House of Representatives
30 March 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 1129

ELECTORAL

Division of Murray - Return to Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 15th February for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Murray in the State of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Right Honourable Sir John McEwen. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that Edward Bruce Lloyd has been elected.

New Member Sworn

Mr Edward Bruce Lloyd was introduced and made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Murray, Victoria.

page 1129

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the residents of the State of Victoria 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 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 FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth:

That because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species is now so low, that they may become extinct.

There are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist. As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country.

It is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future. We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray,that:

The export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control.

Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos.

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

Petition received and read.

Aboriginals

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1130

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I give notice that on General Business Thursday No. 12 I will present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1965-69 to cover resale price maintenance.

page 1130

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I desire to inform the House that the new Ministry is constituted as follows:

Prime Minister, the Right Honourable William McMahon;

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Honourable J. D. Anthony;

Minister for Defence, the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton;

Minister for Primary Industry, the Honourable Ian Sinclair;

Minister for Supply and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator the Honourable Sir Kenneth Anderson;

Minister for National Development and Leader of the House, the Honourable R. W. C. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D.;

Treasurer, the Honourable B. M. Snedden, QC.;

Attorney-General, the Honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C.

Minister for Education and Science, the Honourable David Fairbairn, D.F.C.

Postmaster-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council, the Honourable Sir Alan Hulme, K.B.E.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable L. H. E. Bury;

Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Honourable P. J. Nixon;

Minister for Labour and National Service, the Honourable Phillip Lynch;

Minister for External Territories, the Honourable C. E. Barnes;

Minister for Immigration, the Honourable A. J. Forbes, M.C.;

Minister for Social Services and Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable W. C. Wentworth;

Minister for Works and, under the Minister for Trade and Industry, Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities, Senator the Honourable R. C. Wright;

Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator the Honourable Robert Cotton;

Minister for Customs and Excise, the Honourable D. L. Chipp;

Minister for Air, Senator the Honourable Tora

Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.; Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Prime Minister, the Honourable Andrew

Peacock;

Minister for Repatriation, .the Honourable R.

McN. Holten; Minister for Health, Senator the Honourable

J. Greenwood, Q.C; Minister for the Navy, the Honourable M. G.

Mackay;

Minister for the Interior, the Honourable Ralph J. Hunt;

Minister for Housing, the Honourable K. M. K. Cairns.

The first 13 Ministers named will comprise the Cabinet. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson remains the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Hon. R. W. C. Swartz has been appointed Leader of the House. The outgoing Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Snedden, will for the time being retain control of industrial relations policy. I foreshadow that a proposal will be put before Parliament to increase the number of Ministers, from 26 to 27. Provided that Parliament has passed, and assent has been given to, the necesary amendments to the Ministers of State Act, I shall recommend to His Excellency the appointment of an additional Minister who will administer the Department of the VicePresident of the Executive Council. In the meantime the Postmaster-General will administer the Department1.

In the Senate, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson will be my representative and will also represent the portfolios of Defence and Treasury. He will also answer questions on matters for which the Department of the Vice-President of the Executive Council is responsible The other representational arrangements in that chamber will be: Senator Wright, the portfolios of Foreign Affairs, Education and Science, Labour and National Service, Housing and External Territories; Senator Cotton, the portfolios of Trade and Industry, National Development, Shipping and Transport, Customs and Excise, and Interior; ‘Senator DrakeBrockman, the portfolios of Primary Industry, Army, Repatriation and Navy; Senator Greenwood, the portfolios of Attorney-General, Postmaster-General, Immigration, and Social Services, including Aboriginal Affairs. Ministers in the Senate will be represented in this House as follows: The Minister for Supply ‘ by Mr Gorton; the Minister for Works by Mr Chipp; the

Minister for Civil Aviation by Mr Swartz; the Minister for Air by Mr Holten and the Minister for Health by Dr Forbes.

Mr Daly:

– I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in reference to the announcement that has just been made.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? Mr McMahon - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1131

QUESTION

TARIFF ON TRUCK PARTS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. I apprehend that the honourable gentleman will not again tell me, as he did on Wednesday week, that he is not aware of the decision to cancel tariff concessions on a wide range of commercial vehicle components from 1st October next, i also apprehend that he will remember that the Minister for Customs and Excise thereupon said that a submission was presently before Cabinet. Accordingly, I ask again: What is the justification in (he present circumstances for a decision which’ will- so obviously increase the costs of all those who use trucks in primary production, in ‘manufacturing enterprises and in transport businesses?

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

– The other day when I answered a question on this matter from the Leader of the Opposition 1 was unaware of the facts, lt is true that there had been discussions between the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry, and indeed a note had been prepared for mc but I had not seen it at that stage. The matter has been raised in the House by the Minister for Customs and Excise. He gave an answer detailing his responsibilities in the application of by-law and the cancellation of any by-law that might exist. What he said was proper and correct. The matter now has been studied by the Government and it has endorsed the action of the Minister for Customs and Excise. The action is merely the application of the long-standing principle that rales of duly decided by the Tariff Board should apply to protected Australian produced goods when they are a suitable equivalent for goods produced overseas and when they are reasonably available.. The effect of the cancellation of the by-law on costs of finished commercial vehicles has yet to be seen.

However I would like to quote what the Tariff Board had to say in 1965. It said: . . The performance of at least one manufacturer suggests that a significantly higher local content may not mean appreciably higher costs of commercial vehicle production where large volumes of production are concerned.

The following extract from the same report by the Tariff Board is also worth noting:

When the problem is examined in more detail at a later date the Board would expect to see that the local contents of commercial vehicles as normally sold by vehicle builders have been raised to higher levels.

It is very hard to determine at this early stage just what the effects of additional costs will be, but one must say that the action by the Minister for Customs and Excise is consistent with established policy. It was taken after detailed examination by his Department and in consultation with th industry, with both the component manufacturers and the users of those components. It is in conformity with the expressed expectations of the Tariff Board and, as I mentioned previously, has been endorsed by the Government.

page 1131

QUESTION

RURAL DIVERSIFICATION

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his attention has been drawn to the recent debate in this House on the loan to the Australian Wheat Board and the references to his own speech when opening the Agricultural Outlook Conference this year. Is any action being taken by the Minister’s Department, the departments of agriculture in the States or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to conduct research into and encourage wheat farmers to diversify and to undertake the production and export of other grain? Has the production of edible oil seed, for which there is a world-wide demand and which is imported into Australia in considerable quantities, even been subjected to such an analysis?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– With the application of the wheat quotas there is indeed encouragement to wheat growers to try to diversify and engage in other types of cropping. I did mention at the Agricultural Outlook Conference that there were opportunities for diversification although they were not limitless. Certainly in the oil seed industry there is a chance for further development and expansion but this must be measured against the domestic requirements and the economic attractiveness of producing such crops. However, at the moment there does appear to be sufficient local demand to require further production. I know the area for oil seed production has increased quite dramatically in recent years. It is now up to something like 400,000 acres, but it appears there is still further room for increased production.

page 1132

QUESTION

TR1-SERVICE ACADEMY

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Defence whether his Department’s submission on the establishment of a ‘tri-Service academy has been redrafted as directed by Cabinet last October? If so, when will revised plans for the college be approved? Is the Minister now satisfied that abolition of the present system of individual Service colleges is justified? Can he give the House any estimate of savings involved in integrating the 3 colleges? Will the delay in approving the proposal mean that the academy will not be ready to take officer cadets from all 3 Services until 1975 or later?

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

– As indicated previously, the Government required more information, more detailed information, and a good deal more facts presented to it before it felt it could have proper grounds to take a decision that a tri-Service college should be established. Consequently the Department of Defence was asked to make further studies and put forward a further submission to Cabinet. I understand that those studies have been undertaken and that a submission, which has not yet come to me, has been virtually prepared. That is all I can tell the honourable member because I cannot tell him whether or not it will be approved by Cabinet when it does come before the Government.

page 1132

QUESTION

WINE EXCISE

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. May I say initially that I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for Customs and Excise for the consideration they have shown me in respect of the matter I am about to mention. Has the Minister noticed any trends in recent wine sales relating to price sensitivity on the one hand and flagon sales on the other? Has he been able to discern, from any of his inquiries, any significance in these figures? Finally, in thanking him for the consideration shown to me personally recently I ask: Is there any further suggestion he can make about improving the Government’s knowledge of these matters of great concern to the wine industry?

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

– I know that the honourable gentleman has expressed on frequent occasions in this House and in the Murray Valley basin, for which he exercises quite a deal of electoral’ responsibility, his concern at the impact of excise on wine and grape producers insofar as it apparently has, in the minds of those who are growers, affected their markets and their returns. Similarly I know that other honourable members, particularly the ‘honourable member for Mallee, have raised this question with me. 1 am happy to advise the honourable member that since he last asked me a question in this House, further inquiries have been made about the’ impact of excise on producers’ returns and it seems statistically there is no direct evidence that there has been any reduction in outlets this year compared with the same period last year. From a study that my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise initiated in respect of some 10 wine producers, I am told that there is still ‘ no direct evidence available of an impact. ‘Four of these wine producers are co-operatives. I am told that in respect of one ‘of’ them it appears that the direct problem is a marketing problem rather than a problem consequential on the imposition of excise. The Prime Minister has been in contact with me and has expressed his concern1 that there should be full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the impact of excise and, as a result, an interdepartmental committee will be constituted to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding the excise and its application. I am sure that the honourable member’s representations will be kept closely in mind. . .

page 1132

QUESTION

HOSPITAL. COSTS

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Commonwealth bed subsidy to hospitals declined as a percentage of all hospital costs since the subsidy was first introduced? Have hospital costs risen faster than other costs during the same period? Do the States find it more difficult to finance their hospitals adequately than the Commonwealth finds it to subsidise its own hospitals? Is the Prime Minister concerned with the crisis facing hospitals? Will he take steps to remove or relieve this crisis

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will obtain the answer from the Minister for Health, who is in the other chamber, and let the honourable member know.

page 1133

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware of the magnitude of the problem confronting the People’s Republic of China in its efforts to gainfully employ and raise the living standards of its vast population? ls he conversant with the policy of that Government to purchase raw materials in their most basic form and process them into a finished article for presentation to world markets, in conformity with the need to provide maximum employment opportunities? Will the Minister request the Australian Wool Commission to send a mission, comprising persons fully qualified and experienced in wool selling and processing techniques as well as at least one person skilled in handling and arranging finance, to the People’s Republic of China with a view to selling direct to its Government wool from the stockpile presently held by the Commission? Furthermore, because of the meticulous manner, in which the Chinese have honoured their commitments in the purchase of Australian wheat on credit, will the Minister authorise this mission to enter into credit transactions, if required, on much the same terms of payment as have been successfully negotiated by the Australian Wheat Board? Finally, in the review and restructuring of the Australian Tariff Board will the Minister give consideration to offering advantages to Chinese exports in return for contracts for the purchase of Australian wool?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The honourable member’s question was long and interesting and had many facets to it. In fact, I think some of them infringed a little on Government policy. The first point that I want to make is that it has been a long-standing principle accepted by this Government that commodities produced remain the property of the people who produce them. For instance, Australian wheat is sold under the jurisdiction and management of the

Australian Wheat Board, and this has been the body which has initiated and been able to successfully negotiate sales to the People’s Republic of China. In the case of wool, I would certainly not give a direction to the Australian Wool Board, or to any other group, to send representatives to China in order to try to sell wool there, but what I would be quite happy to do is to consult my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, on the question which the honourable member has raised. It would be of interest for him to know that members of the Australian Wool Commission would have been overseas discussing with some countries with statecontrolled economies the possibility of buying wool from Australia on a negotiated arrangement. I know that discussions have taken place but I am not aware of the outcome of them. I will certainly discuss the question that the honourable member has brought up with my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1133

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of the recent ministerial and Government rearrangement, will he give urgent consideration to presenting again to Cabinet the proposal for special Government funds to be made available for the purpose of effecting the early completion of the sealing of the Eyre Highway? Further, will he, if he has not already done so, inspect the unsealed portion of the highway - preferably by driving over it - so that he will be fully aware of the problem?

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

– This matter has been raised from time to time both inside and outside this House. On previous occasions I have given the answer to honourable members who have raised the question that the Commonwealth provision for the sealing of roads is made through the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. The honourable member refers to that portion of the Eyre Highway that is in South Australia. The South Australian Government has had assistance to the extent of about $125m from the Commonwealth for roads purposes. The initiative for sealing any particular road and setting the priorities for the sealing of roads lies with the State Government. So in this case it is a matter for the State Government to decide for itself - as other State Governments have had to do - what roads it wants to seal and in what order those roads will be sealed.

page 1134

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. Is the Minister aware of the closing of the White Ensign Club in Melbourne? Does the Minister agree that the Navy has a special responsibility for the welfare of its sailors, some of whom are as young as 16 years and are far from their homes? Will he see that suitable cheap respectable accommodation is available in Melbourne for such sailors on leave, if necessary by subsidy from public funds?

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The White Ensign Club in Victoria is, to the best of my knowledge, intended to be a self-supporting institution. It has, over recent years, been steadily losing money mainly because sailors’ habits with regard to spending their weekends ashore have changed somewhat. As a result the Club has gone into debt to the extent of between $20,000 and $30,000 and it has been decided to wind up the affairs of the Club. The Commonwealth has made a considerable gesture towards meeting this debt. The Navy Canteen Fund has contributed $5,000 and has indicated that it will stand by with other sums if necessary. Having regard to the honourable member’s concern for young sailors I point out that HMAS ‘Lonsdale’ provides accommodation if it is required. The sailors’ clubs at HMAS ‘Flinders’ also provide for these young men. At HMAS Leeuwin’, in Western Australia, there is an excellent scheme of sponsorship whereby members of the public may look after young sailors. In the light of the honourable member’s question I will have inquiries made about the number of personnel who may be involved and if it is substantial the matter will certainly get close attention.

page 1134

QUESTION

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing. Is it a fact that the grant made under the ‘ Homes Savings Grant Act is restricted to eligible applicants who build or acquire a home the total cost of which is less than $17,500, including the cost of the land? Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to obtain a reasonable home in the capital cities for less than $17,500? Because of this is it a fact that the homes savings grant is not being paid to a large number of young married people who are otherwise eligible for the grant? What does the Minister intend to do to rectify this anomalous situation?

Mf KEVIN CAIRNS- It is correct that an upper limit is placed on the value of a house which is the subject of a homes savings grant. Representations have been made from time to time to increase this value. It is also correct to say that payments by the Commonwealth under the homes savings grant scheme have been increasing within recent years. The’ honourable member will appreciate that any alteration to the limit in the value of a home in respect of which a grant is sought is a matter of policy.

page 1134

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I .’direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. As one of the thousands of people who were inconvenienced. , by a strike last week by some members.. of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association at the State Electricity Commission’s plant at Morwell I ask: Will the Minister give the House the facts of this strike? Was the public once again made the victim in a needless, costly strike which should not have occurred and which was one of a series of incidents in which the unions have proved powerless to discipline their own members?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– Strike action by approximately 140 members of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association employed at the Morwell, open cut did take place on 23rd March and: continued until 12 noon on 26th March. I understand that the men concerned were dissatisfied with a recent decision by Conciliation Commissioner Brack to increase.. their site allowance by $1.25. Clearly the facts of the situation are these: As a consequence of this irresponsible action by a .very small number of men in one of this country’s major industrial plants some 200,000 workers were thrown out, of work with a loss in wages of approximately $4m and a loss in production exceeding $12m. The House may reflect on the serious inconvenience which this strike caused to the

Victorian community and its many industries which are dependent on a continuous flow of power for their plants. In addition the men concerned dishonoured an agreement made on their behalf and for a period of 3 days were apparently prepared to go their own way regardless of the consequences. As the honourable member observed, this was in fact a needless strike at great expense to the public. It was not productive as far as the men were concerned. It should not have occurred. This was one of a series of incidents which clearly shows the problems which arise when unions are unable to discipline effectively their members. I might say that Commisioner Brack has agreed to re-open the hearing on the site allowance, on an application by the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, and that hearing will take place shortly.

Finally. I might observe that during the course of 1970 the number of industrial disputes in this country was some 2,700, which was an increase of 35 per cent over the number for the preceding year. That situation is clearly inimical to the public interest and is a major inhibiting factor to the attainment of the productivity objectives of this Government.

page 1135

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation in his capacity as the Minister in this chamber representing the Minister for Air. I ask: To what extent is the Australian Government responsible for costs connected with the coming visit to Australia of F111 aircraft belonging to the United States Air Force? What resemblance is there between these aircraft and the aircraft which Australia ordered, as an urgent defence necessity, in 1963? Will the Royal Australian Air Force receive the 1963 version or a later and improved model of the aircraft when delivery eventually is made?

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague in another place.

page 1135

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry read a report of alleged changes in support for the buying-in activities of the Australian Wool Commission? If so, will he explain the present position, having in mind the critical circumstances of the Australian wool industry at this time, and the effect which the present price of about 30c per lb or below has on the profitability of wool growing?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– Some rumours have been circulating about alleged Cabinet decisions regarding the activities of the Australian Wool Commission. First of all, in answer to the honourable member’s question I emphasise that there has been no change in the Government’s policy regarding the purchase of wool by the Australian Wool Commission. Indeed, over the past week prices for wool have remained firm, and there has been a reduction in the passingin rate from an average of between 22 and 25 per cent to 18.5 per cent. Secondly, bearing in mind the seriousness of the present wool marketing situation, the Government will continue to keep under constant review all factors which may affect the situation.

page 1135

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Mr WHITLAM:

– My question, whichI address to the Prime Minister, relates to his Government’s attitude to the regime in Rhodesia and arises from the recent visit to Rhodesia as guests of the regime by 3 Government senators, including the new Minister for Health. I ask the right honourable gentleman whether, in view of these visits and his appointment of one of the visitors to the Ministry, he will repeat the assurance which he, as Minister for External Affairs, gave a year ago to the honourable member for Bradfield that the Government has ‘no intention of giving any assistance’ to ‘this illegal Government in Southern Rhodesia’.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It has been made known to the House on many occasions that the British Government has the primary responsibility for relationships between itself and the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia. There has been no change in this Government’s policy. We adhere to the United Nations resolution. There are some exports within the resolution, such as wheat for humanitarian reasons or medicines, books and similar things. We do not export to Southern Rhodesia those items covered by the resolution. I can confirm what the honourable gentleman said I stated in answer to a question asked of me, that that still remains the Government’s policy.

page 1136

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Mr WHITTORN:

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether the newly formed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has been active in obtaining consultant work or construction contracts either within Australia or overseas? Will the Minister outline the results, if any, of these activities and confirm what success has resulted from the Government’s decision to form the Corporation?

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

– The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has settled down very satisfactorily to carry out the policy which has been laid down by this Parliament. It is pleasing to know that it has been able to obtain quite a number of contracts, some of which are very substantial, particularly overseas. Under the terms of its constitution the Corporation does this in many cases in conjunction with private consultant firms. Recently, a very substantial contract was obtained by the- Corporation in South Korea. The Minister for Primary Industry happened to be in that country at the time and he assisted very substantially in the finalisation of the contract. The Government anticipates that more contracts will be obtained in the future because the standing of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, now the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, is very high throughout the world. Many inquiries have been received. Many openings are being followed by the Corporation at the present time. I anticipate that, in addition to the hundreds of contracts which the Corporation is assisting in Australia, it will win an increasing number of substantial contracts overseas in the future.

page 1136

QUESTION

SERVICE PAY RATES

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask a question of the Minister for the Army. Does the Minister know of any reason why tradesmen at the Army Design Establishment in Melbourne have not yet received the recent 6 per cent increase announced by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission late last year? Is he aware that all other employees at the establishment have received the increase? Will he take steps to expedite the payment? Will he ensure that future decisions are implemented closer to the date of announcement than has been the practice for many years?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– If the honourable member will permit, I will answer this question because pay rates apply not to one Service but to all Services. The reason why the 6 per cent increase awarded by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has not yet passed to uniformed members of the Services is because it is necessary under the law for regulations to be made increasing the amounts paid. This is the duty of the Service concerned and, in the case of the Army, I am informed that there were no fewer than 35 pages of regulations required in order to make those and other amendments which were necessary as a result of various changes in pay rates. The law requires that these regulations should then go through the Executive Council and should then-

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– These are civilians

Mr GORTON:

– Would you mind letting me finish? They are then laid on the table of each House. The regulations are, as I understand, in draft form and they are expected to go before the Executive Council at its next meeting. The honourable member was interjecting when I was speaking as to the 6 per cent increase to uniformed personnel. Were you talking not of uniformed personnel?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– No. I was speaking of civilians. I mentioned the word ‘tradesmen’, Mr Speaker. These are people who are employed by the Army Design Establishment, and are not uniformed personnel at all.

Mr GORTON:

– In that case, it would need to be a different answer which perhaps the Minister for the Army or the Minister for Labour and National Service should provide.

page 1136

QUESTION

HYGIENE STANDARDS

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Trade and Industry seen a statement attributed to the honourable member for Riverina that foodstuffs, including cheese and canned meat, of unknown and doubtful hygienic standard are flooding into Australia, and further that increasing quantities of canned meat from areas affected by foot and mouth disease are appearing in supermarkets? I ask the Minister: Is this statement a gross reflection upon Australia’s trade arrangements and stringent quarantine control measures?

Mr Stewart:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 144 which states in part:

Questions should not contain -

statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;

I would ask you to ask the honourable member to authenticate his statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the question asked by the honourable member for Cowper shows no disrespect or disregard for the honourable member for Riverina. The honourable member for Cowper is referring to a statement. Can he vouch for the accuracy of that statement?

Mr Robinson:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I did see in a paper a report of a speech made by the honourable member for Riverina at, I think, the University of Sydney or the University of New South Wales. I doubt whether the departments concerned - the Department of Health or the Department of Customs and Excise - would think that this was a reflection on them because, really, this gentleman makes so many statements on so many things that they just take that statement for granted.

page 1137

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented on 2 counts. In phrasing his question to the Minister for Trade and Industry the honourable member for Cowper indicated that I had made criticisms of trading and quarantine arrangements in relation to an undefined matter which I could not quite identify by the honourable member’s question. In answer to this question the Minister for Trade and Industry was inaccurate in the only thing he said. The Minister mixed up his universities. I made some comments at the University of New England. I would commend the Minister to study what is happening and perhaps to ask me in future before speculating about something which I was reported to have said.

page 1137

CROWN OF THORNS STARFISH

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Committee appointed by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments on the problem of the Crown of Thorns Starfish.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leave - agreed to:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908-63, authorises the publication of the report of the Committee on the problem of the Crown of Thorns Starfish, and secondly that the paper be printed.

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

by leave- On 7th April 1970 the Government announced to the House the membership of a joint committee established by the Commonwealth and Queensland to investigate the problem of the Crown of Thorns Starfish on the Great Barrier Reef. The committee comprised:

Commonwealth Nominees

Professor R. J. Walsh, O.B.E., Professor of Human Genetics at the University of New South Wales (Chairman).

Professor W. G. H. Maxwell, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Sydney.

Mr D. J. Tranter, Senior Research Scientist, Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Queensland Nominees

Dr J. M. Harvey, DirectorGeneral ot Primary Industries.

Professor J. M. Thomson, Professor of Zoology at the Queensland University.

Mr C. L. Harris, of the Department of Primary Industries.

The anouncement of the committee’s membership followed agreement reached on 29th January 1970 by both Governments that such a committee be established and that it should be financed on a dollar for dollar basis by each Government.

I am pleased to be able to tei] the House that on last Thursday, 25th March, the Chairman of the Committee, Professor Walsh, reported to me on the results of the committee’s work. In view of the importance of the report and of the widespread interest which has been taken in its progress I arranged for Cabinet to consider the report today and for the report to be tabled so that honourable members will be able to inform themselves fully of its conclusions, and of the reasons underlying these conclusions. Honourable members will be aware of the very deep concern which is felt by many about the possibility of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef by the crown of thorns starfish. This concern has been deepened for many by the belief that perhaps complete destruction of the Reef was inevitable unless early Government action was taken. Some have suggested that it may now be too late to save the Reef. It is therefore pertinent to draw to honourable members’ attention a reference in the Committee’s report to articles in the Press and in semi-technical journals on the starfish as being either repetitive presentation of eye-catching speculations or exaggerations of .the limited facts available.

