more training facilities; that means more buildings, more bricks and more mortar. He went on and on. In fact I thought he would hurt himself banging the top of the dispatch box. He seemed to be implying that the economy might not be able to cope with it all. ls that not a crisis? If not. what is it? Page 7 of the report deals with the size of classes and the teacher-pupil ratio. It states:

Nevertheless the States feel that classes are still too large and, in fact, a survey in 1969 -

Not this year, not last year, but the year before - showed that 38.9 per cent of primary classes had more than 35 pupils while 30.5 per cent of classes in secondary schools had more than 35 pupils.

Presumably there were too many pupils. Is that not a crisis? If not. what is it? Further on page 7 of the report says:

The survey does not envisage that within the 5 years it will bc possible to obtain a sufficient number of teachers to achieve the goals sought.

These are not my words, this is the report. In other words, we will not be able to attain the goals we believe we should attain. Is that not a crisis? Apropos of that - I do not know how many other honourable members are in my position but I am sure most of them are; 1 recently received a letter from a parent in my electorate. 1 am sorry to be parochial but it applies to every electorate I can think of, including the one in which my own children go to school. Niddrie High School is 7 teachers short. The classes have been cut from 40 to 30 per week and all the students are dismissed at 2.30 p.m. each day. My own children similarly are dismissed early from school, having periods when quite clearly they are not being taught the subjects they are supposed to be taught. They are in essence being minded by a teacher who does not know anything about the subject because the school has not a mathematics teacher or a science teacher or whoever it might be. Is that not a crisis right now? If not, what is it? The last point I wish to make from this glorious report relates to page 10 which says:

It is felt that parents and others associated with schools should be encouraged to continue -

Not start, but continue - they are doing it now - to participate to some extent in the provision of certain items of equipment in their schools and so retain the close interest evident in the past.

I do not know what honourable members opposite think about it. It is OK perhaps where my children went to school. It was in a suburb where conditions were rather better than in most. They were going to a State school but we were well aware that had it not been for the efforts of parents who were fairly well off in the community that school would have been lacking in lots of basic requirements. How about the situation in the industrial suburbs, the working class suburbs, the places where most of the children attend school? What prospects do those children have? I have some secondhand experience of that. When my wife went along to assist in an after school club at an inner Melbourne suburban school to look after the children, she was able to relate to me some of the deficiencies in that school. She was able to say how we had succeeded in overcoming these deficiencies in the school our children went to because our parents were better off and were able to help more. But we are still going to insist that parents must continue to show this interest. In other words, we are going to victimise the children in the less well-off areas because their parents cannot afford to provide what the Government is not prepared to provide. If all these things do not mean that there is a crisis in education right now I do not know what they mean. If all these matters which honourable members on the other side of the House have been discussing in their long recitals of difficulties and problems do not mean that this report, as inadequate as it is, has not revealed deficiencies right here and now then 1 do not understand the meaning of English.

Dr solomon (Denison) (4.44)- lt appears that in terms of the motion both sides of the House are in close unanimity on one matter, the inadequacy of this report. Let me draw the attention of the House to what the survey set out to do. It sought to examine needs, to determine priorities, to establish a programme and to estimate costs. Among other things, on page 3 it says:

The surveys will have regard to standards of provision required for high quality education suited to modern education systems.

One is tempted to say ‘bunk’ but that would be somewhat less than is required in the situation. However, it is a pious expression which is totally meaningless unless we have very considerable substantiation of the manner in which that aim was sought to be achieved. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the table which appears on page 13 of this report.

This table indicates to me the total inadequacy of what purports to be an extremely important document on which the Commonwealth is asked to act now as a matter of urgency. We have, as other honourable members have outlined, and I will not retrace their steps, some 11 categories of educational provisions, including administrative structure, teaching staff, text books, transport and so on, the purported needs of which provide the total figures that have already been mentioned. To me this is an affront. It is mentioned in the report that the State ministers and the Australian Education Council have been thinking about these matters since at least the early 1960s. Quite frankly, in a field which is as openended as 1 have said, ! would have thought something of the order of a 100-page report would be needed, because it is totally impossible to argue a cogent case for educational priorities in a few pages of summary of what the Australian Educational Council was thinking of and looking for. In saying that. I do not cast aspersions on the integrity or capability or anything else of the Stale ministers and their departments. All I am saying is that whatever it is they achieved, they have not shown it to us in this report.

As I understand it, and as I think he has said, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) has very little information additional to that shown in this inadequate report. It is on this basis that we are asked as a government to proceed holus bolus along the path of expenditure over a 5-year period of an extra S 1,400m on education, I do not for one moment gainsay the fact, as was argued by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and others, that a lot of money must be spent on education. But let me stress this point: Education is an open-ended field. It always will be. It is not unique but it is as open-ended as anything one can think of. So, particularly in such a situation, substantiation of claims of needs is absolutely essential. It is a continuing expenditure; if it is not spent now it will be spent later. It is not a one-off job; it is not the building of a power station or the approval of a port where, having spent the money, one can say it will be right for another 20 or 30 years and we can forget about it. It is not that way and wc are well aware of this.

So wc have to consider how we regard this report. The Opposition has left us with no doubt about what it thinks of the report. It has suggested that the States are not meeting their responsibilities and that the Commonwealth should take over and meet the States’ responsibilities in the field of education. What did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) say during the delivery of his oration on the matter, after which he left the House? I note that the shadow minister for education is also not in the House, and this is perhaps some reflection on the urgency with which the Opposition views this question. The Leader of the Opposition talked of the censored, bowdlerised version of the report which has been released. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) said, in speaking of the report, something to this effect: insufficient as it is’, he honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) said that we must look beyond the report, which he suggested we were not prepared to do, and read between the lines and look at it imaginatively. I could nol agree more because unless one exercises a great deal of imagination and certainly no discrimination one will not be tempted simply to unload Si, 400m. 1 go on further to ask: Would the Opposition, if in government, accede to this request to spend § 1,400m willy-nilly on the basis of the evidence of this 14-page report which we have in front of us? I think not - I hope not - and certainly if I were the Minister I would see no case to spend money of that order for the reasons stated or, if you like, not stated. That is not to say I am saying there is no need to spend money on education. 1 do not need any persuasion on that matter. 1 am well aware that the odd school here and there - and it may be more than the odd school - is experiencing difficulty. The individual cases quoted by various members during this debate may be absolutely correct. Certainly it is well known that in areas of low income, in industrial areas and so forth, there is a difficulty. There are appearances of inequalities in the sense that the low level of income works to the detriment of schools in poorer areas as compared with schools in more affluent areas. Parents’ are being taxed in some way or other and take an interest to a greater or lesser degree in education. They tend to provide less for children in poor areas than in other areas where the parents are better off and better versed in the ways of education. This leaves us in a situation where we have the burden, as I understand it, of what the Opposition would have us do, namely, recognise that the States are not up to it. I think that the honourable member for Capricornia made this point very clear. He said, in effect, that the States are not up to it so why the heck should not the Commonwealth do it. 1 think that the Minister made it perfectly clear, as did some of my colleagues, that this is just not within our philosophy. Our philosophy embraces the best we can do for education in terms of the finance available. Education is an important and crucial field. Our philosophy does not, as yet, embrace taking over State responsibilities where the States seem to be lagging. But not even that is necessarily true because it is within the capacities of the States, as honourable members well know, to use either earmarked or unearmarked grants and moneys towards the cause of education as a priority ahead of other fields of expenditure. It has been quoted already that the Government of New South Wales in its current Budget is spending about 43 per cent of the total Budget on education. One wonders whether that expenditure could go very much higher without severely cutting into other categories. The next argument is that if the States do not have enough even with the best will in the world, the Commonwealth Government should unload even more money. The plain fact is that the Commonwealth does not have very much more money to unload on education or anything else at this time, so we begin to ask what it is that the Opposition thinks can be achieved in terms of what it has proposed. We share the best will in the world, as I think must be agreed, but we also share inadequate funds to undertake such a programme immediately. The Minister, of course, has drawn attention already to the fact that there are needs in respect of current and projected developments and he has referred to the inadequacy of the report in relation to identification of priorities. When I refer to the report I mean the report that we have in our hands - a summarised report, a resume, call it what we may.

One ought to ask one or two pertinent questions. If the Opposition is as serious minded about this matter as it says it is, what would it say to a percentage tax earmarked for improvements in education? Does the Opposition’s interest in this field extend beyond the interest of the Government and go to that length? Are members opposite prepared to test people in that way? Are they prepared to impose an additional percentage tax to overcome the so-called crisis in education? [ believe that there are individual crises but 1 do not believe that the field as a whole is in * state of crisis, which is a much over-used word these days. The Government is in the position where it cannot do more at the moment in this vast field of education. We recognise that it is an open-ended field which will always need considerable expenditure. In the last 9 years the Commonwealth Government has upgraded by 471 per cent its direct expenditure on education, not necessarily in the fields that everybody wants it. It is a good question to ask: What more can the Commonwealth Government reasonably do at the moment when it is in the situation of having less than an adequate report in its hands?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The time allowed for this debate has now expired.

page 914

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 February (vide page S90), on motion by Mr Bury:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition is not opposing this Bill which authorises the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth Government and the lending of those moneys to the Australian Wheat Board. Sanction is sought for the borrowing of $250m although the expected shortfall is some §190m. To be on the safe side it was decided that the Commonwealth Government should be authorised to borrow up to S250m to make the loan to the Board. This exceeds the Board’s current estimate of the amount required under the guarantee but as such estimates are subject to substantial variations the amount specified in the Bill provides a margin in case the estimates prove too low. It seems to me that that kind of attitude is somewhat at variance with the policies recently being pursued by the Government whereby some bodies which think they have plenty of things to do have been told to cut down on their activity. However, the amount specified in the Bill provides a margin in case the estimate proves too low.

I want to say something about the operations of the Wheat Board and I must confess that I have been astonished at the paucity of the information that is available about the finances of the Board. Today there was tabled in the House the Seventh Annual Report for 1969-70 of the Australian Honey Board, a Board of much less magnificence than the Wheat Board. On pages 20 and 21 of that report are published accounts, an income and expenditure statement and a balance sheet of the Honey Board. But no document which can be called the accounts or balance sheet of the Australian Wheat Board is available. The last annual report that is available for the Wheat Board is for 1968-69. Its transactions are on a calendar year basis rather than a financial year. It is true that the 1968-69 report covers accounts from 1st December 1968 to 30th November 1969 but within all the interesting information and statistics that are available there are details only of the ‘supplies and disappearance’ - a rather curious sort of title for a table. In appendix 8 of that report is information concerning supplies and disappearance of wheat coming into the Board’s hands. In 1968-69 the supplies were 515 million bushels of wheat, and, when it is remembered that the selling price is in the region of $1.45 to $1.50 a bushel, that is indicative of the magnitude of the Board’s transactions.

In appendix 10 is a record of principal operating costs from the inception of the Board to the 1968-69 pool. Taking the last available year, 1968-69, this shows that handling and storage costs, including depot and terminal costs, were $38,595,000 in 1968-69 and that the Board also paid freight totalling $94,092,000. I submit that it is a curious kind of organisation which publishes no annual statement of its finances when those finances in some years are of the magnitude of $ 1,000m. I examined the Auditor-General’s reports in seeking some illumination of this matter and I had to go back to his report for the year 1968-69. Paragraph 191 on page 200 of that report states:

Since the commencement of the stabilisation plan in 1946-47, payments from the Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund to the Australian Wheat Board for distribution to growers have approximated $338m, of which $173m was derived from levies on growers, $10m net income from invested funds-

To get $10m from invested funds one would need to have a capitalisation of something over $100m, and yet nowhere is there, as with the Honey Board, any statement of assets and liabilities of the Wheat Board. The sentence in the report continues: and SI 55 million paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The report then adds:

The full cost of the stabilisation plan since 1st July 1962 has been met by the Commonwealth.

I am told that as at 1st December 1970, which is the beginning of the financial year for the Wheat Board, the Board, which has the responsibility of disposing of the entire wheat crop, had undisposed stocks amounting to 267 million bushels. It is expected that a further 251 million bushels will come into storage during the year, leaving for disposal total stocks of about 5.1 8 million bushels. I am not interested this afternoon to argue the pros and cons of the wheat industry. I was interested to read that in an address delivered at the Australian National University on 9th February to the First National Agricultural Outlook Conference the new Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) said:

  1. the wheat industry has had the courage to devise and accept a system of discipline designed to limit its production to more realistic levels.

At least that has been achieved in the last year or two by a system of quotas, the merits of which I do not intend to go into. This year we face the prospect of having to dispose of about 500 million bushels - 60 million bushels locally and between 250 million and 300 million bushels externally. There could be a carryover of at least 100 million bushels and as much as 266 million bushels. Everything depends on the level of export sales. According to the 1968-69 annua! report of the Wheat Board - the latest available - in that year the People’s Republic of China took 28.2 per cent of total exports, Japan 19.7 per cent and the United Kingdom 14.4 per cent. Between them those 3 countries accounted for more than 60 per cent of total exports of wheat. As we ail know, sales to China are rather hazardous. They are on a more or less hit and miss basis rather than on the basis of a long term contract.

The way in which transactions are financed is of some significance in the overall finances of the Government. Some mystery surrounds the Wheat Board’s transactions. The Treasury Information Bulletin for January 1971 - the latest issue available - stales:

Excluding Treasury Notes issued to the Reserve Bank to finance advances to the Australian Wheat Board, the net increase in Treasury Notes on issue during the first half of 1970-71 was $600 million or $533 million more than in the corresponding period last year.

That situation could have some significance in the existing inflationary circumstances. What is not disclosed at this stage is who took up the treasury notes. Whether they were taken up within the banking system or directly by the Reserve Bank makes some significant difference. The Treasury Information Bulletin continues:

Other financing transactions in Australia yielded $20 million, leaving $508 million to be financed by drawing on cash balances and borrowing from the Reserve Bank. In the first half of 1969-70 an amount of $32 million was available from other financing transactions, leaving $829 million to be financed by the use of cash balances and borrowings from the Reserve Bank.

The document contains a table showing how this money was expended and where it was expected to come from. The table contains this rather mysterious item:

1969-70

S million

Advance to Australian Wheat Board - Treasury Notes issued to Reserve Bank 184 Less net Commonwealth Advance . . - 184

Apparently the transaction was neutralised. But this is not quite the picture one gets when one reads the 1969-70 report of the Reserve Bank of Australia which contains under the heading ‘Rural Credits Department’ this statement:

Seasonal finance provided by the Bank’s Rural Credits Department to assist marketing, processing or manufacture of primary produce reached a peak of $622m in March 1970: this was $79m higher than the previous year’s peak in April 1969.

The increase in peak advance; was duc mainly to the financing of large stocks of wheat on account of the Australian Wheat Board. This has been occasioned by a carryover of 267 million bushels from the 1968-69 Pool and quota receivals of 310 million bushels from the 1969-70 crop.

A sharp fall in outstanding advances occurred at end-March when indebtedness amounting to $250m in the Australian Wheat Board’s 1968-69 Pool accounts was repaid. The repayment was made possible by a Commonwealth Government loan to the Wheat Board.

By the Bill now before us we are making a further loan. The Bill deals with the transactions of the Wheat Board, which will no doubt be recorded in the Reserve Bank’s annual report to be published in 4 or 5 months time. In its report for 1969-70 the Reserve Bank states:

Export proceeds are being used to repay the loan. At 30th June 1970 the Department’s outstanding advances were $358m compared with $480m a year earlier.

A major part of the transactions relate to wheat. The report continues:

In addition to wheat, the Department provided finance for other commodities including dairy produce, canned fruits, barley, cotton, rice, oats, eggs, superphosphate and grass seeds.

But none of these transactions was as important as those of the Wheat Board. Surely we are entitled to a comprehensive statement on the finances of the Wheat Board. Every other government body tables an annual report in this House. When I asked in the Bills and Papers Office about annual reports of the Wheat Board 1 was told that about 6 copies are delivered each year in case any should be required but that the report is not tabled in the Parliament, as are reports of other government bodies or agencies. The Wheat Board is financed by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth meets a large part of the Board’s administrative costs. Goodness knows what they amount to. If annual accounts were available we would know. There should be some proper recording of transactions involving an expenditure of almost $100m on freight and $35m on handling. I seek in no way to reflect on the integrity of the Wheat Board. For all I know it does a very good job but certainly it does its job in a very curious manner. 1 am surprised at the difficulty one has in obtaining access to information. Of course, the rate at which this sort of repayment is made as the sales are finally made overseas can have what are called lead and lag impacts upon the Australian economy. For instance, when wheat is produced in Australia and goes into the custody of the Wheat Board, an advance payment is made which enables the grower to buy the goods and services that he wants for next year’s crop and to maintain his family and so on. But from the time he receives payment until the Board recoups its payment by sales, of which an amount of S4 out of every $5 has to come from overseas sales, there can be some curious internal effects. Part of the effects is concealed by the kind of duck-shoving that occurs because transactions to the Reserve Bank have to be completed in 12 months. Because sometimes the Board takes more than 12 months to recoup this transaction we get the curious circumstance of a loan being made to the Wheat Board. In this event the Commonwealth Government negotiates a different kind of transaction with the Reserve Bank.

I used to be told years and years ago that when Reserve Bank credit is used some nasty terms such as ‘using the printing press’ are applied by some people to the practice. At least we were led to believe that resort to Reserve Bank credit had an expansionary effect on the total economy. We have become much more sophisticated these days. Whereas we used to charge a nominal rate of about 1 per cent on treasury bills we now have created a nice new thing called the money market whch places treasury bills at something like 6 per cent - I think the current rate is 5.725 per cent or some such odd figure. The Treasurer quoted the rate the other evening. When treasury notes are taken up by people who would otherwise have spent that money somewhere else it can abate what otherwise might have been an inflationary effect, although a little glory can be given to those who own treasury notes because they get nearly 6 per cent over a 90-day period for what is virtually a riskless asset.

This kind of cost goes into the transactions of the Wheat Board because moneys that are advanced or loaned - by the left hand to the right hand or whatever way you like to put it - carry interest at 5i per cent this year as against 5 per cent previously. We are told that the Wheat Board also engages in a little bit of money lending. The Board charges interest on long term transactions for the sale of wheat. Again, no-one knows how much is received from this sort of transaction. I would like to have some explanation of the mysterious item of $10m from investment income. Although this body has a capital source of $100m it seems that it is being very generously treated when it is told that it will be allowed an amount of up to $250m when in fact it apparently wants only $190m. I submit that there ought to be much more information available than there is about these transactions. After all, the Board is handling sales of something like 300 million bushels of wheat. The wheat crop has been greater than that in past years. This year the intake is about 310 million bushels. It seems to me that for the Board not to publish anything in the form of a public balance sheet is wrong even by the canons of the Government which in any case are sometimes a bit vague. I submit that it is time that this sort of mystery was cleared up.