Some of the confusion appears to have occurred because the available methods of estimating population densities of the starfish are rather crude. Extrapolations from these results are not reliable and are of doubtful value. Also overlooked has been the fact that the published figures of the proportion of dead coral on reefs attacked by the starfish have included an estimated 10 to 50 per cent of corals killed by other means - such deaths being a normal state of affairs. Analogies have been drawn between the action which had been taken on Guam and the situation in the Great Barrier Reef. On Guam, teams of divers were used to combat the starfish. Some felt that a similar operation should be mounted on the Great Barrier Reef. Such suggestions overlooked the fact that Guam has a comparatively simple reef surrounding it. around which the starfish were said to move, limited on one side by the island beach and on the other by the sea proper, whereas the Great Barrier Reef is of a size and a complexity which makes similar generalised action to that taken on Guam ineffective.

In the light of the wide differences of authoritative opinion as to the threat, if any, which the starfish posed to the Great Barrier Reef the Commonwealth considered it necessary to obtain more facts before any further action was taken to deal with the starfish beyond that already set in train by the Queensland Government and to which reference is made in the committee’s report. The Great Barrier Reef is perhaps the most complex ecosystem known to man and many experts considered that it would have been irresponsible for generalised action to be taken before knowing the likely consequences of such action upon the chain of life which comprises the Reef as we know it. As to the results of the committee’s investigations, the committee has found that: the crown of thorns starfish does not constitute a threat to the Great Barrier Reef as a whole; there is no danger of substantial erosion of the physical structure of the reef; and there is no threat to the Queensland coastline or ports.

The entire living cover, or even a large proportion of the coral cover, of the Reef will not disappear as a result of the crown of thorns starfish. Whilst there has been extensive damage to coral because of the starfish, serious damage is limited. Recolonisation and regeneration of coral have occurred on all reefs examined by the committee. The committee has not been able to determine whether the high density of starfish in some areas is a unique or a cyclical phenomenon but it appears more likely to be an episodic event which may have occurred previously.

The committee refers to the fact that the feeding by the crown of thorns on living coral constitutes, in the long term, part of the reef building process, whereby dead material is consolidated in order to provide the platform necessary for the Reef’s continued growth. Tourist activity has not declined as a result of the starfish damage. The committee cannot give the reason for the population increase of crown of thorns starfish in some areas. It reports that the hypothesis that local collection of triton shells has reduced predator pressure on the starfish has not been substantiated nor has the hypothesis that pesticides and other organic chemicals may have been causal. The committee believes that there is no need to attempt to reduce the population of the crown of thorns starfish throughout the whole of the Great Barrier Reef at the present time. It does not dispute that certain reefs or portion of reefs having social or commercial importance may be protected by manual destruction of accessible starfish.

The committee finds that present knowledge of reef ecology is inadequate to assess fully present and future problems concerning the crown of thorns starfish and related matters. It therefore suggests a programme of research involving continued monitoring of starfish population; research into reef ecology, with particular attention to the biology of the starfish and corals; and experiments in local control of the starfish. To achieve this programme it recommends that a sum of money of the order of $90,000 to $120,000 be provided in the first year to allow such research and that the sum provided be increased progressively in each of the second and third years at which time there would be a review in the light of the operation of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. As I have already mentioned, Cabinet has considered the recommendations of the committee. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government agrees with the recommendations of the committee. I have been in touch with the Queensland Premier and we have agreed that $45,000 be allocated on a matching basis by each Government for research projects recommended in its first year by an advisory committee. The advisory committee would report to the Minister for Education and Science, who will act on behalf of both Governments. This amount will be increased by $10,000 by each Government in each of the second and third years. Each Government is prepared to increase its grant on a matching basis to the upper limits recommended by the report if the advisory committee finds in practice that it has sufficiently good research projects to warrant this. I shall announce the membership of the advisory committee as soon as possible.

I present the following paper: .

Crown of Thorns Starfish-Ministerial Statement, 30th March 1971

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1139

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - As this is the first sitting day since my appointment as Leader of the House, I wish to take the opportunity to indicate briefly my intention to work at all times towards the smooth and efficient operation of the House. It will be my aim to establish as quickly as possible a close cooperative working arrangement with Mr Speaker, The Clerks of the House, the Government and Opposition Whips, and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The efficient transaction of Government, general and private members’ business can result only from the utmost co-operation of all members, and I hope to play my part in working with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition towards this end.

The prestige and dignity of Parliament are vital to the maintenance of a democratic system of government, and at this early point of time I can assure the House that there will be no lack of. effort on my part to ensure that the high standing of this House is maintained. It is my duty to ensure that the Government’s legislative programme proceeds ‘ on schedule, but at the same time there must be a full recognistion of the rights of all members to adequate debating time for1 general and private members’ business. I am sure that I can depend upon the support of all members of the House in the maintenance of these principles and practice.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– by leave- First of all, on behalf of the Opposition, I extend congratulations or commiserations, whichever is in order, to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). I can assure the Minister for National Development that I will try to work, as he suggests, in very close co-operation with him as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the one on this side of the House having the responsibility for duties such as those for which the Minister has responsibilities on behalf of the Government. I hope that the same very close relationship will exist between the Minister and me as existed between me and his predecessor, the present Treasurer (Mr, Snedden), with whom I worked for a very. long time and with whom I was very closely associated in conducting the business of the House. I agree that the conduct of the business of the House depends to a very large extent upon the degree of co-operation between the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I certainly welcome the assurance that the Minister has given that he will give very close consideration to the matters raised by honourable members on this side and that all members will be given the fullest opportunity to debate the matters that come before the Parliament: Of course, the Minister was referring particularly to private members and in this respect one can assume that there will be full opportunity to debate all the matters that come before the House. I am now referring more specifically to debates on Bills. I hope that there will be no curtailment of members’ activities in respect of debating legislation introduced by the Government. We assume that the new Leader of the House will not be moving the guillotine as often as his predecessor did, and that if there arc members on this side of the House who wish to debate a Bill the Minister will always agree that the maximum time should be allowed for debate. May 1 say also that we on this side of the House believe that debating time should not be curtailed and that it would be far better and that far greater advantage would accrue to all members if the length of sittings were extended instead of having members’ activities curtailed as they are at present. Finally, I again congratulate the Minister. I appreciate that he has made a very concise statement to the Parliament on the way in which he intends to conduct the business of the House on behalf of the Government. I am sure I can work with him on the same basis, and, I hope, with the same degree of competence as I was able to work with his predecessor, the present Treasurer.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

-by leave- I wish to join in the welcome to the new Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). I listened with interest to the announcement of his appointment. We on this side of the House are becoming almost dizzy from the changes in those appointed to this important position on the other side of the Parliament. We do not know from day to day how long the Minister announced by the Liberals to be in charge of the proceedings of this Parliament will remain in that position. Not long ago we had the former Minister for Air.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The matter under discussion is the statement just made by the Leader of the House, the Minister for National Development. The honourable member is not allowed to go outside this subject matter to talk about other Ministers.

Mr DALY:

– I always admire the wisdom underlying your judgments, Mr Speaker, and from long experience I know that you have the last say. Consequently, I have no wish to infringe today. I was making passing reference to the predecessors of the earnest new Leader of the House. I listened with interest to his statement that he will work at all times towards the noble objectives which will govern his administration of this important position. I hope he succeeds in giving effect to that statement because expressions of that kind were made by many of the numerous Ministers who occupied this position in the past and generally the Opposition has never been treated more harshly than it has by the Leaders of the House who uttered those expressions.

The Minister said he will uphold the prestige and dignity of the Parliament. Fancy a Liberal member, after what has gone on in recent weeks, telling the House that he will uphold the dignity of the Parliament. The honourable member should first try to establish law and order in his own Party before trying to uphold the dignity of the Parliament. Then he said that the high standing of this House will be maintained. These are noble principles but what guarantee have we that he will do all these things? When all is said and done he is only one of many, the voice of a Ministry elected on a spoils-to-the-victor basis, and if he does not obey the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in his every whim, irrespective of the effects on our rights in this Parliament, honourable members know as well as I do that he will be replaced almost overnight. As he is congratulated today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) on his appointment to this position, we on this side of the House remind him that we are not just the Opposition, that we are not the minority party. We polled more votes at the last Federal election than the collection of nondescripts who govern the country from that side of the House at this stage. Therefore, we are entitled not only to justice but also to the fairest possible treatment.

There should not be any curtailment ot debate, and I hope the Leader of the House understands this. Every member is entitled to talk on every Bill if he so desires. With 12 months available in every year there is no reason why the Leader of the House should guillotine or curtail debate at any time in the Parliament. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), an outspoken advocate in this Parliament of the rights of members, well knows that he has been harshly treated by former Leaders of the House. I hope he will add a few words to what 1 am saying. We expect fair treatment from the Minister who is now responsible for the task of running the Parliament and we expect him to recognise the rights of an Opposition. After all, it is not much satisfaction to members who have been sent here to represent their constituencies to be gagged by a government which is afraid of criticism. Therefore, the Minister who in days gone by has had a certain tolerance in the administration of his Department, will be fully tested and’ we will judge him according to how he treats honourable members on this side of the House.

I do not know what the Government has in mind for the future running of the House but already speeches have been curtailed, debates have been curtailed and the gag has been used on numerous occasions. 1 understand another Ministry is to be created, to be known as the Department of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Minister’s full responsibility probably will be to move the gag in this House as that is generally the responsibility of the Minister holding that position. Perhaps the Minister in reply will tell us, apart from expressing his sentiments, precisely what he intends to do to improve on the administration of the previous Leader of the House. 1 hope he does not have the chequered career in the Parliament that the new Treasurer has had. We thought he was a reasonably good leader of the House but the Prime Minister did not, so out he went. The Government thought it had a better one and the next thing we knew the Treasurer bobbed up again like a jackinthebox. We do not know whether this will happen to the present incumbent now sitting at the table.

I regret the restriction you have placed on my address today, Mr Speaker, but I could not let the occasion pass without saying that we on this side of the House look forward to big things from the Minister, but with some trepidation, because the machine that grinds behind him and tells him precisely what he is to do in this Parliament does not know much about noble objectives, high principles and all those things of which the Minister, spoke. Let us hope that the Minister gives to honourable members on this side of (he House and all members of the Parliament equitable treatment in respect of parliamentary business. For instance, we would like to see the 1 1 o’clock rule imposed again so that honourable members would not need to debate in the dead of night. We. would like to sec the Minister keep the Parliament going instead of rushing into recess to hide the divisions in the ranks of those who sit behind him. We would like .to know that we can debate the nation’s needs in this Parliament. 1 suppose the Minister’s appointment as Leader of the House is a matter for congratulations because anybody who has survived the’ last purge of the Liberal Party is entitled at least to some credit. The Minister is amongst those who have survived and his elevation is something that must have surprised even him. I urge the Minister to give effect to the things he has enunciated today. We look forward to justice, understanding and tolerance being extended to members on this side of the House. Whilst I say that! we look forward to this, we are not too confident that we will get it. In any case, this change indicates the turmoil that exists opposite. It indicates also that whilst . Liberal Party members will speak well of what they will do in the Parliament, long, experience has taught us that their actions are totally different. I hope that the Minister retains his position and does not disappear in a night as do some Ministers because, in a funny kind of way, we like him. However, at the same time we are not too confident that he will be much better than those who have preceded him.

page 1141

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Sugar Agreement Bill 1971 Income Tax Assessment Bill 1971 Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty: Bill 1971 Broadcasting and Television Bill; 1971 Overseas Telecommunications Bill 1971 New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill 1971.

page 1142

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 3 p.m. or such lime thereafter as Mr Speaker may take the chair.

page 1142

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I bring up the Committee’s report on proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925 - the forty-seventh series of variations. I ask leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

– Mr Speaker, the report which 1 have just tabled is the first of its kind though the matter with which it deals is one to which the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has given consideration to on a number of previous occasions, namely, proposed variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra. Honourable members will be aware that the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory requires it to: examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on the nineteenth day of November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Interior.

For a variety of reasons the Committee has not reported to Parliament before but considers it proper to do so in the case of the current proposals, known as the fortyseventh series of variations, and on all future occasions.

It will be of interest to honourable members to know that the proposals for variations are fully explained to the Committee in private session by officers of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior and following examination of these officers and inspection, where necessary, of the sites of proposed variations, the Committee satisfies itself as to the desirability and practicality of the variations before recommending their adoption. These matters are not considered lightly, nor are members of the Committee easily satisfied of the worth of the proposals. Much evidence is taken and the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Interior go to considerable trouble to satisfy the penetrating examination of the proposals made by the members of the Committee. In short, this is not a rubber stamp procedure. The House is assured that where proposed variations are recommended, they have been well considered.

Honourable members will be aware that there is a requirement for the proposed variations to lie on the table in both the Senate and the House of Representatives for a minimum period of 6 sitting days and this procedure follows the consideration by members of the Committee. There is, therefore, and there always has been, the opportunity for honourable members to satisfy themselves as to the merit of the proposals. The tabling of this report does not in any way affect the procedure referred to and the proposals will still lie on the table in the customary fashion at some point after this report has been tabled.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1142

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL 1970

Discharge of Order of the Day

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

– I move:

In moving this motion 1 should like to explain briefly to the House the reason behind it. Since the Bill as now drafted was introduced on 21st May last year the Government has been considering further amendments to it. I am advised by the Clerk that the proposed amendments would fall outside the long title of the present Bill so that the amendments could be incorporated only as a result of some complicated procedures. In addition, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) has indicated to the Government his interest in certain other proposals. For these reasons the Government believes it preferable to withdraw the present Bill. In due course a redrafted Bill will be introduced by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt).

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– There are 3 observations I should like to make in connection with this matter. First, it is proposed to withdraw the present Bill and to substitute another Bill for it. I would hope that the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) may be able to give some assurance that the substituted Bill will be brought before the House within a reasonable time. By this I mean that 1 hope that it will not be squeezed into the last week of the sittings, perhaps at a late hour of the night. The reason why I ask for such an assurance is that, as I think most honourable members know both from notices that have appeared in the Party rooms and from a notification in their mail if they have had time to read it, Mr Frank Channon, who represents a particular point of view in relation to the incorporation of a tomb in the Memorial to contain the remains of an unknown Australian soldier, is to come to Parliament House next Thursday at 3.30 p.m. and in Committee Room No. 2 to give an explanation of his point of view which is supported by the Returned Services League. It would be unfortunate if, when members’ minds have been freshly devoted to this matter, the Bill were to be postponed for such a time that they had forgotten what they had heard about the issue.

The second matter that I wish to raise concerns an assurance from the Leader of the House that the long title of the Bill will be amended in such a way as to make possible the incorporation of an amendment dealing with the matter which Mr Channon will be discussing with members on Thursday. Standing order 227 states in part:

Any amendment may be moved to any part of the Bill, provided the same be within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

The long title of the Bill that is to be withdrawn is: ‘To amend section 6 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962-1966’. The standing order I have just quoted limits amendments to amendments to section 6. If when the substituted Bill is brought forward the title is restrictive, for example to amend section 6 and some other section of the Act, then amendments will be limited to those 2 sections and it may be that those 2 sections do not offer the opportunity to me to move an amendment in relation to Mr Channon’s proposal. I therefore hope that when the substituted Bill is produced in the House it will have a wide long title - for example, simply to amend the Australian War Memorial Act 1962-1966. This will then allow for the kind of amendment that I think should be moved in order that the sense of the House may be tested on this matter which has too long waited for a decision.

The third and last matter that I wish to raise is this: I should like to appeal to the Leader of the House to decide for himself, if he has the authority to do so, or to seek the opinion of the Government upon this, that this is a matter - I refer to the tomb with which Mr Channon . is concerned - that should be the subject of a free vote. The question whether or not the tomb containing the remains of an unknown Australian serviceman should be incorporated in the War Memorial is in no sense a Party matter. It affects the people of Australia as represented by members in this Parliament and in no way can it be considered a matter of Government policy. So I appeal to the Leader : of the House to decide for himself or to bring to the consideration of the Government the question of making this matter, when raised on an amendment to the Bill ‘ proposed to be brought into the House, the subject of a free vote. ‘

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

– in reply - I just want to make the brief comment that the last point raised by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) will certainly be examined. The other matters relating to the Bill will be referred to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) who has responsibility for the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1143

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from. 25 February (vide page 659), on motion by. Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– I ask the indulgence. of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Dried Fruits Levy Bill, and the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill, as they are related measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Opposition supports in principle the 3 Bills before the House. In the Committee stages we shall move 2 amendments dealing specifically with penalties and in relation to evidence secured by people authorised by writ to do so. The principal objective of the Dried Fruits Research Bill 1971 is to establish a joint Commonwealth-industry research scheme following the accepted and tried principles laid down by legislation pertaining to other industries. Funds will be raised by means of a levy on dried fruit, and in addition the Commonwealth Government, following again the principles adopted with respect to other industries, will match this contribution on a $1 for $1 basis. The second Bill, the Dried Fruits Levy Bill, authorises the imposition of the levy relating to dried fruits. The amounts equivalent to levy collection will be credited to the Dried Fruits Research Trust Account and this Account will be the working arrangement whereby the moneys which are used for research purposes are debited. The second Bill will provide that the rate of levy must not exceed $1 a ton of currants, sultanas and raisins and $5 a ton of dried apricots, pears, peaches, nectarines and prunes. As with other similar pieces of legislation the operative rates of levy to be imposed will be prescribed by regulation.

As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) pointed out in his second reading speech, the levy will be imposed on a net sweat box weight of all dried fruits of these kinds delivered to packing houses after the commencement of the

Act. The operative rate is the rate which will apply in the first instance. The operative rate in respect of currants, sultanas and raisins will be 50c a ton and in respect of dried tree fruits the operative rates of levy relating broadly’ to’ the prospective sale value of each kind of fruit will be prescribed. As the! Minister pointed out, this will be done in consultation with the research committee. ‘ The third Bill is simply the machinery Bill which again is common to all similar pieces of legislation in connection with the collection of research funds. This Bill enables the Government to provide the machinery “ necessary for the collection of the levy On dried fruits imposed by the Dried Fruits Levy Bill.

The principal objective, of this legislation, of course, is to. enable the industry, by a process of self-help backed by Commonwealth finance, to.- undertake specific measures of research- directly or indirectly concerned with the production and marketing of dried fruits. It will relate specifically to currants, sultanas .and raisins and the deciduous tree fruits.; such as apricots, pears, peaches, nectarines and prunes. I understand from reading- the second reading speech of the Minister that although there are some small i pockets of dried apple production in- Tasmania, at this stage this part of the Tasmanian apple industry will not be the. subject of research. I do not know the reason for that. I would have thought that it could easily have been included because although it is only a minor industry as such, nevertheless the principles in the process of drying fruit could equally apply in some instances to apples. We will not . make an issue of this but I cannot see any - basic reason why dried apples should not be covered by this Bill even though they represent only a small proportion of the apple industry located in Tasmania. ‘

There is no need for me to emphasise the great importance .of- dried fruits to some regions of Australia, basically the area in close proximity to the Murray River. There are areas in Western Australia where dried fruits are also important but without question it is the Murray environment which is the principal producing region in Australia and with which we are concerned here. Members who represent such areas fully realise the great importance to the economies of those regions of specific industries, in this case, the dried fruits industry.

Honourable members who represent Murray River electorates know full well the great importance of regional development and the economic consequences if anything goes wrong with the financial health of a specialised industry. I represent an electorate which contains the biggest sugar growing area in Australia. The same economic principles as regards regional development apply there. It is of utmost importance that we realise this because in recent years we have had under discussion the consequences of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. Although the loss of markets, specifically in terms of fruit, sugar, soft wheat and similar products may not be in aggregate greatly detrimental to the economy of Australia - that is relative to the total gross value of production or even the gross value of our exports - to a region any significant loss of a market and any significant reduction in income could not only affect primary producers but, through the multiplier theory, influence and affect greatly those who depend on the hard core or nucleus of primary production. We have seen practical examples of this in Australia quite clearly in the great wool industry because of recent droughts and falling prices. I believe that the principle of regional development is something we have to emphasise a lot more. Too often we look at primary industry in Australia as a whole and do not concentrate sufficiently on regional development. That is one reason why the Opposition will always support the Government in any constructive plan to increase the economic health of a basic Australian industry, be it primary or secondary industry.

I think the 2 main avenues of research in dried fruits are processing and marketing. The actual production of dried fruits is important but this is a separate matter. In this Bill the 2 areas of priority for research funds would, I think, be the processing and marketing of the product. This would involve economic research into the packaging and marketing of the finished product both in Australia and overseas. We must keep abreast of technological changes and one way to do this is to utilise our own scientists, agricultural economists and marketing economists in their respective specialised fields. In the dried fruits industry technology is on the move and anyone who believes that we can- sit still and hope that markets will come to Australia is in for a shock. We have to’ produce a product which will sell in competition from other major exporting countries: and we have to get out and find markets for our products. We have had research in the dried fruits industry but it has been on an ad hoc approach and it has applied to specific fruits rather than to the different varieties of a fruit.

The Research Committee will follow the usual pattern of other ‘ research organisations. From memory I think there are approximately 9 industries which have voluntarily agreed to contribute finance, backed by Commonwealth contributions. The Dried Fruits Research, Committee will broadly follow the same basis of other research committees in that the industry itself will have the dominant voice on the Committee as to the allocation of funds and the evaluation and the determination of priorities. The Research Committee will comprise 4 representatives of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, 2 representatives of packers of dried fruits, 3 representatives of the Australian Agricultural Council, one Representative of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and one representative of the Department- of Primary Industry. This will be, a, well balanced Committee with men pf practical experience of the problems relating to specific areas and industries. The men on this Committee will be experienced in the production and marketing of dried fruits, both domestically and overseas. The Committee will also have the assistance of fundamental and applied scientists. Taken by and large I believe that the Committee represents another excellent step forward in the formulation of research projects for the benefit of the dried fruits industry and for the benefit of the nation. One function of the Committee will be ,to receive applications from various institutions such as universities in Australia and from people concerned with production or with scientific research into dried fruits, including fundamental, applied or technical research. The Committee will decide whether to allocate funds to the research proposals submitted to it. The research will be administered and supervised by competent authorities. At the same time the Committee will be highly conscious of the principles underlining priorities.

I want to say something about research because it is something about which I feel very strongly, and I am not the only one in industry or in research fields who feels this way. We are inclined to look at a lot of research in isolation when we do not have the machinery with which to examine at length whether there is any overlapping of research. We are also inclined to take for granted that because a first class scientist is doing the research such research must be good, and this applies particularly in the field of fundamental research.I do not question in any way the value of research. What I am saying is that 1 believe that today we have to think more of priorities, particularly economic research and we should give it a greater weighting than perhaps even fundamental research. I do not in any way decry the work of the fundamental research scientist. We need these people. But world markets are changing so quickly and the profitability in the dried fruits market, which is small, is also changing, so that we have to have greater emphasis placed on economic and marketing research.

I do not want my remarks to be construed in any way that I am criticising the work of the fundamental scientist. I was associated with research organisations prior to entering into politics. What I am trying to say is that I know that very often the fundamental scientist is treated as some sort of a god, that what he says goes and if you question or evaluate the benefits of his work he will say ‘I do not know, but I may be able to tell you in one year or 10 years time’. This is fundamental research and there is nothing wrong with it. We need replicated research. I may criticise any overlapping of fundamental research but by the same token the more people we have doing the research the greater the chance we have of achieving a constructive and substantive conclusion. The point I want to make is that I believe this Research Committee will have to determine priorities and this is one reason why the industry should have the dominant say in determining research proposals rather than perhaps the scientists.

I urge the Government to give consideration to the evaluation of research. I am not one of the those people who treat research as a magic word. As one who has been trained in the field of research 1 am fully conscious of its deficiencies. I am conscious of the fact that any Government that is spending huge amounts of Federal money on research carried out by the CSIRO or by universities should ensure that there is some accounting of that research to the Parliament. Where industries are involved there should also be some accounting to those industries. There are plenty of scientists who would like to build a research empire; given the chance they would and good luck to them if they can get away with it.. One can always argue that all research is good. Perhaps it is, provided it is constructive and adds to knowledge. However, research has to be subject to evaluation and I believe it has to be subject to scrutiny. It should be accountable to the Parliament from time to time and particularly to the industry involved . which is supplying half of the funds. I make that plea in regard to the evaluation of research.

As I have said, I feel very strongly about this. Perhaps one of these days when we get a chance we will be able to debate some of the avenues of research over the past 20 years. If we evaluated this research we might have second thoughts about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a particular field of research. I repeat that this is not to decry in any way the role of fundamental or applied research. We have to have both we have to have extension, but at the same time we must have the machinery for evaluation. I hope that in the debate on this Bill the Minister will give honourable members some idea of what is to happen to the stability of the dried vine fruits industry. This industry is vitally affected by this legislation.

Honourable members will recall that on 10th September 1969 the then Minister for Primary Industry, now the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) made a statement in which he said that the Government was considering’ with some concern the question of the stability of the dried vine fruits industry and that it had agreed in principle to consider the possibility of implementing a further stabilisation scheme, which would be an extension of the 1964-68 dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme. The Minister, after considerable discussion with the Australian Dried Fruits Association, had arrived at a stabilisation plan for currants, sultanas and raisins. This generated considerable speculation and controversy throughout the industry. In fact, a major split developed in the industry, which is something that an industry should attempt to avoid. The people in the dried vine fruits industry were for and against the plan. Some wanted a statutory authority and others wanted a stabilisation scheme.

Under such circumstances a referendum was held to decide whether a stabilisation scheme would he acceptable to a majority of growers. The closing date of the poll was 23rd March 1970. Then the Minister made a statement to the effect that the proposal had been rejected by the eligible growers on the criteria laid down by the Government. Although 65 per cent of growers voted in favour of the proposal and 35 per cent voted against it, the fact was that only two-thirds of all eligible growers voted, so only 42 per cent of eligible growers voted in favour of the scheme. It is important to consider this factor because no matter whether we establish a statutory authority or introduce a stabilisation scheme, as we know it, we must have a stable industry, and the research which is to be undertaken as a result of this Bill must and should be applied to a stable industry.

The question that I ask the Minister is: What is happening to the stability of the dried vine fruits industry? At the present time we are receiving disturbing reports about the increasing production of the dual variety of grapes, that is, grapes which can be used for drying and for fresh consumption. Of course, once the bearing acreage is increased the industry can be confronted with the problem of oversupply. From time to time in this Parliament I have argued strongly that all phases of primary industry have to be reorganised and that we have to refrain from adopting this ad hoc, uncoordinated approach to primary industry. We have to reorganise primary industry in relation to realistic markets; not airy-fairy markets which, it is hypothesised, might eventuate, but realistic markets which exist at the present time and which will exist in the immediate future.

We have to tailor our production in basic demand to fit the realistic markets. It is important to consider this factor because the dried fruit industry is unlike the wheat industry which produces a cash crop, and production can be increased or decreased very quickly. Once vines and trees are established there are virtually fixed production levels and the only way in which production can be reduced is to chop down the vines or trees or for the vines or trees to be subjected to weather conditions, such as frost. I ask that question so that the Minister might be able to give honourable members and the industry some indication of what the Government is thinking at the presenttime.

That is all I have to say on this measure. The Opposition supports the legislation, as it has done with other research Bills which have come before the Parliament. However, at the Committee stage we will move 2 amendments dealing with the questions of penalties and the collection of evidence by those people authorised under the legislation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned.

page 1147

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minis ter · Lowe · LP

– by leave - Mr Speaker, the Government has been reviewing the position of Australia’s military forces in Vietnam in order to determine what further withdrawal options are open to it, having regard to the security situation and the intentions of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and of our other major allies. This review follows from the policy stated by the then Prime Minister, now the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), in April 1970 when, in announcing the withdrawal of one Army battalion, he said that ‘Should the progress of pacification and Vietnamisation succeed as the President (of the United States) hopes and believes that it will, then at some stage during the 12 months period we will consider phasing additional troops into the planned withdrawal’.

During his recent visit to Vietnam, the Minister for Defence had valuable discussions with Vietnamese leaders and with the

Commander of United States forces in Vietnam. These consultations have confirmed our assessment that steady improvement is being achieved in the security situation. Many factors have contributed to this improvement. The policy of Vietnamisation, that is, the development of the capability and effectiveness of South Vietnam’s armed forces, has produced a much stronger and more cohesive fighting force. The pacification programme has also achieved notable successes, and its contribution towards improved security in the rural areas has necessitated the enemy concentrating his effort against that programme. These developments, in combination with North Vietnam’s manpower problems, have seen a significant decline in enemy-initiated activity over the last 2 years.

An important consequence of these achievements has been that the South Vietnamese have been able to continue their operations in Cambodia against North Vietnamese regular forces. Additionally they were able to initiate and conduct the recent operations against the North Vietnamese supply lines in southern Laos. The effect of these operations so far has been to prevent the enemy mounting large-scale actions inside South Vietnam and thus they have given the South Vietnamese time for the further development of their forces and for strengthening the pacification programme. In a number of key areas within South Vietnam the North Vietnamese have for the present lost the military initiative. The enemy forces are thus being forced to a position of reacting to the South Vietnamese rather than being able to fight at a time and place of their own choosing.

Turning to the overall security of South Vietnam, it is undeniable that there has been satisfactory progress towards the objective of establishing the circumstances in which South Vietnam can determine its own future. There remain, of course, difficulties which should not be minimised. The North Vietnamese at the Paris talks have remained intransigent. Nothing constructive has been offered by them towards a negotiated settlement. In Vietnam itself there has been some resurgence in Communist terrorism, political agitation, and attacks against lines of communication. These tactics by the Communists, using their remaining infrastructure in the country, will doubtless be employed against the Government and people for some lime to come.

In its weighing up of the overall situation, the Government has. decided that further reductions of the Australian forces in Vietnam are feasible and desirable. With the agreement of the Government of the Republic df Vietnam, and following consultations with United States military authorities in Saigon, some forces will now be withdrawn. These are:

Selected combat and supporting forces of the Army task force,- including the tank squadron, totalling about 650 men; . .-

Royal Australian Navy, personnel, about 45 in number, serving with the United States Assault Helicopter Company;

The RAN Clearance. Diving Team (clearance of underwater explosives) of 6 personnel;

No. 2 Canberra : Bomber Squadron involving 280 men; . ;

Some aircraft of the; Caribou transport squadron and about 44 men

The reductions are therefore to be spread over the 3 Services ,’and will have the effect of reducing the tol al Australian personnel by about 1 ,000’ ‘men: The Australian forces then remaining in South Vietnam will comprise 6,000 men compared with a peak of 8,000 ‘in 1968-70. All these remaining forces, including the 2-bat- talion Task Force in Phuoc Tuy, will retain an effective operational capability. The tasks of our forces’ will continue to change as the Vietnamese territorial forces accept increased operational, responsibility. The units and personnel, involved in these reductions will be withdrawn gradually over a period of 4 months to 6 months, commencing in May. This timetable will permit detailed adjustments to be made between the Australian, South Vietnamese, and United States military, authorities in relation to the security requirements of the areas involved.

Events in South Vietnam,., to which our own fighting men made such a notable contribution, have made these withdrawals possible and they are entirely in accordance with the policy of the Government as announced in Parliament. It must be acknowledged that enemy forces in IndoChina still retain a considerable offensive capability, and there remains in South Vietnam a structure of Vietcong cadres and guerillas which has been long established and whose strength is very difficult to assess. No doubt the Government and forces of the Republic may from time to time suffer military setbacks, and the continuance of the war against aggression will be a heavy burden upon them. But perhaps more than ever before, the Government of the Republic acknowledges that getting on top of the internal threat to security and the development of progressive government in the provinces are tasks best performed by themselves once a sufficient degree of security from massive external attack has been established. Greater confidence now exists. The Vietnamese authorities have developed a variety of programmes which are becoming increasingly effective in bringing better administration in the countryside. The Australian Government will continue to assist the Republic of Vietnam, though the character of our assistance will progressively change. For example, the new Jungle Warfare Training Centre at Nui Dat has just completed its first course. Australian economic and military aid in a variety of forms will continue. We will continue to build houses for members of the Territorial Forces and their families. Other forms of civil aid and civic action will be examined by the Government. As to the future of our forces in Vietnam, the Government will keep the matter under constant review, bearing in mind the security of our own forces and our obligations to the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - The new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), is the last of Australia’s leading guilty men of Vietnam. With the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme), he alone survives of the Menzies Government which committed Australia to this disastrous, divisive war. He was one of the architects; he remains its chief apologist. He and Sir Keith Holyoake are the only heads of government who have participated at every stage in the escalation of the war. But Sir Keith Holyoake at least has the grace to stop justifying it.

The commitment itself, ill-conceived as it was, has not been the worst aspect of the Australian Government’s baleful role in this vast, interminable tragedy. At every stage in this war the Australian Government - the Menzies Government, the Holt Government, the Gorton Government - has used whatever influence it had to enlarge and to prolong the war. No government or administration has been so consistent or more malign. Even the Johnson Administration stopped the bombing of North Vietnam. This Government was supporting such bombing to the bitter end. The Johnson Administration started negotiations and included the National Liberation Front in those negotiations. Four successive Australian Prime Ministers denounced the very concept of negotiations.

The present Prime Minister was the most trenchant in his denunciations. It was left to the present Prime Minister in November 1967 to denounce as treason proposals which were accepted in part by the United States in March 1968 and in whole by November 1968. Of all these Prime Ministers he has been the hottest in his optimism and the coldest in his perception of what this war has meant in human terms - in terms of scorched earth and scorched bodies, in terms of the devastation of the whole of Jndo-China, in terms of the destruction of one of the proudest civilisations in the region and in terms of the degradation of an entire generation of the Vietnamese people. One can go through all his speeches - he has made many on this subject - yet not find one word to indicate the slightest conception, compassion or compunction about what we are doing to a whole race of human beings. On the contrary, to him such questioning and such doubts were treason. He remains unrepentant, defiant to the last. In November 1967 he was predicting victory just around the corner. In March 1968, just after the Tet offensive, he was one of those who claimed that this had been a great setback to the Vietcong because they had over-extended and exhausted themselves. As Minister for Foreign Affairs he endorsed the inruption into Cambodia. As Prime Minister a fortnight ago he was claiming victory in Laos. His reaction to these events shows that, even after a decade of blood and blunders, he and his government are incapable of learning the lesson of Vietnam and are wilfully blind to the nature of this war. They still see this struggle solely in military terms. They still seek the mirage of military victory.

The Prime Minister has made a statement which continues the tradition of deceit which has characterised this war. continues the charade that the disposition of our forces is related to the military situation in the Province of Phuoc Tuy. This was a war conceived in deceit, nurtured in deceit and it is ending in deceit. It is an appalling thing - appalling for democracy - when 70 per cent of the American people say that they no longer believe their Administration on Vietnam. Yet the American Administration has been infinitely more truthful with its people than any of the Australian governments since 1965. Brigadier Serong, formerly with the Task Force in Vietnam, told the truth when he said in Canberra in January that the role of the Australian Army in Vietnam had always been political. Politics determined our going in and politics are determining our coming out.

Politics sent in the first battalion in May 1965. The political situation in Australia, not the military situation in Phuoc Tuy, decided Mr Holt on a second escalation of our commitment in 1966 and a third escalation in 1967. It was the political situation of February 1968 that induced the present Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), then Prime Minister, to announce immediately after the Tet offensive that no more troops would be sent to Vietnam. It was the political situation in 1969 that persuaded him to say that it must be one out all out, that a phased withdrawal, as I proposed, would endanger the lives of the troops remaining.

Mr Morrison:

– Who said that?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The immediate past Prime Minister, the present Minister for Defence. It was the political situation of 1970 that forced him to announce that the withdrawal would, after all, be piecemeal. It is the political situation, not the situation in Phuoc Tuy Province or Vietnam or Indo-China, that has prescribed the terms of the announcement today by the new Prime Minister. And it will be the political situation of 1972 that will spell the end of our commitment altogether. Never in its history has the Australian Army been so shamefully treated. It is a remarkable tribute to the honour of the Australian Army that it has so steadfastly served so dishonourable a government, so disgraceful a policy.

The Prime Minister’s statement contains perhaps the most disturbing indication of policy since the commitment. For the alarming fact is that the forces remaining in Vietnam are being endangered for reasons of sheer political expediency. The Government proposes to achieve a statistical reduction in the number of personnel in Vietnam; that is the minimum reduction required by the politics of Vietnam. It proposes to do this by trimming the support foi the 2 combat battalions remaining. A force of 2 battalions is itself dangerously unbalanced. Their security requires more, not less, support. The force is now dangerously exposed, more so than at any time since it arrived in Vietnam. It is folly to believe that the reduced level of Vietcong activity in Phuoc Tuy Province means long term security for Australia’s forces there. We delude ourselves if we think that this reduced activity in Phuoc Tuy and throughout South Vietnam is solely the result of allied superiority over the Vietcong forces. It is also, the result of a decision by the Vietcong and Hanoi themselves. They will not undertake military actions which would have the effect of seriously slowing down or reversing the American withdrawal. .Hanoi. and Washington are in unspoken accord on this point - that the American withdrawal must go on as rapidly as possible. The Australian Government is placing our troops in a position of dependence on decisions of their adversaries. If it suits the enemy to raise the level of activity in Phuoc Tuy, they can do it and they will do it. at a time when our troops have been rendered most vulnerable. This Government is placing Australian soldiers in jeopardy.

The extent to which , political considerations are deciding the Australian Government’s actions in Vietnam: .are exposed by the phoney preliminaries ,pf. this announcement - the Minister for Defence’s farcical visit to Vietnam. His, predecessor was booked to go to Vietnam for 10 days, so he went for 4. His predecessor had created a Cabinet convulsion because of allegations that the Army had unilaterally decided to curtail civil aid; so the new Minister for Defence, having himself chosen that portfolio to give the honourable member for

Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) a slap in the face, pointedly spent most of his time inspecting our civil aid projects. Does anybody believe that today’s announcement owes anything to such insights or knowledge as the Minister for Defence may have gained in his 4 days in Vietnam? Nothing so fully epitomises the whole approach of this Government to the Vietnam commitment from its inception. Nothing so fully epitomises the Government’s total lack of understanding of the Indo-China catastrophe as the Minister for Defence’s statements on the operation in Laos. His considered judgment was that the operation had been, and. I quote his very words: ‘about four times as successful as the Press had made out’.

Ever since the war began to go sour, its sponsors have blamed the Press. In fact all that has happened is that the Press could not for ever suppress the realities of this war. This is what the Australian Government resents. It resents that Indo-China refuses to fit into its own preconceptions and preoccupations or, as the Prime Minister himself put it last year when as Minister for Externa] Affairs he was speaking on Cambodia: ‘it does not readily fit into my framework’. In Australia and overwhelmingly in the Australian Press the war did initially enjoy a great deal of support. This was based not only on. the natural patriotism of the Australian people but on a predisposition to believe that their government would tell the truth. People in a democracy are reluctant to think that their elected government is party to lies and deception, particularly in matters involving the Armed Forces and the nation’s security. In 1965 the people were inclined to accept that our commitment was justified, not to say required, by the American alliance. The Government sold its case on the basis that America would be strengthened in our region and that our commitment would strengthen the alliance. Now of course people have had it brought home to them that, as a result of Vietnam, the United States will never again intervene on land in Asia and that the American Congress and people are bitterly resentful of those who they believe inveigled them into this imbroglio which has deeply divided their country’, ‘alienated their youth; demoralised their army and disrupted their economy.

This has been the end result of Australia’s conduct as far as the United States is concerned. All these negative results have been achieved at the price of the devastation of Indo-China. We are leaving Vietnam; but what are we leaving? By prolonging the war we have put a political solution further and further away and made a political solution more and more difficult ever to achieve. Our real military achievement has been to raise the level of violence to unprecedented heights. Three times the weight of bombs have been dropped as were dropped in the Second World War. In a kind of unholy alliance with Russia and China, we have provided the 2 Vietnams with almost limitless capacity for mutual self-destruction. We are leaving 2 of the world’s largest armies to confront each other. We have exchanged a neutral and peaceful Cambodia for war and chaos. In Laos we have undermined the neutralist settlement of 1962. In South Vietnam itself we are leaving a regime which carries within itself the seeds of inevitable failure. Even if the Thieu regime were reformist or democratic, it has 2 insuperable disqualifications for genuine support in that country. It is a regime visibly dependant on outside support - foreign support - in a country with a thousand years’ history of rebellion against foreign dominance. Secondly, it is committed to, it in fact embodies, the concept of keeping Vietnam divided. This is an impossible basis for popular support in any nation, much less a nation with the history of Vietnam. What we have done in Vietnam is to give the Communists a monopoly of the issues of nationalism, independence and unity.

The Australian Government now has no recognisable or achievable war aims in Vietnam. It has no influence on events in Vietnam. It has no role in Vietnam. Vietnamisation is not a solution or a settlementfor Vietnam; it is the means the United States has chosen to secure the withdrawal of her combat forces. The justification President Nixon has given for expanding the war into Cambodia and Laos is that it was necessary to ensure the safe withdrawal of American troops. However much we may deplore the means, let us at least accept the aim - the safest, quickest withdrawal. The method chosen by the Australian Government is neither quick nor safe. It is monstrous that Australian lives should be endangered simply because this Government refuses to admit its folly. How long must the courage of Australian soldiers be used to cover the cowardice of Australian Ministers?

page 1152

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1147).

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– Before the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made his ministerial statement we were discussing 3 Bills in connection with the dried fruits industry. These Bills are the Dried Fruits Research Bill 1971, the Dried Fruits Levy Bill 1971 and the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who was the previous speaker in this debate, explained the provisions of the Dried Fruits Levy Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill. He also spoke about the Dried Fruits Research Bill, which is the main Bill of the three. There is no need for me to go over the technical parts of the Bills with which the honourable member for Dawson has dealt, because anyone who was listening to him would have heard this explained and others can read in Hansard what the honourable member had to say. The honourable member for Dawson said that the Opposition supports these Bills. I appreciate that announcement very much and there is not very much for me to say in that regard.

I represent at least twice as many dried fruits growers as all other members of the House of Representatives combined. Therefore, I am very concerned with anything that happens in the dried fruits industry. I am most happy with the Dried Fruits Research Bill which has been approved by State Ministers for Agriculture and the Australian Dried Fruits Association and which is generally accepted by growers. I would like to make one or two remarks. I do not want to repeat what has been said by the honourable member for Dawson for I am always a great cooperator if I get the opportunity. It is only when I think that what has been said by some members is not right that I try to put them right, but never in a personal way.

The Bill is in line with the normal Government procedure of providing match ing contributions on a $1 for $1 basis to meet expenditure on approved research projects. One thing about the Bill with which I am very pleased and which has not been mentioned in the debate is that the funds provided by the industry and the Commonwealth will be used only for additional research. Excellent research work is already being undertaken by the State departments of agriculture and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, especially at the Merbein station of the CSIRO which was extended recently at a cost of $120,000. That station has done splendid work for the dried fruits industry and it will continue under this Bill in its usual capacity. The staff there numbers 70. It has an annual budget of about $500,000. The station has been operating for 50 years. The people of the area are quite rightly very proud of it.

There was quite a crowd at Merbein when the extensions to the CSIRO station were opened by the Minister for Works, Senator Wright. Also present were CSIRO executives. I quote from the ‘Sunraysia Daily’ what was said by Dr Price, the Chairman of the CSIRO, when speaking at the opening of the new administration building and library at the CSIRO division of horticultural research station at Merbein. Dr Price said:

Scientists, by showing how to produce efficiently and economically, did point the way to an abundance of production, but at the same time research did lead to improved quality.

He said:

Primary industry faced problems that were political, social and economic as well . . . Science had shown the way to compete better on the world market.

He pointed to colour and cleanliness as 2 ways research bad helped the dried fruits industry. He said:

Science in agriculture also has aided the development of new markets, diversification and given greater flexibility to production and marketing of crops.

Generally speaking, in all primary industries throughout Australia there has been some research, more in some industries than in others. The Australian dried fruits industry is one which requires continual research, perhaps more than any other industry. I think I am right in saying that about 50 years ago the research station of the CSIRO at Merbein started to operate because of an outbreak of fungus black spot. The station has been operating ever since. Black spot and all sorts of pests have cut down the volume and the quality of dried fruits. This Bill, in addition to what the CSIRO and the State departments of agriculture do, will add greatly to effectiveness by showing growers how they can overcome at least what is possible to overcome of the menaces that sap the dried fruits industry of its economic wealth.

The dried fruits industry is a very great export industry. I refer to the ‘Australian Handbook” for 1971 which points out that from 1930 to 1939 the dried fruits production averaged 70.000 tons and for the seasons from 1950 to 1959 the average was 78,389. It is necessary to have irrigation for growing grapes for dried fruits. The Handbook points out that the irrigated areas produced 85,000 tons of dried vine fruits in the 1967-68 season, and 67,000 tons of these were exported. The 1968-69 crop was severely affected by heavy rain and was 40 per cent below average. This year again the crop is very low, I am sorry to say. Growers are concerned about the general prospects. I have kept in close touch with the industry, which is situated chiefly in the Mallee electorate. I have corresponded with people when I could not visit them due to my attendance in this chamber.

The honourable member for Dawson spoke about stabilisation. I think that any primary industry that is not stabilised is out of touch with reality. A number of years ago the stabilisation of the dried fruits industry was started and ran for quite a period. As has been stated, about 12 months ago or a little more the growers in a poll refused to give their approval to the stabilisation plan that was put forward by the Government. I think that 65 per cent of the growers voted for it and about 35 per cent against it. A statutory number of votes was required, not just a simple majority, so the stabilisation plan suggested by the Government on that occasion lapsed. I would like the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) when he is replying in this debate to give some estimate of what the dried fruits industry might have lost by not supporting stabilisation, lt has been stated, that there has been a split in the dried fruits industry. This is right to a certain extent, but it is right only in relation to that vote, because certain people in the industry advised growers to vote against the proposition.

The greatest trouble was the apathy of growers who thought that the proposal would be carried quite easily and did not vote at all. 1 know that the Minister has had long and serious discussions with representatives of the ADFA. 1 hope - he may tell us this - that he is reaching a stage where another proposition for stabilisation will be submitted to the growers, lt is my prediction that this time they will not let it pass by. They will vote for it and so will have stabilisation. I regard the dried fruits industry as one of the most precarious industries of all. First of all the crop is supposed to show a certain production. The growers say that the sugar has come down into it. It is sometimes hard to get pickers. When the grower does get pickers and the crop is picked and put on the racks, his troubles usually continue. The grower does not know what his return will be even when the crop is in the packing shed for then there is the situation with markets and the world conditions.

The reasonable attitude adopted by the honourable member for Dawson in this debate is appreciated. I support the Bill very strongly. The honourable member said that in the Committee stages the Opposition will move 2 amendments. I shall wait to see what they are before I can comment on them. The growers representatives in negotiation with the Government and with all the Ministers of Agriculture have brought forward a Bill very acceptable to this Parliament and to that great primary producing unit, the dried fruits industry.

I refer now to increased plantings. There is some concern in the dried fruits industry that increased plantings may bring about quantities of grapes, especially dried fruit grapes, that the growers may not be able to market. I do not want to say more about this, because the matter of increased plantings is definitely in the hands of the State governments. The Commonwealth Government has nothing whatever to do with it and can perhaps only offer advice on the subject. It is not my idea to offer advice on it here today, but in my electorate I am always willing to meet people and discuss the matter with them. I support the

Bill. 1 believe it will be in the best interests of the industry, of the exports that benefit Australia, and of the Commonwealth generally.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (4.49)- I cannot understand why the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) made a point of informing the House that he represents more dried fruit growers than any other honourable member. Of course there are many fruit growers in my electorate. Whether they represent the largest number of fruit growers in any electorate does not seem to me to be the most important issue in this debate. Whether or not they represent the greatest number, they are entitled to good representation in this Parliament, and honourable members on this side of the House intend to see that they gel such representation. Mention was made of the stabilisation scheme and the fact that some of the growers failed to vote on this very important issue. Of course, it is well known why they did not vote. It was because they were not satisfied with the proposition that was being put forward, and they wanted some say in the alteration of the proposition. The honourable member for Mallee mentioned that a new stabilisation scheme has been considered. It is to be hoped that greater notice will be taken of the growers’ opinion in the formulation of the new scheme and that greater consideration will be given to their wishes in the matter.