Apparently the Auditor-General does audit the accounts of the Australian Wheat Board but unlike everything else there is no statement of them in his report. All of us know of the annual report of the Australian Meat Board, the annual report of the Australian Honey Board, which I have already mentioned, and the annual report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board but we do not have an annual report of the financial transactions of the Australian Wheat Board. We do not nave anything about the Board except a statistical analysis. I hope that those who are responsible for such information - and I submit it is the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in the long run - will look at the odd implications in the accounts. I hope that we will be presented with the full financial transactions. I hope that we will be given the answers to questions such as how many people are employed at home and abroad, what the annual salary bill is, what the fees of the directors or Board members are, how people go on journeys overseas and how much they cost. I have no doubt that wheat could not be sold overseas unless the Board had some agents overseas. But surely the Board should release a comprehensive report on its activities in which it could reproduce the annual accounts of this vast undertaking. 1 realise that these administrative arrangements are certainly not the responsibility of the Treasurer. After all, he is simply the benevolent gentleman who is giving the Wheat Board all it wants and a little bit more. This is much better treatment than most people in the Australian economy have had in recent times. I hope that the Treasurer will pass on to his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry the intimation that I for one find the transactions of the Board a little obscure and mysterious. I do not suggest in any way any defalcations; that is the last thing I am suggesting. However, I am submitting that a Parliament that has to act responsibly ought to have much more information available to it about the transactions of the Australian Wheat Board. If we had the details of those transactions I am sure that our job to illuminate or separate the mysterious overall financial transactions, which the Treasurer has as his responsibility at the moment, would be made easier. I. have not dwelt to a great extent on this subject today because this is the first occasion on which I have had to handle this kind of measure. I might say that I was astonished when 1 could not obtain the last annual accounts of the Wheat Board, lt has taken me nearly a day to find what information I have offered to the House and this to me is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-1 would like to take part briefly in this debate. Like the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) 1 regard the subject of wheat as something which is a little outside my field. I do not suppose that a single grain of wheat is produced in my electorate; I know that none is grown in the honourable member’s electorate. However I have had a view for some time on the problems of the over-production and sale of wheat and I would like to put my view to the House.

Mr Duthie:

– Have you checked it out with the Country Party?

Mr McLEAY:

– I have not checked it with my colleagues in the Country Party but I am sure that they will go along with me. I think I can speak for a lot of people in my electorate who eat bread and for taxpayers who. in the final analysis, pick up the tab. 1 would not want to appear to be critical of wheat growers because I think that they operate a most efficient industry. They are conscientious and they have a record of co-operation with governments over very many years. 1 do not think that wheat growers are anywhere nearly so badly off as are producers of wool, dairy products, mutton and other products. However I think it is time that someone took a lead in doing something about diversification in the wheat industry. It seems to me that it is total madness to go on producing more and more wheat. Wc have quotas, over-production, a lack of profitability and diminishing returns. If anything ever happened to the International Grains Arrangement I wonder what would happen to the wheat growers.

I want to say something about the matter of diversification. I would like to refer to the speech that was mentioned by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) when speaking at the Agricultural Outlook Conference at the Australian National University last February put his finger on the problem. However I would like to see a little more aggression in the treatment of the problem. In opening the Conference the Minister said: 1 can give you an assurance that the Commonwealth Government will continue to work closely with the rural industries in looking fur answers to their problems. We will keep on providing substantial funds for research, for promotion, for extension services, for reconstruction programmes, for stabilisation schemes and other measures. We will vigorously continue our efforts to secure better access to world markets through international negotiation.

I think that the important words are research’ and ‘other measures’. The sort of aggressive research and diversification I want to talk about is the possible swing of edible oil seed. It seems to me that in this country we have a tremendously wide range of agricultural conditions from the sub-tropical in Queensland to the very dry areas in South Australia where I come from and areas such as the Mallee which has an extremely low rainfall. But if we specifically exclude those dry areas we have in Australia a suitable climate for producing almost everything. I am thinking of such seed as soya bean, sunflower, peanuts, rape seed and cotton seed. We have a ludicrous situation in that we actually import these products and we import the oil that is made from them. What is even more stupid is that stock feed manufacturers, who earn overseas currency by exporting vegetable protein meal, actually import fish meal and soya bean from which vegetable protein meal is made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I ask the honourable member for Boothby to relate his remarks to the Bill now before the House.

Mr McLEAY:

– I thank you for reminding me, Mr Deputy Speaker. The way in which I relate my remarks to this Bill is that we are being asked to provide an enormous amount of money to finance-

Mr Maisey:

– The carry-over stock.

Mr McLEAY:

– We are being asked to provide an enormous amount of money to finance the carry-over stock of the production by wheat growers. I appreciate the support that I am receiving. I am offering a solution. If we can persuade the growers to diversify we will not in the future have to make available this sort of finance. That is the relevance of my remarks. I had referred to the amount of seed which could be produced in this country and which we import quite unnecessarily. I had reached the point of talking about fish oil which is used to make vegetable protein meal. Fish oil is imported and then exported. I have with me figures which relate to the amount of whale and fish oil which is imported free of duty into this country. I think that this is a matter which the Government could look into. These oils are not only imported free of duty but I understand that in America the importation of fish oil has been banned on health grounds.

Last year Australia imported almost 900,000 gallons of this substance which, according to my calculations, produces 4.000 tons of meal. This is in excess of 10,000 tons of the seed, and the growing of 10,000 tons of the seed would require more than 20,000 acres of land. That is an example of a way in which 20,000 acres of land which is currently producing wheat which we cannot sell could be used to produce edible oil seed which we can sell. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard 4 tables which set out details in relation to imports to Australia and exports from Australia of oil seeds and vegetable oils for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70.

It is interesting to note that last year Australia exported vegetable oils to the value of only $100,000 and imported oils, including fish oil, to the value of SI 3m. For the same year we exported vegetable seeds to the value of only Sim but we imported almost $10m worth of seed. 1 think most of the export value is in the flour and meal of seeds. Presumably the oil seed is imported anyway. The world position of the producers of oil seed is much more attractive than is the current market position of wheat growers. The United States of America and Canada are the biggest exporters of vegetable oils and meal. The trend is towards the export of the seed. This would suit Australia very well because we could export the seed and the importing countries would produce the oil which in turn would promote their secondary industries. Last year the United States exported soya beans valued at over $1,1 00m. I am not an authority on agriculture but I understand that soya beans could be produced in many areas in Australia which are under irrigation. The United States export of soya beans works out at S2.50 a bushel. The Canadians have doubled their own consumption of rape seed in the last 4 years from 4 million bushels to 8 million bushels and in the same year they have increased exports from 13 million to 22 million bushels. Australia has not done anything at all to increase its exports.

I want to return briefly to what the Minister for Trade and Industry said at the Agricultural Outlook Conference. In dealing with forecasting he made the point that forecasting is notoriously difficult, as we all know. He said:

Farmers need it. Rural industry organisations need it. Marketing authorities need it, and so do all those industries that are involved with, and which depend on, the rural industries. Fanners need it because they - must be able to run their operations in a rational, business-like way. I hope all those people who have the task of advising farmers will be helped in their work by the results of this conference.

I would like to think that perhaps my suggestions will be tried by farmers, and I would like to see this Parliament encourage farmers to produce this sort of crop. The conditions in Australia are ideal. The wheat grower has no need to buy any more plant. All he would need to do would be to adapt his header and other machinery. Perhaps even dairy farmers through co-operation by 6, 8 or 10 of them could plant a few acres of seed and subcontract. I think that rape seed would be suitable for South Australian conditions. All the farmer would need do is to ensure that the crushing mills would be prepared to take his produce. I point out that this industry has an expanding world market. I do not think we can say that about the wheat industry. The edible oil seed definitely has an expanding world market. World production of edible vegetable oils has risen from 16 million tons in 1965 to 19 million tons last year but in Australia production of these types of seeds has increased from only 7,000 tons - I was talking in millions of tons a moment ago - in 1965 to 21,000 tons last year. On my calculations, this is one-thousandth of world production. I do not know whether my figures regarding the wheat industry are accurate, but I understand that we are the second biggest producer of wheat in the world.

Mr Turnbull:

– No.

Mr McLEAY:

– Whatever position we hold, we produce a lot of wheat. When it comes to edible oil seed, our production is negligible in the world scene. Although I do not seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard, I should like to quote briefly from it because it contains details about countries which import the sort of seed that I claim we can produce in Australia. In the limited time available to me I will confine my remarks to 4 types of seed. In 1969 the European Economic Community countries imported nearly 400,000 tons of rape seed. But what is significant is that Japan imported nearly 300,000 tons of rape seed in that year. In 1969 Japan imported more than 200,000 tons of sunflower seed. It also imported more than 100,000 tons of linseed and nearly 300,000 tons of cotton seed. So it goes on. The situation seems perfectly obvious to me. We are in a close business partnership with Japan, which is a major importer of these types of seed. Why do not we produce this seed? I am totally opposed to arranging people’s lives but it seems to me that the ideal situation would be to rearrange the quota system so that areas which because of climatic conditions, are unable to produce edible oil seed - and I should think that areas such as the Mallee and other dry areas in South Australia would not be able to do so - receive a higher quota for wheat production and areas where edible oil seed could be produced could receive a lower quota for wheat production. That might be throwing a cat in amongst the pigeons-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I think that the honourable member is getting a little wide of the terms of the Bill.

Mr McLEAY:

– I quite agree, Sir, that I did get a little away from the question of an advance being made for the sale of wheat, but I think that it is in the interests of the nation as well as of Austraiian wheat growers to suggest that there should be a rethinking of production schedules so that we can produce other crops. It would be stupid for me to say that all wheat growers should abandon production of wheat. As I have just mentioned, some areas are unsuitable for the production of anything else. But areas which are suitable for the production of other crops should be promoted. Farmers should be encouraged to experiment.

I have made a suggestion about rearranging quotas. Ultimately there could br over-production, even in edible oil seed, and I suppose that some countries in the future - in fact, I believe that occasionally some have done this in the past - dump when they have over-production. But the present indications are that there is a tremendously expanding world market and a healthy demand for oil seed. We ourselves are importing oil seed. If there is a healthy demand for it, 1 think that we should be moving to satisfy that demand, and that is more than one can say about the wheat situation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for having strayed slightly from the substance of the Bill, but I took this opportunity to put these views before the Parliament. 1 hope that in the future my views will be supported by those in the community who hold similar views. If the situation continues where we are producing something which we cannot sell, let some of us get in and produce something which we can sell. I support the Bill

Mr grassby (Riverina) (5.35)- Mr Deputy Speaker, we have just heard from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) a dissertation on oil seed. I might say that i am at one with him when he says that we should be producing more oil seed crops, and 1 even go along with him in promoting the production of rape seed where it can be profitably produced. But apart from that, I. must say that he did put forward a large number of popular myths about wheat and the wheat situation with which I will deal in a moment or two. But at the outset I indicate that my distinguished colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), in his usual masterly fashion dissected the detail of the financial operations of the Australian Wheat Board. His suggestion that the Board’s operations should be more fully documented for the Parliament is something that would be well worth considering. 1 make this point with some enthusiasm for the reason that it is not often understood in the nation or in the industry just how much the Commonwealth Government is involved in making essential decisions on wheat. In fact, the Commonwealth Government acts as an umbrella under which wheat sales are made by the Board.

The Commonwealth Government, by this and similar legislation, dictates the size of the wheat ration or quota for the nation. In fact in all cases it dictates the conditions under which we trade, such as the interest rate and the terms of repayment. Therefore, it should be clearly understood by the nation and the industry that the Commonwealth Government has in fact been largely responsible for decisions which I might say have proved to be quite disastrous in recent years. In the very first instance it should be understood that there is no question of taxpayers finding large sums of money in order to subsidise the industry; large sums of money that could be categorised as handouts. This is not the position at all. In fact, the reason for this legislation lies in an anachronism in legislation which should be changed. The Reserve Bank Act provides that loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than 1 year. This is a silly provision in the legislation because it is obviously impossible for the Wheat Board to tailor its operations and its receipts and expenditures to comply with that very old provision. The provision should have been repealed when it came before the Parliament, I think last year. It should have been struck out. There was no need for it in relation to this sort of advance.

The next point I make is that far from providing a handout to an industry, this Bill, as the Treasurer (Mr Bury) pointed out in his second reading speech, provides that the loan shall be made to the Board at an interest rate, and the interest rate has just been increased. It is 5± per cent, which is more than double what it was when the Government came to power 20 years ago. It might be said: ‘Well, things have changed.’ Perhaps they have, but I think it should be acknowledged that in some years, wheat growers particularly have to find from their own pockets S50m to meet the Commonwealth’s interest charges. So let us have it clearly understood: This is no handout. This is in fact a loan, which is very good business for the Commonwealth. It also adds to the Commonwealth’s balance of payments in a most favourable way. So I do not think there need be any apology for this legislation, for this Bill or for the advance to the Board.

I come now to some of the points which were made by the honourable member for Boothby. He used phrases - and I do not blame him for doing so - which are popular currency in the nation as a whole. He referred to over production of wheat. He used the phrase ‘taxpayers pick up the tab’. Of course, he indicated that perhaps wheat growers were not so badly off. Then he talked about diversifying. 1 have no argument about that, but 1 will have a little comment to make on how we should do it. The honourable member for Boothby also indicated that we were one of the great nations in wheat production. We are not a great nation in terms of wheat output. In fact, I think Britain produces about as much wheat as we do. Certainly in terms of total grains the French would produce far more than Austrafia produces. This business of seeing ourselves as a producer of a huge surplus of foodstuffs is just not true. It may have been this sort of national myth which led the former Treasurer (Mr McMahon) to make his disastrous decision to limit the amount of money he was going to make available for the crop, thereby forcing rationing and restrictions in the middle of a season. This was one of the major actions of government that has led to the crisis in the countryside.

Let me direct attention to it once again. The decision was made in panic. Perhaps I can forgive that action, but I cannot forgive the fact that the mistake was compounded for 2 years in a row. In that first year of rationing and quotas we did not reach the national quota that the Government set. But we still had restrictions. In the second year quotas were issued across the nation, which indicated that there would be quite a dramatic reduction on a personal basis. Again there was no hope of reaching that quota. For the 2 years that we have had national quotas we have not had a chance of reaching them. Let us now look at what happened in relation to the industry and the decisions that originated in the Treasury. What happened was that the Government panicked, lt made wrong decisions. How wrong they were was disclosed just the other day by the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Mr Geoffrey Crawford. He said:

We have only 152 million bushels of wheat in the State at this time and if this rate of disappearance continues we could end up next year with a carryover of only 50 million bushels.

This is far too low and it is dangerous.

It is 30 million bushels below what is desirable. The Minister said that all quotas must be abolished in New South Wales this year. He has done this. He made an appeal: ‘Please deliver all the wheat for this year and last year. Put it ali in. Let us have it all. We will pay the SI. 10. All the quotas have been set to one side.’ In other words, the panic decision of 1969-70 has caught up with us. There is no suggestion of massive over-production in Australia at the present time. Certainly there has to be proper regulation. Nobody quarrels wilh that. But let us be quite clear that the panic decision which brought hardship in the middle of the season should never have been made. This has contributed to the present loss of confidence in collateral in the countryside.

The honourable member for Boothby said that there is no really great demand for wheat. In the last 12 months we have gone through one of the greatest wheat booms in history. It has never been as good in a whole generation. I do not intend to go into this now, but it has been pointed out by some industry spokesmen that we could have sold a great deal more wheat if our machinery had been adequate. In this instance they were referring to transport. I make the point very clearly and very definitely that we could have sold a great deal more. I do not know whether, if the long awaited letter arrives from China, and the order is large enough, wc will be able to meet it. The matters of being over-produced and having huge carryovers and great stockpiles are myths of the moment and myths of yesterday.

At a more appropriate moment a little later on 1 would like (o examine just what our situation would be with China. Of course, China is not really there. Its 700 million people are not recognised. They are not there. But if they should happen to be there for the purpose of writing to us and trading with us I am not altogether sure what our situation would be about meeting any major order. I put this forward as a considered comment in relation to the allegations that we have huge unsaleable stockpiles of wheat. This is rubbish. We have not. When we look across the world we see that, quite apart from the fact that both the United Nations and the United States Department of Agriculture have predicted a continuing expansion in food grains - including wheat - from now to the end of the century, in a properly segregated system of selling we would be able to get a greater share of that market.

The honourable member for Boothby talked about diversifying. I agree with him. This is a good point that he makes. I have no concern about this. What I would say to him is that if the Government is going to say to a wheat grower: ‘You are going to diversify out of wheat into something else’ it should provide him with an incentive to do so. The Canadians have given a good lead here. What they did when they thought there should have been greater diversification in some of their wheat areas was to provide acreage incentives of up to $10,000 per farm to change. If anyone went on to an Australian farm with a cheque for $10,000 as an incentive the farmer would chase him as a confidence trickster, because our people have never had incentives in that way. If there is to be talk about changing and diversifying there has to be an incentive from the central administration which controls the money, determines the advance and by its overall manipulations determines the net return to the grower.

I would point out that the money, which has been loaned by the Commonwealth at double the interest rate of 20 years ago, will be repaid with interest and it will not go to the grower. A quarter of it will go to the ramshackle railway systems of the States in many instances. One crop in four of many of the growers in my electorate goes to State railways for transport costs. Wheat has been subsidising State railways systems for 2 generations and more. Let us have it understood that there is no question of this being a hand-out to an industry. The Government is making good profits on it and the States are doing very well. Overseas shipowners have doubled their freights in the last 12 months. We had a wheat boom, and their freights have doubled since March last year. They have done extremely well.

Under the incredible panic decisions of the central government in this country the wheatgrower has not reaped the benefit at all of the wheat boom across the world. He was forced to sell when he did not want to. He was forced to put wheat aside when he should have been able to deliver it and sell it. The whole administration has been shocking and inadequate and has contributed to the crisis in the countryside. Let us look ahead to what we should be doing. I want to mention 2 points here.

Firstly, we are going to continue to reside in this region of the world. I do not think there is anywhere else for us to go, and most of us would like to stay. I suggest that we should face up to the realities of the region and of trade particularly. As I suggested before, we should at least open a wheat board office or a trade office in China as a matter of urgency. There is a market there to cater for 700 million people. The entire world is making a rush there at the moment. The Japanese have not quite resolved their diplomatic difficulties but they have got a trade agreement worth about $800m and they have established a trade office there. Is it suggested that Japan has suddenly compromised its high principles by doing this? ls it suggested that Britain, France, Canada and Italy have suddenly compromised themselves in the same way? Of course not. They have recognised the realities of world trade in a trading situation. This should be done by this country in the interests of its people.