I support in principle the establishment of the Dried Fruits Research Trust Account mentioned in the Dried Fruits Research Bill 1971. However, I consider that many of the clauses of the Bill are obnoxious in that they fail to guarantee the grower any real representation on the proposed Dried Fruits Research Committee. These clauses must create the impression in the grower’s mind that he will have little or no say regarding the direction that research will take. Clause 1 1 states:

The Committee shall consist of -

four persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Dried Fruits Association;

two persons to represent the packers of dried fruits;

three persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Agricultural Council;

one person to represent the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: and

one person to represent the Department of Primary Industry.

In other words, on the Committee, there is not to be direct representation of the dried fruit grower; yet he is the one most dependent on the results of research. It is evident from the wording of the Dried Fruits Levy Bill that this Government, irrespective of its wishes regarding the composition of the Committee, leaves no doubt which group it thinks should pay the piper. Of course this is not any of the groups mentioned in the clause relating to the composition of the Committee. These groups will have all the say about where the research will take place, who shall bc trained for the purpose of such research, and the publication of reports, periodicals, books and papers in connection with such research. As far as the grower is concerned everything is done in an indirect manner in regard to the dried fruits research. Until we reach the point at which it is decided who should pay the levy to support the Dried Fruits Research Committee’s expenses and the expenses involved in carrying out its decisions, it is very indirect. But from this point on the Bill leaves no doubt that it is the grower who is expected to pay. Clause 5(1.) of the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill is one of the most Viscious clauses in that Bill, lt states: . . levy on dried fruits of a season received for packing on or before the thirtieth day of September in that season is due for payment on the thirtieth day of November in that season.

This means that the grower, who at present is badly in need of credit and often has to wait more than 2 years to receive payment for his dried fruits, is now expected to pay this extra levy in 3 months. If he cannot pay the levy in 3 months he then has to pay interest on the amount to the extent of 10 per cent per annum, lt appears to me that whoever drew up this Bill gave little or do consideration to the very serious economic, situation of the dried fruit industry. The Bill provides ample protection for the packers. This is given in sutch clauses as clause 9 of the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill, which states:

Where the packer of any dried fruits received for packing has paid a levy on those dried fruits, he is entitled lo recover the amount of that levy from the grower of the dried fruits as a debt due to the packer from the grower.

The Government is also protected because not only is the interest rate on unpaid levy 10 per cent but the grower Ls also liable to a fine of $200 . if he fails or neglects to furnish a return or information that he is required under the regulations to furnish. This provision can be found in clause 11 of the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill. In addition, a prosecution for an offence against this proposed section may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence. This clause will be the subject of the amendment we have foreshadowed in the Committee stage.

I believe that the whole spirit of this Bill takes no cognisance of the grave economic position of the dried fruits industry. It does not consider what is to happen to the grower who pays the levy. The products have to pass inspection to ensure that the citrus, dried or canned fruits are wholesome and fit for consumption; that they will in fact conform to specifications. But when the producer makes a purchase of pesticide or spray chemical he receives no such guarantee of effectiveness. As has already been mentioned in this Parliament, a particular case is that of citrus red scale. There is nil tolerance for rod scale on citrus fruit packed for export. The grower is forced to spray the fruit or his fruit will not be accepted. Yet grower-financed tests have shown that of 20-odd brands of a recommended chemical only one will consistently kill red scale. There is no Government inspectorial service inthis field, and yet many of the growers say that spray chemical bills exceed their net taxable income.

In the production of sultanas it is well known that prices are low and costs are high. The seemingly obvious answer is to produce more tons per acre. The growers’ organisation already contributes a large sum towards research into better root stocks and high producing cones for grafting on to them. I am told that they are now available for planting in Mildura, but a. man-made rule decrees that vines certified in Victoria may not be planted in South Australia. The whole of this research must be duplicated in South Australia, and while the grower waits there comes the really serious blow. Growers completely new to the industry are taking the improved varieties and planting large areas further upstream. While the present production is already in excess of demand, of course this can only depress further the present low prices. The new grower will survive because he is on virgin soil with high per acre production. The struggling grower who paid for the research will not be able to afford to replant his property.

What guarantee has the grower that the same sort of thing will not happen under this new Dried Fruits Research Act, when there is no real protection written into the Act that directly concerns the grower? It must also be remembered that there comes a time when further increases in efficiency are just not possible due to limitations imposed by high soil salinity and other matters. At this point the dried fruits grower can add to the size of his property or get out. Yet he is forced to pay a levy which will help others produce more and thus put him out of business more quickly. Due to his precarious credit position he is often unable to purchase the property next door so that he can increase, his production and allow a dignified retreat for his neighbour. Both continue to eke out an existence on their increasingly uneconomicallysized properties. At the same time they see Government support and encouragement given to new outside finance to come on new land and plant 200 acres of apricots, 500 acres of citrus and nearly 1,000 acres of wine grapes.

In the light of this it would be reasonable to expect other sections of these Bills to assist the grower or give him a further say in the way in which the research will be directed. But this is not the case and it appears, as we look further into the clauses of the Bill, that less and less consideration seems to be given to the knowledge, experience and wishes of the grower. To indicate this, let us examine section 11. (5.) of the Dried Fruits Research Trust Account Bill which says:

The appointment of a nominated member is not invalidated and shall not be called in question by reason of a defect or irregularity in connexion with his nomination.

Section 13. (1.0 says:

A member may. with the approvalof the Minister, appoint a person to be his deputy.

My point is that a member could be appointed to the Committee inspite of a defect or irregularity. Not only could he retain his seat in spite of this defect or irregularity; he could appoint as’ his deputy someone else who was even less entitled to act on this Committee. If the member elected by defect or irregularity were the chairman of the Committee his deputy could then act as chairman. In my opinion this is far outside the wishes of the producer and shows a disregard for his welfare. These growers should have access to the best advice and advisers in the industry, people who should be able to make a decision for the grower and who are not influenced by any political leaning. These decisions should be made only after full consultation with the growers. The only conclusion that one can reach after a close study of these Bills is that they offer no signposts to the future but lay down plenty of controls and penalties for the grower who is asked to pay the costs of their implementation.

If this Government really wanted to help the dried fruit growers it would have introduced long before now the new dried fruits stabilisation scheme which has been talked about for so long. Also it would ensure that information already gathered by Government departments, such as departments of agriculture and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, as mentioned by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), is available to all growers and not only those in areas that enjoy a rural broadcasting programme. During the last session both the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) made this point. They pointed out the great disadvantage that fruit growers in the Sunraysia area suffered because they did not have a rural broadcasting programme. It is not the intention of honourable members on this side of the House to oppose these Bills. However, we say that due regard should be given to some of these problems. The grower is entitled to be told that he is a part of any scheme claimed to have been introduced for his welfare. He is entitled to feel part of it. He can feel part of it only if he is given equal rights on the Committee and equal rights to say where research will take place. I hope honourable members opposite will give some consideration to these matters.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise with great pleasure to follow my colleague, the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), who has given a masterly exposition of the problems that confront dried fruits growers at the present time. He has also dissected the legislation before us in a particularly commendable way. I am delighted to be able to follow the honourable member and pay him that compliment. I stand with him in the comments he made about the serious problems facing the dried fruits industry at the present time.

Mr Turnbull:

– What about the honourable member for Dawson?

Mr GRASSBY:

– My friend, the honourable member for Mallee interjects and asks me: ‘What about the honourable member for Dawson?’ I may say that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) led for the Opposition in this debate and we on this side of the House are at one with him. There is no need for the honourable member for Mallee to be concerned with the Opposition; he should apply himself to some of the problems facing the industry which are rather more urgent than was indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I agree with the honourable member for Darling that it does not matter whether we have a greater or lesser number of growers. We stand with them and serve them to the best of our ability. The references the honourable member made to industry stabilisation are very much to the point. There is a desire in the industry generally to see a stabilisation programme, but the industry wants to see discussions continued not on the basis of the Government’s edict of take it or leave it, whatever proposition is put forward by the Government, but on the basis of taking into account all the doubts, worries and concerns that my colleague mentioned in relation to stabilisation in the future. The honourable member did a very fine service in referring to the need for regional broadcasting services. This is something that all honourable members, from both sides of the Murray, are concerned about, and I hope we will not lose sight of this need. It seems to me to be pretty disgraceful that in Australia at the present time there are areas in the Southeast corner of the continent that just cannot get good radio reception. I am sure this is a problem in the Congo Republic but we do not expect it in Australia in 1971. However, this is what we have got.

In relation to the measures before us the Minister for Primary Industry in his second reading speech did not seem to be fully seized with the seriousness of the problems the industry faces. Let me quote a fraction of his speech. He said:

Dried fruit production is of considerable economic importance to the rural communities where these fruits are grown and exports of dried fruits contribute significantly to our export earnings.

They are not just of considerable economic importance to some of these communities; they are the life and death of these communities. I think this should be recognised. The Minister went on to say:

In common with other primary industries, dried fruit producers are faced with rising costs, increasing competition in world markets and more stringent standards imposed by importing countries.

This is as much as to say that these are the normal sorts of things the Government deals with and there is no real cause for special concern. I feel this is a great understatement of the position. It may be due to lack of knowledge of the position. In the dried fruits industry we should recognise that more than in any other industry, disaster is endemic and in nearly every other year the industry has to face a crisis either in marketing or, and particularly, in relation to the weather and the crop. Yet every year that it has been in existence in this century no basic measures have been taken to remove some of this lack of security. I refer particularly to the fact that even at this stage we are considering a research proposal - a measure to improve industry research and to make funds available for a better approach to problems within the industry. As a principle the Opposition has always supported the need for increased and improved industry research. The 2 things are not always synonymous, but I make that point quite clearly. We have before us a measure which says, in effect, that we are dedicated to further research to improve the product yet, at present, the Government has turned its face away from the position confronting one of our major export markets, the United Kingdom. We still have no commitment from the Government about what will happen to the range of industries that will be affected by Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community or her association with the European Common Market.

J believe that in the quiet of the evening some members of the Government still get down on their knees and pray very hard that Britain does not enter the Community. This is their forward planning - they pray desperately that the problem they see coming does not arise. This is a bankruptcy of thought. We have no commitment from the Government regarding the survival of these industries in the face of changes which must be made in advance of Britain entering the European Economic- Community. This Bill relates to one industry, yet we have no Government commitment concerning that industry if Britain enters the European Economic Community.I suggest that prayers, however commendable in the dark of the evening, are not a substitute for action. Both should apply.

Mr Turnbull:

– Do not make a joke of Christianity.

Mr GRASSBY:

– An honourable member from the Government benches interjects that this is a joke. It is not a joke to the growers who have waited for many years for some semblance of action. We have been waiting for 50 years- not that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has been in this place for 50 years, although he has been here for. a generation - and still we do not have a national disaster authority or a national, disaster fund. We still do not have any national crop or livestock insurance provisions such as are enjoyed by our competitors in other countries. We do not have any of these things and yet Government members interject and say: ‘Oh, some joking is going on’. There has been joking and lethargy for a generation and it is time it came to an end because, after all, if we deal with’ the problems of the industries in the dim future instead of now, the industries will not survive. The Pontius Pilate attitude of the Government saying: ‘We will’, await the industry’s desires; we will await ‘ advice from the States; and we will not establish any positive guidelines ourself just will not do. However, I pay the Government a tribute for being consistent in this regard. It has never said: ‘We will give youalead or We will take the lead’. What it has said is: We will wait on the industry’ or ‘We will wait on the States’.

Let us examine the position of the dried fruits industry. The refusal of the Victorian Government to control expansion of plantings of dual purpose or drying variety grapes has not been accepted as ‘final by the Australian Dried Fruits Association. The Association has said that it will make a direct approach to the Government on this. The Association submits that over production already poses serious problems. The Association has had before it the report of the United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service that the combined world sultana production is estimated at 704,900 tons or some 5 per cent more than last year’s production. The estimate of Australia’s total sultana production is 94,900 tons. It is obvious that there is a desire by the industry to see some action. Likewise there is a desire by a State to do something different. I am suggesting that the Commonwealth Government cannot wash its hands once again in ils recurring role of Pontius Pilate and say: ‘We have no guidelines. We have no leadership to give. We will just have to await developments’. This is exactly the kind of policy, or attitude, which has got Australia into serious difficulty wilh practically every primary industry in the nation.

There is a need for positive guidelines in relation to the dried fruits industry. There is a need for action on the 3 points that have been raised in this debate. There is need for stabilisation. As a matter of fact I would suggest that even before stabilisation there is a need for a firm commitment by the Government concerning the dried fruits industry if Britain enters the European Economic Community. If Britain enters that Community will the Government say: Well, this is bad for that industry. We have lost that export market. We will have to cut the industry down or cut it out’? We need a commitment now because obviously action should, be intrain in advance of Britain’s entering the European Economic Community. This is the first point I raise.

Secondly, we should be taking all possible steps to confer with all sides of the industry to ensure a basic stabilisation scheme. Thirdly, the Government should make a commitment that the Opposition has already made, namely, to establish a national disaster fund which could be of great and continuing value to the dried fruits industry. Concurrently or conjointly with that we should be exploring the possible introduction of a national crop and livestock insurance fund which is needed and which has been needed all this century or ever since primary industry was established. These are matters on which the Opposition has made commitments and I invite the Government to share our commitments. The Government is in power and it should be taking action now.

I agree with the points that were made by the honourable member for Darling about the present Act. There is always a tendency to impose the greatest burden on the producers. This has been revealed in many directions but as an Opposition we have said that we will support legislation which has the support of the industry or the overwhelming number of people in the industry. Despite growers’ reservations about the Bill, there is a great and continuing need for improved and extended research. Because of (hat urgency members of the Opposition support the Bill. However, it is no use having measures such as this before the Parliament in isolation. In dealing with the great rural industries of this nation the fundamental problems should be acknowledged. I again express my dismay that the Minister, in his second reading speech, tended to dismiss the great problems of the industry and dealt with only this one facet. This is not good enough. It will not do and I suggest that while members of the Opposition accept this Bill they have served notice that they will expect a belter performance in relation to the other rural problems than they have seen this afternoon.

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Very much so. When the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said that members et’ the Government go down on their knees at eventide and pray about Britain’s possible entry into the European Common Market 1 interjected: ‘Do not make a joke of Christianity’. The honourable member tried to make out and have accepted that I said Do not make a joke of the present position of growers’. Thai was quite wrong. I objected to his reference to praying which has certain associations with the Christian principles of members and of people throughout Australia.

Mr GRASSBY (Riverina)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented just slightly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes. I should not like the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) to put on record something about myself which is quite wrong. 1 would point out that I did not hear his reference to Christianity at all. I would assume that we are all Christians here, at least in spirit if not in practice.

Mr GILES:
Angas

- Mr Deputy Speaker, now that the little argument in the far corner has subsided I should like to say one or two words about the dried fruit industry in my electorate and in the electorate of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). In the area that I represent the growing of dried fruit has become proportionately less important to the economy of the district over recent years, so that the vast weight of opinion in relation to these matters must now, of course, come from the next door electorate of my friend the honourable member for Mallee. However, I have growers in my electorate and they expect to be represented and have their voices heard. They support the Australian Dried Fruits Association in principle but I would point out to honourable members who perhaps have not been in the House quite as long as others have that on more than one occasion I have brought to the notice of this chamber the opinion of a small minority, if I could put it that way, of growers who do not necessarily conform to the viewpoint of the Australian Dried Fruits Association.

I imagine that my friend the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), who spoke earlier in the debate, probably did not mean to suggest that there are no grower’s representatives on the research committee.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– Direct representation.

Mr GILES:

– He now says ‘direct representation’. I think if he studies clause 11 of the Dried Fruits Research Bill he will find that the membership of the Committee includes 4 persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Dried Fruits Association. As I understand the position, that is direct representation by growers. As far as I am aware there are no members of the Australian Dried Fruits Association who are not growers. If I heard the hon ourable member correctly, he said that there was not enough grower representation on the Committee, In my view there is ample grower representation on a committee primarily geared to the job of rationalising research projects. This is not the sort of committee where one would necessarily expect a majority of grower representatives. As I see it. it is a committee on which appointees from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Agricultural Council logically should have more knowledge with which to advise the industry on research projects. I think there is a reasonably generous complement of growers representatives on the committee by virtue of clause 11 (1 .) (a) which states: four persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Dried Fruits Association;

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) did mention that he felt it was hard to have a policy until we knew whether the United Kingdom was going to join the European Common ‘ Market or not. I do not argue very much with the honourable member for Riverina in relation to this. Obviously . whether Britain joins the Common Market or not will determine the way future policies will have to go, and if he thinks verbosity dr verbal diarrhoea is a substitute for policy in relation to these matters, I cannot help that. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense would surely agree that until ‘we know the exact marketing conditions to apply to this industry in the future we cannot very well have a certain policy. The policy might be to produce more or to produce less, or perhaps to stabilise the industry, hut until we know the direction in which production is going I submit that only an ass would consider it of any importance at all to be more specific than that. However, it is up to the honourable member for Riverina to make up his own mind. .

The most important thing about the dried fruit industry in my electorate is that over many years it has been what I might call the basic common denominator or the fall-back industry of the area. The canned fruit, citrus and wine industries have their peaks of profitability to ‘ growers on irrigated properties in those ‘ areas, but fundamentally it is the dried fruits industry on which they can fall back when times are not so good in the other industries that 1 mentioned, lt is on the basis of this historical fact that this legislation is of great importance to my area, we are now faced with a situation in my electorate in which predominantly citrus growing farms are very often not proving profitable. We are also faced with a situation in which certain sections of the canned fruit industry around Berri and Renmark have had their difficulties, particularly with canned peaches, much more, I think, than growers in any other part of Australia, due to pecularities of production patterns in which peaches from that area form a predominant part of total production. This pattern is not mirrored in other areas of Australia. So we therefore have a situation in which, with problems of surplus production facing the wine industry within the next 5 years if not sooner, the producers will once again want to know where they stand in relation to the dried fruits industry. lt is for that very purpose that the introduction of a stabilisation scheme to come forward shortly is a matter of grave concern to growers of gordo and sultana grapes in particular in that locality. So it is not purely a matter of a policy in relation to dried fruits. There is an automatic interweaving of different products, affecting the entire economy of those areas, as in the diversity of uses for grapes in both the wine and dried fruit industries. It is important that all possible efforts be made to conduct proper research into alternate uses and functions for sultana and gordo grapes produced in those areas. Very often this type of research does not hold the answer to the marketing or merchandising of these products. I think, for instance, of years gone by when the average production of sultanas on an irrigated farm was perhaps 10 tons to the acre. It is entirely due to this type of research that there are varities of sultana grapes available today which produce 20 tons to the acre. I quote this as an example where we are not necessarily solving marketing difficulties through research, but research is making it possible for individual farmers on irrigated properties to make some gains in productivity within their enterprise.

I appreciate that the Opposition views the word ‘productivity’ with complete horror and a lack of understanding but I can assure them that people struggling to keep their heads above the debt structures in industries such as the dried fruit industry do not see it in that light. Productivity, whether it be related to the poorer sectors of primary industry such as small dairy farmers and dried fruit producers or other more profitable industries, is a matter of great concern and the Government deserves great commendation for introducing or formalising - if I could put it that way - industry investment on the one hand and Government matching grants for research on the other :in a search for productivity, for new marketing methods and a higher quality of dried fruit produced.

Many honourable members have toured areas such as South East Asia on behalf of their electorates for the purpose of assisting businesses and industries within their electorates. 1 expect that many of them will have run into, as I have in the past in countries such as Japan, the Australian Trade Commissioner who has said ‘Come along with me and try a sample of an Australian product’. This happened to me many years ago and it may be that the position has now been remedied. The Trade Commissioner might say ‘Try this piece of dried fruit’ and you sample it but you find some grit in it. For some quaint reason not only Australians but also the Japanese seem to think’ that grit has an association with dirt.. Being a race with very hygienic attitudes the Japanese do not like the association of a gritty taste in the mouth with dirt. When the fruit is contracting in the drying stages on racks it is difficult to exclude grit that might be in the air, but its presence can have an adverse effect on a small but important export industry.

I believe that in the progressive areas, such as those represented by the honourable member for Mallee, the drying of sultanas and other grapes is now being done on vine. This is a breakthrough. The process involves cincturing the bark on the rods of sultanas or whatever variety is being treated, thereby stopping the flow of sap therein and drying the product on the vine. By this process there is a fair chance, through eliminating triple handling and rack drying that airborne earth particles will not attach to the dried fruit. I believe the quality of the fruit produced in this way is of an exceptionally high order. Any industry worth its salt will look at change and innovation. It needs this type of research. If the dried fruits industry is to maintain its position as a most dependable industry, as it traditionally has been in irrigated areas, this type of research must take pride of place. The growers themselves must learn to profit by the type of research and the results when they are announced.

I think I need say no more at the second reading stage of these associated Bills. 1 look forward to seeing what amendments are moved during the Committee stage of the Bills. I hope that when they are moved by honourable members on either side of the House they will bear directly towards the betterment of an industry in which the people involved are struggling to make their way in life and in many cases to pay off their commitments. I commend the Government very heartily for working with the industry and in bringing in the type of research that will not penalise or interfere with research that has been contributed to by both sides in the past. In other words, this research is in addition to any research which has previously been carried out I support the Bill.

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

– Several matters were raised during the course of this debate about which [ would like to comment briefly. First of all, significant reference was made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) to the fact that in the view of the Opposition there should be an organisation of primary industry in relationto realistic markets. Whilst one can on the surface see that here is perhaps a realistic approach I think that one must look below the surface to see the spectre of arbitrary control applied by governments. For my part 1 would be apprehensive that such a move might well ignore the prospects of the maintenance of normal production by those who own the land, who work the land, who share farm the land and who traditionally take investment decisions. Whilst one must acknowledge that at a time of market contraction and marketing difficulties there is a very real need for research in the terms of this Bill and for marketing exploration and development, both in terms of the prospects abroad and within Australia, I think one must still ensure that there is a preservation of the role and capacity of the producer himself. It is, of course towards that end and in that connotation that this Bill has been framed.

Several specific matters have been referred to by a number of honourable members. The honourable member for Dawson suggested the inclusion of dried apples in this research and he said that whilst it was a small industry there would seem to be some advantage in research being pursued with regard to dried apples as well as to all the other dried varieties of fruit included in this Bill. 1 am advised that the proposals originated with the Australian Dried Fruits Association and the specific varieties that are included in the Bill result from that Association’s submission and from discussions within the Australian Agricultural Council. I can assure the honourable member that if the producers of dried apples were to make a submission to the Government it would be considered in the same light as submissions now included in the Bill were considered. Should there be some basis on which the dried apple industry should be included either in this or in similar legislation the representations would of course be taken into account.

Several suggestions were made during the course of this debate that this is only a part of the total problem of the dried vine fruits industry. I completely concur with that statement. In fact very real problems are emerging, both this year in relation to what has been an unexpectedly poor crop and in the future in relation to market contraction. It is true that 12 months ago in April 1970 the industry unfortunately did not support a stabilisation scheme submitted to it. As the honourable member for Dawson said, 2 factions emerged within the industry and the result was that unfortunately the industry suffered with marketing difficulties last year and this year from a marked contraction in the crop so that the general economic position of the dried fruits producers is nowhere near as viable as one would like it to be.

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) wanted to know what the industry lost by not accepting that scheme. It might be possible to put some figure on the loss that was incurred but I think it is suffice to say that if the scheme had gone through there would have been a very substantial payout to the industry in respect of last year’s crop. I would prefer not to quantify it other than to say that under the terms of the proposal which was rejected by the industry, without doubt the money that would have been paid to the producers would have given them very real assistance in their present difficulties. Negotiations have been continuing in the last month or 6 weeks between officers of the Department of Primary Industry, executive officers and elected officers of the ADFA and me. As late as yesterday we moved quite well along the way towards settling the details of a new proposition which I hope will be submitted as a package deal to growers. I trust that we will be in a position to do this fairly shortly. This new scheme has some modifications of the previous proposal which was placed before the Government. This scheme has emerged largely as a result of discussions between the producer representatives and me. When we are in a position to submit a firm proposal it will be done as a total package deal. As I said, I hope that this will be fairly soon. When the new scheme in detail is available to producers I trust that this time they will give it their full support because there is no doubt that their unfortunate rejection of the last scheme has certainly prejudiced their present financial position.

The honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) referred to 2 specific matters. I did not quite follow the point that he made regarding representation of producers. Clause 11 (l.)(a) of the Dried Fruits Research Bill 1971 provides that the Research Committee shall include 4 persons representing an organisation known as the Australian Dried Fruits Association and clause 11 (1.)(b) provides that 2 persons will represent the packers of dried fruits. There is in fact no packers organisation. Those 2 representatives will be nominated by the ADFA. The ADFA is specifically a producers’ organisation. The members of that organisation consist entirely of elected representatives of producers and they will control 6 out of the 11 members on the Committee who will determine the allocation of research projects. I am sure that when the honourable member for Darling looks at the detail of this Bill he will see that his concern about lack of producer representation will be alleviated.

Indeed, on the Dried Fruits Research Committee will be other persons representing government in one form or another. There will be 3 persons to represent the Australian Agricultural Council, one person to represent the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and one person to represent the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry. So there is no provision for representation other than by those persons representing government and those representing producers. In that sense I believe that the Dried Fruits Research Committee is truly reflective of the wishes and the requirements of producers themselves.

The other question which the honourable member for Darling raised refers to a matter contained in clause 5 of the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill. Specifically he expressed concern that growers would have only 2 months in which to pay the levy as set out in clause 5 (1.). The position as I understand it - and I believe that this applies to nearly all districts - is that in most seasons delivery is completed by the end of May or, at the latest, in June and consequently there will be a considerable period between the time when delivery is completed and 30th November when the payment of the levy is required. If grapes should be delivered after 30th September, of course, payment of the levy would not be required until 30th November of the following year. So growers, instead of having 2 months in which to pay the levy, in fact will have a very considerable period in which to pay it. I am told that most pickings commence at some time in February, and this year, because of the very small size of the crop, they have already been completed. Consequently, growers have between now and 30th November - a period of some 8 months - in which to pay the levy.

I believe that the other matters which have been raised relate more to the marketing side of the industry. I agree that they are of great significance to the industry. I believe that the industry is passing through a period of some uncertainty which has been caused by the virtual collapse of the International Sultana Agreement. But I assure honourable members that the suggestion that nothing is being done to produce an alternative policy in the event of Britain entering into the European Economic Community is incorrect and that exactly the contrary is the case. In fact, the Government’s firm intention and its actions have been aimed at 2 areas. The first is the development of new markets, and a great deal of activity, both direct and indirect, has taken place in this regard, and the second is the negotiation of international commodity agreements.

One hopes that the International Sultana Agreement can be replaced in some form because it has served the industry well, lt has provided a reliable and stable price over a considerable period. I believe that this has been very much to the advantage of Greece, Turkey and Australia, which are the 3 principal producing countries and which, of course, are members of the International Sultana Agreement. Some peculiar problems have arisen from Turkey’s devaluation of its currency. These problems have been mentioned not in the debate this afternoon but to me on other occasions. I can recognise the industry’s concern about its future, but I believe that the positive steps which have been taken by the Government in searching for overseas markets will be in the long term of real assistance to the industry.

Of course, within Australia I think there is a necessity for the continued promotion and encouragement of the use of dried fruits. 1 was surprised to hear that apparently there has been a slight reduction in the sale of dried fruits across the grocery counter and that the only increase in the domestic demand for dried fruits has been for manufacturing purposes. Thanks to the efforts of the honourable member for Mallee, honourable members have been able to sample dried fruits in their dining room for many years. I believe that if more Australians were given the opportunity to eat dried fruits the domestic demand for them across the grocery counter might similarly increase. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1163

DRIED FRUITS LEVY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 February (vide page 660), on motion by Mr Sinclair.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1163

DRIED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 February (vide page 660). on motion by Mr Sinclair.

That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 8.0 p.m.

page 1163

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I move:

The Bill gives effect to the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 15th March that an immediate increase would be granted in pensions now being paid at maximum rates, with similar increases for certain other benefits. The increase of 50c a week in the basic standard rate payable to age, invalid and widow pensioners will bring the new rate to $16 a week - this, of course, excludes additions to the pension such as supplementary assistance and additional payments for children. The increase of $1 a week for married couples will bring their combined basic rate to $28.50 a week. The maximum basic rate for widows without children will rise to $14.25 a week. The full increase of 50c will be payable to all pensioners who are now receiving the maximum rate - that is, those whose means as assessed are not more than $10 a week in the case of unmarried persons or $17 a week for married couples. A proportion of the 50c increase will be payable to unmarried pensioners whose means as assessed fall between $10 a week and $11 a week and to married pensioners where the combined means as assessed of husband and wife are between $17 a week and $19 a week. The provisions to pay portion of the 50c increase to these pensioners will ensure that their total income is not less than that of maximum rate pensioners with full allowable means. Similar increases will apply to sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances. Long-term sickness benefits will also be increased by 50c a week, bringing the maximum rate to $16 a week for single adults and married minors or to $10.50 a week for other persons. These rates apply after a person has been in receipt of sickness benefit for a continuous period of 6 weeks. Additional amounts payable for dependants will, where applicable, continue as at present.

The Government has decided on these increases outside the course of the Budget having regard to movements in the Consumer Price Index since pension rates were last fixed. In addition, honourable members will recall that the Prime Minister has indicated that the increase in pension rates proposed here is an interim measure only and he said that ‘any increases given in the budget would, in justice to pensioners, need to be quite substantial’. Furthermore he stated that the Government is undertaking ‘a fundamental review of social services and related pensions and also of methods of adjusting such benefits. This review, which has already been commenced, will be under consideration in the near future with the object of bringing emerging decisions into effect for the year 1971-1972’.

Honourable members will be interested in the progress that has been made over the years by Liberal-Country Party governments in improving the real value of pensions - honourable members who are interjecting will appreciate this. The rates proposed will not only be the highest on record in terms of money, but will also give to pensioners a greater purchasing power than at any previous time in Australia’s history. A table has been prepared, having regard to the Consumer Price Index for the December 1970 quarter - the latest available - showing the actual purchasing power of the pension in force at various dates since 1947, expressed in terms of current prices. I seek the concurrence of the House to incorporate this in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

– I wonder why the Minister has not related the table to average weekly earnings, which have shown a deterioration?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I seek the concurrence of the House.

Mr Hayden:

– Why did you not-

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I seek the concurrence of the House to incorporate the table.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, if he wants to do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The table is as follows:

As indicated very clearly in the table, the pension of $4.25 a week which the Menzies Government took over from the Chifley Government at the end of 1949 would, at today’s prices, as reflected in the December 1970 quarter price index, be worth $10.33 a week. Honourable members may like to contrast this Chifley pension with the rates of $16 a week for a single person and $14.25 a week for each of a married couple, proposed in the present Bill, and to draw their own conclusions about the extent of the Government’s continuing interest over the years in the welfare of pensioners. Moreover, I would stress that this comparison does not take into account supplementary ‘ assistance which this Government introduced payable to certain ‘single’ pensioners, nor does it take into account additional payments for dependants or the value of the various fringe benefits which have been introduced by Liberal-Country Party governments.

The real level of the pension - that is, its purchasing power in terms of goods and services - is usually set at budget time at a level which, in terms of real purchasing power, generally, though not invariably, gives pensioners an increase. Last Budget the increase in money rates just about covered the increase in prices, so that the pensioner’s position was held static. Since that time there has been a rise of about 2.5 per cent in the consumer price index.

The present proposed increases in the pension rate are substantially greater than this - namely 3.2 per cent in the single rate and 3.6 per cent in the married rate. These should be contrasted with the 2.5 per cent rise in the consumer price index; they indicate the rise in the real value of the pension.

It is true that the December quarter price rise was 1.9 per cent, which was out of line with previous experience. The March quarter figure is not, of course, yet available, and it would be wrong to pretend to any accuracy in forecasting it, but preliminary indications, for what they are worth, suggest that the rise will be less than that for the December quarter. Nevertheless the price rise which has already taken place gives grounds for the present extra-budget rise in the basic pension rate, and one hopes that future price rises will slow down. The Prime Minister has already described the present pension increase as an interim measure, and it would be agreeable indeed - I hope that honourable members would find it agreeable - if the rise in money rate which he has forecast for the next budget were to be substantially a rise in the real rate of pension - that is a rise which would not be significantly eroded by subsequent price increases.

Price increases occur through excess demand, which makes possible sales at an increased price. Behind this process there are 2 engines, a big engine and a small one. The small engine is the tendency of certain business men to increase their profit margin - that is, to increase their prices faster than their costs. The big engine is the tendency of workers to demand over-award payments, beyond the increase in net productivity. This increases costs, and leads to massive price rises without any profit increase. The reason why the extra profit margin must be considered the ‘small’ engine, and over-award payments the ‘big’ engine is purely one of figures; as a component of total prices it is much the more substantial. I am distributing to honourable members herewith - I am sorry that it is not possible for practical reasons to incorporate it in Hansard - a graph showing the relationship between award wages and average earnings over recent years. The diverging distance between the 2 lines on this graph largely represents over-award payments. I would, of course, be the last person to suggest that real wages should not rise. As productivity increases, real wages have risen, and this process should be encouraged to continue. Provided money wages rise in step with productivity the price level can still be held - it is where the rise in money wages oversteps the rise in productivity that the trouble starts. Would it be too much to suggest that the rises in real wages awarded by the Arbitration Court are more responsibly based than the system of ad hoc over-award payments?

Mr Kennedy:

– The Minister is supposed to be in charge of the Department of Social Services and he cannot even manage that. What is he doing trailing after questions of arbitration which are the affair of another Minister?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I realise entirely the sensitivity of Opposition members in this matter. I know that they have been peddling false doctrines and trying to deceive the Australian people and they are not happy at being exposed. I realise entirely the motives behind the interjections of the Opposition. I know that certain trade union leaders have gone on record saying that if wages are controlled by the Court then prices should be controlled by law. I venture to suggest that these trade union spokesmen have not thought out their position.

Mr Hayden:

– 1 rise on a point of order. This has reached the stage where it is a little hard to bear. We all indulge the Minister his peculiar eccentricities in the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a personal reflection.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise the point–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order in making a personal reflection. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Hayden:

– What is the personal reflection?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is not in order in making a personal reflection on another member of the House. .

Mr Hayden:

– I am sorry, I thought 1 was being descriptive in the literary sense. I wilt withdraw it if it is offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I asked the honourable member to withdraw it because it is a personal reflection.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I realise the motives of the honourable member for Oxley. The little man is obviously distressed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– He is trying to prevent the truth-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! 1 call the honourable member for Oxley on a point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– If the Minister will sit down and behave himself in uncharacteristic style I will make the point with you-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Hayden:

– Oh, I am sorry. I did noi realise that one should be more tolerant. The point I want lo raise with you is whether you would be good enough to rule on the terminology of this Bill. I rather doubt whether the Minister has the brief to rampage as widely as he is doing at the present time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr Hayden:

– Well, I think the Chair ought to look at it and I have asked the Chair to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! It has. I call the Minister for Social Services.

Mr Hayden:

– On the point of order, I have asked the Chair to look at the Bill and to decide-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I rule that the Minister is in order and I have called the Minister for Social Services.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I realise-

Mr Hayden:

– I have raised a point of order in regard to this silly trivia that the Minister is putting before the House. We have before us a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Services Act 1947-1970 in certain respects. As you have ruled that it is in order for the Minister to discourse over the area of industrial relations, I ask you to indicate to me which sections of this Bill relate to industrial relations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not necessary for the Chair to explain the reasons for ruling the Minister in order. I rule that the Minister is in order. I call the Minister for Social Services.

Mr Foster:

– I rise on a point of order. My point of order is this: ls it right for the Minister at the table to insult the pensioners and at the same time to insult members of this House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is being frivolous. I warn him not to waste the time of the House with frivolous points of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– [ realise fully the desperate straits that the Opposition is in in its endeavour to cover up the truth, lt does not want these things discussed. It knows that it itself is guilty in endeavouring to affect the inflation, lt is therefore raising these trivial and unworthy points of order.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, in bowing to your ruling, can we receive an assurance from the chair that in the subsequent debate no restriction whatsoever will be placed upon speakers from the Opposition side of the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I can account only for what I do in the chair while I am in the chair.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you asked the honourable member for Oxley to withdraw certain statements he made in reference to the Minister for Social Services. In the circumstances is it right for the Minister in the guise of making a second reading speech to make a bitter personal attack on every member on the Opposition side of the House? If not, I think that these remarks should be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no validity in the point of order. The honourable member for Grayndler has been in the House for many years and he knows quite well that he is being facetious.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I think it should be apparent even to members of the Opposition that the rise in prices is of particular importance to pensioners. Indeed, the reason for this Bill is the rise in prices. Therefore I am entirely in order in discussing this matter now. I know that certain trade union leaders have gone on record saying: ‘If wages are controlled by the Court, then prices should be controlled by law’. I venture to suggest that these trade union spokesmen have not thought out their position. The Court does not prescribe a maximum wage - it prescribes a minimum wage. Over-award payments are perfectly legal, and, indeed even though they may sometimes be morbidly developed, on other occasions, when they are matched by increased productivity, these over-award payments may be eminently desirable. But trade union spokesmen do not want to declare a minimum price - indeed, and in this they are following the line originally laid down by the LiberalCountry Party Government, they have set their face against these minimum prices. But they want to declare a maximum price. These trade union spokesmen, who want to compare the treatments of wages and prices, apparently have not realised the difference between a maximum and a minimum, and have consequently got themselves into a state of utter confusion.

Let me repeat that, as the Prime Minister has said, the present pension rise is an interim rise only. In saying that it lifts the pension to a record level, not merely in money terms but in terms also of real purchasing power, I do not mean that the Government regards this as an ultimate goal. As productivity rises, so also should pensions. One other point is of major importance. Pension rates are not the only assistance which is vital to the pensioner. Housing, nursing services and home help - and indeed many of the fringe benefits most of which have been introduced by governments on our side of politics - are all vital. In the course of the present Parliament I believe it will be possible to improve them still further. The Prime Minister has spoken of the ‘fundamental review of social services’ which is now in process. This is too large a matter to be dealt with here, where the time for debate before this Bill should be passed is so short. I hope before long to be able to bring before Cabinet the results of the review to which the Prime Minister has referred. I trust that the House will permit me to refer to this in passing rather than to anticipate any details. The Prime Minister also referred to consideration being given to ‘method of adjusting’ our benefits in the future. This matter also is under review, and, once again, I hope that Cabinet will be considering it before too long.

Honourable members will note the complexity of the Bill. This stems from the fact that it is being incorporated in existing legislation which has from time to time been changed and become more complex with the changes. Some time ago I indicated to the House that I was hoping to have the whole Act codified and rewritten in a simpler form. This matter has been referred to the Parliamentary Counsel but pressure of business has so far prevented it from being undertaken. Perhaps it may now be considered in conjunction with the fundamental review of the social services structure to which the Prime Minister has already referred. The Government has decided that the increase in all pension rates will apply in respect of all pension payments made after 31st March. There is a repatriation pension pay day on 1st April, age and invalid pension on 8th April, and widow’s pension on 13th April. The rate of Service pensions - which are paid under the Repatriation Act - depends upon the rates set in the Social Services Act. lt is thus essential that the whole of the legislation should operate as from 1st April. Honourable members will note that clause 2 of the Bill provides for this, even though the legislation may not receive the Governor-General’s assent by that date. Originally we thought that, following upon a public statement made some time ago by the Leader of the Opposition, the Bills would receive a speedy passage. We now understand that the Opposition desires to debate them, as is of course the Opposition’s right if it so chooses. No doubt honourable members opposite desire to make a public show in order to rid themselves of the odium which must hang round them in view of the equivocal attitude adopted by their Leader in regard to the previous statements which he made on the ‘feather bedding of pensioners’-

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you sit the Minister down?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! Is the honourable member taking a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, indeed I am. This is a gross and wilful misrepresentation of the situation of the Leader of the Opposition. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House on 24th February. I quote the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now debating the point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– No. I am quoting to you evidence in support of the point that the Minister well knows that what he is saying is a misrepresentation of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have no personal knowledge of such misrepresentation

Mr Hayden:

– I am not going to allow the Minister to continue with this sort of misrepresentation. It is childish and it is trivial.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is making comment. He is out of order.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I had hoped that you would uphold the dignity of the House. I will have to move dissent from your ruling, because I do not see why we should have to listen to the foolish sort of trivia which the Minister brings into this House and the slander of an honourable member’s character. But you seem to tolerate it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr Patterson:

– I take a point of order. With due reference to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this House second reading speeches have always been of a standard commensurate with the quality of the Bill itself. I submit that the Minister is blatantly misusing this House to put over the views which he wants to express. I believe that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have a right-

Mr Bryant:

– A duty.

Dr Patterson:

– And a duty to make the Minister conform to the standards of this House with respect to this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already ruled that it is within the ambit of the Minister’s second reading speech to continue on the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr Hayden:

– In that case, I regret it, because I have a very warm personal regard for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, but I am going to move dissent from your ruling. I will take the opportunity of indicating the reasons why, once I have fulfilled the normal requirements.

Debate interrupted.

page 1169

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move: That the ruling be assented from. Dr Patterson - I second the motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-The motion must be in writing. (Mr Hayden having submitted his motion in writing.)

Mr HAYDEN:

– I understand that I have the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. I regret having to do this because, as you know, I have a great personal regard for you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We both come from the same State and we have been in this Federal Parliament for many years. You are a warm hearted, Christian and compassionate gentleman. Unfortunately you do not seem to have the sort of firm character that is necessary in a situation like this.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order in making a personal reflection on the Chair or on any other member of the House.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry that this should be so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw the reflection on the Chair.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will withdraw any reflection on the Chair. I do not want to take up much of your time, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a pretty serious situation. I have indicated to you - or I have tried to indicate to you but you have curtailed it - an application of Standing Orders which is different from what I see in the book on Standing Orders provided on this side of the House. I have suspected for some time that there are 2 editions and that the one on the other side of the House is different from the one we have. The point I want to make is-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is clearly making a reflection on the Chair in suggesting that there are double standards.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I apologise. It is unintentional. The point I want to make is that we all know the Minister for Social Services and his cerebral problems. But even allowing for those–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That again is a reflection on the Minister. I ask the honourable member for Oxley to withdraw thai personal reflection. I ask the House to come to order. A lot of time is being wasted. 1 ask the honourable member to withdraw that personal reflection.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Which one Ls that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The last personal reflection that the honourable member has just made.

Mr HAYDEN:

– That the Minister suffers from a cerebral problem? Yes, indeed. I am sorry about that. Are we going to have enshrined in the records of this House a statement of wilful dishonesty by the Minister? The Leader of the Opposition has denied the allegations made by the Minister for Social Services. The Minister welt knows that it is dishonest to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for the statement concerned. Nonetheless, he will pursue it for the simple reason that it is a clever little side tracking device. For instance, it will take pressure away from the Government, he hopes. I do not know how adequate or effective it will be, but he hopes that it will take pressure away from the Government of the public censure which is directed to it. After all, it is only a matter of a few weeks since the Minister was suggesting that it was incredible to propose an increase in pensions. Subsequently he said on a television programme, on which I appeared with him -

Mr Irwin:

– 1 take a point of order. The honourable member is not speaking to the point of order whatsoever. He is speaking about something that happened some weeks ago.

Mr HAYDEN:

– No. It is indeed relevant, because it indicates motives, and motives arc always important in a certain pattern of behaviour. On that television programme the Minister for Social Services said rather ingenuously that the only reason the increase was provided was to mark the accession to office of the Prime Minister.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Humane considerations of matters of social economic justice–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Griffith.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– If the honourable member will resume his seat - thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My point of order is that 5 members of the Opposition have told me in private that the Leader of the Opposition did make the statement referred to. I believe that this debate should not be used as an opportunity for the honourable member for Oxley to try to get his Leader out of it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not a point of order.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. A few moments ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, you warned a member of the Opposition for making frivolous points of order. I take the point that that was a frivolous point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– All I want to say is that the Minister can pursue this if he wishes, for all we care. He knows full well that he is misrepresenting the situation by pursuing it in this way. He may have some devious purpose, which I think is fairly obvious to all honourable members.

Mr Wentworth:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Oxley-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order before the Chair.

Mr Wentworth:

– ls there a motion of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No.

Mr Hayden:

– That is all finished.

Mr Wentworth:

– It seems somewhat strange lo me that the honourable member for Oxley has behaved as he was, because he has in front of him the text of my speech. Apparently he did not read it, or if he did read it he slurred over the next sentence. I had spoken, as the honourable member will recall, of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the feather bedding of pensioners. The text of the speech which the honourable member has in front of him goes on as follows: statements which he has somewhat unconvincingly denied in the face of solid evidence to the contrary adduced by honourable members of his own Party.

Hansard will show that when this matter first arose in this House and the Leader of the Opposition denied that he had used those words, I accepted his denial, because one does accept the word of an honourable member. Subsequently I was placed in an embarrassing position because in this House the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffiths) said the opposite. He made a definite statement. When he made that statement 1 was placed in an embarrassing position because I could not believe both honourable members. They were saying things which were directly contrary one to the other, so I had to look at Hansard and try to weigh up the evidence and try to find where the truth was. I had hoped that it would be possible for me to have excused the Leader of the Opposition by assuming that he had had a lapse of memory or something like that, but he came into this House - I am looking only at the Hansard - and he specifically denied this.

I had to choose between these 2 honourable members. Of course one would always try to accept the word of an honourable member in this House, but when one has to choose between 2 honourable members both in the same Party one has to look at the probabilities. One tries to weigh the evidence. In weighing the evidence it seems to me that the positive statements of the honourable member for Shortland are of more consequence than the denial of the Leader of the Opposition, and I come to this conclusion very largely because the Leader of the Opposition has made in this House a couple of statements which are obviously untrue. The first statement was that every member of his Caucus would support him in this matter.

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. Can we get back to the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The motion before the Chair is one of dissent from my ruling.

Mr Hayden:

– I have withdrawn that motion. 1 indicated that some time ago.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Has leave been obtained for the withdrawal of the motion?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I was not aware that it had been withdrawn. You had not asked for leave.

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– The honourable member for Oxley has brought this on his own head. I did not want to examine the motives and the probabilities. I dislike trying to weigh the truthfulness of 2 members of the Opposition but it has been forced upon me by the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I must ask the House to come to order. I understand from the honourable member for Oxley that he has withdrawn his motion, but he can withdraw it only by leave of the House. Is the House agreeable to the honourable member withdrawing the motion?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion is withdrawn.

page 1171

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1169).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Daly:

– I take a point of order. Would it be possible for the Minister to circulate the part of his speech he did not deliver?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 1171

REPATRIATION BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government’s proposals, announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in this

House on 15th March, to increase the rate of certain repatriation war and service pensions from the first pay day after 31st March 1971. The clients of the Repatriation Department will receive the increases as from 1st April 1971 even though royal assent may not be obtained by that date. Clause 2 of the Bill is so worded as to achieve the desired date of payment. It was originally hoped that the Bill would go through the House of Representatives today and the Senate on Wednesday but, due to the Opposition’s request for an adjournment of the debate until tomorrow this will not be achievable. Another obvious reason that it will not be possible to receive royal assent by 1st April is that Parliament was not sitting last week. My colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), has outlined some other factors also involved. The Government wishes to make it clear that the retrospectivity involved on this occasion, because of special circumstances, should not be taken as a precedent for the future, particularly in view of the very small time period involved and because of the other factors mentioned.