The prospects for trade with China are continuing ones, for various reasons. Certainly we would be on far better’ ground to assess what China is going to do in the future if we had our own people on the spot evaluating the situation. It is rather ludicrous that we have to go to our trading rivals when we want on the spot information on what is happening in a major market in our own region of the world. The situation is ludicrous.

Take the situation with regard to India. India has been importing large quantities of wheat. India has also done extraordinarily well under the much publicised green revolution. Again this is one of those nice, popular myths that we throw around so easily. It has been suggested that because of the green revolution there is no need in future to worry about possible grain sales to India. It is true that in 1968-69 India and Pakistan alone brought about miracles of improvement in their economies, but after a record run of seasons they are still 3.5 million tons of wheat short of their requirements. Their national larder is empty when they had hoped to have 5 million tons in stock so in effect they are 8.5 million tons behind. They were interested in new initiatives from Australia to increase the trade which has been static for some years- The Indian Government wanted to do this and awaited an Australian initiative but they were in the middle of a general election and obviously did not want to operate publicly, and direct attention to the shortcomings in their economy. I make no comment on the Government. It has just been returned so I suppose that speaks for itself.

The other point that I want to make in relation to India is that it has been able to cover some of its deficits under Public Law 480 of the United States Congress which enables the United States to sell primary products under long-term conditions - over 20 years with low interest rates - and accept payment in local currency. This year the United States denied this condition to India and demanded that more than half of the money be found in American dollars. The Indians do not want to find those dollars and would prefer some new initiative from us. But it cannot come from just the Wheat Board because there has to be reciprocity of trade in an Overall way. lt is not a matter of the Wheat Board taking an initiative in this; it is a matter of the Government taking an initiative in an overall trade deal which India desires and which in fact it would be in the interests of the stability of the region for us to enter into. Here again we see a complete lack of initiative and a Complete lack of recognition of a trading Opportunity by the Government.

So I make the point that there is no validity in the submission by Government supporters that we are over-produced, that there is a tab to be picked up and that the industry is in fact, under this legislation, receiving a handout. It is not. The industry in the future can look forward, I think, to sharing in a world boom. The 55.000 wheat growers throughout Australia deserve something better than dismal rationing. They can have an exciting future based on producing the wheat the market requires, using improved varieties and seeing that their good quality is properly segregated and recognised. We can look to orderly expansion because the world usage will rise and the subsistance farmers of Europe and elsewhere will have gone before the century ends. So there is no need for this dismal picture of a very vital industry. I would say again that the Government and the Treasury should disabuse their minds of the myths which have dominated them, and if we forgave them for their panic 2 years ago we will not forgive them if they continue to lose the opportunities of world trade that exists at the present time and of which only the Commonwealth can take advantage.

Debate (on motion by Mr Maisey) adjourned.

page 925

SALARIES BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move;

That the Bill be now read a second time. lt is customary for national wage case decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which are applied to the salaries of officers of the Second, Third and Fourth Divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service, to be applied also to the generality of statutory office-holders whose salaries are below those payable to Permanent Heads of Departments of State.

This Bill provides for increases of 6 per cent in the salaries of the statutory officeholders shown in the first schedule to the Bill. Honourable members will appreciate that the rate of increase of 6 per cent is identical with that granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its 1970 national wage case decision. This Bill is necessary because of the particular legislative provisions existing for the statutory offices referred to in the first schedule to the Bill. In the cases of various other comparable statutory officeholders, approval has been given for the 6 per cent increase to bc applied, subject to compliance with the requirements of relevant legislation. The Bill provides that, as in the Commonwealth Public Service, the 6 per cent increase will apply from 14th January 1971. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

page 926

NORTHERN TERRITORY RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– I move:

The the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament for the construction by Commonwealth Railways of a new single spur railway line from Knuckey’s Lagoon on the north Australia railways to the East Arm of Darwin harbour. In a report dated 27th October 1970, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommended a plan to develop the port of Darwin, including construction of a new port and industrial area at East Arm. The proposed line is an integral part of this development. The new line will serve a bulk cargo handling facility at East Arm, which will replace the existing bulk loading installation at Fort Hill. The new berth will accommodate larger vessels and will be equipped to provide for an increased ship loading rate. The new line will also enable future development of an industrial area on unused land in the East Arm area.

Construction of the line will be handled by Commonwealth Railways. It also will operate the line as an integral part of the existing north Australia line. The railway will be constructed to a gauge of 3 feet 6 inches. However, construction will be carried out in such a manner as to permit ultimate conversion to standard gauge with a minimum of cost. The line will be 4 miles 49 chains in length and a triangular connection is proposed at Knuckey’s Lagoon near Berrimah, to facilitate train movements. I might also say that provision has been made for a grade separation for the Stuart Highway, where it otherwise would be crossed by the new spur line. Whilst the grade separation is not covered by this Bill, it is an essential part of the overall scheme. The current estimated cost of constructing the line is about Sl.5m. As required by section 61 of the Commonwealth Railways Act, the Bill provides a limitation of cost to $ 1.75m. This amount allows for any cost rises or unforeseen expenditure. It is planned that earthworks will commence in the second half of this year. Tracklaying will be done in 1972 and the line will be completed by the end of that year.

The Bill defines the route of the proposed railway in 2 parts - the 1st is the new spur line proper, and the 2nd a crossing loop some 1 mile 7 chains long parallel to the existing railway running east from the proposed junction at Knuckey’s Lagoon. There also will be a further 50 chains of railway on Quarantine Island, which will have the status of a private siding because it will be built on land not controlled by the Commonwealth Railways Commission. Accordingly this section of line is not covered by the present Bill. To illustrate the proposals, I have circulated 2 maps. One shows the overall re-arrangement of the port, and the other shows more precisely the route of the new railway. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 926

PUBLIC ORDER (PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY) BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · Berowra · LP

– I move:

The main objects of this Bill are to clarify, to simplify and, in important respects, to mitigate the severity of, the law concerning assemblies of persons in areas of Commonwealth legislative responsibility. Much of the existing law on this subject is archaic, diverse, difficult to find and difficult to apply. If any law is to be effective in regulating human conduct in potentially discordant situations, it ought to be comprehensible not only to those to whom it is directed but to those who have the responsibility for its administration. The law ought therefore to be conveniently accessible; it ought to be expressed in clear and explicit language.

This Bill makes provision for situations that are sometimes fraught with the risk of discord and, occasionally, with the risk, or worse, the actuality, of violence. In a democracy, every citizen should be free, within limits imposed by laws designed to strike a reasonable balance between conflicting interests, to give expression to his views or to his sentiments by the processes of peaceful assembly. It must be recognised that the right to dissent carries with it, as one of its aspects, a right to use those processes. To set the limits to which 1 have referred is seldom an easy task. Where the competing interests are in sharp conflict, the task is apt to be both delicate and difficult. The nature of the task was described by a former Attorney-General of New Zealand, the Honourable Ralph Hanan, now deceased. He was a notable reformer of the law. In 1968 he said:

Both freedom and order are essential. Freedom without order - which is virtually what the anarchists proclaim - is an impossible slate except for hermits. There can be no meaningful freedom in society unless we have order. On the other hand, order without freedom is tyranny and we will have none of it. Balancing the two is a perennial human problem, to which there is no perfect solution. lt is the task of government to strike that balance - lo draw the line. And the line ought to be clearly and sensibly drawn. This will not happen if we concentrate on simplistic catch-cries about the need for law and order’ or the need for preserving civil liberties’. Such emotive slogans serve only to obscure the reality of the problem, which is to formulate just criteria for protecting social values of sufficient worth and durability to warrant the protection of the law. Calls for law and order must not be allowed to deteriorate into attacks upon the right to dissent. Calls in support of the right to dissent must be heeded, but they must not be allowed to deteriorate into attacks upon the rights and proper liberties of other people.

In a real world, there cannot be - and the law in its development has always recognised this - an absolute and unfettered right for groups of people to assemble together, or for individuals to roam without any restriction wheresoever they will into or over premises lawfully occupied by others.

To admit such rights would ignore the legitimate interests of others. That those interests are entitled to protection is recognised in Article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it is stated that in the exercise of his rights everyone shall be subject to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing recognition of the right.; of others and of meeting the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. In short, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement must be qualified by reference to considerations affecting the overall public interest. 1 shall now attempt to define the principal considerations that seem to me to be relevant. First: the public interest requires that the conduct of people assembling for a common purpose shall not give rise to violence or to any reasonable apprehension of violence. Second: the public interest requires that people who assemble in public places for a common purpose shall conduct themselves so as not to cause unreasonable obstruction to others. A great judge once said that the commandment ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour’ is translated into the legal rule that ‘you must not injure your neighbour’. One way of doing such an injury is unreasonably to obstruct your neighbour in the legitimate exercise of the rights and privileges that he, as a member of the public, is entitled to enjoy.

Third: the public interest requires that lawful occupiers of land and premises should be protected from intrusions upon their peaceable occupation. The technique of protest known as the ‘sit-in’ is such an intrusion. There is good reason to conclude that the sanction of the civil law - the action for damages for trespass to land - is inadequate to control this sort of behaviour and that a moderate criminal sanction is justified. Fourth: the public, interest requires that the proprieties of international discourse should be preserved. Therefore, any nation that receives the official representatives of other nations should see to it that they are protected against harassment or intimidation by organised groups of protesters. This is more than a matter of mere propriety; it is an international obligation that Australia owes to the diplomatic representatives of other countries by virtue of its accession to the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic Relations. Other countries owe the same duty to our representatives abroad.

Sir, I prefaced my remarks by saying that there are areas of Commonwealth legislative responsibility. I shall now define those areas. First, there are the mainland territories of the Commonwealth, in respect of which this Parliament has plenary legislative power. Second, there are ‘Commonwealth premises’, whether in a State or a Territory. These are defined in the Bill as premises occupied by the Commonwealth or by a public authority or body (other than an incorporated company or association) constituted by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. Third, there are what this Bill describes as ‘protected persons’ and ‘protected premises’. ‘Protected persons’ are the representatives of other countries or of international organisations, duly accredited to this country, and ‘protected premises’ are premises, situated anywhere in Australia, occupied for official or private purposes by those representatives.

Mr Speaker, certain events have caused attention to be focussed upon the field of law with which the Bill is concerned- I do not intend to convey that matters have got out of hand or that situations have arisen, either in the mainland Territories or elsewhere, that require the enactment of repressive measures. That is not the purpose of the present Bill. But incidents have occurred that have been disturbing and that have caused the Government to undertake an examination of the existing law - to look at its content and at its suitability to present-day conditions. In the result, the Government has decided that it should undertake the task of balancing the various interests - of making an effort to achieve a synthesis of freedom and order, as the objective has been described - in a suitable, modern statute covering, but expressly limited to, matters within the area of Commonwealth legislative responsibility.

Mr Speaker, I now refer to the state of the existing law. The view that the existing law is archaic and diverse is not mine alone. A committee of English lawyers, amongst whom were the Right Honourable Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Charles Doughty, Q.C., has quite recently expressed the same opinion concerning the law in force in the United Kingdom. That law is neither as antique nor as diverse as our own law. The committee recommended that the law in the United Kingdom should be revised in order to simplify and clarify it, to help the authorities in maintaining order and to give participants in assemblies a greater understanding of their legal rights and liabilities. Under the present law, there are indictable offences of unlawful assembly, rout and riot. Unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons with the intent to carry out a common purpose, assembled in such a manner as to give other persons reasonable cause to fear that the persons assembled will tumultuously disturb the peace. A rout is an unlawful assembly on the move, and a riot is an unlawful assembly that begins to act in so tumultuous a manner as to disturb the peace-

The law as to unlawful assembly and riot differs from State to State; it differs also between the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The present law is found in part in the common law, in part in old United Kingdom statute law of considerable antiquity, dating back to riot legislation of 1394, in the reign of King Richard II, and in laws of the States and Territories. The common law offences of riot, rout and unlawful assembly remain in force in the Territories and in three States. These States are New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In four States and in the mainland Territories, United Kingdom statutes relating to riots are still in force. In 1967, most of those statutes were repealed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, six statutes which were passed in the years 1394, 1411, 1414, 1661, 1714 and 1793, are still in force. Certain of these statutes are also in force in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.

The present statutory penalties for taking part in an unlawful assembly vary from imprisonment for one year to imprisonment for 21 years. At common law, the penalty is imprisonment or a fine, within the discretion of the Court. The statutory penalties for taking part in a riot vary from imprisonment for 3 years to imprisonment for 21 years. At common law, the penalty is imprisonment or a fine within the discretion of the Court. The penalty for failing to disperse from a riot is presently life imprisonment in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory; the penalty for that offence is 21 years’ imprisonment in Tasmania and in Western Australia it is 14 years. All these unsatisfactory features of the present law have been taken into account in the preparation of the Bill that the House is now being asked to consider.

The Bill will repeal the existing United Kingdom, State and Territory offences of taking part in an uplawful assembly, rout and riot, so faT as those laws affect the Territories, Commonwealth premises and diplomatic and consular premises and personnel.

The Bill will also mitigate the unnecessary severity of existing laws. A person may be guilty under the present law of the offence of taking part in an unlawful assembly, a rout or a riot although he did not himself -commit a breach of the peace or so conduct himself as to give rise to an apprehension that a breach of the peace would occur. This aspect of the law needs, I think, to be modified. Under clauses 6 and IS of the Bill, only those persons taking part in an assembly who commit acts of physical violence to persons or damage to property, or who so conduct themselves as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such violence or damage will occur, are to be guilty of an offence. The Bill will also reduce substantially the penalties applicable under the existing law.

Clauses 6 and 15 of the Bill will provide a maximum penalty of $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both for the offence of engaging in conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that an assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property. This penalty will replace the present penalties of unlimited fine or unlimited imprisonment, 1 year’s imprisonment and 21 years imprisonment at present applicable in different part of Australia for the offence of taking part in an unlawful assembly. Clauses 6 and 15 will also provide a penalty of $1,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both for the offence of committing an act of physical violence to another person or damage to property while taking part in an assembly. As ] have said, the present penalties range from 3 years imprisonment to 21 years imprisonment under statute law and a fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court at common law.

Clauses 8 and 17 of the Bill will provide a penalty of $500 or 6 months imprisonment or both for the offence of failing to disperse from a riot. This penalty will apply instead of the penalties of life imprisonment, 21 years imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment at present applicable for this offence. The law presently available to deal with persons taking part in sit-in demonstrations in Commonwealth premises is inadequate to control this sort of behaviour. Only in New South Wales and Victoria are there provisions making it an offence for a person to refuse to leave a building on being requested to do so. Accordingly, clauses 11, 12 and 20 make it an offence for a person to refuse or neglect, without reasonable excuse, to leave premises within the scope of the legislation on being directed to do so.

The Bill provides objective criteria for determining whether an offence has been committed. For example, in determining whether the conduct of persons taking part in an assembly has given rise to an apprehension of violence, the test is whether the apprehension is a ‘reasonable’ one. Its reasonableness is to be decided by the court in the light of the evidence. The term unreasonable obstruction’, as used in the Bill, is an act that constitutes, or contributes to, an obstruction of the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges, where, having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction, including its place, time, duration and nature, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction. Again, it is for the court to decide whether the obstruction is unreasonable. In addition, defences of lawful excuse or reasonable excuse, as appropriate, are provided for in the Bill.

I turn now to a brief description of the broad framework of the Bill. Part 1 of the Bill is mainly concerned with definitions. An ‘assembly’ is defined to mean an assembly of not less than 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving. This follows in essence the common law concept of what is an assembly.

Part II, which consists of clauses 6 to 13, relates to situations that may arise in the mainland Territories and on Commonwealth premises both in the mainland

Territories and in the States. Clause 6 of the Bill replaces the common law offences of taking part in an unlawful assembly, a rout or a riot or the statutory equivalent - wherever there is one - of such offences. The clause, which applies in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, makes it a summary offence to cause physical violence to another person or damage to property, while taking part in an assembly. It is also a summary offence to engage, while taking part in an assembly, in conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such violence or damage will occur.

Clause 7 deals with more serious cases of violence or damage. It provides that a person who in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly, wilfully and without lawful excuse causes actual bodily harm to another person or damage, to an extent exceeding two hundred dollars, to property, is guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment, in the case of causing actual bodily harm, for a term not exceeding 5 years or, in the case of causing damage to property, for a term not exceeding 3 years. These are indictable offences.

Clause 8 will replace the present provisions, such as the Riot Act, 1714, that make it an offence to refuse to disperse from a riot upon being lawfully commanded to do so. It provides that a member of the police force of the rank of sergeant or above may, in certain circumstances, give a direction to persons taking part in an assembly to disperse. Clause 8 applies where there is an assembly consisting of not fewer than 12 persons in a Territory and the assembly is being carried on in a manner involving violence. It also applies where persons in the assembly have conducted themselves in a way that has caused a member of the police force of the rank of sergeant or above reasonably to apprehend that violence will occur. The clause provides that, where a direction is given under the section to disperse and the assembly, to the number of not fewer than 12 persons, continues after the expiration of 15 minutes from the time of the direction, each of those persons who has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the direction is guilty of a summary offence, punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both. This is a substantial mitigation of existing statutory penalties.

Clause 9 creates a summary offence of unreasonable obstruction. The maximum penalty is $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both. Clause 10 will make it an offence for a person taking part in an assembly to carry or use a weapon or missile or a destructive, noxious or repulsive object or substance. In clauses 11 and 12, additional offences are provided in relation to Commonwealth premises and private premises. The clauses create offences of trespassing without reasonable excuse, unreasonable obstruction, offensive behaviour and refusal, without reasonable excuse, to leave premises on being requested to do so. The maximum penalty for the offence of trespassing without reasonable excuse is $100 or one months imprisonment or both.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why not hit them over the head?

Mr hughes:

– That is what the honourable member might do, but I do not propose to adopt that course. I would prefer to have them tried in a court in the ordinary way and subjected to a moderate criminal sanction. 1 am obliged to my honourable friend for the interjection. The maximum penalty for the other offences created by clauses 1 1 and 12 is $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both.

The principal object of Part III of the Bill, as stated in clause 14, is to introduce provisions that will assist in giving effect to Australia’s obligation in international law to protect diplomatic and consular premises and personnel. Clause 18 will make it an offence to assault, harass, behave offensively towards, or unreasonably obstruct, diplomatic or consular personnel. Clauses 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 cover the same ground, in relation to diplomatic and consular premises and personnel, as that dealt with in clauses 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 in Part II of the Bill. There are, in addition, a number of general provisions in Part IV of the Bill. Clauses 22 and 23 deal with matters relating to arrest and the bringing of prosecutions. Proceedings under the Act, except proceedings with respect to offences committed on private premises as set out in clause 11 of the Bill, may be instituted only with the consent of the AttorneyGeneral. Clause 24 will give a defendant charged with an offence against the Act punishable on summary conviction an entitlement to receive reasonable particulars of the conduct which is the subject of the charge. Clause 25 provides, in the context of the Bill, that the existing common law and statutory offences of taking part in an unlawful assembly, a rout or a riot, cease to apply after the commencement of the Bill as an Act. In summary, this Bill is designed to protect the civil rights of innocent persons, and the property of those persons, from unlwaful and unreasonable conduct occurring in the course of certain assemblies.