This Bill provides for higher war compensation payments by way of increases in the rates of war pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and women and those who, because of the severity of their war-caused disabilities, receive payments equal to the TPI rate, namely, the war blinded, those temporarily totally incapacitated, those receiving the special rate of war pension for tuberculosis, and those double amputees who receive additional amounts under the first six items of the Fifth Schedule. It provides also for increases in the intermediate rate payable to those whose war-caused incapacity allows them to work only part time or intermittently, and for an increase in the rate of pension payable to war widows. The Bill also incorporates some amendments to the Act of a machinery nature necessary for applying to Service pensioners the increases which are being proposed for age and invalid pensioners. The rates of war pension for which increases are proposed in this Bill are to be found in the schedules to the Repatriation Act. Although they are expressed in the Act as fortnightly amounts, it has long been the custom for honourable members to refer to the weekly amounts payable and 1 will continue this practice.

The Bill provides for an amendment to the Second Schedule to the Act to give effect to an increase of $1 a week for the special TPI rate of pension paid to those people whose war-caused incapacities prevent them from earning more than a negligible percentage of a living wage, to the war blinded and to certain sufferers from tuberculosis. The new rate will be $39 a week, which will also apply to exservicemen who are temporarily totally incapacitated. The amounts payable under the first six items of the Fifth Schedule for more severe incapacity resulting from double amputations will also be increased by $1 a week so that the total amount payable to these pensioners will continue to be equal to the TPI rate of pension. The intermediate rate, payable under the sixth footnote to the First Schedule to those who, because of war-caused incapacity, can work only part time or intermittently and are thereby unable to earn a living wage, will be increased by 50c a week. The new rate will be$28.50 a week. The Bill amends column 3 of the First Schedule to provide an increase of 50c a week in war widows pensions.

As honourable members will know, the Repatriation Act provides for payment of Service pensions at rates expressed in the Social Services Act as applying to age and invalid pensions. However, to enable the new provisions proposed for age and invalid pensioners to be similarly applied to Service pensioners it has been necessary to make some machinery amendments to the Repatriation Act. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill do this. The increases in this Bill will benefit approximately 24,000 war pensioners, 49,500 war widows and 43,000 Service pensioners. The Bill also appropriates the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent necessary to provide in the current year the additional payments to which this Bill gives effect. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Barnard:

– Before I move the adjournment of this debate I ask leave to make a short statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Is leave granted?

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

– No.

Mr Barnard:

– I merely point out that it is a matter of courtesy-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Barnard:

– As a matter of courtesy a Minister makes available a copy of his second reading speech to the honourable member on this side of the House who is to lead for the Opposition on the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Leave is not granted.

Mr Barnard:

– If the Minister on a future occasion attempts to introduce a Bill without acknowledging these usual courtesies he will not be granted leave to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is out of order. He can make a statement only with leave of the House. He may move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Holten:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Barnard:

– I understood leave was not granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– By indulgence of the House the Minister for Repatriation may make a statement in reply to the statement just made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Barnard:

– Leave was not granted to me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition rose and commenced to make a statement. I pulled him up and pointed out that he needed to obtain leave of the House in order to make the statement. He persisted in making the statement and then sat down. By indulgence of the House I allowed the Minister for Repatriation to rise and make a brief reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. Under what section of Standing Orders have you the right to grant indulgence?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I rule that way.

Mr Barnard:

– I raise a point of order. I asked leave to make a statement. You ruled me out of order. The Minister at the same time refused to grant me leave to make a statement. Therefore I think the matter is closed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that in order to make a statement leave must be obtained first. Leave was not granted so it is outside the power of the Chair.

Mr Holten:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Barnard:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Barnard:

– I ask leave to make a statement.

Mr Holten:

– If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to make the statement he just indicated, leave is granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make a statement?

Mr Holten:

– Yes.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– by leave- I merely wanted to point out to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) that as a matter of courtesy a Minister normally makes a copy of the second reading speech available to the member on this side of the House who is to move the adjournment of the debate. This was not done by the Minister. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that in these circumstances it is difficult for me to have to wait until tomorrow to read Hansard before I am in a position to recommend to honourable members on this side of the House what ought to be done. Hansard is not available until tomorrow morning. I want to indicate to the Minister, in all fairness to him, that if he attempts on some future occasion to introduce a Bill into this House without obeying the normal rules of courtesy that apply leave will be refused.

Mr Holten:

– I seek leave to make a very brief comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Barnard:

– Yes.

Mr HOLTEN (Indi- Minister for Repatriation) - by leave - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) was quite correct when he said that 1 did not give him a copy of the second reading speech. I can assure him that it was purely an oversight. It was not meant to be a reflection on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in any way. The position was that I just did not have a duplicate copy of the speech with me. I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of 2 things. Firstly, if he had explained to me in the first place the subject about which he wanted to make the statement, of course I would have granted him leave. Secondly, I can assure him that he will not have to wait until tomorrow morning when Hansard is available to get a copy of the second reading speech. I now hand it to him. I apologise to him and indicate that if the usual forms for the presentation of a second reading speech by a Minister were not observed, the reason is that I overlooked them.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 1174

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– 1 move: That lnc Bil] be now read a second time. lt is the usual practice of the Government to keep the rates of pensions and allowances payable to seamen war pensioners under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act in line with the rates of pensions and allowances payable to other war pensioners under the Repatriation Act. The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to raise, in relation to seamen, various rates of pension in line with the increases of corresponding rates being made in the Repatriation Bill just introduced. These increases are in accordance with the higher rates recently announced by the Prime Minister.

Clause 3 of the Bill increases the intermediate rate of war pension by SOc per week to $28.50. The intermediate pension is paid to seriously disabled persons whose war-caused incapacities render them incapable of working other than on a part-time basis, or intermittently. Clause 4 substitutes a new First Schedule to the Act to provide for an increase of 50c in the weekly rate of pension payable to widows of Australian mariners. The Bill does not have to provide for the increase of $1.00 to $39.00 per week in the rate of T.P.I, pension or for the increase of $1.00 in the weekly amounts payable in respect of certain disabilities described in the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act, as the increased rates under that Act will apply automatically to seamen pensioners by virtue of section 22a of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act.

As in the case in respect of the Repatriation legislation, the Government wishes to make it clear that the increases in pensions for which the Bill provides will be payable from 1st April 1971, and that the retrospectivity involved on this occasion because of the special circumstances should not be taken as a precedent for the future, particularly in view of the very small time period involved and because of other factors to which I have already referred in my second reading speech on the Repatriation Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 1174

DRIED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

This sub-clause deals with the recovery of a levy. The Opposition has no quarrel with sub-clause (1.) which relates to amounts that may be recovered by the Commonwealth as debts due to the Commonwealth. That provision is quite straightforward but sub-clause (2.) is quite obnoxious and contrary to British justice. What it means is that any person, who has the right to go on to a producer’s property if he or she chooses, can make any averment whatsoever and that averment then can be taken as evidence and there can be no argument against it. This contravenes the very essence of democracy. To make matters worse the Commonwealth, if it is the prosecuting authority, can wait up to 5 years before the averment is dealt with. We will be dealing with that aspect soon. Any contention or any statement supposedly relating to a complaint can be made by a person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth. We must assume, therefore, that every such person - public servant, bailiff or whatever he may be - concerned with this legislation will be scrupulously honest to the degree that he would never bear a grudge against a primary producer, never bear malice of any sort against any grower and never show any degree of bias. He will be a. pillar of virtue and impartial at every stage. We do not even accord this degree of virtue to the professionals, the police, yet we are prepared to accept any averment by a person who will be policing the levy.

I find it incredible that a Country Party Minister can be a party to the sub-clause. One could imagine the admission of this type of evidence in some Gestapo state but it is foreign to Australian democracy. It is completely incredible that the Country Party Minister in charge of the Bill should agree to this type of averment against which there will be no argument. Any averment in the complaint by the plaintiff can be used as evidence and it may not be challenged for up to 5 years. Imagine this hanging over the head of a dried vine fruits producer who has a family to maintain and whose children are going to school. But this is what the Government proposes. Australia is becoming almost a police state when the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) starts these capers. The people whom the Minister allows to go on to properties to check trees or whatever else it is can make an averment which can be used in evidence. For our part the Opposition will have no part of this.

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

– I think that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr

Patterson) has inferred that the introduction of an averment provision is in some way denying the fundamental rights of producers. In fact, the contrary is true. The purpose of the Bill, as has been agreed to generally during the second reading stage, is to provide for research for the purposes of the industry. The Bill does not levy a tax for consolidated revenue. It is designed to ensure that all growers join in contributing on a $1 for $1 basis with the Government to facilitate research which we all agree is highly desirable. That is the first point that it is essential for people to recognise. Secondly, it is true that in order to ensure that all growers contribute it is necessary for there to be some sort of penal provision in the legislation so that one or two growers do not hang off and leave it to those many responsible growers who are prepared to make the contribution and over whom there is no necessity to have supervision. Those one or two growers should not enjoy the advantages but deny the responsibilities which the provision entails.

In order to ensure that all growers contribute and that equity is done to growers in the implementation of the Bill, which we all agree is highly desirable, there are enforcement provisions. The way in which these enforcement provisions can be applied depends on the extent to which inspectors are available. True, if we had an inspector in every packing shed or in every vineyard we would be able to get away without an averment procedure because it would then be possible to provide evidence to show which fruits were being picked, what quantities were being consigned and to which packing house, and the whole procedure would be simple and capable of proof. But, of course, that is not the way in which the system operates. Relatively few inspectors are employed by the Department of Primary Industry in this field, and rightly so. What we do is to provide a few inspectors who cover the whole field and who move around as quickly as their resources will allow.

In no way are the growers harassed. In order to ensure that they are not harassed but so that those facts which are clearly within the knowledge of the grower can be determined there is an averment provision. The grower has the knowledge and understanding of what fruit has been delivered, what packing house has collected his fruit and what he has been paid for it. An averment simply means that the Commonwealth can say that such and such is a fact and that fruit was delivered to a packing house but the grower has it completely within his knowledge to prove that this was not the case. He may have a delivery order indicating what fruit was delivered. The simple procedures of justice give him the capacity to deny what the Government would find it impossible to prove without a considerable back-up of inspectors. That is the reason for the inclusion of the averment provision in this legislation and in many other similar pieces of legislation. It is essential that we consider the general trouble and costs of administration which would be necessary if there were no averment provision. This provision is not designed for the destruction of the rights of the grower. The contrary is the position. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that those facts which are not within the Government’s knowledge can be averred and those facts which are within the grower’s knowledge can be used to deny the averment if such should be necessary. Accordingly, the Government will not accept the amendment.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I support the points that were put by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I want to comment on what was said by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). The Minister says that the whole of this clause, in fact the whole of the penal clauses of this Bill which the Government is enacting, is there to ensure that one or two growers do not opt out or do not take advantage of the legislation and fail to make a proper contribution. We accepted the principle of the legislation at the second reading stage but 1 would point out to the Committee that we are talking about a penalty of $200. The major objection that we put forward is that under the offending sub-clause (2.) all of the actions by the inspector are validated and accepted while all the evidence of the growers can be challenged. It seems to me, as the honourable member for Dawson has said, that this sets aside important legal provisions and processes, provisions which are in many Acts, in many statutes. In relation to this matter of a possible penalty of $200 what is being said here is that all of the statements by the inspectors - and the Minister admits he does not have many - are accepted. If the inspector does call, no matter how hurriedly he conducts his investigation and no matter how mistaken he may be, his statement is to be accepted.

Surely this is a sweeping, hammer-like provision to put into a piece of legislation where we are dealing - and the Minister has admitted this - with possibly only one or two growers. He is setting aside a great principle for a very small reason. But the thing that concerns me perhaps even more than the offending sub-clause (2.) is the provision that a prosecution for an offence against this sub-clause may be commenced at any time within 5 years. This is not reasonable. Imagine the situation of a man standing for public office. Five years previously he could have committed an occurrence for which action against him could possibly have been initiated, lt may not have been initiated. It may be, of course, that someone with an eye to denying him public office could say: ‘Well, it would be a very good idea to go ahead with this action now.’ Surely there is no real reason-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock) Order! ] think the honourable member for Riverina is possibly confusing the 2 amendments which were foreshadowed. The one that the Committee is considering at the moment refers to clause 8 (2.) which deals with proceedings for the recovery of an amount referred to. The matter of 5 years and 12 months is dealt with in the second amendment proposed to be moved.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am sorry; I defer, of course. I will withhold my comments on that until a later stage. I would just say in conclusion that I would like to submit to the Minister that this is taking a very heavy hammer in relation to the acceptance of evidence in this matter and setting aside a great principle for something involving, in fact, one or two growers. I think it is a noxious provision and we would be opposed to it.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I would like to comment briefly on what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said. Taking what he has said to be true it would seem that this clause was inserted in the Bill to deal with only a few people. I would submit that clause 11, - which we have not dealt with but which is relevant, deals with a person who fails to furnish returns and provide basic information and the penalty of S200 is sufficient. In fact, I would submit that if this were omitted the Bill would be just as viable and just as lethal. I really do not believe that the fact that it is in other research Bills that have gone through is relevant. That does not impress me at all; that does not mean it is right. But I would submit that if this were taken out it would not weaken the Bill in any way because we have clause 1 1 which fully protects the inspectors and enables the Commonwealth to take the defaulters to court. The penalties are there. But to me this is a question of the violation of a principle. This is obnoxious to the idea of justice which we in this country support, and frankly, I find it, as I said before, rather incredible that the Country Party would be wanting to put something in a Bill which could in fact lead to abuse and the penalising of primary producers.

Question pui:

That the sub-clause proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock) Ayes . . . . . . 57

AYES: 0

NOES: 52

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 11. (1.) A person shall not -

Penalty: Two hundred dollars. (2.) A prosecution for an offence against [fits section may be commenced at any time within five years after the commission of the offence.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I move:

Sub-clause (2.) of clause 11 of this Bill deals with prosecution for an offence under this clause and it provides that prosecution may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence. The part of clause II which the Opposition seeks to amend is that which relates to the time limit within which prosecution may be commenced. The Opposition takes the view that to allow a prosecution for such an offence to be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence is contrary to the spirit of this Bill. The offences covered in clause 11 are not criminal offences. The Minister went to great pains to say that the levy is to be collected from persons concerned with the dried fruits industry and that the Commonwealth will provide matching grants. In the event of an offence against clause 11 a certain penalty can be imposed. The Opposition’s objection to clause 11 is the time of 5 years within which a prosecution may be commenced. One can imagine that if a grower, a packer or someone concerned with the provisions of this Bill committed some criminal offence the time limit of 5 years within which to commence prosecution may well apply. However, one can imagine a trivial offence being committed by such a person. For example, an inspector may find something wrong and this would be hanging over the head of the producer and his family; they would be waiting for the Commonwealth to make up its mind to prosecute. I believe this is wrong and contrary to British justice.

If the Commonwealth Government is properly to administer the provisions of this Bill it should be able to commence proceedings within 12 months. Why should it have to wait up to 5 years? This is an incredible clause. With all the resources available to the Commonwealth, if it cannot prosecute within 12 months after the commission of such an offence it must be guilty of mismanagement. This clause is offensive and it is contrary to the spirit of this Bill. It is not a Bill which makes provision for criminal proceedings. The Government should be able to commence proceedings within 12 months of the commission of the offence. This is why the Opposition has moved this amendment.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– Earlier I was directing my remarks to the wrong clause but let me direct myself very specifically to sub-clause (2.) of clause 11. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has referred to this incredible provision to which I previously referred. The provision contained in this clause is that prosecution for an offence against clause 11 may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence. Let us look at what the Government has done. It has the agreement of the industry to have a levy for a certain purpose. This is desirable and we agree that all growers should contribute and should bear an equal burden. There can, of course, be accidental circumstances in which returns are not lodged or in which the information provided may not be totally accurate. Mistakes may be made by the grower, in good faith. Mistakes may be made by government inspectors, also in good faith. Let us be quite clear on this. The onus here is on the grower.

What we have agreed to is that anything the inspector says in evidence is to be accepted! There is to be no argument about it. This places the whole onus on the grower. I agree with the honourable member for Dawson that the provisions of subclause (2.) are against the principles of justice as they have applied in this country. In regard to the nature of the offence we find that the provision relates to the failure or neglect to furnish a return or the furnishing of a return or information that is false or misleading. The penalty provided is $200. That is not an inconsiderable penalty, but the onus is on the grower. The government inspectors enshrined in this legislation are never to be permitted to make an error. That is an incredible piece of infallibility, but there it it. We lost the vote on that issue and it has now been accepted. Now we are being asked to accept this, time limit in relation to this awful offence of failing to make a return or making an inaccurate return. Of course it is an offence but we are being asked to give the Commonwealth a period of 5 years in which to launch a prosecution for such an offence. I draw the attention of this Committee to the fact that under the Crimes Act the statutory time limit for certain offences is 6 months. The Crimes Act deals with serious matters including assault on the person. It deals with a whole range of real crimes. In such a case the onus is on the State to marshal its case and to take action within 6 months. In this case for this awful crime on the part of the grower of not furnishing his return or of making some inaccuracy in it we are asked to give the Commonwealth a period of 5 years within which to launch a prosecution. This is an incredible provision. The Opposition is opposed to it. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about it.

I want to come back to a point which I previously mentioned. There could well be a situation in which a man has decided to contest a public office. A prosecution could be launched against him many years after the event. Let us imagine what happens in relation to the case. The case comes forward and the inspector’s evidence must, under this Bill, be accepted. But perhaps the defendant’s witnesses have died and their evidence is lost. The defendant is standing there naked and unashamed, without any hope of opposing the whole weight and resources of the Commonwealth in a matter such as this. Surely this is not reasonable. I hope that the Minister will take very serious note of the objection and refer to the Crimes Act in which there is an analogy. A Stale in these serious matters is allowed only 6 months in which to act.

The Commonwealth, with all the powers that it has taken unto itself - and, after all, this is not a very impressive offence, but it is certainly a material one; let us put it in its proper perspective - is asking for a period of 5 years in which it can act. I submit this is neither desirable nor just. I ask the Minister to examine the submissions we have made in a reasonable way. We agree that one or two growers might want to be gently brought into line, but surely to goodness we do not want to drag the growers through a long drawn out period of prosecution in the way which is envisaged under this Bill.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) when he spoke on the last amendment on which we have voted at first advanced one step to this amendment. Now he has retreated one step in order to speak about the amendment which has been defeated. Therefore, very briefly I want to do the same thing. But first of all, the Minister has said that the word of the inspector is to be taken as the basis of the charge, but he said that after that all the appropriate laws in Australia are open to the grower to show that the charge is not correct. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that for 5 years a charge could be hanging over the heads of the grower and his family who would be wondering whether he was to be charged. The honourable member for Dawson nods his head to indicate that he accepts what I have said. What does the Bill state? Clause 11 (1.) states:

A person shall not -

fail or neglect duly to furnish a return or information that he is required under the regulations to furnish;

This is the basis of the whole legislation because it is imperative that the scheme must embrace all growers. If a number of growers were to remain outside the scheme, the scheme could fail and at least would be unfair. Clause fi (1 .) continues:

  1. furnish, in pursuance of the regulations, a return or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.

The point I make is that the honourable member for Dawson, by nodding his head, indicated he agreed with me when I said that he said a grower’s family could have a charge hanging over its head and it would be wondering whether the grower was to be charged. But if a prosecution is commenced towards the end of S years, the grower must have known all the time that he had committed an offence, otherwise the threat would not be hanging over his head.

I turn now to what the honourable member for Riverina said about this clause creating a great injustice and about the fact that inspectors may not be infallible. Of course, they may not be infallible. Then he said the criminal law provides that a prosecution for an offence must be commenced within 6 months. I am not sure whether that is right, but I know that he has not referred to the taxation law. For what period after an offence has been discovered can a prosecution for an offence under the taxation law be commenced? A prosecution can be commenced during a period longer than 5 years.

Dr Patterson:

– How do you know?

Mr TURNBULL:

– I know that. Of course, the honourable member for Riverina does not refer to the taxation law because it does not suit his argument. If we look at the report of the Commissioner of Taxation we find that certain people have been charged with offences which have been committed 10 years *previously** These people did wrong by not providing the right information when they submitted their taxation returns. This Bill is on all fours with the taxation law. It is only asking people to do what is right. If prosecutions can be commenced under the taxation law all these years after offences have been committed, why does the Opposition say that the provision in this Bill, which says that a prosecution for an offence may be commenced within 5 years, is wrong and that the period should be only 1 year? If this were the case, a person who did not submit his taxation return correctly could not be charged after 1 year from the time of the commission of the offence. This is the whole story. It is perfectly inconsistent for the honourable member for Riverina to say that we should forget about a large sum of money which should properly be paid to the Commonwealth by way of taxation and try to make a political case out of the provision now before the chamber. This is completely wrong. It is preventing the real situation from being revealed and it is trying to build up a case on a very frail foundation.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I reject entirely the argument advanced by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). There is no similarity between this Bill and the taxation law. Clause 11 (2.) of the Bill states:

A prosecution for an offence against this section may be commenced at any time within five years after the commission of the offence.

That is, 5 years after the mistake has been discovered by the inspector. The taxation law refers to offences which are discovered much later after they have been committed. The honourable member for Mallee referred to prosecutions being commenced under the taxation law after a period of 10 years. Although something may have happened 10 years previously, the prosecution was commenced immediately the offence was discovered. But under this clause in the Bill there could be a delay of 5 years before a prosecution was commenced against a grower who failed to carry out the terms of the clause. This is why I claim it is a terrible injustice to provide that a prosecution may be commenced at any time within 5 years.

I want to ask the Minister two or three questions. Can he refer to similar legislation in which such an amazing and incredible provision is included? This means that if a person broke into a house and subsequently was apprehended, the prosecution could wait for 5 years before it brought a charge against him. What an outrageous concept.

Mr Adermann:

– Do you want to let him off?

Mr DUTHIE:

– No, we do not want to let him off. We want him to be charged within 12 months of it being discovered that he has committed an offence. Within those 5 years the grower against whom a prosecution was commenced could die. He could be killed in an accident or he could die from natural causes. Will the Government then withdraw the charge against him because he is no longer alive to be charged? If the charge is not withdrawn on the death of the grower who has commit* ted an offence, will the grower’s wife have the spectre of the prosecution hanging over her head for a period up to 5 years after her husband’s death? These factors ought to be considered in a humanitarian way. No humanitarianism is shown in this clause at all. It is a vicious clause. There is no common sense about it. What the clause is telling the Committee and the country is that the Commonwealth’s officers are so inefficient and so confoundedly lazy that it will take them 5 years to bring a charge against a person who has committed an offence. Let us assume that this Bill is passed in the next week or two. Let us assume that, during the next season, an offence is committed by a grower either by withholding information or by giving misleading information. If that offence is discovered at the beginning of 1972, clause 11 gives the Commonwealth until the beginning of 1977 to charge that grower with that offence. I believe that the Minister is a pretty capable man. i admire him. But if he permits a clause of this type to remain in the legislation I will have only half the respect for the Minister that I have now.

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

– Mr Chairman, I think that my dear friend, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), has the wrong understanding altogether of this clause. Before the debate gets too far off the rails, perhaps I ought to explain what this clause is all about. It is not a clause, any more than clause 8 is, which is designed to try to cloud in any way the inefficiencies or ineptitudes of officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. The whole purpose of the clause is to try to ensure that, without having an army of inspectors, it will be possible to prosecute somebody who. in accordance with any of the criteria set down in clause 11 (I.) (a) or (b), adjusts his returns in a false way or gives misleading information. The clause is designed so that such people can be brought before a court.

The Department in fact does not have an army of inspectors, lt provides a few inspectors only. I specifically went through this clause with my officers to try to find out why a period of 5 years rather than a shorter period was set down, lt was explained to me that in fact many packing sheds would not see an inspector in 5 years. If the requirement was that a prosecution be launched within 12 months, the Department would need to appoint a considerably greater number of inspectors with the dire consequence, as 1 explained when dealing with the earlier amendment, that a battery of inspectors would be intruding constantly on the normal way of packing and on the normal operations of growers. I do not believe that that is the sort of principle on which any honourable member would wan! the Government to act.

The reason for the inclusion of the period of 5 years is to cover the time within which it should be reasonably possible for the Department, maintaining the sort of inspection services that it does and without any undue interference in the packing operations of growers, to go about its inspections and, if there is an instance where a person has committed an offence prescribed, that person can be brought before a court. The penalty prescribed is a maximum penalty. A court is at liberty to fine anything Jess than that amount according to the circumstances of the offence. The whole purpose of the provision of a period of 5 years is not to try to cover in any way the inefficiencies of the Department, but rather lo ensure that it will not be necessary to engage a battery of inspectors and that it will be quite practicable within the present resources of the Department, with the co-operation of growers, to ensure that there is a reasonable compliance with the requirements of the legislation. lt seems to me that the period of 5 years is not unreasonable if it is taken into account in that light.

The honourable member for Wilmot did ask a question relating to the family of a deceased fruit grower who, in some way, may have commited one of these offences. The honourable member asked as to the liability, for example, of that grower’s widow. My general understanding is that if that beneficiary had in any way been a party to the offence, she would be one of those who would be included, but that if the offence had been committed by the husband and she was not a party to it in any way, without being sure of the exact legal position I would think that those circumstances certainly would be taken into account when any action was being considered. I do not think that any beneficiaries of any deceased person referred to in the legislation need really be concerned unless they themselves have been a party to the falsification or otherwise.

Accordingly, while I can sympathise with the point that has been put forward by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), I assure him that the purpose of the 5 years term is not as has been suggested but purely to ensure that in the process of normal administration no necessity arises to create an army of inspectors and that some capacity still exists within the Department to prosecute if an offence should be commited. Accordingly, the Government does not accept the amendment.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. With all due respect to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) I am somewhat disappointed that the period prescribed by the amendment is not 6 months instead of 12 months as proposed. I rise also because the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has seen fit to misconstrue the objectiveness of the speech that was made by my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). The honourable member went into some discourse on income tax. No doubt he was referring to the Premier of Queensland, a member of his own Party, Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I do not know; that is a matter for him to clarify.

Another reason why I have risen is the very weak and wishy washy manner in which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) sought to justify clause 1 1 of the Bill. In his closing remarks he more than implied that a person who has submitted a return that he believes to be absolutely true may be said by his Department, some 5 years later, to be guilty of an offence if it is found that the return is in part false. The Opposition has questioned what this would mean in the case where the business of that grower was in joint names, that is, either husband or wife, or the grower and his son. The Minister in his explanation, as far as I am concerned, has not been clear enough as to whether there could not be some form of prosecution, per se, even after the death of that grower. At no time did I feel that the honourable member for Riverina was speaking of people who would in conscience offend. As I understood the honourable member, he was putting to the Committee the distinction between the person who unconsciously commits an offence - I use the term ‘offence’ with some degree of reluctance, but it is contained in this measure - and the person who in conscience commits an offence.

Listening to the speech by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), honourable members would think that 50 per cent of the growers would be classed as offenders. I visualise those growers waiting for the months and years to go by and, in 5 years time, in the Murray area generally a great stampede of people occurring with growers throwing their hats in the air and saying: ‘We are off the hook; the 5 years have elapsed’. That was the way in which the honourable member for Mallee approaching this provision. 1 believe that the provision that a prosecution for an offence may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence is quite stupid. Surely the system under which the industry operates is that a check, even a self-evident check, could be carried out as to whether a person was being dishonest to the degree provided by this clause of the Bill. I am opposed to this long drawn out delay in prosecution. The threat of the Government filching a fine of $200 from a grower for such an offence exists for 5 years. A grower may discover in the second year, after unknowingly committing an offence, that he has committed an offence. He may endeavour to cover up that offence by committing further offences in the second, third and fourth years. Because of the threat of prosecution from the Department his conscience is under quite a burden as a result of an honest mistake he has made. Is this the way in which a penalty should be applied?

The Minister has said that the Government wishes to catch up with ‘2 smarties’. Let me say this to the Minister: If he wishes to catch up with the smarties he will have a job including all necessary provisions in a Bill to give protection against such smarties. What the Government possibly is doing by this legislation is inflicting an unjust punishment on the innocent. It is for that reason that I support the amendment.

Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1182

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 February (vide page 661), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering the Pig Industry Research Bill, the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill and the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill as they are related measures in a similar way to the debate on the Bills which have just been before the House. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each Bill at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The objective of the Pig Industry Research Bill 1971 is to provide for the establishment and to enable the operation of a Commonwealth industry research scheme for the Australian pig industry. This Bill follows in principle the Dried Fruits Research Bill which we have just discussed. We are discussing 3 Bills in this debate. One makes provision for the establishment of a research scheme: the second Bill authorises the imposition of a levy for research purposes; and the third Bill deals with the machinery for the collection of that levy. The basic objective is for a levy to be imposed on al! pigs slaughtered for human consumption, the moneys collected to be used to finance research schemes for the benefit of the pig industry throughout Australia. Under this proposal the maximum levy will be 10c per pig slaughtered. As with other research Bills, there is an operative rate and this has been fixed by the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill at 5c per pig. in his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) estimated that approximately $150,000 to $165,000 will be collected from the levy. He also said that the Commonwealth will make matching grants on a $1 for $1 basis. In other words, the total funds available to the industry for research will be double the amount collected. The levy will be payable by abattoirs and they will, of course, be the places where the pigs are to be slaughtered. The incidence of the levy will fall on the owner of the pigs at the time of slaughter. The pig industry is another industry which has joined the ranks of research. Al the present time it is estimated that approximately 70 per cent of the total value of primary production or rural production in Australia - and this includes the pig industry - is actually covered by producers who are making payments for the purposes of research. Therefore we have self-help which is backed by Federal finance. The Minister has informed us that the request for research arose through the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation which is the Federal organisation of the pig industry. The Federation consists of 6 State councils which represent the great majority, as the Minister has said, of the pig farmers in Australia.

The Minister said that the ACPPF speaks with a national voice. He implied that all pig bodies are represented. This, ot course, is not strictly true. The Minister’s second reading speech implied that the decision to implement a research scheme was a unanimous one. From reading the Minister’s second reading speech one gains the impression that the Federal body speaks with a national voice and it could be inferred that the whole of the industry was behind it. However, the pig committee of the Victorian Farmers Union does not agree with the proposition which is before the House. Also, the Australian Primary Producers Union pig committee in Queensland does not agree. 1 believe that the Minister should have stated this in his second reading speech. It is desirable that, if possible, all organisations of a particular industry should be within a Federal body. I have always argued in this House that it is far better to speak with one voice than to speak with a divided voice.

A delegation from the pig committee of the Victorian Farmers Union saw members of the Opposition and expressed the opinion to us that they would first of all like to see a referendum before legislation for a compulsory levy was introduced in this House. The delegation informed members of the Opposition that there was a significant difference of opinion on this issue within the industry throughout Australia. I made it clear to members of the delegation that if they could prove this and if in fact there was a considerable difference of opinion and widespread opposition to a levy for research in the pig industry the Opposition would take a responsible attitude and raise this question with the Government in the Parliament. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is quite clear: If there is evidence of widespread opposition from the rank and file pig producers, we believe a referendum should be held.

Let me summarise the policy of the Australian Labor Party in respect of such a compulsory levy. If an industry asks for research and if a government believes that this research is in the best interests of the industry and the nation - and this includes the consumers - that research levy should be implemented. Tn other words, if there is a unanimous decision within the industry and if the Government believes that such a levy is in the best interests of the nation and the industry, measures to effect it should be implemented. In this case, if there is uncertainty to the degree that there is a wide difference of opinion and open opposition among the rank and file pig producers, newspapers, delegations, parliamentary representatives and so on, of course producers should have the right to express that opinion through a referendum.

As an example, we can recall that some years ago a price reserve scheme was proposed for wool, although this was not a compulsory levy. Just recently we had a stabilisation scheme proposal for the dried vine fruits industry. Also, we hoped that the Government would allow a referendum because of the widespread opposition to the lifting of the embargo of merino sheep. There has been wide opposition to all of these schemes. There has been wide opposition to the degree that members of Parliament received constant delegations from the rank and file primary producers and a crosssection of the community. There was a definite case for a referendum. The Pig Committee of the Victorian Farmers Union has made it clear to us in writing that its pig producers are not opposed to research or a levy for research purposes. It seems that what they are basically opposed to is the way in which research moneys are allocated. They question the priorities on which research funds are allocated.

The main point I am making here is that the Opposition has given very careful consideration to whether or not it should move an amendment to defer this legislation until a referendum has been held. After careful consideration and consultation we came to the conclusion that this would not be fair unless we received evidence of widespread opposition from pig producers themselves. To be quite fair, despite previous concern and the possible need for a referendum, we have not had this widespread opposition to the imposition of a research levy - I stress the term ‘the imposition of a research levy’ as distinct from the value of research or the allocation of research funds. I wish to say forcefully to the Minister that if there is evidence of widespread opposition from the rank and file pig producers to the payment of the levy for research then a referendum should be held. But the Opposition has not received any factual evidence of widespread opposition from pig producers to research or to the levy as distinct from the distributionor allocation of funds for research and the priorities for research.

I wish to make that clear, because when the Pig Committee of the Victorian Farmers Union first discussed the matter with us I must admit I was quite concerned, as I thought there was widespread opposition to the levy from the commercial pig producers of Australia. I conferred at some length with members of the Opposition and others to see if pig producers had come to Canberra and expressed their opposition to the levy. The Opposition will always move for referenda if it believes there is a case for them and particularly if there is controversy or opposition on a widespread basis or if it believes that the research is not in the best interests of the nation. I do not think that anybody in this Parliament or any of the pig producers would argue that research is not warranted at this point of time. However, the question is one of the evaluation of research. That is a different proposition.

The Federal Pig Committee of the Victorian Farmers’ Federation has expressed grave concern at the way research projects are frequently determined. Some criticism is made of the priorities and the benefits of particular research projects. As I mentioned in the debate on the last Bill, there is some validity in this concern. I believe that there should be an annual evaluation of research funds to see whether they are being used to achieve the optimum benefits for the industry and for the nation as a whole. The pig industry in Australia has scope for expansion but not as great an expansion as many people would like. Some people believe that we have a great potential for increased pig production for the export market. Before the war approximately 15,000 tons of pig meats were exported each year. At the end of the war about 3.000 tons a year were exported. Since then there has been a slight surplus. In very recent years this has been increased to some degree with considerable exports to Japan.

The 2 major markets on the Continent - United Kingdom and the European Economic Community countries - are the biggest importers of pig meats in the world, but these 2 markets are the most difficult for Australia to break into. The United

Kingdom imports principally cured pig meats from Denmark, Poland and Ireland. The principal Common Market countries which import pork are France, West Germany and Italy. These are supplied by the European Economic Community countries themselves. As we are now more familiar with the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community we know that it is virtually a free trade area in itself with a huge protective barrier around it inhibiting imports from countries not in the Common Market. This makes it most difficult for Australia to break into the 2 main traditional markets, the United Kingdom and Europe. It wilt be difficult to increase our exports to those 2 markets. The only other area which appears to offer prospects for increased exports of pig meats is Asia. One example is Hong Kong. We must realise that China is an important country as far as pig production is concerned. China has the capacity to swamp any Asian market of any consequence.

Perhaps one of the best markets in the future will be Japan. If we handle the pig situation constructively Japan could emerge as a major importer of pig meats. The best market for pig meats is obviously our own domestic market. I would sound this note of warning about research into meats. There is a fairly stable aggregate demand for meat per capita. If one adds together the total consumption of beef, veal, mutton, lamb, poultry and pig meats one gets a fairly stable aggregate which is about 220 lbs of meat per annum. In the last 20 years or so the aggregate has varied around that figure. It is a fairly stable aggregate per capita per annum. Where the big change takes place is between meats. We have to be very careful about doing a lot of research and promotion in one of the meat industries. We could increase the domestic consumption of, say, pig meats at the expense of other meats. One could legitimately say: ‘So what?’ After all, pigs are competing with beef, lamb and so forth. It might be a good thing to reduce the consumption of beef and increase the consumption of pig meats at a time when we could sell all our beef on the export market and therefore gain a greater amount of export earnings. There is some logic in that.

I want to warn the Government that we have to be very careful in the promotion of meats. We are not going to get more people to eat more meat in the aggregate. It would simply mean that we would be spending a lot more money in the various research and promotion fields to get more people to change their dietary habits. One could then argue that it is a waste of resources simply to change from one to the other. The only people who would really benefit would be the advertising companies. There has been a marked change in the dietary habits of Australians with respect to pig meats. In 1950 the consumption per head per annum of carcass pig meats was approximately 7 lbs At the present time it is about 20 lbs. So there has been a significant increase in the ‘consumption per head and total consumption. On the other hand, the compensating factor has been a fall in beef and veal consumption. In 1950 the consumption per head of beef and veal was 124 lb. This has fallen to about 90 lb per head. So there has been a marked increase in the consumption of pig meats and a marked decrease in the consumption of beef. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with this provided that we can sell all our beef, which we have been able to do, and provided that the export market is as good as the domestic market.

It would seem that there is considerable scope in Australia, however, for increased consumption of pig meats. 1 mentioned before that, taking bacon into account, the total consumption of pig meat per head in Australia is 20 lb to 25 lb per annum. When we compare this with consumption in the United States of America, which “s approximately 65 lb per head per annum, we see that there is considerable scope for an increase in the consumption of pig meats in Australia. In European countries the consumption is as high as 85 lb per head per annum. So if Australia follows the pattern of other developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the continental countries, we can expect to see a steady increase in the consumption of pig meats in Australia. There are several factors which will bring this about. One relates to the dietary habits of people. Since the War we have had an influx of migrants, who are perhaps more prone 10 eat pork than are Australians. There has been an increase in the quality of pig meat and more housewives are ordering and cooking roast pork, pork chops and so on. than before.

Another factor is the price of feed grains. The pig industry is peculiar in that it is one of the few industries in Australia in which there has not been a significant increase in the cost of production because 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the cash costs of production of pigs are feed costs. As there has been a tremendous change in the pattern of production, from the traditional by-products of the dairy industry to grains, one sees that this is an industry in which considerable savings can be effected, lt is one of the few industries in which there has not been a significant increase in costs of production because ‘he price of feed grains has not increased at the same rate as the price of other feed stocks which contribute to the costs of production in other industries. Another factor affecting the consumption of pig meats is Australia is the lower price relatively for skim milk. So. taken by and large, there is a climate for a steady increase in the annual per capita consumption of pig meats in Australia.

What types of pig research are needed? The Victorian Farmers Union, whose representatives saw us, has put forward some constructive views on the types of research that are needed and what priorities they should be given. But looking at the problem of the pig industry in Australia as a whole and what we know from past experience, it is quite obvious that the productive efficiency of piggeries is relatively poor compared with overseas standards. Therefore we have those standards as a goal. This does not mean that we will reach overnight the very high standards of productive efficiency in, say, Denmark, the Netherlands or parts of the United States, but it does allow us to have a goal which we can aim to achieve over a period of time. Research work already shows that each sow has approximately 1.5 litters annually. The number of piglets born each year can obviously be increased significantly.

One of the most important avenues of fundamental and applied research in the pig industry is in regard to disease. I think

Australia has made tremendous advances in this field in recent years. As I said before, there has been a marked change in the pattern of pig production in Australia. In fact ‘pig’ used to be a dirty word. We used to think of pigs being raised in a pigsty, and the pigsty was regarded as a place to be avoided if possible. Today pigs are raised on grain in immaculately kept piggeries in some parts of Australia. In fact the mating and farrowing facilities for some pigs are better than the housing of some humans. This is good. After all why should they not have decent housing? As has been shown in America, one of the most significant variables in relation to mortality is inefficient mating and farrowing facilities. I am. very pleased to see that the commercial pig owners are now devoting a great deal of attention to improving facilities for management and husbandry based on principles which they know to be correct because they have been proven in other countries as well as in Australia.

There is a great need for research into feeding. As I said before, 70 per cent to 80 per cent of costs of pig meat production are in the feeding. 1 was amazed, when 1 studied in America, by the tremendous commercial efficiency of pig producers in the Mid-West. In fact most of their feeding programmes are worked out by computers. The best mixes and most of their profit variables in relation to those mixes are worked out by computers. The information is fed into the computers at the Universities of Iowa and Illinois. A farmer might ring up and say: ‘What is the best mix to use under present prices?’ He would get an answer within a matter of hours, lt might include all the protein values, whatever it might be, but those cost facilities were there. This illustrates that there is considerable scope for feeding research in Australia.

Another avenue of research is breeding stock and culling. In the area of north Queensland that I represent there must be some of the worst pigs in Australia. Most of them seem to be half wild or wild pigs. In fact if a person wants to get a pig for his lunch he goes out into the bush and spends a few hours finding one and catching it. I can tell honourable members that they are pretty tough to eat.

Mr Sinclair:

– As Mrs Beeton says, first catch your hare.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. Of course this is not the standard I am talking about when discussing this Bill. Certainly there has been a great improvement in pig standards in recent years. Surely the principles that apply to animal husbandry in regard to cattle apply also to pig husbandry. We must have good breeding stock and sound animal husbandry principles in regard to culling. The objective is the same - to get the maximum possible turnoff per annum. A man who can market 18 pigs per sow per year is financially better off than one who can market only 12.

Mr Robinson:

– He is doing pretty well.

Dr PATTERSON:

-I am quoting levels that have been achieved in Australia and

Certainly in other parts of the world. Maxi mum turnoff and minimum mortality are matters on which the research people, under this Bill, will obviously give a lead to the industry. My time is almost up. The Opposition will move the same amendments and go through the same motions, though perhaps for not as long, with regard to penalties. Here we have exactly the same amendments regarding averment and the 5 year provisions relating to the commencement of prosecutions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Robinson) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

page 1188

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Tarin’ Board (Question No. 1990)

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does the Tariff Board ignore statements on Government policy by the Prime Minister and himself.

    1. Has he stated that there is no way in which he cun inform the Board on Government policy.
    2. If so, will he seek the support of the Prime Minister in taking steps to enter into negotiations with the Board with a view to the establishment of clear and understandable guidelines to tariff policy.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and ri) In the House on 24th September 19h9 my predecessor as Minister for Trade and Industry said that ‘there would be no precedent for the Minister responsible for the Tariff Board writing to the Board and instructing it or seeking to influence it’.

Where the Government has considered it necessary to inform the Tariff Board of a specific policy objective when referring a particular industry to the Board this has been made clear in the terms of reference sent to the Board. In such cases the Tariff Board has always taken the Government’s specific objectives into account. i’) In ils recent Annual Reports the Tariff

Board has suggested a progressive review of the tariff and has described the approach it proposed to apply in considering whether an industry is economic and efficient and the level of tariff it would recommend.

The Government has decided that there should be a progressive review of the tariff and that the principles to be observed by the Tariff Board in that review, and in its normal tariff reviews, should be the subject of further examination by the Government

Tariff Board (Question No. 2132)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has additional staff been sought by the Tariff Board.
  2. Did the Public Service Board recommend the creation of additional staff positions at the beginning of June 1970.
  3. Was the Chairman of the Tariff Board informed that the matter raised important questions which be should discuss with the Minister at the first opportunity.
  4. Has the Tariff Board stated that the resources available to it have been fully occupied on normal tariff revision, dumping and New Zealand and Australia Free Trade Agreement inquiries and that it expects an increase in the number of by-law, dumping and NZAFTA matters.
  5. Has he had discussions with the Minister for Customs and Excise about the additional stall required by the Tariff Board; if not, why not.
  6. If he has had such discussions, what was the result.
  7. Was the desire of the Tarin” Board for more staff considered to be a matter of policy; if so, why.
  8. ls it a fact that the Government does not desire the Tariff Board to obtain more staff because of the possibility that it may then proceed with inquiries into high tariff areas and embarrass the Government by recommendations for reductions.
  9. Has it been decided that this is the best way to maintain independence of the Tariff Board whilst still avoiding problems of having to deal with any recommendations it may make for tariff reductions.
  10. When does he anticipate that the Tariff Board will have sufficient staff to complete the inquiries envisaged in ils reports for 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 which ure nol yet completed or even begun.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. During 1970, 38 additional positions were created in the Office of the Tariff Board. Submissions seeking a further 20 positions were made towards the end of the year and these are under consideration by the Public Service Board.
  2. , (3), (7), (8) and (.9) On 10th and 12th June 1970, the Public Service Board recommended the creation of a number of additional positions and approved the reclassification of a number of existing positions. In respect of nine of the additional positions, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry in response to a letter from the Chairman of the Tariff Board advised him that the conditions under which the Public Service Board recommended creation of these positions raised important policy questions which he would discuss with the Minister for Trade and Industry who had been overseas at that time. These nine additional positions were sought for work in connection with inquiries which would form part of a progressive review of the Tariff. At that time the question of whether there would be a progressive review of the Tariff was under consideration by the Minister. The additional nine positions were approved by the GovernorGeneralinCouncil on 1 1th September 1970. The Government has since decided that there should be a progressive review of the Tariff and that the principles to be applied by the Tariff Board in that review and in normal tariff inquiries would be the subject of further examination by the Government.

  3. The Tariff Board stated in its Annual Report for 1969-70 that the resources available to it had been fully occupied on normal tariff revision inquiries (including inquiries on some sections of chapter 84 of the Tariff) and dumping and NZAFTA inquiries. The Board also stated in its 1969-70 Annual Report that the Minister had recently informed the Board that he expected a significant increase in the number of by-law dumping and NZAFTA matters referred to the Board.

    1. and (6) Ministerial responsibility for the staffing of the Office of the Tariff Board rests with the Minister for Trade and Industry.
  4. When the Tariff Board considers that its work load warrants additional staff resources, its requests are submitted to the Public Service Board for examination in the normal way.

Tariff Board (Question No. 2133)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Trade and Industry:

  1. Did the Tariff Board in 1966-67 propose a progressive and systematic review of the tariff consisting of an internal examination by the Board of the structure and levels of protection in the tariff, together with public inquiries into the main areas of production where there had been no recent public inquiry and where the levels of protection were in the medium to high range.
  2. If so, what inquiries has the Board carried out as part of this progressive and systematic review and what public inquiries has the Board made into the main areas of production where there has been no recent public inquiry and where the levels of protection are in the medium to high range.
  3. Did the Board, in the same year, also propose a classification of industries into those which have (a) a high level of protection, (b) a medium level of protection and (c) a low level of protection, and state that it would not recommend protection for industries found to have little prospect of operating with an effective rate below SO per cent and, in the case of industries requiring an effective rate exceeding 25 per cent but not exceeding 50 per cent, it would be influenced by the likely effects on other industries and their prospects for more competitive production.
  4. If so, has the Board made this classification.
  5. Has the Board (a) proceeded to inquire into industries within this classification, (b) recommended that protection should not be given to industries found to have little prospect of operating with an effective rate below 50 per cent and (c) recommended that protection should not be given in the case of industries requiring an effective rate exceeding 25 per cent but not exceeding 50 per cent where the Board has been influenced by the likely effects on other industries and their prospects for more competitive production.
  6. If so, what are, in each case, the industries for which the Board has not made recommendations for protection.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In its Annual Report for 1966-67 the Board suggested that there would be advantages in conducting an inquiry into sections of Chapter 84 of the Tariff (which covers machinery and mechanical appliances). A summary list of the references under Chapter 84 since sent to the Board by the Minister is as follows:
  1. In its Annual Report for 1966-67 the Tariff Board stated that it proposed to establish an initial classification of industries into those which have (a) a high level of protection, (b) a medium level of protection and (c) a low level of protection in relation to the overall structure of assistance under which Australian import competing industries operate. In its Annual Report for 1967- 68 the Board stated that in the case of areas of production which are found to have little prospect of operating with an effective rate below 50 per cent, the Board would not recommend protection sufficient to allow the industries concerned to compete for resources on the same terms as low cost industries. In the same Report the Board also stated that in the case of activities requiring an effective rate of protection exceeding 25 per cent but not exceeding 50 per cent the Board would be influenced by the likely effects on other industries and their prospects for more competitive production.
  2. In its Annual Report for the year 1967-68 the Tariff Board presented a preliminary ranking of products according to height of ad valorem tariff protection and in its Annual Report for the year 1969-70 gave a classification of industries according to average effective rates of protection.
  3. and (6) With regard to the references referred to in (2) above, reports have been tabled on:

Agricultural, horticultural and other machinery and mechanical appliances, and parts therefor Gang slitting machines Centrifuges

Weighing machinery and weights Extrusion presses

In none of these reports has the Tarin Board recommended that protection should not be given because the industry had little prospect of operating with an effective rate below 50 per cent, nor has there been any recommendation that protection should not be given to an industry requiring an effective rate exceeding 25 per cent but not exceeding 50 per cent because of the likely effects on other industries and their prospects for more competitive production.