Mr Bryant:

– Why is the Government always-

Mr HUGHES:

– I know that the honourable member for Wills does not like this, but it is justice, you know. The Bill sets out in a specific and simple manner, for all to see, the liabilities of those who engage in violent and unreasonable conduct in the course of an assembly.

Mr Bryant:

– A party of violence.

Mr HUGHES:

– I am glad that the shoe is pinching.

Mr Bryant:

– When will-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills has interjected on 3 occasions in less than 30 seconds. I suggest that he cease to interject. If he offends again I will deal with him.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member has been pretty futile on each occasion on which he has interjected. The Bill repeals archaic, diverse and inaccessible laws. It modifies unnecessarily severe aspects of the present laws. It is a first duty of government to protect the citizen against violence, intimidation and crime. But law and order must be linked with moderation, liberty and justice. It is the objective of this Bill to provide such a link. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Attorney-General whether he will prepare an explanatory memorandum showing the wording of the clauses as they now stand and as they are proposed to be amended. We may then have a clear understanding of how the new provisions compare with the existing law.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have in my office a volume which sets out this information. If the honourable member wishes to have his curiosity gratified he may come to my office where I will show him the volume. He may take it away and read it, and after doing so he will be as utterly confused as is anybody who has to administer the present law.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 931

DEVALUATION COMPENSATION FOR RURAL INDUSTRIES FOR 1971

Ministerial Statement

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– by leave - When the criteria for devaluation compensation to rural industries were first established it was decided that it would not be unreasonable in the short run to attribute to devaluation the whole of the fall in export returns where it appeared that devaluation had been an important factor and that the losses were demonstrable and unavoidable. The payment of compensation has been based on the difference between returns in Australian currency pre-devaluation and post-devaluation, with payments limited in most cases to 15 per cent of pre-devaluation values. It has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between the effects of other forces in the market and the residual of sterling devaluation. Compensation cannot, of course, be continued indefinitely. The Government has therefore decided that devaluation compensation should be continued for 1971, but that thereafter payments should be terminated. The Government considers that where losses can still be demonstrated on exports in 1971 it would be undesirable to conclude compensation payments without some warning to the industries concerned. The period of grace now proposed will allow for possible adjustments to be made.

For some commodities action has been taken already to replace devaluation compensation with other measures. For instance, in the case of dairy products, in June 1970 the Government made a special grant, for distribution as a bounty, of $15.9m on 1970-71 butter and cheese production and $3.4m on exports from the 1970-71 production of skim milk powder, casein and other non-fat products. These grants ruled out any devaluation assistance in 1970-71 for these products. However, as condensery milk products were not covered by these grants, devaluation compensation will be paid on exports of these products from 1970-71 production. In regard to apples and pears, the Government’s decision to establish a stabilisation scheme for these fruits will obviate any need for payment of devaluation compensation for 1971. With regard to sugar, devaluation compensation will be paid on sales from the 1971 season’s production made to the United Kingdom as negotiated price sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

No compensation will be payable on exports of sugar to the United Kingdom and to New Zealand ‘free’ market or on the preference element of such exports from 1971 season’s production unless these ‘free’ market returns as a whole are below predevaluntion levels. So’ far as fruits are concerned payments will be made for devaluation losses on exports of canned fruits, including canned pineapple products, canned solid pack apples and fresh grapes exported and sold up to 3 1st December 1971. The rates of compensation will, as usual, be determined in the light of marketing experience during the year. Payments will be made on exports of dried vine fruits and fresh citrus fruit exported and sold in 1971. Such payments will be extended to any of these fruits from the 1971 season’s production exported and sold in 1972. Compensation for exports of dried vine fruits will be subject to any alternative arrangements which may be made if a stabilisation plan for the industry were adopted for the 1971 season. In addition, compensation will be paid on exports of currants exported from Western Australia to the United Kingdom in 1968.

Devaluation compensation will be paid, if necessary, on exports of shell eggs and egg pulp to the United Kingdom and on egg pulp to Japan from 1970-71 production. Similarly compensation payments will be made, if necessary, on exports of honey to the United Kingdom and other devalued markets in 1971 on the basis of approved pre-devaluation values and the c.i.f. price of each sale. However, overseas prices for eggs and honey have risen to the point where exporter returns are above predevaluation levels. Accordingly, it does not appear likely that devaluation compensation will prove necessary in these cases. On present indications no devaluation compensation will be payable, as such, on dairy products, except condensery milk products, on honey, on eggs or, because of the stabilisation scheme, on apples and pears. Of the remaining products substantial compensation will be payable for sugar, dried vine fruits and condensery products and may be involved for canned pears. Small amounts only will be required for canned pineapple products, canned apples, fresh citrus and grapes. The total amount of compensation which may be payable for 1971 exports must be very tentative at this stage, but may be between $7m and $9m. The total of compensation payments to all rural industries now amounts to over $100m. I present the following paper:

Devaluation Compensation for Rural Industries for 1971- Ministerial Statement, 16 March 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) provides the House with the Government’s decision on the future of devaluation compensation payments. The Opposition has supported in principle the payment of devaluation compensation to some industries, but not all. The Opposition supports the principles behind this payment in cases in which the words that have been commonly used - losses which were demonstrable and unavoidable’ - could be substantiated. In those cases something suddenly has happened in world prices, through devaluation, to alter suddenly the returns to those industries which are selling on export markets. In some industries this could have meant bankruptcy. Some industries which were economically viable one minute could have been bankrupt the next. The Government in introducing this measure was supported by the Opposition - and I stress this point - in the case of some industries. But although we support the principle it must be stressed that any devaluation compensation payment or any scheme that involves compensation for losses incurred because of changes in exchange rates must be of only a short term nature. No government or nation can afford to have a policy which would allow continual subsidisation of international markets through devaluation compensation.

For example, if Japan decided to revalue her currency, either by devaluation or depreciation, we would have to face the issue. If that country decided to devalue her currency it would mean bankruptcy in some industries in this country. Therefore this principle has been established to provide temporary mechanism and temporary compensation until the industry or industries involved are able to adjust themselves to the dynamic marketing changes. Some issues are not dealt with in the statement just made by the Minister. He made reference only to the rural field. If there had been a debate dealing with secondary industry I certainly would have taken issue with the payment to some secondary industries of devaluation compensation. For example, I would have taken issue with the payment of $450,000 to Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd. We know of the profits which have been made by this company. Also, I would have taken issue with the payment of $500,000 in devaluation compensation to John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd.

I do not believe that the same principle should be followed in all cases. There should be some basis of need. A comparison can be made with the Tasmanian apple and pear industry. About 90 per cent of the gross returns of that industry in the 3 years of the economic survey carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was from devaluation compensation. This industry would have been bankrupt if the Government had not provided this mechanism. We have, then, the 2 extremes. I do not believe there is justification for the payment of a very large amount of devaluation compensation to a very prosperous firm such as John Lysaght. But there is certainly justification for payment to an industry such as the Tasmanian apple industry which depends on export markets to such a degree that if devaluation compensation had not been paid that industry would certainly be bankrupt today. But as I said before, the payment of devaluation compensation cannot go on forever. An industry has to adjust itself to dynamic world changes in marketing patterns.

The Minister for Primary Industry has set out some of the mechanism whereby the Government will be able to counter the effects of devaluation. The Minister mentioned the stabilisation scheme for the apple and pear industry. I might say to the Minister for Primary Industry that it is time he made a statement in this House about the apple and pear stabilisation scheme instead of making statements all the time outside the House. We want to know more about this scheme and the Minister should make his statements in this place. The Minister has made statements during the last week but it is time that a statement providing Parliament with information on the stabilisation scheme was made in the House. Such a scheme is extremely important to Tasmania and to the canning fruit areas of Victoria that are so dependent on export markets, particularly those that can be affected very greatly if Britain joints the European Economic Community. I would like to refer to one factor which the Minister did not mention and which I believe should be mentioned. I refer to the inflationary aspect of devaluation if it were to continue indefinitely. The Minister has said that about $100m has been injected into the Australian economy. The Opposition has supported in the short term this basic mechanism. Nevertheless this is a fundamental means of accelerating inflationary forces. This sum of money has not been matched by an increase in production or productivity. This extra money has to be found somehow by the Government. Unless it is compensated for by taxation it will be an extra force in the economy.

My colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) spoke this afternoon about the effects of such an operation on wheat. We have to be very, very careful to see that if we continue to inject money into the economy it is matched by productivity or by something which we can sell. The Minister dealt at some length with various industries. One thing is certain if a change takes place in exchange rates: It does not follow that if we get a 10 per cent movement in an exchange rate we will get a 10 per cent increase or decrease in returns. The whole question, of course, is dependent on 2 forms of elasticity - the elasticity of price with respect to demand and the elasticity of income with respect to demand. We have to marry these 2 factors to get the overall effect.

One practical example of an industry in receipt of devaluation payment is the deciduous fruit industry. After the devaluation of sterling of 14.3 per cent in 1967 the c.i.f. prices of canned deciduous fruit in the United Kingdom rose by a much smaller figure than the 14.3 per cent. This, of course, meant that we had to relate the c.i.f. price to the f.o.b. price and the relatively small rise in the c.i.f. price resulted in a reduction of the f.o.b. price to the deciduous canned fruits industry. This resulted in a reduction in the net returns to the industry. This reduction then had to be made up by some compensatory measure - devaluation compensation. This was the principle behind what the Minister has said. There is no question that the one industry which has been most affected by devaluation compensation is the fruit industry. Most honourable members here who are concerned with fruit production should be very much concerned about the future of this industry. I understand that the apple and pear stabilisation scheme will apply compulsorily to all apples that are sold at risk. A few years ago approximately 35 per cent of apple exports were sold at risk. This figure has jumped now to approximately 70 per cent. If we take Tasmania as an example of the situation in the pear industry, we find that whereas approximately 40 per cent of pear exports were sold at risk a few years ago, the figure now has jumped to 85 per cent. This shows the vulnerability of the fruit growing areas to changes in the exchange rate.

Those are the main points that I wanted to make. The Opposition believes that the Government has done the right thing in phasing out devaluation compensation. At the same time, some compensatory measures must be taken. For example, what will happen in the dairy industry remains to be seen. In the fruit industry, where there is a limit of $1Om, it remains to be seen whether in fact the changes in the marketing pattern will offset the loss caused by devaluation compensation, lt is to be hoped that stability reigns in the fruit industry and that the apple and pear stabilisation scheme when implemented will stabilise prices to the degree that the net farm income of producers will not be unduly deteriorated because of the phasing out of the devaluation compensation.

The Minister for Primary Industry has mentioned sugar. As I have said in this House many times, the sugar industry ought to be looked at very closely by other primary industries. It is a model of controlled production in relation to realistic demands. It is quite unlikely that the sugar industry will need devaluation compensation because the residual price of sugar on average will be significantly higher. So the post-devaluation returns of the free market will exceed the pre-devaluation period returns on the free market. No need for devaluation compensation will arise because the sugar industry has tailored its production to a realistic market demand. This is what the fruit industry must do. There can be no question at all about this fact. If we are to continue to rely heavily upon the export market for the fruit industry wc will have to see that the fruit industry tailors its production to realistic market demand. If the industry does not, it is quite obvious that bankruptcy will occur and permanent financial assistance will be needed to keep the heads of the growers above water. By reading between the lines, I think this is what the Government has in mind in phasing out devaluation compensation. At the same time the Government seeks to inject, stability into these industries which in the future will not have further access to devaluation compensation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Robinson) adjourned.

page 934

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 925).

Mr MAISEY:
Moore

- Mr Speaker, I have listened to this debate so far with great interest. To begin with, let us take the speech of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). The honourable member, on his own admission, has not participated in this type of debate on earlier occasions. As is fitting for the shadow Treasurer, he dwelt on matters of financial accountability. His general proposition was that the Australian Wheat Board provides this Parliament with insufficient details of the financial aspects of its transactions. It is my opinion that this House is indebted for the honourable member’s contribution and that his point is well taken. As a former Wheat Board member for 10 years or so, I am well aware of the large gap between the financial information available within the Board and that provided to this Parliament. I may be able to answer, however, a question raised by the honourable member. He wanted to know how it came about that the Wheat Stabilisation Fund had earned $10m in the form of investment income. This situation arose many years ago during the good old days when wheat prices were high and production costs were at reasonable levels, when growers were able to contribute to their own stabilisation fund and supply local requirements at less than half the export value of the wheat. As the stabilisation fund was in credit and this credit was invested in Government securities, it naturally followed that there was an investment income. This fact, however, has only historical significance at the present moment. What would be significant to know, and what the Board does not tell us, are the details of its own administrative costs, and specifically how and from whose funds the administration of the quota plan is being financed. A run down of these costs would be interesting, particularly if they were dissected on a State by State basis.

I also found much to agree with in the address of the second speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). His broad thesis, that we should diversify, is sound. It is when he gets down to specifics that he displays a handicap - as I am sure he would readily agree - of not being sufficiently close to the detailed circumstances of primary industry. Oil seeds do permit some diversification out of wheat. Unfortunately they do so to a very limited extent only. I myself shall suggest, very much along the lines of the honourable member for Boothby, that we diversify - however, that we diversify into a different sort of wheat, or more specifically, a different type of wheat market.

And then, of course, Mr Speaker, there was the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). His speech was one of flowing oratory, richly spiced with mentions of myths and mythology, but surely fitting for one who engages in duels at high noon on the banks of the Murray. Really I was at a loss what to say about this honourable member’s speech, that is, until I seemed to remember my old Hereford bull. And then I realised what it was that took my memory back to this majestic animal.

This is the second successive year in which the Parliament has found it necessary to take special measures to enable the Australian Wheat Board to meet its financial obligations. It seems inevitable - failing a major seasonal disaster in two or more of the wheat producing States - that if the present policies of wheat production and marketing are to continue, the need for this legislation must recur annually. If we accept this proposition - and I see no alternative - obviously we should either change our policies in respect of production or marketing, or reconstruct the financial provisions under which credit is made available to the Board.

The debate on this Bill certainly requires that we look again at the wheat situation, and it can fairly be claimed that any attempt from any quarter to narrow discussion on this important Bill can be interpreted only as either a lack of courage to face up to the problems of the industry at a legislative level, or a failure to recognise the dangerous situation into which the industry is drifting- It is futile to dwell, and I do not propose to do so, upon many of the common issues that tend to be brought forward whenever the word ‘wheat’ appears in a Bill. What I shall do at the very outset is to sketch quickly the overall wheat position so that my subsequent remarks on the Bill can be seen to be clearly in perspective and in proper context. The first point is that all forecasters, be they from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the United States Department of Agriculture, or even from our own Professor Gruen, agree that the medium term outlook for wheat as a human foodstuff is bleak. The next 15 years or so will be difficult for producers of wheat for human consumption.

The second point is that, if we try to picture the situation beyond, say, 1985, we must invoke the aid of a reliable crystal ball. My own crystal ball tells me that by then the Green Revolution will have run its course in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It also tells me that people in these areas will continue to breed like rabbits. So some time after 1985 demand will again be the dominant partner in the supply-demand balance of basic human foodstuffs. This is ali very well; but who can wait for 15 years or so? Can we enact this sort of legislation for another 15 years? Certainly my constituents cannot sit idly by waiting for the day when these much talked-of starving millions will reappear. Nor am I prepared to sit idly by in this place and condemn them to such a soul-destroying future. So the question is: What will we do in these years ahead, and, more importantly, what should we do now?

To make sure that the problem, of which the financial measure presently before the House forms an integral part, is clearly understood, let me state that I am dealing with that slice of Australia known as the wheat-sheep belt, where dry farming is almost universal and where something like half a million people depend directly or indirectly on dry farming for their livelihood. These are the farmers and their employees, the shopkeepers and agents in country towns, and, of course, their wives and their children. The next issue is: What are the practical options in this slice of Australia? They would be, in the main, wheat, wool, beef, barley, oats, oil seeds and various odds and ends. Wool has a dismal short term, medium term and long term outlook. The stockpile held by the Australian Wool Commission, bought in at ruinously low prices to growers after being neglected by the trade, can only mean that wool is already being grossly over-produced. With wheat under quotas, the 2 main options are closed for the time being. Farmers are turning to beef where practicable, but here supply is rising rapidly relative to markets immediately available at payable prices. Although this product appears to have an excellent long term future, it will no doubt be a victim of the primary industry domino theory in the short and medium term. Oil seeds certainly do not hold unlimited promise and as for the traditional course grain alternatives, barley and oats, there is a dramatic swing towards them which I will argue is not to the best interests of farmers or the nation.

With this sketch of the broad background to the Bill, I now turn to its more specific issues. I shall submit propositions which will eliminate the necessity for the Government to make extremely large and long term loans to the Australian Wheat

Board. At the same time these suggestions, if adopted, will mean greater incomes to the farmer in the wheat-sheep belt. The immediate reason for large and longer term loans by the Government to the Board is, of course, the existence of a large slowmoving stockpile of wheat. The reason for the size and slow movement of the stockpile is a policy of the Australian Wheat Board which received the support, if not the promotion, of the previous Government. In a nutshell, that policy is that wheat marketing for export and to a large extent for local purposes means almost exclusively the marketing of wheat for human consumption. For various reasons the Board has decided to stick to the sort of marketing it has traditionally engaged in rather than try something new in the light of new conditions. Some of its reasons make sense, others do not.

To begin with, I would like to examine some of the consequences of the present policy of the Board. Let us take a broad estimate of 18 months between the time that the first advance is paid on wheat and the time that the Board either receives the proceeds of sale of the wheat or has received the deposit on that part of the delivery which has been sold on credit. The first advance on that wheat is 1 10c less the relevant freight applying. This freight is drawn from the overdraft account as the wheat is railed. As soon as the grower delivers his wheat he obtains an average of 92c which is the amount that the Board has to borrow straight away. Another 3c or thereabouts is spent on other expenses almost immediately. The balance is drawn against the overdraft and paid out as the wheat is railed. The interest cost alone on a bushel of wheat held for 18 months would amount to about 7ic when everything is accounted for, including the interest on the rail freight paid.

On top of this, the wheat has to be kept in good condition. This means that weevil infestation must be kept under rigid control and in such a way as will not render the wheat unsuitable for either human consumption or stock feed due to chemical impregnation. This means that turning and aeration must be used to the maximum possible extent. The cost of this can be between Mc and 2c per bushel. Despite these precautions, the wheat loses value either because weevils gel in - they have an ability to develop immunity - or the chemical levels rise to a point of high concentration. The wheat also becomes stale. Adding these costs, one comes up with a total of at least 10c per bushel. But if this were the whole story, I would not be so disturbed. It so happens that this is only half the story.

I am not going to attempt to assess the extent to which the Board’s marketing position is weakened by the widely publicised knowledge throughout the international grain trade that the Board is sitting on a carry-over of 265 million bushels and what this knowledge is ultimately costing the grower in cents per bushel. Nor that big stockpiles which move slowly ensure that the farmer’s second and subsequent payments are long delayed. This is another big worry. The longer they have to wait, the more time it takes them to repay debts. This again leads to greater total payments by way of interest. There is also the other problem of inflation. The longer they have to wait for their money, the less that money is worth. The final cost is a real killer. Any man with common sense must know that a large stockpile which moves slowly requires not only large storages but also far more sophisticated storages. If a farmer is going to keep wheat for 3 months, he can just about stack it in the paddock and it will keep in good condition. If he keeps it for 18 months, he will need very elaborate and very costly bins. When it is all assessed and added up, when it is all finally disposed of and paid for, the stockpile could penalise farmers to the total tune of 20c per bushel when we make due allowance and add in the additional interest rate provided in the Bill now before the House.

What I want to propose would make the stockpile move a lot quicker, would cut down the Board’s overdraft and the costs to the farmer, and render unnecessary this and future emergency financial measures. It could reduce these costs to the farmer to one-quarter of the estimated 20c per bushel. A more important feature of the suggestion is that growers could produce more wheat instead of plunging into barley and oats, and their overall net income would be the better for it. I suggest a large scale plunge into the international feed market. This plunge is to be preceded by a top level delegation from this Government, headed by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr

Anthony) or our new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to Japan. The object of the delegation would be to trade tariff concessions in return for a change in the rules under which the Japanese Food Agency operates. This deal would have many advantages. It would be timely on the tariff side both in view of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community and because of our own internal and domestic inflationary pressures. These would be reduced with selective tariff relaxations. Conversely, it is pure inflation to produce a great stockpile of wheat which is only represented by credit until it is sold.

It could be argued to the Japanese that their economy would benefit because of cheaper feed and of greater export opportunities. Our farmers would have an increase in sales of at least 100 million bushels per year potential which is twice the size of the former China market. The price for wheat received by the Australian Wheat Board would admittedly be lower, but the return to the farmer per bushel could possibly be higher than at present because the costly delays in realisation would disappear. We should capitalise on the advantage of the very nature of wheat. It goes 37 bushels to the ton, whereas barley goes 40 bushels to the ton and oats 50 bushels to the ton. This automatically means cheaper shipping. We also have geographical advantages in relation to Asian markets. In addition, wheat is more valuable per ton than other grain because of its greater nutritive value. There is at least 15 per cent more nutrient in a ton of wheat than in a ton of barley.

I could go on for much longer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and deal with the dangers inherent in the present policy of the growers industrial organisations - presently being accepted by the Government - of encouraging increased production by increasing production quotas against the background of the Board’s present limited marketing policy associated with its big carry-over stocks. But I am sure that if I did, you would tell me that I was getting too wide of the Bill, notwithstanding that this is basically what the Bill is all about. So I will conclude with an appeal to the Treasurer (Mr Bury) that my suggestion be given the most serious consideration. It is a reasoned suggestion which I am sure a reasonable government will not discard without investigation. If it is followed, 1 believe it will obviate the necessity for another such Bill to be before us next year, and will make a magnificent contribution towards a return to stability in our rural areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– It is a pity that the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) is not in the Ministry. I do not know why he has not been appointedto the Ministry long ago because he is an experienced man in rural industries and he has a very wide knowledge of the wheat industry, which is the subject of the Bill we are discussing tonight. 1 personally regret that the honourable member is not in the Ministry. He has been here long enough to have gained experience in this place, and if there are any changes in the Ministry before 1972 - he will not be required to serve in the Ministry after 1972 because we will occupy the Government benches then - I should like to see him appointed to the Ministry. What he said tonight deserves very close analysis by everybody who is interested in the wheat industry, including the Australian Wheat Board and the Treasurer (Mr Bury) who is in charge of this Bill. The honourable member for Moore gave a wide, comprehensive cover of the problems and difficulties facing the industry and of the hopes of the industry.

I should like to stress two or three points in the short lime I have available to me tonight. Firstly, 1 criticise the Government for the interest rates which it is to charge the Wheat Board. They are quite outrageous. The Treasurer in his second reading speech set out the reason why this Bill has been introduced. He also pointed out that the Government proposes to charge the Wheat Board a rate of interest which is higher than the 5 per cent charged last year. He said:

Bearing in mind the circumstances of the wheat industry, a rate of 5½ per cent is proposed.

He continued:

The Bill authorises the Commonwealth to borrow up to $250m to make the loan to the Board.

How will this loan be financed by the Commonwealth? It will bc financed by Treasury notes - in other words, by created money. Money will be created by the stroke ofa pen. The Treasurer also said:

The expectation is that the loan to the Board in respect of the 1969-70 pool will again be financed by the issue of Treasury notes . . .

I stress the point that this loan is to be financed by the Commonwealth using created money, but the Commonwealth will charge the Wheat Board interest at the rate of 5½ per cent on the loan. Let us have a look at the figures which this brings to light. On $250m at5½ per cent interest, the Wheat Board will have to pay in interest to the Commonwealth the sum of $13,750,000, which is $1,250,000 more than it paid in interest lastyear, because the interest rate this year has been increased by one half of 1 per cent. This is sheer, unadulterated, unashamed profit making by the Commonwealth. It is creating money out of nothingand is then charging$1 3,750,000 interest on the money. Inthe light of the rate of interest which the Commonwealth is charging the Wheat Board in this outrageous deal, Ned Kelly, if he were alive today, would be invited into the most glamorous drawing rooms.

This Bill is making the Commonwealth an unadulterated money lender.It is lending money ata shocking rale of interest. In my opinion it is daylight robbery for the Commonwealth to do this to the Wheat Board - an independent body which is struggling to rescue the wheat industry from its present crisis. In addition to all the other problems which the industry is facing, it has to repay thisloan on which an interest rate of 5½ per cent is to be charged. The higher the cost to the Board the tougher it will be in the long run for the badly submerged wheat farmer. That is my first criticism of the Bill.

The second point I make is that the Wheat Board is having difficulties in getting a communication channel with Red China, or continental China as some people would prefer to call it. As a matter of fact, some members of the Board are going to Russia in the next few days to try to negotiate increased wheat sales with that country. That is a very good move. It is a funny thing that this Government recognises Red Russia, but it will not recognise Red China. Both these countries are Communist countries and both of them trade with us. But the Government refuses to recognise China politically in the councils of the United Nations. China does not exist in the councils of the United Nations, so far as this Government is concerned. Probably we are losing the opportunity to renew our wheat agreement with China because we refuse to recognise that country.

Canada recognised continental China late last year or early this year - 1 am not quite sure of the actual date. But this is what has happened: The Canadian Wheat Board officials signed a $70m wheat contract with China 2 weeks after Canada’s diplomatic recognition of China. I claim right here that this stubborn, pigheaded, conservative Government will cost Australian wheat growers possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in the next year or so because it refuses to recognise China. If the contract is not renewed I put the blame right at the feet of the present Government, and the Australian Country Party can say what it likes about it. The Country Party is prepared to accept all the benefits which flow from trading with China, but it is a part of the coalition Government and, to my knowledge, it has done nothing to put pressure on the Liberal Party in order to get the Government to recognise Red China. As I say, the Country Party does not mind selling our wheat to the Reds.

What has China bought from us? Over the last 10 years China has emerged as Australia’s major wheat customer. Since 1966 China has bought $500m worth of Australian wheat. At the moment the Australian Wheat Board officials have almost given up hope of being invited to Peking to negotiate a new wheat sales contract wilh that country. They have received no replies from China’s officials to cables asking for the negotiation of a major new wheat deal. Last October the Australian Wheat Board twice cabled Peking requesting that an Australian delegation be invited to China to discuss the possibility of negotiating a new wheat contract. The cables were sent alter it had been announced that Canada had negotiated a new wheat contract worth S70m. Although members of the Australian Wheat Board are on standby to fly to China, no invitation has yet come to this country asking it to go and negotiate a new wheat contract. This is a mighty depressing outlook for the Australian wheat growers, whatever their political colour may be.

As the honourable member for Moore truthfully said, the prospects of Australian wheat sales to China are depressing. It is reported that the green revolution has made China almost self sufficient in grain production. That may be another reason why China may not want to buy wheat from us this year. How silly it would be to suggest that their green revolution has been so successful that they could cut off all their imports from Australia. I do not think they would do so. They would phase them out over 2 or 3 years. So the reason for not renegotiating at this stage could be political. China has every right to be political. This Government has been political with countries whose politics it does not like. We should not blame China for saying: ‘We are still an orphan in the Pacific as far as Australia is concerned. We do not even exist as far as Australia is concerned. Why should we go on trading with the Australians or buying wheat from them?’ That is a perfectly natural reaction.

A Si 10m wheat contract between Australia and China which came into operation early last year is on the verge of expiry. Australia is holding wheat stocks of more than 400 million bushels. Failure to gain a contact with the Chinese this year would mean a substantial reduction for Australia’s wheat growers, whose incomes have already been heavily depressed by the introduction of quotas to curb overproduction.

A contract was signed last year with the United Arab Republic to buy 38 million bushels of Australian wheat on extended credit terms provided by the Australian Wheat Board. Good luck to them. This is a sensible way to trade with these sorts of countries. But this contract is on the verge of being cancelled. The United Arab Republic has taken only 16 million bushels under the contract. When the Arabs signed the contract there was a clause in it which said that they could withdraw from it at any time. The Wheat Board naturally agreed to this. The Arabs are taking the advantage and withdrawing from it, as far as I know.

Another point 1 would like to put to the Wheat Board is that there are 2 countries 1 could recommend that it look at in regard to selling wheat. One is Nigeria. Nigeria is buying all its wheat requirements from the United States of America. I suggest that the Board should send a delegation to Nigeria to see what can be done about securing contracts for Australian wheat. The other country is Israel. I was there for 3 days last August and learnt that it is a large importer of wheat. I do not think that any of our wheat is going to Israel. If we can sell it to the Arabs why can we not sell it to the Israelites? Has the Government got anything against the Israelites? If we can sell to their enemies, the Arabs, let us even things up and see whether we can sell some of our wheat to the Israeli Government.

They are three or four points I wanted to put before the House in this debate in relation to actual sales of wheat, which is the lifeblood of our primary industry. In the time remaining I want to express a, few thoughts about our coarse grains problem. The interesting thing is that for 50 or 60 years Australia has stressed that wheat is our main grain. The Government has done very little to encourage coarse grains, particularly for export. From the statistics that are available it will be seen that the world imports of coarse grains over the last 7 years have risen more than half as fast again as world imports of wheat. This is significant. Why does the Government not take note of this trend and get in on this development? It could mean that our farmers could grow less wheat and more coarse grains. The honourable member for Moore referred to the protein level, but this need not prevent the development of the coarse grains industry in Australia to meet the hungry markets for coarse grains. One of those markets is Japan.

Japan is a major customer for other Australian products. There is enormous expansion in that country in the importation of coarse grains. Its imports of coarse grains have been growing more than 4 times as fast as its imports of wheat and flour. Australia should expand its coarse grains production and exports, particularly to Japan and perhaps to other Asian countries as well. Japan is using precious wheat not only for human consumption but also for fodder for its fast growing animal population. Let me quote some interesting figures on animal production in Japan. Japan’s dairy cattle will have increased between 1964 and 1976 by 259 per cent. Its beef cattle will increase in those 12 years by 118 per cent. The number of pigs will increase by 290 per cent. Poultry for eggs will increase by 142 per cent and poultry for meat by 808 per cent. To give honourable members an idea of the total, by 1976 the number of poultry will be 106 million, which is an increase of 808 per cent on the 1964 figures. Japan’s current use of sorghum for feedstuffs, as distinct from foodstuffs, is 60 per cent for the poultry industry, 25 per cent for pig raising and 15 per cent for the beef and dairying industries. Japan is taking 19 per cent of our wheat exports. China is taking approximately 25 per cent. Britain is taking 14 per cent. There is a great market in Japan for our coarse grains. That country is using 60 per cent of its wheat imports from us for fodder for livestock. This is a mighty expensive process, I would imagine, for any importing country.

Let me illustrate quickly what our own coarse grains production is like. Between 1964 and 1969 it rose from 6 per cent to 7.9 per cent, a 1.9 per cent increase in 5 years. Our wheat production increased by 60 per cent in the same period. I believe that production of coarse grains such as sorghum, barley and oats should be increased to meet the market in Japan, which is seeking pelletisation of lucerne from Tasmania. I am sure that Japan would also be interested in importing sugar beet pellets for its livestock industry. Japan has to feed its stock almost the whole year round as #ie Japanese islands are so heavily populated and as there is so little agricultural country. The average farm in Japan is 2 acres. This indicates a tremendous capacity for the importation of feedstuffs for livestock. I really believe that Australia could help the wheat farmers, many of whom are also growing other things. They are not wholly wheat farmers. They are sheep farmers, they grow oats and barley and they have cows. The majority of the wheat farmers in Australia would be mixed farmers. Many of them could cut down wheat production slightly and go into coarse grains production.

I would like to see bulk storage introduced, or at least promised to our farmers if they are prepared to go into coarse grains production. Let us build up coarse grains to the same level as wheat, which has gained all the benefit from bulk handling and so on. As far as I know, at this stage coarse grains enjoy very little silo habitation and are far behind wheat in storage capacity. These are constructive suggestions that I have made tonight. I have not been critical. I hope that they will be analysed and that in good time, before the farmers of Australia have to go out of business entirely, some of them will be implemented. The total indebtedness of our rural industry today is $2,100m. If that is not enough to frighten any government into action, 1 do not know what is. Maybe members of the present Government parties are beyond frightening and, despite those sorts of figures, are more frightened about who will be Prime Minister tomorrow.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– After listening to the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), 1 am quite sure that one must sum up his speech by saying that it was a very interesting statistical address but it had very little to do with the Bill. Of course, that is not altogether unusual in the speeches of some Opposition members. -Unless they can gel their remarks out of a book, their addresses are somewhat short, because they do not understand the real position. 1 am really surprised that this evening the honourable member for Wilmot has gone along that line and completely forgotten what the Bill means. 1 suppose the same could be said about the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) who this afternoon got a long way away from the Bill.

I want to commence my remarks by commending the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) and his suggestion that we could dispose of our wheat on the stock feed market, chiefly in Asia. But I would like to caution those who are of that belief to remember that today we do supply a lot of coarse grains to markets to the north, particularly that of Japan. If we were to go too deeply into this field - the honourable member for Moore suggested that we make a massive plunge - firstly, that could have some effect on the coarse grains market in Australia and, secondly, it could go further and have some effect on our export meat market. It stands to reason that if we are to supply the ingredients to feed the stock in countries such as Japan the demand for our meat must slacken.

This Bill is a very limited one. I believe that it has 3 real features. One is to borrow the S250m. The second is to increase the interest rate from 5 to 5£ per cent. The third and most important is the main reasons why we have to borrow this money. Let me quote just these 3 lines from the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury):

  1. . in order to comply wilh section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act which requires that loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than one year.

That is the very reason why the Government has had to introduce this measure. That is the constitutional side. But we must also look al the practical reason why we want this money. In brief, it is that our supplies exceed our sales. If we look at page 38 of the annual report of the Australian Wheat Board for 1968-69 we can see the very reasons why we have a surplus. Our sales have been good. Last year they were almost a record. But at the same time we have increased our production.

Mr Maisey:

– What about the quotas?

Mr KING:

– I am talking about 1968-69, which is the last year for which figures are recorded in this report and in which we had a total of something like 560 million bushels of wheat to get rid of. Following that we introduced some quotas. It is all very well for the critics just to stand back and say that we have to reduce or restrict production. That is not easy to do. lt is very easy to make a decision, but it is not always easy to implement that decision, particularly when it has some very adverse effects.

I do not go along altogether with the honourable member for Moore in his comments in relation to the industry. After all, whether it was right or wrong, the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation was the first to make a move in this direction. It was the one Who recommended that we introduce a quota system. It recommended that to the Commonwealth and State governments. We as a Government recognise the importance of private industry. In this instance it is a case of going along with the industry itself, despite all the comments that the then Minister for Primary Industry made to the effect that the industry would have to do something about the position.

The implementation of that recommendation is having a very adverse effect financially on many growers. Let me take my own State as an example. In the last 4 years we have had 2 years of quotas and I year of drought. Naturally enough, this is causing great financial hardship, so much so that many growers in the Wimmera electorate have little or no equity at all in their properties. Their overdrafts, mortgages or whatever they may be are greater than the actual value of their properties today. These people are in real financial difficulty. This Bill will not rectify that position; but one can appreciate that by its implementation and the money being made available to pay the first advance on that wheat which has been delivered within the quota system many farmers will be able to retain at least some equity in their properties, whereas otherwise they might have been in the category I have just mentioned.

The position is that, despite the fact that last year was an almost record year for export sales, we still have a carryover of about 250 million bushels. Without this Bill there would be no chance whatsoever of paying a first advance to wheat growers who are delivering that amount of wheat which comes within the quota system. It is obvious that once we introduce any form of restriction we are opening up an opportunity for someone to try to get around it. It is only natural that some farmers will have some surplus in a normal year. It is obvious that if farmers do not have a surplus in a normal year they will have a shortage in a lean year. Hence we have a situation in which wheat is being sold across the border and also, in very limited quantities fortunately, on the black market. The latter is wheat that is sold on an intrastate rather than interstate basis. No doubt that will assist an individual grower.

I for one can fully appreciate that some growers find themselves in a situation in which they have no alternative but to do that; otherwise they would bc in such a financial position that they would not be able to stay on their properties. This is a temporary measure but its effect on wheat stabilisation could be ruinous. My colleague, the honourable member for Riverina, has on a number of occasions condoned the sale of wheat between’ ,one State and another. In this he has been joined by many other people.

Mr Grassby:

– I have recognised it.

Mr KING:

– The honourable member interjects to say that he has recognised it. I am sure that if you were to study all the comments he has made in this House on this subject you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would agree with me that he actually condones the practice. As a result of this trade we saw last year a very definite drop in the sales of wheat for local consumption, whether for human consumption or for stock feed purposes, in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. There was a definite drop in sales by the Australian Wheat Board. Under section 92 of the Constitution, of course, we cannot stop interstate sales, but we can stop intrastate sales. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has the backing of the industry as a whole in trying to find some formula whereby we can discourage people from disposing of their wheat across the border. The Federation has been doing everything possible but as yet has not been able to find the answer. Yet we continue to find self-appointed experts who do not understand the real position but who continue to support or condone the principle of sales over the border. I believe that people who do this are doing a great disservice to the industry and who no doubt will be a major contributing factor in attempts to break wheat stabilisation. If wheat stabilisation in this country fails then those people who are accepting or condoning the sale of wheat over the border alone must be held responsible for that failure. Once wheat stabilisation is broken we can expect a similar trend to follow in other primary industries.

There is no doubt in my mind that hardly a wheat grower in Australia today does not hate the system of wheat quotas. This is understandable. But most of them have accepted the principle because they know it is completely unavoidable. Wheat has 3 real problems today. The first is the problem of quotas or restrictions of production. The second is the high and increasing cost of production. The third is the lack of long term finance. We have frequently heard it said that what the primary producer wants today is long term finance at low interest. It is very easy to talk in this way. Of course, we all like low interest rates when we have to pay for the money and we would all like long term loans, but I believe what is most important is to make sure that primary producers can get money on a long term basis.

I am grateful to the Department of Primary Industry for supplying me with some figures which 1 would like to cite for the benefit of the House. If one borrowed an amount of money on a 5-year basis at an interest rate of 7 per cent the actual annual rate at which that money would have to be repaid would be 24.39 per cent. But if a person were able to get a loan over 20 years at the same interest rate the actual annual rate of repayment would bc 9.44 per cent. If he were lucky enough to get the loan over 30 years at the same interest rate the actual rate of repayment per annum would be reduced to 8.06 per cent. This shows the importance of long term loans. The interest rate is only part of the problem. I submit to the Treasurer that when he is considering the provision of money for persons in primary industry he should suggest to the lending institutions that they first consider long term loans rather than the rate of interest. Interest rates are, of course, important but they are not nearly as important as the term of the loan.

As I have said, a loan over a 5-year period at an interest rate of 7 per cent involves the primary producer in an annual repayment rate of 24.39 per cent. We must also remember that if a person manages to acquire sufficient income to make this kind of repayment on a loan he has also considerable income tax payments to meet, lt is absolutely impossible for a primary producer to survive with a 5-year loan at an interest rate of 7 per cent. I come back to the Bill. I commend the Government for introducing it. The industry could not survive without this kind of legislation, lt is true, as some honourable members have suggested in this debate - 1 think the honourable member for Wilmot was one - that we have to pay further interest on this money, but the fact is that the wheat growers have lo survive. They have to survive while producing wheat at a time when we still have considerable quantities of wheat on hand, and the fact is that most wheatgrowers at present are in financial difficulties. I support the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through this and the other place. I trust that the Australian Wheat Board will be as successful next year as it was last year in disposing of a large quantity of wheat. I hope that the Board is so successful that we will not have to borrow as much as the $250m covered by this legislation.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I have been listening very carefully to the debate and I can quite understand that anyone listening or anyone reading the report of it later in Hansard would wonder what it is all about. Therefore 1 am going to try to explain what it is all about by reading rather extensively from the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury). As honourable members know, it is not my practice to read my speeches but on this occasion 1 will read extracts from the speech of the Treasurer. 1 will also refer briefly to one or two remarks that have been made during the debate and comment on them. I do not, however, want to enter into a full scale debate on wheat growing and primary production and the advisability or otherwise of recognising Red China and all those other matters that have been raised and have nothing to do with the legislation before us. As I say, I will read extensively from the second rending speech of the Treasurer so that people will know what we are talking about. The Treasurer stated:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation under a guarantee of repayment of certain borrowings by the Australian Wheal Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of wheat from the 1969-70 pool. A similar loan, whose repayment will be completed during March 1971, was made last year in respect of wheal from the 1968-69 crop.

To assist in the marketing of the 1969-70 crop, arrangements were made for the Board lo borrow up to S398m from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. The dale for final repayment is 31st March 1971-

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member is reading extensively, as he said, from the Minister’s second reading speech. I submit that this is tedious repetition. The honourable member should not be allowed to hold up the progress of the debate unless he has some contribution of his own to make.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am reading from the Minister’s second reading speech to clarify the position. People who are not in close touch with the wheat industry would not know what the Bill is about. I am going to take my own time about this. The Treasurer continued:

The date for final repayment is 31st March 1971, approximately 12 months after the drawings were made, in order to comply with section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act which requires that loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than 1 year.

Receipts by the Board from sales of wheat will be insufficient to enable it to repay the borrowings in full by the due date.

This is one of the main features of the Bill. The Treasurer went on to say:

This will mean that the Commonwealth will be liable under its guarantee for an amount currently expected to be in the vicinity of $190m, recoupment of which is estimated to take approximately 14 months. It is proposed that the Commonwealth lend to the Board sufficient funds to enable it to discharge its debt to the Bank. It is also proposed that the Board be required to use for repayment of the loan all net proceeds from export sales of wheat of the 1969-70 pool - after the date of the loan - as well as the Commonwealth’s stabilisation payment.

I support the Bill. Now I shall make one or two brief comments. We have had some unseemly conduct going on in the House today from honourable members who represent city electorates. But one cannot drum into them anything regarding primary industries. I certainly am not going to try.

The first speaker was the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). He is always a very logical thinker and, I understand, the shadow Treasurer. He spoke on this Bill but he took a different line altogether from that which would be taken by a man representing primary industries. I suppose that is why the Australian Labor Party has appointed him as its shadow Treasurer. He would not be against primary industry but he would keep the money pretty tightly in his hand regarding loans and such things as are mentioned in the Bill. There are two sides to this Bill. One is the practical side and the other is the theory side. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that the esteemed honourable member for Melbourne Ports - I say esteemed because I esteem him - has put forward the theory. I hope that honourable members on the Government side will put the practical side. In case anyone listening in may wonder why I have hesitated at this point, the reason is that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) walked up to me, looked into my face and said: ‘Do you want a drink, Win ton?’ This kind of conduct should not be allowed in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appeal to you to take certain action.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I cannot deal with remarks which are not audible to me in the chair. I heard no remarks from the honourable member for Sturt, but if the honourable member for Sturt did make the remarks attributed to him I suggest that he apologise to the honourable member for Mallee.

Mr Foster:

– I do not know of anything in the Standing Orders which would allow an honourable member to be charged with dumb insolence.

Dr Patterson:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your ruling on a point of order. This Bill is a Treasury Bill. It has been introduced by the Treasurer. On this side of the House the discussion was led by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports as shadow Treasurer. In the last 2 hours we have heard about 5 minutes of discussion which is relevant to the Bill. I ask, Sir, whether you are going to allow this to be a full scale debate on the wheat industry. If you are we can all join in. We were under the impression that there was a certain number of speakers who would speak purely on the financial side of the Bill and that other legislation was to follow. The debate has now developed into an all-out discussion of the wheat industry and has nothing to do with the Bill. Are you going to allow this? The only thing which has been relevant in the last hour and a half was when the honourable member for Mallee read like a parrot from the Treasurer’s second reading speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Most of the speakers in this debate whom I have heard have ranged fairly widely over the topic of the wheat industry. At this stage of the debate it would be unfair to deny the honourable member for Mallee an opportunity similar to that given to other honourable members. I point out that there is no requirement in the Standing Orders for an honourable member’s remarks to be original. The only requirement is that they be relevant.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Despite the personally insulting remarks by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), for which he is becoming famous, I agree with what he said. That is why I read what the Treasurer had said. I said that I support the Bill. That is the position. I have referred to one or two comments which were made during the debate. I am not introducing any fresh matter. I have referred to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. While I was doing that words were spoken by the honourable member for Sturt. I. shall guarantee on a thousand Bibles that he said them whether he denies it or not. But let the matter stand there.

As we go along we find out the theory of the Bill. 1 was pointing that out as against the practical side of the Bill. The practical purpose of the Bill is to keep one of Australia’s great industries, the wheat industry, satisfactorily producing. Only by the Government taking action and advancing money for wheat and paying a certain amount - not the total amount - for the quotas can the wheat industry hope to survive. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said that we had had a boom year for wheat. This is hard to follow because of what was said at talks in Ottawa. These talks are reported in Hansard in a speech by the then Minister for Primary Industry. The talks took place early in May 1970. The Hansard report states:

At talks in Ottawa involving the 5 major wheat exporting countries - Australia, Canada, United States of America, the Argentine and the European Economic Community - figures showed that last year slock holdings of wheat went up by about 900 million bushels, an increase of almost SO per cent, to well over 2,000 million bushels. The forecasts for this year are that the increase will be only about 200 million bushels, lt is anticipated that in 1971 we may see, for the first time since 1 965, a decline in world stockpiles of wheat.

If there has been a great boom in wheat all around the world - the honourable member for Riverina made this statement - we should have sold our wheat. How is it that all these wheat growing countries had lo meet to try to obtain quotas to give an opportunity for the wheat nations to survive? The only thing 1 can suggest is that we would have to try to make sales outside any arrangement or agreement we had made in the past. We can do that but do not forget that Australia is only a small wheatgrowing country compared with other wheatgrowing countries and that if we do that they will be able to undersell us in any market. 1 cannot imagine in the wildest flights of thought that, as has been stated by the honourable member for Riverina, there are markets for wheat all over the world and that all we have to do is move in and capitalise on them.

The honourable member for Wilmot said that we should recognise Red China. How often have I heard in this place the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and other members of the Opposition by way of interjection ask why the Country Party sells wheat to China. Over the last 4 or 5 years most members of the Australian Labor Party have been criticising wheat sales to Red China. Every member of the Opposition knows that. Now the honourable member for Wilmot is saying that everything is lovely, that we should sell wheat to Red China and that we should recognise Red China. I cannot understand this sudden tremendous change in opinion, lt does not seem to be right so far as I can understand. Why do we not recognise Red China? The reason is that we have some thought for what is known as Nationalist China and the future of that country. The honourable member for Wilmot must have known about that but apparently he did not wish to speak about it.

I do not always agree with my own colleagues. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) said thai if we want to know what will happen in the wheat industry we have lo have a very reliable crystal ball to look into. He must have had that because he looked into something and then he told us what will happen in the next 15 years. Seasonal conditions around the world can change the prospects of the wheat industry in months. It is different from the wool industry. The wheat industry can suffer a sudden change. Markets for our wheat may become available if there is a drought in another producing country. That would help us tremendously, but we do not want to ride to prosperity over a country that is suffering a drought. However, these things happen and they must be looked at. The honourable member for Moore, speaking about the honourable member for Riverina - I always like fair play - said that the speech that the honourable member for Riverina made reminded him of an old bull that he had. He said that these are the sorts of ideas a person must have to take part in a debate on the banks of the Murray River as the honourable member for Riverina and I did. These matters have nothing whatever to do with this. This is a very definite Bill and we must keep to it.

One speaker said that the wheat growers want long term loans. I am all in favour of these, but first of all we must put the primary industries on a payable basis. If they are not on a payable basis and we give them long terms loans, at the end of that long term they are worse off than when they received the loans. We want the wheat industry to be put as soon as possible on a basis where it can show profitable returns and maintain the family unit on the land. The family unit in management generally gets most success. The Bill provides for a loan to the Australian Wheat Board so that it can repay before the 12 months is up money that it has borrowed from the Reserve Bank. The Bill will also give the wheat industry an opportunity to get payment for the wheat that is now being taken into storage. I support the Bill.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I do not wish to detain the House for any great length of time, but I am prompted to rise in this debate because of the speech of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). He went to great lengths to repeat the second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Bury) in respect of this measure. Undoubtedly that was the most substantial portion of his contribution to the debate. He purposely waited, believing himself to be the last honourable member to speak in this debate, hoping that no-one on this side of the chamber would reply to his misrepresentations and the bitter attack he made on the Labor Party. His attack was directed particularly to those of us who represent city electorates and have spoken in this debate. I have always resented the way that the honourable member has referred to city people during debates that concern the primary industries, as does this Bill, the Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1971. When all is said and done, if the people in my electorate did not eat products made from wheat many more farmers would have gone broke a long time ago. The people who live in the important city electorates are entitled to speak on issues such as that dealt with by this Bill. The honourable member for Mallee is not a wheat grower. He is an auctioneer, and not a very good one. The fact of the matter is that he rises in this chamber to attack the people-

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, have I to sit here and listen to the honourable member for Grayndler make a statement that does not contain an iota of truth?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not in a position at this moment to decide whether there is any truth in the statement.

Mr DALY:

– I do not want to offend the honourable member for Mallee. If he will tell me which statement offends him - the statement that he is an auctioneer or the statement that he is not a very good auctioneer - I will withdraw it. The honourable member attacks Labor Party members who represent metropolitan electorates, but the real reason why this measure is before the Parliament is the failure of the Government’s policy for the wheat industry. It is true that seasonal conditions and other factors may be adverse to the wheat industry but it is the full responsibility of members of the Country Party opposite that it has become impossible for wheat growers to live on their farms. The problems of the rural industries today, particularly the wheat industry, are due entirely to the policies the honourable member for Mallee has supported in this Parliament for the last 21 years.

Thank heaven that the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and other honourable members expose the imposters in this Parliament who claim to represent the country interests in the community. This legislation is a direct product of their mismanagement of rural affairs. The Treasurer said in his second reading speech:

Receipts by the Board from sales of wheat will be insufficient to enable it to repay the borrowings in full by the due date.

This measure is introduced to compensate for the failure of the Australian Wheat Board to sell wheat. Why can it not sell our wheat? It is because it cannot make sales to Red China. Members of the Country Party refer to Red China when they say that its forces are about to invade Australia, but they refer to Mainland

China when the are about to sell wheat to that nation. They hate the politics of the Communists but they love their gold. This year they have not sold any wheat to Mainland China and that is the reason why al this stage measures such as this one are before the Parliament. We refer to the hypocrisy of members of the Country Party for criticising Red China and its policies, on the one hand, while sending emissaries there to sell our products. Any markets in the world will be acceptable to members of the Country Party so long as the money comes in.

At the very time that our men are dying in battle against Red Chinese troops, so we are saying, the honourable member says that he is prepared to sell on such markets. We do not oppose in any shape or form the sale to the nations of the world of our wheat or other commodities, but members of the Country Party, while criticising people as enemies of this nation, support legislation which is needed because, amongst other things, of the failure to sell our products to those people. The honourable member for Mallee consistently attacks the Labor Party in this Parliament, but it was the Labor Party which stabilised the wheat industry and other rural industries in days gone by. Our farmers were broke until the Curtin and Chifley Governments came into office. After they took over, instead of the farmers owing money to the banks, the banks owed money to them. When the honourable member for Mallee was in opposition he was a roaring lion. We all know how he criticised the Labor Party and everybody associated with it. I repeat now what I have said a hundred times before. Now he is like a worn out old tomcat in government and is not prepared to attack.

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– in reply - At the opening of this debate the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), as one would expect, made a number of pertinent points, the first of which was related to the accounts of the Australian Wheat Board. Of course, the Wheat Board’s accounts are operated on a pool basis and not on an annual basis. The honourable member quoted from the Board’s report of 1968- 69. In that year the pool was finalised and there were no financial statements in the annual report for that year. However, there were 3 pools in 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 which were finalised in September 1970. The accounts for these pools were published in the Board’s 1969 annual report. This will be in the bands of the printer very shortly and should be published for ail to read in May. These accounts were somewhat delayed because the finances of these pools were not finalised due to a difficulty arising out of the determination of the average price for export and thus the amount which the Wheat Board was entitled to draw from the Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund. Until these matters were finalised it was not possible to publish the accounts.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports raised the question of the Wheat Board’s accountability, particularly to Parliament. It is necessary to point out that the Commonwealth does not meet the Board’s expenses nor provide its capital. It facilitates the orderly marketing of the crop through the Board under the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act and it also guarantees advances for marketing of the crop. This guarantee was not in fact called upon until last year. There is no statutory requirement on the Board to table its report but its accounts are audited by the Auditor-General. The honourable member also referred, very aptly I suppose, to the rather large provision in this Bill which enables the Government to borrow up to $250m when the best estimate we can make at the moment is that $1 90m will be required. This has to be a normal procedure because there are too many unknowns in this exercise; a lot of unknown factors could crop up. But we do not expect to be called on to advance more than $190m. The honourable member also mentioned the effect on the national accounts. He obviously implied that there could be inflationary implications. This point is well taken, but what this Bill seeks to do is replace advances which have already been made. If we were talking about an initial advance the honourable member’s point would be different but what this Bill does ‘ is turn the advances which have been made by the Reserve Bank into a Commonwealth debt.

A number of suggestions were made during the debate, particularly by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) who also dealt with some of the points made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) applied a very salutory corrective to some of the suggestions of both the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), who also spoke about these matters. I assure the honourable members thatI will pass on to my colleagues, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), the substance of what they said. The honourable member for Wilmot referred to a number of matters and, of course, particularly to the fact that some wickedness or satanic process was involved in the charging of an interest rate of5½ per cent which he said would amount to $13,750,000. The fact is that the interest payable is calculated on a moving balance. As the loan is repaid the balance is reduced and less interest is payable. The best estimate we can make at present is that the Australian Wheat Board will pay between $5¼m and $5½m interest over the estimated period of the loan. That is only an estimate. One cannot be sure of what will happen in the process. During this period the Commonwealth will have to pay the Reserve Bank of Australia an average of 5.725 per cent or something like $5.5m.

The interest rate on the original advance was, as has been pointed out, 5 per cent. I am talking about the one last year.It is no use talking about 20 years ago. That was another world entirely. I will not resuscitate this point or argue on it because these conditions do not apply any longer. The reason is that the Commonwealth has to pay the increased cost of its borrowings. The original rate of 5 per cent was based on the fact that this was the rate that the Commonwealth had to pay at the time for relatively short term Treasury notes. The increased cost of Commonwealth borrowings now on Treasury notes is an average yield of something like 5.75 per cent. 1 should also point out that, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, the Australian Wheat Board - very rightly and properly - charges commercial rates on ils credit sales of wheat. The proposed rate of 5.5 per cent represents a considerable concession on the current overdraft rate. This is what we have to pay for money. Therefore the 5½ per cent rate is in fact a concessional rate. This is not creation of credit, as the honourable member for Wilmot suggested. This is something which is in the system already and the Commonwealth, in taking it over, will have to pay the Commonwealth Bank of Australia the going rate of interest, so that it is in fact a concession.

The honourable member for Riverina referred to the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The legislation establishing the Rural Credits Department was debated at length by this House before being passed. The function of the Rural Credits Department is to provide short term finance for the marketing, processing or manufacture of primary products on a seasonal basis, it is not and never has been the intention of the legislation that the Rural Credits Department should prove funds for the carryover of large stocks from one year to another. This matter has been examined a number of times over the years but it has been felt for very good reasons that such a course was not warranted. I am glad that the honourable member for Wilmot, who made a number of suggestions, and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports are present in the chamber.

Mr Webb:

– The Minister is only half here.

Mr BURY:

– The honourable member is a very polite fellow. He is only here half the time anyway. He enjoyed a very apt absence at the hands of the electors some time ago. Who knows what next may recur? The honourable member for Wilmot made a number of suggestions, particularly in regard to where the Wheat Board should look for further sales. I should point out first of all that the Wheat Board has made sales of1¼ million tons or 46 million bushels to the United Arab Republic. The Board also has a 3-year agreement to supply it with 1 milliontons a year so. whatever other factors may have arisen since, the basic contracts are there. He suggested that the Wheat Board, which is the marketing authority, should explore the possibilities of sales of wheat to Nigeria and Israel. Nigeria principally consumes a hard wheat which has. for some time, been supplied by the United States of America on extended terms at concessional rates. The Wheat Board, of course, has been alert to every market. In fact, as has been pointed out, in the last year it has done a remarkable job in finding markets for Australian wheat. The Israel market is not a good prospect because of the adverse factor of very high freight rates now prevailing to Mediterranean ports. The Israel port of Eilat lacks bulk handling facilities for wheat and the cost of inland transport to the main centres of population increases its price to a prohibitive figure. The situation has been investigated, and the honourable member for Wilmot should not imagine that the Wheat Board has not been active in this field. If the honourable member has any other suggestions I shall be glad to pass them on to my colleagues for investigation.

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) and honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) also contributed to the debate. I am glad that the honourable member for Mallee supports the Bill. He has a vast rural experience in these matters and I thank him for his support. I shall pass on to the Ministers concerned the Other suggestions that were made and I thank the honourable members who made constructive contributions to the debate. Not all of the debate was of a constructive character but this is perhaps not unusual in matters of this matter. I should like particularly to thank the honourable member for Melbourne Ports for raising the points which he has raised. If he has any further points or wants any further information on this subject I shall certainly endeavour to supply it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I have one query in relation to the provisions governing the interest rate to be charged. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his second reading speech referred to the fact that the interest rate, which has been increased to 5£ per cent, represented the current level of interest that was necessary to cover borrowings.

I want to pose to the Treasurer a series of questions. As I understand it, the money is advanced by the Reserve Bank.

In effect the Reserve Bank is making a book entry. It is not operating on the open money market. What we are doing is making an arbitrary decision in relation to these funds, an arbitrary decision which I might say was made some 20 years ago. But whether it was 20 years ago, 10 years ago or last year, the principle still applies. I indicated that at that time the interest rate charged was less than one-half of the present rate. It was 2$ per cent. An appeal was made to the Prime Minister and Treasurer of the day who happened to be the late Mr J. B. Chifley. It was pointed out that in relation to the wheat industry there was a need for some encouragement, some incentive, some assistance. He said: What we will do in this instance as a matter of assistance is to cut the interest rate’. So he cut the interest rate from what it was then to 2 per cent. He indicated at the time that this was a book exercise, a book entry. It did not involve loan funds.

I put to the Treasurer in relation to the interest rate that this is an arbitrary decision of the Government. It does not in fact relate specifically to money that is raised by way of loan to be advanced to the wheat industry. My object in raising this is to point out again that the entire exercise is a profitable one for the Commonwealth. I think it may have been overlooked by the Treasurer that the Commonwealth is doing exceedingly well out of this and similar legislation. I do not make the point in any party political way. I make it simply as a matter of administration. The money is advanced, and the interest rate is high compared with what applies to rural advances in other parts of the world, lt is 54 per cent and that is a high rate of interest. In the peak year this involved a payment by growers of interest amounting to S50m.

What I am suggesting at this stage is that we should look at this in the truth of the situation as a book entry and not in relation to the general raising of money by way of loan. The Government makes the decision, the Government keeps the books and the Government determines the level of interest in any case by either indirect or direct means. The Treasurer once said that he did not dictate interest rates directly. I am sure he would never be guilty of an untruth. All I say is that I am sure he would be in a position, by virtue of the great weight of his office and influence, to indicate what the rates should be. If an industry is in trouble or in need of incentive, the interest rate is in his hands specifically and directly.

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– This Bill provides for the repayment of an advance which the Reserve Bank has already made and upon which the Commonwealth was called upon to pay the prevailing rate of interest. This would be currently - I did not put it exactly because it could change - of the order of 5.725 per cent. The Commonwealth is called upon to pay that rate of interest to the Reserve Bank. This Bill enables the Commonwealth to borrow the money to repay the Reserve Bank. For this transaction we have to pay this rate of interest. The Government has in fact provided a concession as it probably will be called upon to pay rather more than the amount which will be charged to the Australian Wheat Board.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I have a question to ask the Treasurer (Mr Bury). When everything is boiled down does this Bill mean that this money is being advanced so that the Australian Wheat Board can pay $1.10 a bushel for wheat? Does it mean that the Government is giving great assistance to the wheat industry and that without this assistance it would be very hard to say how the industry could continue producing even under the present circumstances? Has this Bill been introduced with the main object of assisting the wheat industry by providing finance from this Government in view of the hard times the industry has had owing to a world glut in wheat?

Mr BURY:
Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– What the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) says about the part the Commonwealth Government is playing is true. Without this action there would be a serious collapse and the whole object is to prevent that happening.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 950

ADJOURNMENT

Customs Duties - Commonwealth and State Relations - Visit of South African Sportsmen

Motion (by Mr Bury) proposed;

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I want to speak about 3 matters this evening, the first relating to the Department of Customs and Excise. 1 do not want to labour the point because I have had discussions with the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) and his departmental officers and I appreciate the situation in which they are placed. However 1 feel that owing to the particular circumstances of this case there is an obligation upon the Government to allow a vehicle to be imported into Australia without the usual payment of sales tax and customs duty. This case concerns a gentlemen in New South Wales who travelled to the United Kingdom to do particular work in that country, work that will be of advantage to himself and to the profession he follows. He took his wife and family with him and during the rime he was there he purchased a motor car, which was the obvious thing to do. During the time he was using this vehicle he was involved in an accident. It was not his fault but the fault of the other driver. The insurance company representative Looked at the vehicle and decided that it was not worth repairing, that it was a write off, and the company gave this gentleman another vehicle. In other words the company replaced the vehicle that had been damaged.

I say that in those circumstances this was a replacement car which was not purchased by the person concerned, but when he returns to Australia in a couple of months time he will not have fulfilled the statutory period of 15 months ownership. 1 have approached the Minister for Customs and Excise and he has said that as far as the circumstances and time are concerned he has no discretionary powers. The Minister and his Department have put forward the argument that it is not possible to make a concession in one case because if they do that they face the problem of people in certain circumstances wanting to bring cars into this country perhaps a month before the required time. One example that was given was of people who went overseas and who, because of circumstances completely outside of their control, returned to Australia before the statutory period had expired. I appreciate all that; I have told the Minister so. However, I still believe that in the circumstances I have outlined - there was one vehicle only purchased by this gentleman, he was not responsible for the accident and it was the insurance company which replaced the car - morally it can be argued that this gentleman made a purchase of one car during the time he was overseas and therefore he fulfilled the statutory requirement of 15 months ownership. This gentleman, having completed the studies and research which were the reason for his visit to the United Kingdom will return to Australia in May. I say quite frankly and sincerely that 1 believe this person has fulfilled his obligation to conform to the statutory period. lft the circumstances he should be granted permission to bring his vehicle into Australia without having to pay the required sales duty and customs duty.

The second subject I want to speak about is that of Commonwealth-State relations which has been mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). This is a subject which I have mentioned on a number of occasions in this House. Only last week 1 spoke about the danger of centralisation which is becoming more and more a threat to the progress and development of Australia. I also referred to the reduction of the power of State governments and local governments. From what was said by the Prime Minister I hope that this matter will be certainly more than looked at. I hope that decisions will be made. I also believe that consideration must be given to the Constitution and, if necessary, to altering the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution needs bringing up to date so that we can develop this country in the manner which was envisaged by our founders, with close association between Commonwealth, State and local government. The danger is that a decision could be made in Canberra by a person who does not understand the circumstances. I believe that sometimes a decision could be made by a person who might not have any political responsibili ties whatsoever- I am not criticising the Public Service, but a person in the Public Service who has no political responsibilities and who in this regard would have no responsibility to the public could make such decisions. On the other hand those of us in this House have responsibility and are answerable to the electorates we represent whether we be Ministers or backbenchers. I believe this to be one of the dangers of centralisation. As I have said before, I think it would be dangerous to allow centralisation to develop. I hope that the Prime Minister also will give consideration to a review of the Constitution which I believe is necessary.

The third matter I want to mention concerns Bishop Crowther, that delightful person who is visiting Australia at present. I had the misfortune of seeing him on a number of occasions on Australian Broadcasting Commission television programmes in which he spoke about the proposed visits to Australia of South African football and cricket teams that will take place later on this year. The irony of this is in the fact that the comments he made showed a complete lack of appreciation of the total situation and made no contribution to solving the problems that are confronting the world at present. Lel us have a look at some of the things he said about non-violent protests. I ask whether the protest at the office of the Rugby Union organisation in Sydney a short while ago during which people threw bricks through windows and tried to destroy equipment was a non-violent one. The hypocrisy of much of this can be seen if we look at it and study it. When there was some suggestion of Miss Goolagong being invited to visit South Africa these people said that the South Africans would not invite her and, therefore, we should do this, that and something else. But when the South Africans did invite her to visit their country it was said that she should not go. If honourable members consider that situation they will realise that some of these things are completely and absolutely inconsistent.

Bishop Crowther also has expressed solidarity with Black Power which relies on terrorism. At present no-one agrees with the apartheid policy of the South

African Government. We are, in more ways than one. endeavouring to impress upon the South African Government and many of the South African people that this is not a wise policy. But this policy certainly will not be changed, nor will it be helped, by those people who are helping the terrorists to impose their will upon the situation. Bishop Crowther said that he could see no alternative to violent revolution in South Africa. It is tragic to see one trying to use his position to sow the seeds of a hatred that we are trying to overcome. When I was in South Africa I spoke to moderate African leaders and moderate African natives. They were terrified that one day the terrorists might take control and that their lives would be in danger. I would ask Bishop Crowther as I have asked many people to realise that this problem is complex in its nature and complex in its solution. Certainly the actions of men like Bishop Crowther will not help to solve the problem. I suggest that he should look at men like Sobers and Conrad Hunte, two men who are respected in the community, in world affairs and in the national scene, and who advocate a solution to this problem which is completely and absolutely opposed to what is proposed by this so-called bishop.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

page 953

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Hospital Insurance Organisations: Family Contributions (Question No. 2430) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the weekly family contribution charged by the major hospital benefits organisation in each State.

Hospital Benefits Organisations: Reserves (Question No. 2432)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What have been the aggregate reserves of the hospital benefits organisations in 1968-69 and 1969-70.
  2. What percentage of contributions did the increase in reserves represent in each year.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Cigarette Smoking; Health Warning (Question No. 2553)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What arrangements have been made with the States to label cigarette packages with the warning that smoking is dangerous to health.
  2. Is there any reason why the Commonwealth should not insist on such labelling in its own territories.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. At the June 1969 conference of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers it was agreed that Ministers would recommend to their Governments that consideration be given to the adoption of a National Health and Medical Research Council recommendation that the label ‘Wanting, cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’ should be placed on cigarette packets.
  2. The Commonwealth considers that there should be uniformity in such labelling and is prepared to introduce legislation for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory when all States agree to introduce similar legislation.

Medical Benefits Organisations:

Receipts (Question No. 2435)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

What payments were made to the medical benefits organisations by their members in 1969-70.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Payments made to the medical benefits organisations by their members in 1969-70 including Special Account, amounted to $78,723,963. (This is a preliminary figure and is subject to confirmation.)

Medical Benefits Organisations:

Operating Expenses (Question No. 2437)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the estimated increase in the operating expenses of the medical benefits organisations in respect of the new Medical Benefits Plan in 1970- 71.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

An estimate has not been madeas to the extent operating expenses of medical benefits organisations have varied as a result of the new Medical Benefits Plan introduced on 1st July 1970. Apart from certain extra costs associated with the transitional period, it is not expected that there will be any increase in administrative costs of medical benefits organisations arising fromthe new plan.

Medical Benefits Organisations: Reserves (Question No. 2438)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. What have been the aggregate reserves of the medical benefits organisations in 1968-69 and 1969-70.
  2. What percentage of contributions did the increase in reserves represent in each year.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Pathology Services (Question No. 2556)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What was the amount of (a) Fund benefit and (b) Commonwealth benefit paid out for pathology services in New South Wales during the December quarter of 1968, 1969 and 1970.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Particulars of the actual Fund benefit and Commonwealth benefit paid for pathology services in New South Wales during the December quarters of 1968, 1969 and 1970 are not available.

It is proposed that as the A.D.P. processing of medical benefits claims is extended, statistics such as those requested may become available in future years.

Pollution: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 2580)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the ‘West Australian’ of 21st January 1971 that officials of bis Department were examining a device developed by Mr L. Podheczky which claims to reduce carbon monoxide from motor cars by thirty times.
  2. If so, what were the results of these tests with regard to emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and particulates as well as carbon monoxide.
  3. Does his Department regularly watch for and test new items which are designed to lower pollution problems caused by motor cars.
  4. Has the Government given any grants to aid research and development of items designed to lower air pollution caused by cars, such as the steam engine developed by Prichard in Melbourne or the device developed by Mr Duncan McWade.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However the officers concerned are employed by the Victorian State Department of Health and not my Department.
  2. I have no information as to the results of these tests.
  3. While my Department maintains interest and constantly reviews developments in air pollution control it does not undertake testing of items which are designed to lower pollution problems caused by motor cars.
  4. Yes. The Australian Research Grants Committee this year made a grant of $5,520 to Dr N. W. Cant, of Macquarie University, for research into this subject.

Pollution: Murray River (Question No. 2573)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Dr R. G. Cooper of Mildura Base Hospital that untreated water supplies to some Murray River Towns have already caused hepatitis.
  2. If so, did Dr Cooper say that tanks of Murray River water in some locations showed the water unsuitable for drinking to a fantastic degree.
  3. Did Dr Cooper also state that there is a risk of gastro-enteriris, and possibly typhoid, if water is taken for drinking from some River Murray locations.
  4. Is he able to say whether Dr David Law, Medical Officer of Health in the Riverina, initiated a survey; if so, has Dr Law stated that the survey already indicated a need to stop pollution now.
  5. Has he received complaints directly from Corowa District Hospital about the level of pollution in the Murray which is making it impossible to make water sterile for the operating theatre.
  6. Will he confer urgently with the Minister for National Development with a view to initiating anti-pollution measures.
  7. Will he study Canadian, French, British and other overseas anti-pollution legislation designed to maintain purity of rivers and streams with a view to following their lead.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. to (3) I am aware of recent newspaper reports dealing with pollution of the Murray River.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. An Office of the Environment has been created in the Prime Minister’s Department and an approach has been made to the States for the establishment of a National Advisory Council.
  5. This legislation is being studied by my Department It should be borne in mind that the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction in this matter does not extend beyond the Commonwealth Territories.

Hospital Benefit Funds (Question No. 2682)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Were representatives of hospital benefits funds promised a new four-schedule hospital fund structure in July 1970.
  2. If so. have these new schedules been prepared.
  3. If the schedules have been prepared when will they become operative.
  4. Is it a fact that current schedules do not provide protection for participants against sudden increases in hospital charges.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. On 4 March 1970 in a statement made in the HouseI said “The Government has decided to adopt Recommendation 7 by the Nimmo Committee that three hospital benefit tables - related to standard, intermediate and private ward charges - be operated in each State. This decision requires no legislative action and will be implemented as an administrative measure over an appropriate phasing-in period’. By referring to a four schedule structure 1 assume the honourable member hasin mind a fourth benefit table to cover the situation where private hospitals charge fees higher than those charged by public hospitals for private rooms. Where such circumstances exist any proposals by benefit organisations for a fourth benefit table would be given careful consideration.
  2. and (3) As I announced on 4 March 1970 the restructuring of hospital benefit tables will be undertaken administratively. The most appropriate time for making such changes is when public hospital fees in the respective States are being increased. South Australia is the only State in which a new four table benefit structure has been introduced by registered hospital benefits organisations. However, it is expected that a restructuring on similar lines will be proposed by organisations in other States when alterations are next made to public hospital fees in their States.
  3. In some instances this is the current position. However, once organisations have restructured their tables on a three or four table basis, then provided reasonable advance notice is given of increases in hospital fees, increased benefits can be made available from the date fees are altered and thus provide adequate protection to contributors.

Australian Army: Medical Standards (Question No. 2684)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Does the same medical standard apply when determining the fitness of recruits for (a) the Regular Army and (b) national service.
  2. Does the same medical standard apply when assessing the need to discharge members of the Regular Army and national servicemen.
  3. If not, why not.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Not applicable.

Australian Army: Enlistments (Question No. 2610)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many persons (a) applied and (b) were accepted for enlistment in the Army for each of the last 10 years.
  2. How many applicants were rejected on (a) medical and (b) educational grounds.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Armoured Corps (Question No. 2551)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many officers of the Armoured Corps have resigned since his reply to Question No. 1988 (Hansard, 22nd October 1970, page 2753).
  2. How many of these officers were stationed at Puckapunyal at the time of resignation and what were their ranks.
  3. To what extent is the Armoured Corps now under strength and what is the deficiency in each rank.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Three.
  2. None of the officers were posted to Puckapunyal at the time of resignation. Two officers were Captains and one was a Lieutenant.
  3. The establishment for RAAC officers was recently increased by 10. The RAAC is currently deficient 28 officers against establishment. This deficiency by rank is1 Lieutenant-Colonel, 6 Majors, 18 Captains and 3 Lieutenants.

Australian Army: Cost of Training Infantrymen (Question No. 2452)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

Can he indicate the order of cost to train an infantry soldier to the stage where he can take his place as a full member of a fighting unit, including the cost of his pay, allowances, accommodation and rations and the cost of the staff, installations, equipment and ammunition required to train him.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The cost of training an infantry soldier to the stage where he can take his place as a full member of a fighting unit is of the order of $4,000.

Motor Vehicles: Accident Details (Question No. 2740)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will he consider having recorded and published each year with respect to each of the Commonwealth Territories:

    1. the make of vehicles involved in injury or fatality producing accidents,
    2. the kinds and severity of injuries sustained,
    3. the kinds of structural damage suffered by the vehicles,
    4. whether or not the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs was a factor in the accident, and
    5. whether or not seat belts were being worn by the occupants at the time of the accident.
  2. Would this information be a valuable aid to the evaluation of driver and vehicle performance prior to and during an accident.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The question of effective collection and use of Australia-wide statistics on road traffic accidents is under consideration by my group of expert advisers on road safety. Nevertheless, 1 shall take up the matter of reporting procedures in the Territories with my colleague the Minister for the Interior.
  2. Yes.

Road Accidents (Question No. 2742)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Can he give the number of fatal and injuryproducing accidents which have occurred on each of our major roads connecting the capital cities, but not including those which occurred on that portion of the road within the metropolitan areas.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Statistics are not compiled on an Australiawide basis relating to the number of accidents on particular roads.

Australian Transport Advisory Council (Question No. 2743)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has consideration been given to widening the representation of the Australian Transport

Advisory Council to include the six State Leaders of the Opposition.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

It is not the practice for Leaders of the Opposition to be members of Councils such as the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

Uniform Highway Code (Question No. 2746)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What attempts have been made to gain voluntary adherence by all Australian States to a uniform highway code.
  2. What factors have prevented the attainment of uniformity to date.
  3. Does he anticipate that uniformity will be achieved in the future.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. A comprehensive code of trafficlaws known as the National Road Traffic Code was endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council in 1962. The Code is used as a model for traffic legislation by the States and Territories and with some exceptions, State legislation generally conforms to the Code. The Code is kept under review and amended as necessary.
  2. The enactment, enforcement and administration of road traffic laws are the direct responsibility of State Governments. When the Code was approved in principle by the Australian Transport Advisory Council it recognised that it would not be adopted in its entirety by all jurisdictions in Australia. Council expressed the hope that individual States and Territories would, as opportunity offered, accept its provisions.
  3. See answer to (2) above.

Motor Vehicles: Design Rules (Question No. 2750)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Are fully imported cars subject to Australian safety rules.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Yes. Australian Design Rules as endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council apply to all new cars registered in Australia.

Fire in Road Accidents (Question No. 2752) Mr Cohen asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report by the New South Wales Traffic Accident Research Unit entitled ‘Fire in Road Accidents’.
  2. If so, does this report show that (a) between 1 January 1965 and 30 June 1969 there were 59 fatal motor vehicle accidents in which vehicles caught fire and (b) Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ sedans and Morris Mini sedans have been involved in a disproportionate and significantly large number of fatal fire-involved road accidents in New South Wales.
  3. Will the Government take steps to (a) encourage the respective manufacturers to redesign these sedans so as to remove this potential hazard and (b) make known to the car-buying public, by way of advertisement or pamphlet, the apparent danger of fire which may occur at the time of an accident in these types of sedans.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes. The report has been referred to the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design for study.
  2. (a) Yes.

    1. The report includes in its conclusion that:

Volkswagen “Beetle” sedans and Morris Mini sedans have been involved in a disproportionate and significantly large number of fata) fire-involved road accidents in New South Wales.’

The report also states that further investigation is necessary in both cases.

  1. Commonwealth action will be in the light of the report by the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design.

Australian Transport Advisory Council (Question No. 2759)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made by the Transport Advisory Council at its meeting in Adelaide in February 1971 for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The Australian Transport Advisory Council is a forum at which Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with transport discuss matters of common interest. Consideration is given to many detailed recommendations of specialist committees of the Council which, if endorsed, may result in legislative or administrative action.

Proceedings are of a confidential nature; however, press announcements are made during Council sessions concerning the decisions of Council. The items which may involve legislative and /or administrative action on which press releases were made are as follows:

Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety,

Air Pollution from Motor VehicleExhausts, Model Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods.

Code for Air Cushion Vehicles.

Road Accidents (Question No. 2744)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many people were killed or injured in road accidents in each State during the past 10 years.
  2. Can he say what is the mortality rate per 100,000 vehicles and per 10,000 miles in overseas countries.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The number of persons killed and injured in road accidents in each State, and in Australia as a whole, are set out in tables below for the years 1960 to 1969.

Preliminary figures are available for 1970 on the number of persons killed but not on the number of persons injured.

  1. The fatality rates per 10,000 vehicles and 100,000,000 vehicle-miles (which are the most commonly used statistical measures) are set out below for a number of overseas countries for the year 1968.

Vietnam: Casualties (Question No. 2454)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

How many soldiers in Vietnam have in August 1970 and following months incurred disabilities described in successive lines of the first column of the Fourth and Fifth Schedules of the Repatriation Act (Hansard 17th September 1970, page 1364).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Pest Strips (Question No. 2578)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to recent articles appearing in the ‘Canberra Times’ on the sale in Australia of pest strips containing the insecticide Dichlorvos (DDVP).
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to a TV advertisement for a product containing 0.37 per cent Dichlorvos in which a well-known cooking expert sprays food with the product.
  3. Is he able to say in what countries the use of these pest strips has been banned or subjected to very rigid control, if so, can he say what controls on their use are stipulated.
  4. What evidence published in reputable scientific journals indicates that the relase of Dichlorvos vapour in a closed environment and over a long period is safe.
  5. Has his attention been drawn to experiments performed in an Italian hospital where all patients had a depressed level of plasma cholinesterase and those with liver damage took 3 weeks to recover and also to similar work in the United States of America and Japan.
  6. Has his attention also been drawn to recent data published by Lofroth showing that Dichlorvos in a test tube can alter the structure of DNA, the material carrying genetic coding.
  7. Does the government agree that the burden of proof of safety should rest with those organisations wishing to sell pest strips impregnated with Dichlorvos.
  8. What steps has the government taken to ensure that Australians are protected from inhaling this compound of unproven safety.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. The use of these pest strips is not banned in any country. Labelling of these strips is controlled in the United States, Canada, Holland and Australia.
  4. A considerable amount of experimental work has been performed to test the safety of Dichlorvos. In order to perform this work under environmental conditions which are as near as possible to natural living conditions, tests have been performed in bouses, huts, hospital wards, factories and aircraft. The following are some of the published references of work indicating that the release of Dichlorvos vapour into various types of environments is safe:

    1. Cavagna, G., Locati, G. and Vigliani, E. C: Clinical Effects of Exposure to DDVP (Vapona) Insecticide in Hospital Wards, Arch. Environ. Health, 19:112-123, (July) 1969
    2. Durham, W.F. et al, Toxilogical Studies ofO,O-Dimethyi-2-2-Dichlorovinyl Phosphate (DDVP) in Tobacco Warehouses, A.M.A. Arch. Ind. Health, 20, 202-210, September 1959.
    3. Funckes, A. J. et al, Initial Field Studies in Upper Volta with Dichlorvos Residual Fumigant as a Malarial Eradication Technique. 3. Toxicological Evaluation, Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 29:243-246, 1963.
    4. Gratz, N. G. et al, A Village Scale Trial with Dichlorvos as a Residual Fumigant Insecticide in Southern Nigeria, Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 29 (2) : 251-270. 1963.
    5. Hayes, W. J., Jr, Safety of DDVP for the Disinfection of Aircraft, Bull. Wld. Hlth. Org. 24 : 629-633, 1961.
  5. Work has been performed in an Italian hospital in which some patients, exposed continuously to DDVP vapour in poorly ventilated rooms, developed depressed plasma cholinesterase levels. Some patients with liver damage who were included in the experiment did develop depressed plasma cholinesterase levels which lasted up to three weeks. The authors concluded that it is clinically harmless to use DDVP vapour strips in hospital wards. Similar works has been performed in other countries.
  6. Yes.
  7. and (8) The control of pesticides is the responsibility of the individual States, the Commonwealth having responsibility only for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The National Health and Medical Research Council, which advises Commonwealth and State governments on matters of a public health nature, seeks to attain uniformity in the legislation controlling poisonous substances by its recommendations concerning the scheduling of poisons. Before these recommendations are made extensive toxicological data is closely examined and it would be necessary for the manufacturer to provide evidence of safety acceptable to the Council. The National Health and Medical Research Council has made recommendations on the scheduling of dichlorvos as a poison (including labelling requirements) and is currently examining other aspects of the sale and use of dichlorvos.

Hospital Beds (Question No. 2434)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

How many beds were there in each State and Territory in 1970 in (a) public wards (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards in hospitals approved under the National Health Act.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The following information is in line with that provided for the years 1948 to 1969 supplied in answer to your Question No. 109 of 1970.

Mental Health Institutions (Question No. 2283)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What allocations were available for each of the States under the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act and when was the total amount available under those allocations finally taken up by each of the States during each triennium.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Under the States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act 1955 an amount of $20m was made available on the basis of one-third of approved expenditure by the States for or in connection with the buildings or equipment of mental institutions. No time limit was imposed on the States’ expenditure. The following are details of the States’ allocations under this legislation and the years in which these allocations were finally taken up:

Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships (Question No. 2762)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of students in secondary schools in each State and Territory of the Commonwealth during 1970 in (i) government, (ii) Catholic and (iii) other private schools who (A) were enrolled for the third last year of secondary education, (B) sat for Commonwealth secondary scholarship examinations and (C) were awarded scholarships.

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

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

All figures are subject to minor variation and should be regarded as preliminary. Details of candidates for Secondary scholarships for New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are not yet available. 1 shall bring them to the notice of the honourable member when they are received.

Papua and New Guinea: Ordinances (Question No.2362)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. In which cases in 1970 has the Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea (a) withheld assent to an ordinance passed by the House of Assembly for the Territory, (b) reserved an ordinance for the GovernorGeneral’s pleasure or (c) returned an ordinance to the House with amendments that he recommends.
  2. In which cases has the Governor-General (a) assented to an ordinance which the Administrator has reserved for his pleasure, (b) withheld assent to it (c) withheld assent to part of it and ‘ assented to the remainder or (d) returned it to the Administrator with amendments that he recommends.
  3. In which cases has the Governor-General (a) disallowed an ordinance or part of an ordinance to which the Administrator has assented or (b) recommended to the Administrator any amendments of the laws of the Territory that he considers to be desirable arising out of his consideration of the ordinance.
  4. On what dates did (a) the House pass each such ordinance and (b) the Administrator and the Governor-General lake each action concerning it.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. (a) None (b)

Motor Vehicles: Safety Belts (Question No. 2756)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Has recent legislation been passed enforcing manufacturers to provide safety belts in the back seats of cars as well as the front seats; if so, why has the Commonwealth failed to provide seat belts in the back seats of Commonwealth cars.

Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

The States have gazetted legislation making it mandatory to comply with Australian Design Rule 4 (b) which requires the fitting of a seat belt for each rear seat position in passenger cars first registered on or after 1 January 1971.

Passenger vehicles delivered since that date to the Department’s Transport Section in Canberra have been fitted with a seat belt for each seat position, front and rear, and this requirement will continue to be observed for all future deliveries.

Passenger cars in use which were first registered prior to 1 January 1971 do not have seat belts fitted for the rear seat positions.

Murrumbidgee River Committee (Question No. 2676)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has an interdepartmental committee been established to investigate aspects of the quality of water in the Murrumbidgee River.
  2. What is the composition of this committee and who comprises its membership.
  3. When was it established, how many times has it met and when will its final report be made available.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). Representatives of the Department of the Interior, Department of Works, Department of Health and National Capital Development Commission formed into an ad hoc committee in April 1969 for the purpose of ensuring and maintaining close and effective liaison between the Departments and Authorities concerned with the quality of waterways in the A.C.T. It was not set up to produce a report.

The committee which has formally met on two occasions has a continuing function through meetings of technical representatives who meet as appropriate.

Northern Territory Ordinances (Question No. 2482)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the tables on Northern Territory ordinances which his predecessor gave in his answer to me on 21st April 1970 (Hansard, page 1411).

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

See the following tables:

page 966

ORDINANCES DISALLOWED

Nil

page 966

ORDINANCES ASSENTED TO BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO WHICH AMENDMENTS WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Radio and Television: Political Broadcasts (Question No. 2273)

Mr Hayden:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What total amount was expended on each (a) television channel and (b) radio station in each of the States by each of the political parties which contested the recent Senate election.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is not available to me.

Telephone Services (Question No. 2567)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice: (1.) Which persons in Australia are entitled to claim priority in trunk line telephone calls.

  1. Under what circumstances are those priorities claimed.
  2. What is the relevant Act and under which section is this priority granted.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The Officer-in-Charge of each telephone exchange is authorised to grant priority to trunk line calls where a request for urgent treatment is made and the caller indicates the nature of the urgency. For example, priority would be granted to calls concerning serious illness or death, urgent Police calls, calls in connection with the breakdown of public utility services, or other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Officer-in-Charge, warrant preferential treatment.

In addition, telephone operating staff give priority to all trunk calls made by or on behalf of the Governor-General and State Governors, Federal and State Ministers, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Heads of Diplomatic Missions. All emergency calls such as those relating to the safety of aircraft or ships, bushfires, floods, cyclones, etc., where the caller indicates the nature of the call, are also given priority.

  1. See answer to (1.).
  2. There is no specific legislative provision covering priority trunk calls. The matters mentioned in the answer to (1) are covered by the standing instructions issued to all supervisory officers and operators.

Road Accident Victims: Hospital Beds (Question No. 2737)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has any survey been made to ascertain what proportion of hospital beds are occupied by the victims of road accidents.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

This information is not available from my Department.

Road Accidents (Question No. 2747)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Is documented evidence available showing the relationship between heart attacks and road accidents.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Available evidence indicates that heart attacks do not constitute a major factor in road accidents. No statistics directly applicable to this matter are available.

Road Accidents (Question No. 2748)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

What assessment has been made of the economic cost to Australia per year of the thousands killed and injured and the proportionate damage sustained through road accidents.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The variety of assumptions and methods of analysis, particularly as to the value of human life, have led to wide variations in the results of studies in relation to the cost of road accidents.

An authoritative statement provided for the Senate Select Committee for the year 1957-58 set the figure at $138,850,000. This figure was updated to 1968 to $230,900,000 using similar cost components, as follows (1957-58 estimates in brackets):

A further estimate of the cost of road accidents was provided in an article in the March 1970 issue of the Australian Road Research by Mr J. D. Thorpe, formerly Chairman of the Traffic Commission and now a member of the Country Roads Board, Victoria. This article gave the results of a detailed study of the costs to the community of accidents in Victoria during the year 1966-67.

The total figure produced by Mr Thorpe was $85,900,000 with components as follows:

However, Mr Thorpe stales that he omitted as not being economic costs two other items: an amount of $ 10.9m estimated by insurance companies to have been paid out in compensation for pain and suffering and $1.4m estimated to represent sales tax on components, etc., used in repairs. If these two items were included the total would rise to $98.2m for Victoria, and the average cost per accident involving casualties would rise to $7,000.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 2664)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Has a presidential member of the Arbitration Commission ever exercised his powers under section 33a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enforce employer acceptance of award rates or conditions by the insertion of a clause to ban the reduction or retrenchment of staff, or the closure of a work place or section thereof.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

I am informed that no application has ever been made to the Commission under section 33a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to insert in an award a clause of the nature referred to by the honourable member.

Question on Notice (Question No. 2668)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What is the difficulty in answering Question No. 1905 which has appeared on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 24th September 1970.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The honourable member has been provided with an up-to-date answer to his question, as at 31st December 1970. (Hansard, 22nd February 1971, page 470.)

Question on Notice (Question No. 2667)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What is the difficulty in answering Question No. 1903 which has appeared on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 24th September 1970.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The honourable member has been provided with an up-to-date answer to his question, as at 31st December 1970. (Hansard, 24th February 1971, page 623.)

Freedom of Association (Question No. 2699)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Now that South Australia has agreed to the ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948, which States have yet to agree.
  2. Was this convention considered at the meeting of the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee in April 1970, as it had been at the meetings in April, 1967, April, 1968, and April and October, 1969 (Hansard, 18th March 1970, page 609).
  3. What has been the (a) date and (b) outcome of the discussions between the Australian Government and the Director General of the International Labour Office on the interpretation of this convention (Hansard, 2nd June 1970, page 2787).
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. New South Wales and Queensland. I am advised that the Governments of both States have the matter under active consideration.
  2. Yes.
  3. The discussions were completed in October, 1970 and the position of Australian laws and practices in relation to the Convention clarified.

Labour Productivity (Question No. 2643)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Regardless of what is contained in the International Labour Organisation publication Measuring Labour Productivity referred to in his answer to question No. 2091 (Hansard, 17th February 1971, page 193), will he give a specific answer to questions Nos 2091, 2092, 2093 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2098, 2099, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, and 2116 in lieu of a reference to material which I may or may not have read.
  2. When and how did he reach the conclusion that questions Nos 2091 to 2116 were based upon my reading of the I.L.O. publication referred to above.
  3. Why did it take him so long to give the kind of answer given to questions Nos 2091 to 2116 as contained in his answer to question No. 2091.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I would again refer the honourable member to the I.L.O. publication ‘Measuring Labour Productivity’ which contains information on various national series relating to labour productivity and provides details of indices of labour productivity in a number of countries.

The honourable member will note that the form and content of his questions are essentially identical with those of the Indices of Labour Productivity, 1956-68, in Appendix 2 of the I.L.O. Publication.

  1. The questions were first placed on the notice paper for 20th October 1970 and the House rose on 30th October 1970. The questions were answered at the outset of the current Session.

Education: Curriculum Proposals (Question No. 2422)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

What progress has been made in the Commonwealth’s discussions on curriculum proposals since his answer to me on 9th April 1970 (Hansard, page 1014).

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

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

Since my answer of 9 April 1970, discussions with the States have resulted in the establishment of a National Committee on Social Science Teaching. This Committee is charged with the task of examining goals and suggesting desirable content areas for inclusion in new Social Science curricula to suit Australian conditions. Through the exchange of information on the directions taken in the development of curriculum materials in the States it will exercise a co-ordinating influence on these and will be in a position to suggest ways in which the production and trial of new materials may be assisted.

The Committee’s Chairman is Professor W . F. Connell, Professor of Education at the University of Sydney. As well as the six State Education Departments, the Social Science Research Council, the Australian Teachers Federation, the Australian Council for Educational Research, and the National Council of Independent Schools were consulted in the formation of the Committee, which has a total membership of thirteen. The Committee held its first meeting in November 1970. My Department is supplying the secretariat for the Committee and is meeting other costs.

No finality has been reached concerning the proposals relating to woolclassing, chemistry, mathematics and human biology, to which I referred in my answer of 9 April 1970.

The Commonwealth received a proposal from the Academy of Science in September 1970 for a curriculum development project in senior secondary school physics. The proposal is under discussion.

Education in Queensland (Question No. 2296)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the ‘Courier-Mail’ of 17 October 1970 by Professor Indorf, an eminent United States educationist, criticising the stagnation in Queensland’s education system and pointing out lack of progress since his previous criticism in that newspaper in 1963.
  2. If so, will he assure the House that the Professor’s detailed recommendations have finally been duly considered by those Queensland and Commonwealth administrations responsible for submissions to the Government on educational planning and policy.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) I have now seen the article. The matters dealt with in it - matters such as the allocation of State Government expenditure, teachers’ salaries, the staffing of schools, the organisation of the Queensland Education Department, and conditions of employment of staff - are essentially matters for the Queensland Government.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 March 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710316_reps_27_hor71/>.