City Railways (Question No. 2307)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On what dales has (a) the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria written to his predecessor or him and (b) his predecessor or he written to each of them concerning Commonwealth assistance for city railways. (Hansard, 30th October 1970, page 3100).

Air McMahon - The answer to the hon ourable member’s question is as follows:

I reter the honourable member to the latter part of my predecessor’s answer to Question No. 1870 (Hansard, 22nd February 1971. page 473).

Exports: Cultural Property (Question No. 2308)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What response has there been from each

State and what information has been obtained overseas concerning legislation to control the export of cultural property since bis predecessor’s answer to me on J 0th March 1970 (Hansard, page 269)?

  1. Have there since been meetings of the interdepartmental committee convened in 1968 to consider the question?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The comparative approach based on information obtained from the States and overseas, which was adopted by the interdepartmental committee, proved inconclusive and further investigation is being undertaken by my Department, in consultation with other interested departments and authorities, seeking a satisfactory appreciation of the Australian situation and, in particular, to what extent cultural property is being exported. I do not expect an easy or an early solution.

Commonwealth Literary Fund (Question No. 2540)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What grants have been made out of the Commonwealth Literary Fund since its inception.
  2. What are the names of persons or organisations whose applications for grants have been unsuccessful.
  3. Did the Australasian Book Society submit an application for a grant.
  4. If so was it known at the time the application was under consideration that the Society had published fifty-nine works by Australian authors from its inception since 1952 to June 1970.
  5. Was the application unsuccessful; if so, what was the reason for declining assistance to this non-profit co-operative society which has made such a significant contribution to the encouragment of Australian literature.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer provided by Mr Gorton to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The following grants have been made out of the Commonwealth Literary Fund since its inception in 1908:

(2), (3), (4) and (5) It has been the policy not to furnish information concerning unsuccessful applications for assistance from the Commonwealth Literary Fund.

Year in which activity commenced.

Defence: F111C Aircraft (Question No. 2541)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that due to poor operating capabilities and escalating costs, production of the F111-C fighter-bomber will end next year?
  2. If so, what changes have been made or will be made to the Australian order?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. At present the production of F-Ill aircraft is scheduled to continue until July 1972 when a total of 540 aircraft, including two F-111Ks originally intended for the United Kingdom, will have been manufactured. The Australian Government is not aware of the extent to which funds will be made available for further, if any, aircraft by the United States Government, or of any reduction in funds. Consequently I am not in a position to advise when production might cease.
  2. No changes have been made to the order for the 24 F-111C aircraft. These aircraft have all been manufactured, but, in accordance with the Agreement dated 14th April, 1970 Mr Fraser signed with Mr Laird, United States Secretary of Defence, will not be accepted until they achieve certain specified technical and operational criteria.

Australian Wool Industry Conference (Question No. 2686)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry.

  1. Does he, like his predecessor, the present Minister for Trade and Industry, recognise the Australian Wool Industry Conference as being fully qualified to speak on behalf of the wool growers of Australia and with the full backing of the wool industry in general.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Australian Wool Industry Conference was established by the two federal woolgrower organisations in Australia, the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation.

The Conference comprises 25 members each from the Council and the Federation and an independent Chairman.

Since the Conference is representative of both federal woolgrower organisations I feel that it can reasonably claim to be qualified to speak on behalf of woolgrowers.

Defence: F111C Aircraft (Question No. 2723)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many F111C aircraft were accepted by the Australian Government?
  2. How many of these aircraft were returned on loan to the United States Air Force?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 ‘ ) One aircraft was accepted on behalf of the Australian Government on 4th September 1968, but because of difficulties with the wing carry through box the aircraft was placed in storage. The 24 F111C aircraft ordered by the Australian Government, including the one referred to above, have been manufactured. However in accordance with the agreement signed with Mr Laird, United States Secretary of Defense, on 14th April 1970, the aircraft will not be accepted by the Australian Government until they achieve certain specified technical and operational criteria.

  1. No F111C aircraft have been returned on loan to the United States Air Force.

Public Service (Question No. 2781)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many (a) men and (b) women are employed in each division of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Mr McMahon:
LP

– I refer the honourable member to page 107 of the Public Service Board’s Annual Report for the year ended 30th June 1970.

Government Aircraft Factory, Avalon (Question No. 2718)

Mr Scholes:

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

How many persons were employed al the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon on 1 February 1971 and in the 5 preceding years.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

lt should be noted that the above figures do not include those persons who work at Avalon airfield but who are employed by other departments, such as Civil Aviation, Works and Air, or by Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd.

Motor Vehicles: Fatal Accidents (Question No. 2928)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has there been any analysis to ascertain the makes of vehicles involved in fatal motor vehicle accidents in the last 5 years.
  2. If so, what were the results.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. My Department knows of no such analysis apart from results of sample surveys on topics such as fire in road accidents as recently reported by the Traffic Accident Research Unit in New South Wales.
  2. See answer to (1) above.

Open University (Question No. 2911)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Have any (a) officers of bis Department or (b) teachers in the Australian Capital Territory been sent to England to observe and report on the operation of the Open University.
  2. If not, will he consider sending officers or teachers for this purpose.
Mr David Fairbairn:
Minister for Education and Science · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My predecessor has provided the answer to the honourable member’s question, as follows:

  1. No.
  2. Not at this stage. Material published about the Open University is being kept under review.

Motor Vehicles: Safety Features (Question No. 2929}

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What are the names and addresses of (he laboratories approved by the Austraiian Motor Vehicle Certification Board for the testing of the safety features recommended by the Australian Transport Advisory Council.
  2. Are any of these laboratories affiliated with a particular section of the automotive industry.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. To date the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board has approved the following laboratories:

Ford Motor Co. of Aust. Ltd, Geelong, Victoria.

British Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Ltd. Waterloo, New South Wales.

Smiths Industries Pty Ltd, Guildford, New South Wales.

Approval is restricted to particular safety standards.

  1. Yes.

Native Members of the Forces Benefits (Question No. 2412)

Mr Whitlam on 16th February 1971 asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many claims have been met, and how many arc still (a) outstanding and (b) anticipated under the Native Members of the Forces (Papua and New Guinea) Benefits Regulations (Hansard, 21st May 1970, page 2619).
  2. What steps have been taken to publicise the regulations among indigenes.
  3. Has information been sent to the Rabaul Native Ex-Servicemen’s Association.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. Twelve claims have been met.

    1. There are no formal applications outstanding.
    2. There have been a number of preliminary inquiries concerning eligibility. Information and application forms have been provided upon request.

  2. Steps taken to publicise the regulations amongst the indigenes include:

    1. A further news release to all media.
    2. A circular sent to all field staff outlining regulations and calling for increased publicity.
    3. Correspondence with the Territory State Branch of the RSL and some subbranches.
    4. Discussions with various interested people.

  3. The regulations have been widely publicised in the Rabaul area including the Ex-Servicemen’s Association.

Regular Forces: Resettlement in Civilian Life (Question No. 2?74)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Which departments are represented on the inter-departmental committee established to consider resettlement in civilian life of members of the Permanent Forces.
  2. What was the date of the establishment of the Committee.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. Four departments are represented on the inter-departmental committee established to consider the resettlement of members of the Regular Forces. They are the Department of Labour and National Service, who provides the Chairman, ill( Departments of the Navy, Army and Air.
  2. The committee was established in 1957.

Armed Forces (Question No. 1754)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) officers and (b) noncommissioned officers from the (i) Citizen Forces and (ii) Reserve List were accepted for full-time service with the regular (A) Navy, (B) Army and (C) Air Force during each of the last 5 years.
  2. How many of these Officers are currently serving in each of the Forces.
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. and CDROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Public Service: Officers Studying Overseas - Wives’ Fares (Question No. 2312)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In what circumstances does the Commonwealth pay the fares for wives to accompany public servants whom it is sponsoring for courses of study overseas.

Mr McMahon:
LP

-I have been advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth sponsors public servants for courses, of study overseas in the following circumstances:

upon the award of a Commonwealth Public Service Postgraduate Scholarship, or

when the study is required by a’ department (e.g. to complete the Diploma of Clinical Pathology at the University of London or a course at the Royal College of Defence Studies).

In these cases the fares of the officer’s wife may be met by the Commonwealth when the officer selected proceeds overseas for a period of 12 months or longer.

The Commonwealth, by way of the grant of financial assistance, may support officers who undertake studies not covered by the above; but fares of wives are not payable by the Commonwealth in these cases.

Public Servants: Jury Service (Question No. 2763)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Do Commonwealth Public Service employees suffer any loss of wages or salary when called up for jury service.
  2. If so, will hetake steps to ensure that any losses are reimbursed.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I have been advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.

Commonwealth Employees: Sick Leave (Question No. 2704)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government considered a proposal under which Commonwealth employees may convert half-pay sick leave credits into full-pay sick leave entitlements.
  2. If so, what progress has been made in consideration of the proposal.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. No, but 1 am informed that the Public Service Board has this matter under consideration.
  2. The Public Service Board has advised me that the matter has been examined by a subcommittee of the Joint Council, a body representative of both management and Pubiic Service Staff Associations. At its last meeting, the Joint Council referred the matter to the Public Service Board for consideration.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Reseach Organisation (Question No. 2727)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 4 September 1970, in a decision on appeal from the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator, awarded increased salaries to senior principal research scientists, chief research scientists and chiefs of division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation stating that the decision was designed to give effect to the concept of a continuum in CSIRO research salaries and established a new relativity between the salaries of the senior officers and those of research scientists in the lower research scientist classifications.

    1. Is it a fact that the Public Service Board and the Executive of the CSIRO granted 15 per cent salary increases to research scientists in the lower research scientist classifications.
    2. If the answer to parts (1) and (2) is in the affirmative, will he take appropriate steps to ensure the restoration of the relativity referred to in part (1).
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The Public Service Board has informed me that in the decision which awarded increased salaries to senior principal research scientists, chief research scientists and chiefs of division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation the Commission, inter alia, stated: ‘We have also endeavoured to give effect to the concept of a continuum in the salaries of these senior officers and although no mathematical relationship has been created either within our increases or the salaries we award, we consider we have achieved a smoother salary pattern for the duties and responsibilities of these positions.

  2. (a) The Public Service Board granted in relation to research scientist staff employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1968 and the Executive of the CSIRO determined (wilh Public Service Board approval) in relation to research scientist staff employed under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949-1968, salary increases of 15 per cent for research scientist, senior research scientist, principal research scientist and at the minimum only of the. salary of senior principal research scientist.

    1. In the respective applications filed wilh the Public Service Arbitrator to give effect to the decisions referred to in (a) above, both the Public Service Board” and the Executive of the CSIRO, inter alia, stated:

The new rates for senior principal research scientist take into account the increases granted by the Full Bench of the Commission on appeal and the reasons therefor.’

  1. As the Public Service Board acts independently in the exercise of its statutory powers and responsibilities and is not subject to political direction, I do not propose to take the action requested.

Ministerial Statements and Speeches (Question No. 2703)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the arrangements relating to the costs of printing, supply and distribution of parliamentary statements and speeches by Ministers.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I am advised by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that:

A Minister may receive, gratis, from the Government Printer, up to 60 copies of any speech he makes and a question addressed to him and his answer thereto.

The cost is charged to the vote of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff under the heading “Hansard - Printing, distribution and binding”.

For a order in excess of 60 copies the Government Printer renders an account on the Minister. The reprints are delivered to his office in Parliament House, his Department or any other address nominated by him.’

In addition, it is common practice for Ministers to make available copies of statements and second reading speeches for immediate distribution. The copies, usually in duplicated form, are prepared in the Minister’s office or in the Department and their cost is borne by the Departments concerned.

Commonwealth Departments: Move to Canberra (Question No. 2310)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Departments and ‘ authorities have their headquarters outside Canberra.
  2. What is the programme for moving any et them.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Directory 1970 lists Commonwealth departments and authorities and gives the addresses of their headquarters. Since it was printed, phase II of the transfer programme has been completed by the transfer of the Head Office of the CSIRO to Canberra.
  2. Phase 111 of the transfer programme is outlined in the - Public Service Board Annual Report 1970 (page 101). This phase has been deferred in the light of the prevailing economic and budgetary conditions.

Order of the British Empire (Question No. 2315)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has consideration been given since his predecessor’s answers on 18th May 1967 (Hansard, page 2317) and 5th September !967 (Hansard, page 819) lo recommending appointments to an order less archaically named than the Order of the British Empire.

Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is ‘No’.

Northern Territory: Higher Education (Question No. 2484)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he bring up to dale the information on tertiary and technical education in the Northern Territory given on 13th October 1970 (Hansard, page 2073).

Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Education and Science · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Existing Facilities

Existing tertiary and technical education facilities in the Northern Territory are as set out in my predecessor’s answer to Question No. 1423 (Mansard, 13th October 1970, page 2073). Enrolments in both sectors of education have increased.

Proposed Facilities

The Parliamentary Committee on Public Works has recently completed ils hearings of evidence relating to the building proposals lor the Darwin Community College and it will be reporting to Parliament shortly on [his.

The Community College Planning Committee recently submitted its second report to my predecessor. This report deals with the government, organisation and staffing of the College. The recommendations in this report are still under consideration and I expect to be able to make an announcement about them in the near future.

Universities (Question No. 2295)

Mr MacKellar:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What was the average ;ige of entry to all Australian universities in (a) 1966 and (b) 1970.
  2. What was the average age of entry to colleges of advanced education in (a) 1966 and (b) 1970.
  3. Can he give an estimated breakdown of living costs for tertiary students living (a) at home and (b) away from home.
  4. Can he give an estimated breakdown of incidental education expenses, such as those for text-books, stationery, instruments, protective clothing, excursions and field trips, incurred by an average student studying (a) dentistry, (b) medicine, (c) arts and (d) law.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. The average age of entry to all Australian universities based on age at 31st December of the preceding year, was 20.6 years in 1966 and 20.4 years in 1970. However, between these 2 dates the Commonwealth Statistician revised his definition of a new student. The figures given are not therefore wholly comparable.
  2. This information is not available as details of ages of new students are not currently collected from colleges of advanced education.
  3. and (4) lt is not passible to provide this information al present in the detail sought by the honourable member.

Education: Secondary Schools Libraries (Question No. 2890) Mr Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What amount of the $27,000,000 made available under the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1968 for the triennium ending 3 1st December 1971 has been (a) allocated to and (b) spent by each of the States in (i) government and (ii) non-government schools.
  2. Which schools have received grants, and what was the amount in each case.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. la) The amount allocated to each Slate for the triennium ending 31st December 1971, for expenditure in government and non-government schools respectively is: (l)(b) The amount spent by each Stale on its own schools under the Commonwealth Secondary Schools Libraries Programme, and paid by each State lo meet expenditure by non-government schools, from Commonwealth funds advanced for the purpose, is set out below for the period 1st

January 1969 to 31st December 1970. The figures for some States are as yet subject to audit and the final figures could vary slightly.

  1. The names of those schools, both government and non-government, which have received grants were provided for the calendar year 1969 in a statement in the Parliament on 10th June 1970. The statement also contained the amounts paid to each non-government school in 1969. Similar information is being compiled in respect of the calendar year 1970 and, in accordance with Section 5 of the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1968, a statement containing that information for 1970 will be tabled as soon as possible. The Act does not, however, require that the statement should include details of the amount spent by each State in each government school concerned. This information is not collected by my Department.

Education: Pre-school Teachers Colleges (Question No. 2892)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What amount of the $2,500,000 made available under the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Act 1968 for the period ending 30th June 1971 has now been spent by each of the States.
  2. What was the amount available in each case.
Mr David Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth normally advances money to the private organisations responsible for the pre-school teachers’ colleges, on the basis of progress reports on the construction of the approved project and estimated expenditure for the ensuing quarter. Procedures for land acquisition are, of course, different.

The table below sets out the amounts already advanced to the approved organisations.

Because of some of the difficulties met by some of the various organisations, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, in acquiring land in order to expand their teacher training facilities it will not be possible to advance all the money available before the end of the current triennium. 1 propose, therefore, to introduce legislation this session to extend the ‘prescribed period’ from 30th June 1971 to 30lh December 1972.

Kangaroos (Question No. 2864)

Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. In regard to kangaroo killings has any attempt been made, with or without Stale co operation, to establish a permissible cropping rate which is regarded as a first principle in game management.
  2. If not, will consideration be given to the curtailment of commercial shooting until a cropping rate is established.
  3. Are transect flights a reliable method of counting kangaroos.
  4. If so, why was this method of counting discontinued.
  5. Did earlier CSIRO research in certain areas in central Australia and New South Wales reveal an alarming reduction in the number of kangaroos in the research area.
  6. ls this type of research still carried out by the CSIRO.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Are matters which are predominantly administered by the relevant State authorities. Several Stales have attempted to control cropping rales by introducing licensing of shooters and kangaroo meat chillers.

    1. The method is reliable both as a research tool and for the continuous monitoring of kangaroo numbers. For the latter purpose, however, in a State management programme, it would be very expensive.
    2. In CSIRO, the method was used in a research programme to determine numbers and movements of kangaroos in specified areas in a variety of climatic regimes. The programme was terminated because its prime aim was achieved.
    3. While studies by CSIRO and other bodies showed that kangaroo numbers were severely depleted in parts of the area in question as a result of the combined effects of prolonged drought and expanded shooting, more recently there have been signs that kangaroos are increasing in number. The Inst meeting of the Australian Fauna Authorities’ Conference, comprising representatives of State and Commonwealth fauna bodies, expressed its view that the exploited species, that is. the grey and red kangaroos, face no threat of extinction.
    4. No.

Civil Aviation: Air Safety Investigation (Question No. 2849)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon not ice:

  1. ls it a fact that on 29th January 1971, at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport there was a near serious accident between a Canadian Pacific DCS aircraft and a Trans Australia Airlines Boeing 727.
  2. If so, did the Department of Civil Aviation commence an inquiry into the accident.
  3. If an inquiry was held, what was the result.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The detailed investigation being conducted by the Air Safety Investigation Branch is still in progress and, when it has been completed, a report will be produced for the information of all interested parlies. As this investigation involves considerable inquiry overseas to the Canadian

Operator, to the Canadian Department of Transport and to aircraft manufacturers, it is not likely that this report will be completed more quickly than is normal.

Royal Australian Navy (Question No. 2816)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many Navy vehicles were involved in accidents during -

    1. 1968,
    2. 1969 and

  2. How many -

    1. civilians, and
    2. navy personnel were
    1. injured and
    2. killed in these accidents.

  3. How many Navy personnel were charged with offences arising out of these accidents.

Dr Mackay:
LP

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

  1. –

      1. 161 accidents,
    2. 1969, 181 accidents.
    3. 1970, 151 accidents.

  2. –

    1. civilians -
    1. 1968, 10 injured; 1969. 16 injured; 1970, 10 injured.
      1. nil killed: 1969, nil killed: 1970, I killed.
    3. Navy personnel -
    1. 1968, 11 injured; 1969, 19 injured: 1970. 10 injured.
    2. 1968, nil killed; 1969, nil killed; 1970, nil killed.

  3. Navy personnel charged with offences -

    1. 1968, 9.
    2. 1969, 4.
    3. 1970, 2.

Royal Austraiian Navy (Question No. 2817)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many vehicles driven by Navy personnel, but nol owned by the Navy, were involved in accidents in -

    2. 1969 and

  2. How many-

    1. civilians, and
    2. Navy personnel were fi) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents.

  3. How many Navy personnel were charged with offences arising out of these accidents.

Dr Mackay:
LP

– The answer to the honour able member’s questions are as follows:

The great majority of motor vehicle accidents in which Naval personnel are involved occur when they are travelling in privately owned vehicles and in their own time. Consequently there are no authoritative Service records of. the circumstances in which these accidents occur or of the contributing causes. These accidents are reported to the local police in accordance with local traffic law and included in the ordinary way in any relevant statistics compiled by the civil authorities. Convictions of naval personnel in the civil courts, arising from such accidents, are similarly included in any relevant statistics compiled by the civil authorites.

If the question is taken to include vehicles on hire to the Navy, for example those owned by the Department of Supply and supplied on hire, the details in respect of such vehicles are as follows:

–

1968, 6 accidents,

1969, 10 accidents,

1970, 7 accidents.

–

civilians -

1968, 1 injured; 1969, 1 injured; 1970. 2 injured.

  1. nil killed; 1969, nil killed; 1970, nil killed.

Navy personnel -

1968, nil injured; 1969, 2 injured; 1970, 1 injured.

1968, nil killed; 1969, nil killed; 1970, nil killed.

Navy personnel charged with offences: 1968 nil;

1969, 1;

1970, nil.

Royal Australian Navy (Question No. 2611)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many persons:

    1. applied, and
    2. were accepted for enlistment in the Navy in each of the last 10 years.

  2. How many applicants were rejected on:

    1. medical grounds, and
    2. educational grounds.
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

  1. Number of persons who applied and were enlisted in the RAN.
  1. Number of persons who were rejected by the RAN on medical and educational grounds:

(Question No. 2847)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many sea cadets are there in each State.
  2. Where is each of the cadet units located and where they are located at secondary schools what are the names of the schools.
  3. How many permanent officers and other ranks in the Royal Australian Navy are engaged in training cadets.
  4. How many reserve officers and other ranks are engaged in training cadets.
  5. What is the total cost to the Navy of maintaining, equipping, training, accommodating and generally servicing the cadet corps.
  6. What amount was contributed in each of the last 3 years by the Navy League in support of the Australian Sea Cadet Corps.
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

(2V-

Queensland - Cairns, Townsville (section at Townsville

State High School).

Mackay, Bundaberg (section at Christian

Brothers High School).

Stafford (sections at Kedron State High, Brisbane Grammar and Wavell State High).

New Farm (section at Cavendish Road High).

East Brisbane (unit at Church of England

Grammar School). Southport. Victoria-

Latrobe Valley, Melbourne, Williamstown, Geelong, Bendigo, Mildura, Portland. South Austraia -

Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln, Adelaide. Western Australia -

Fremantle, Geraldton, Kwinana, Albany.

New South WalesNewcastle. Manly (section at Barrenjoey High). Snapper Island. Woolwich, Canterbury.. Arncliffe (section at James Cook Memorial High School). Gosford, Parramatta, Wollongong (39 Units). Tasmania. -

Burnie, Ulverstone, Devonport, Georgetown, Launceston, Hobart. Australian Capital Territory -

Canberra. Northern Territory - Darwin.

In addition, 106 cadets are borne in RANR school units at Scots College, Sydney; Sydney Grammar School, Sydney and St Ives High School, St Ives, New South Wales.

  1. There are no PNF officers or sailors engaged in training cadets at unit level. The following PNF personnel are borne for administrative and training co-ordination duties:

Full Time - 1 officer and 1 senior sailor

Part Time- 13 officers:

  1. There are no Reserve officers or sailors engaged in training cadets as part of their Reserve duties. Of the 300 officers and instructors in the corps, 32 are members of the Citizen Naval Forces who voluntarily serve with the corps in addition to their normal Reserve activities.
  2. The total annual cost of the ASCC to the RAN is currently 5111,500. This cost includes all pay and allowances for ASCC personnel, travel, victualling, stores and clothing, lt also includes $562.50 paid to the Navy League on the basis of 50c for each cadet considered efficient. At this time the RAN is not responsible for accommodating the ASCC except during continuous training periods.
  3. This is not known. The efficiency allowance of $562.50 is disbursed by Navy League to units on the basis of number of efficient cadets borne. The Navy League and its affiliates are responsible for the provision and maintenance of cadet training centres and general administrative costs in the day to duy running of the organisation.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 March 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710330_reps_27_hor71/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant