House of Representatives
4 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2423

PETITIONS

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– 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 Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully sheweth:

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

Perth Airport

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned residents of the State of Western Australia respectfully showeth:

That the present site of the Perth Airport is unsuitable because of -

the morning fogs.

its proximity to the Darling Ranges.

its lack of planning, prior to construction.

the loss to the local authority in rates and loss to the community in acreage of development areas and assets.

the restriction placed on the development of surrounding shires due to existing flight paths and proposed flight paths; and

the adjacent areas to the airport are suffering loss of value due to their unsuitability for high density development.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken to remove Perth airport from its present site to the site planned by Professor Stephenson’s overall plan for the city of Perth, that is at Lake Gnangarra.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot affordto hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provisions for - 1: The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Insitutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system. (b)a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  2. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  3. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provisions for -

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction’ from income ‘ for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees Compensation

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 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 employees of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth that the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act is inadequate inasmuch as it fails to:

Provide for no loss of wages for an employee on compensation.

Compensate for all illness or injuries arising during employment.

Provide for fair and open judgment of compensation claims.

Remove many other existing anomalies.

We further submit the amendments already proposed by the Government would do little or nothing to improve the Act. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will respond to our plea for more enlightened legislation and act to make the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act a most beneficial piece of legislation in this field.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Employees Compensation

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned employees of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth that the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act is inadequate inasmuch as it fails to:

Provide for no loss of wages for an employee on compensation.

Compensate for all illness or injuries arising during employement.

Provide for fair and open judgment of compensation claims.

Remove many other existing anomalies.

We further submit the amendments already proposed by the Government would do little or nothingto improve the Act. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will respond to our plea for more enlightened legislation and act to make the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act a most beneficial piece of legislation in this field.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Use of Chemical Substances

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

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

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical sub stances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 2425

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the. Interior a question. Now that the decision has been handed down in the Gove land case will he reply to the letter sent to his predecessor by the Yirrkala Mission last December and repeated last February about the encroachment of Nabalco on the Mission grounds? In particular, I ask him: Is it a fact that the mining lease under which Nabalco is now operating goes so close to the Yirrkala Mission station that it would mean the removal of the town and its Aboriginal inhabitants when blasting takes place in that part of the lease? Is it a fact that the granting of this lease means that the Federal Government has failed to honour its original undertakings to the Mission and the people that the lease would not come within 2 miles of the Mission boundary? Finally, is it a fact that the action in regard to the consolidation of the four leases was taken without consultation with the Aboriginals in spite of the undertaking originally given?

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

– This whole question is a matter for the Government to consider, and the Government will be making a decision in the light of the judgment in this case. Of course, there is the possibility of an appeal to the High Court of Australia. I will make it my business to look at the various points that the Leader of the Opposition has raised, and I will give him an answer in due course.

page 2425

QUESTION

KERR COMMITTEE

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I refer to the Kerr Committee which was instituted last October to investigate the problems of pay, allowances and conditions of service of members of the Armed Services. I have heard very little of the activities of this Committee since it was formed. Will the Minister for Defence inform me whether this Committee is making progress in its investigations?

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

– Yes, the Kerr Committee has been engaged in quite a detailed gathering of evidence. I have myself spoken to the Chairman of the Committee. It has taken evidence from a variety of sources. I believe that there will quite’ shortly be a report from the Kerr Committee which will be presented on this whole question of pay and allowances of the Services.

page 2426

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for External Territories aware of the widespread uncertainty and disquiet among expatriate employees in Papua New Guinea regarding their future employment, promotion and superannuation rights? Does this apply particularly to employees who would have difficulty in obtaining comparable employment in Australia? Will the Minister accede to the many requests made to me in Papua New Guinea last week that a statement be made outlining what specific guarantees and provisions the Commonwealth will make to cover these employees?

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The Government is very concerned to maintain high morale among expatriate officers in the Papua New Guinea Public Service. The Government from time to time has introduced schemes which the Government believes will maintain this confidence and hope for the future with the view that these employees will be able to pursue a satisfactory career in their calling. Circumstances are changing in Papua New Guinea. I believe that the sorts of policies that we have accepted need to be reviewed from time to time. The matters which have been brought up by the honourable member are under consideration at present. But I emphasise that it is most important that we retain the confidence of public service officers in Papua New Guinea in the future opportunities in that country.

page 2426

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question. Since the future price of wool is a major factor in the viability of many wool growers, will the Minister ask the Australian Wool Commission, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and, in addition, an overseas independent concern which would specialise in this type of matter to make an immediate survey of future prices and demand for wool? As any increase in the price of wool would bring more people into the rural reconstruction proposal, will the Minister initiate some form of bridging finance to assist those who would not be viable on present price levels but who ‘ would be viable at higher price levels?

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

– The first part of the honourable gentleman’s question refers to something of the difficulties in: ascertaining the long term prospects for wool as a - textile fibre. This is a field wherein it is extremely difficult to get accurate information although the Government has been in receipt of advice from the Australian Wool Board and from the International Wool Secretariat for many years. From these sources, it has been possible to keep relatively well identified present trends but not necessarily future prospects.

In order to ensure that there should be a greater understanding of the present position, the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics left for overseas nearly 3 weeks ago arid is to return, I think, about the end of this week. He has been charged with the task of inquiring personally into the present circumstances of demand for wool as a textile fibre. I trust that, following his return, I might be in a better position to consider the substance of this part of the question which the honourable member put to me.

The second part of the question asked by the honourable member related to the difficulties that some farmers undoubtedly will face in meeting the viability criteria. Viability’ is not necessarily, a word that I like; but it is a word which as well as any other, I guess, covers the possible prospects, for the profitability of farmers. But within the rural reconstruction scheme no doubt many farmers will find it . difficult, at present wool prices, to meet that criterion. I believe that there is quite a deal of flexibility within the scheme which will enable the administering authorities to take account, or some account, of changing market .circumstances. I will take into account the request made by the honourable member when considering the operation of the. scheme to ensure that if there is a deficiency it will .be brought to the Government’s attention.

page 2427

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

Mr SCHOLES:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of charges made by the Premier of Victoria that the Commonwealth is avoiding its financial responsibilities under the pensioner medical scheme and thus forcing the State Government to increase hospital charges and also causing a resultant increase in hospital benefit payments to people in the State of Victoria. Has the Premier of Victoria raised this matter with the Commonwealth? Has he alleged that the Commonwealth is avoiding financial responsibility to the tune of $27m?

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

– The Premier of Victoria has not raised this matter with me since I became the Prime Minister but I know that it is a chronic complaint of his. I will look up the records and find out exactly what he said in other days.

page 2427

QUESTION

STEELWORKS

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that negotiations for the . establishment of a second steelworks in New South Wales are being jeopardised by the attitude of the Western Australian Government, with the result that the consortium concerned is now looking at alternatives in South America and South Africa? Is he aware that the Premier of Western Australia has failed to give the consortium any assurance about iron ore supplies? Would the establishment of the steelworks represent an investment of about one billion dollars in New South Wales and Western Australia and contribute very substantially to our export income? Will the Prime Minister consider intervening urgently to break the deadlock in Western Australia and thus ensure that the consortium is encouraged to establish a second steel industry in New South Wales?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Representatives of the Armco Corporation saw me a few weeks ago and they drew my attention to 2 difficulties which they faced prior to commencing the establishment of an iron and steel industry in Australia involving the expenditure of more than one billion dollars. The 2 points that they raised with me related fundamentally to a guaranteed or assured supply of iron ore. They were then intending to visit Western Australia, particularly to see the Premier, to ascertain whether they could have guaranteed access to the Pilbara iron ore deposits. I have since received a letter from them saying that they have had sensible discussions with the Western Australian Government but that there had been no finality. They did not express any opinions about the prospects of a final lease from the Western Australian Government.

As this is an important matter, particularly as the Armco Corporation will be export orientated, I will have a discussion with my colleague the Minister for National Development and either I or he will speak to the Premier of Western Australia to see whether we can get a quick decision. I should let the honourable member know that I think - in fact I am fairly sure - that we have been in constant contact with the Western Australian Government. Nonetheless, I will take action immediately to see whether we can get a quicker decision than would otherwise be the case.

page 2427

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for External Territories a question. Is the Ministerial Member who is in charge of immigration and emigration in Papua New Guinea empowered, on his own authority, to deport persons in the Territory and to refuse entry permits to persons wishing to come into the Territory?

Mr BARNES:
CP

– I advise the honourable member that the Ministerial Member is empowered under his own authority to issue permits, but I am not sure whether he has the power to deport. I shall inquire into the matter and advise the honourable member.

page 2427

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Is it a fact that a new roll-on roll-off Australian National Line ship is due to leave Sweden on 10th May for Australia? Has the left wing secretary of the Seamen’s Union been given a first class round trip by air to Sweden to inspect this ship before her departure? Why could not the secretary have waited until the ship’s arrival in Australia? Did the Australian National Line pay for this round first class air trip and is this another example of ship owners pandering to the left wing led maritime unions while they get tough with the more reasonable right wing unions?

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

– The Australian National Line has a 25 per cent interest in the company PAD Australia. The honourable member may know that the other interests are held by Elder Smith and the Swedish owned company Trans Austral. PAD Australia owns the ship ‘Allunga’ which is due to sail from its port on about 7th or 8th May. It is true that PAD Australia is paying the return air fare for the secretary of the Seamen’s Union. The company issued an invitation to the secretary of the Seamen’s Union in his personal capacity because the ship is a new concept - indeed, a new design, with new methods of cargo handling - and it was felt by the company that, as the ship is to be manned by an Australian crew, it was desirable that the secretary of the Seamen’s Union should see the ship in operation at a very early date. I understand that this is a constant practice in the shipping world and that there are indeed precedents for it.

page 2428

QUESTION

DRUGS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise by referring to the dramatic increase in drug consumption among young people over the last 2 to 3 years and the fact that drug peddling is no longer symptomatic of the inner city areas but now also occurs in the outer fringe districts. I ask the Minister: Is it true that a dope pedlar can buy hashish in the East for $12 a kilo and sell it in Australia for $1,200 a kilo? If so, does the Government consider the sentence imposed last Friday by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal on a Mr C. J. Peel of 3 years gaol with possible parole after only 9 months as adequate, as the person sentenced could be released to continue his trading after a period of only 9 months, keeping in mind that he was convicted of importing hashish valued at between $7,000 and $9,000 on the Australian illicit market? Can the Minister indicate how the judiciary can be made to realise that much stronger sentences should be given in order to discourage dope pedlars of this type? Also, can the Government approach the States to influence them to increase the number of personel in the respective drug squads or their equivalents so that they will be properly equipped to tackle this problem?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– I am acquainted with the case that the honourable gentleman has mentioned. Some time ago, the narcotics squad of the Department of Customs and Excise apprehended the person named by the honourable member and he was found to be carrying 15 lb of hashish. He was prosecuted and convicted and a judge fined him $400 and gave him 6 months in which to pay. I reacted rather strongly to that sentence which I considered completely inadequate, because the Commonwealth Act specifies that the maximum sentence for such an offence is $4,000 or 10 years gaol or both. Therefore, I instructed my Department to discuss an appeal with the Attorney-General’s Department. An appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal which last Friday, I understand, brought, in a sentence of 3 years’ gaol. The Court ‘ also allowed parole after 9 months, . depending on the usual circumstances. While it would not be my function to comment on the sentence, about which I have personal views, I would say . that the words the judges used in their, judgement give us a great deal of heart because here we have a Court of Criminal Appeal in which for the first time in Australia 3 eminent judges have stated specifically, that they regarded this as a serious offence. I would hope that those words of such a court would filter down to other courts in the nation and to courts of summary jurisdiction as well.

The honourable gentleman mentioned the profits that are obtainable from hashish.. His figures are essentially correct. I think the profit is something like 5000 per cent or 6000 per cent.

The last part of the honourable gentleman’s question concerned State drug squads. I thank the honourable gentleman for his reference to these organisations. Of course, State drug squads are outside of the function of the Commonwealth. All I can say publicly is that I am informed by the. narcotics squad of my Department that now we receive nothing but the utmost cooperation from all State drug squads in the Commonwealth.

page 2428

QUESTION

DEATH DUTIES

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer give serious consideration before the next Budget to the iniquitous situation that applies when total realisation of an estate does not cover total death duties when probate cannot be declared promptly? Does he agree that there is no justice in equity for beneficiaries under these circumstances?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot agree with anything, in equity or otherwise, until I examine the matter. That is exactly what I shall do and give the honourable gentleman an answer.

page 2429

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. When did the Minister receive the report of the Tariff Board on sulphur bearing materials and sulphuric acid made from indigenous materials? In view of the drastic and continuing’ declining price, of imported sulphur at $16 a ton f.b.b. Gulf and. Canadian ports compared with more than twice that amount pertaining at the time when I believe the Tariff Board completed the report, would not the Minister agree that the Tariff Board report could now be considered out of date? Finally, when will the report be tabled, and will we be given an opportunity to debate the recommendations, if necessary, before Parliament rises this week, in view of the disabilities being faced by producers pf acid from indigenous materials? -

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

– I have received a report from the Tariff Board and . a decision on this matter is imminent. This matter has been before the Government for a period of time - I cannot recall just how long - but I would hope that in the very near future a statement will be made. This is a complex question which needs a little examination. I understand the need for the industry to have this decision and the concern that is being expressed. I would have hoped to table the report during this week so that the House could debate it, but I do not think it is possible to do so in view of the present time table. However, I certainly want to present the report as soon as possible.

page 2429

QUESTION

STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY LINE FROM MANGALORE TO TOCUMWAL

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I preface my question by reminding the Minister of the fact of the economic importance to northern Victoria and the

Riverina if the railway line between Tocumwal and Mangalore could be standardised and the fact that this would provide an alternative standard rail gauge link between the two States. Will the Minister inform the House of what steps have been taken or are being taken to ascertain the feasibility of such a rail link and what priority, if any, has been allocated to this project?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– I am able to inform the honourable member for Murray that the Commonwealth and State Railways Commissioners have carried out a detailed survey of the feasibility of standardisation of the 88-mile railway link between Tocumwal and Mangalore. Whilst it was recognised that there were some advantages to industry in the area, particularly the wheat industry which would be given direct access to the Geelong terminal, it was felt by the Commissioners that the cost of such a programme of standardisation was not warranted because of the small volume of traffic. It was felt also that other means’ such as a bogie exchange could be used to achieve the same end. But there is a secondary problem. The Victorian Government has the statutory responsibility for the handling of wheat and it is believed that the extra flow of wheat that would come as a result of standardisation would put a burden on the Geelong terminal. I am unable, therefore, to give any encouragement to the honourable member because he will recognise that such a programme would require the support of the Victorian Government.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I ask the right honourable gentleman whether Fill aircraft are again grounded in the United States following a further crash. If so, will the Government begin immediate negotiations to terminate our agreement to purchase this unhappy craft and recoup as much as possible of the more than $300m already sent to the United States for their purchase? Will the right honourable gentleman see that the redeemed funds are channelled into rural reconstruction along with the $100m already proposed so that the funds may achieve lasting good?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman must recognise that I have not a detailed knowledge of this matter. It would have been ever so much better if he had directed his question to the relevant Minister. I will discuss it with the relevant Minister and see that he gives the honourable gentleman a reply.

page 2430

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. I refer to the strike programme yesterday by unions in the power industry in New South Wales in support of a 35-hour working week. Is this not an example of increasing industrial lawlessness over an issue which, if introduced, woud be economic madness, particularly at the present time?

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

– As the honourable gentleman has suggested, yesterday’s strike within the New South Wales power industry by certain unions is a further example of the growing militancy of unions in Australia and the attempt by some unions to exercise their industrial power in deliberately seeking to coerce both employers and the general community by taking direct action outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It must be observed that if the unions felt that they had a legitimate case to put they would have been prepared to put it before the Commission. The fact that they have not done so must surely indicate that they have grave doubts as to the merits of their case. The plain fact of the matter is that Australia cannot afford the introduction of a 35-hour working week, particularly in the light of today’s economic realities. As I have said in the House before, the introduction of a 35-hour working week would lead to an increase in the annual wages bill of well in excess of 10 per cent.

If I could put that in another way, the loss in additional hours, if a 35-hour working week were to be introduced, can be taken up only in one of two directions, either by employing additional labour or by working additional overtime. According to the latest estimates of my Department, if the loss in working hours were to be made up by the recruitment of additional labour the cost to the general community would be between $ 1,500m and $2,000m, and if the loss in working hours were to be made up by additional overtime then the cost to the general community would be between $2,200m and $3,000m. The hon ourable gentleman, as I recall, used the phrase ‘economic madness* and in terms of the facts which I have outlined I believe that description to be well founded.

page 2430

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL CHILD MINDING CENTRES

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. When will the Government implement the undertaking given 18 months ago at the opening of the Senate election campaign to establish pre-school child minding centres throughout Australia? Has the matter been the subject of consultation with the States? If so, what has been the response? Has agreement been reached and on what basis is the scheme to proceed, if in fact it is to proceed?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– During the 1970 Senate election campaign the Government announced as a new Commonwealth initiative, as the honourable gentleman has mentioned - the introduction of a scheme to assist in the introduction and operation of child care centres of approved standard. It did so, as I recall, against a background of concern that the care, development and welfare of children whose mothers worked should be safeguarded. .The honourable gentleman would be aware that the increase in the number of married women in the work force has been 3 times as great as increases in other sections of the work force. Detailed investigations carried out by my Department have indicated that the facilities available in the pre-school area are in fact inadequate for the needs which exist. These facts have not changed and neither has the Government’s appreciation of them, but what has changed of course is the economic situation, which may be a matter of some surprise to the Opposition because it seeks to treat these fundamental matters in a most lighthearted way.

It is because of this Government’s appreciation of the importance of restraining inflationary pressures within the general community that the Government has embarked on a deliberate policy of curtailing Commonwealth expenditure. It is in the light of that policy, and having regard to the need to determine priorities in relation to Commonwealth expenditure, that this project, although a most valuable and important one, has been deferred for the time being. I might add that in the meantime the Government parties have established a Government members’ committee under the convenorship of my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield and that the results of that committee’s research and that which has already been undertaken by an interdepartmental committee will be most useful to the Government when this matter is further considered.

page 2431

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Minister seen the recent submission or report of the Australian Union of Students? Does he agree with the Union’s contention that the number of university scholarships is inadequate?

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

– Yes, I have received a submission from the Australian Union of Students on Commonwealth scholarships. The submission has been sent to my Department, which is looking at it, and also to the Commonwealth Scholarships Board, which , has agreed to meet representatives of the Australian Union of Students later this month to discuss some aspects of the submission. However, I feel that some of the allegations made in the submission are misleading and others are inaccurate. The Commonwealth has done a lot to assist students by way of awarding scholarships. Since the Commonwealth scholarship scheme began I believe that a total of more than SI 55m has been expended on 133,000 Commonwealth tertiary scholarships. We are constantly examining scholarships and upgrading them. As I am sure all honourable members will realise, an increase was recently granted in the living away from home allowance. That allowance has increased from $1,000 to $1,100 per annum and the living at home allowance has increased from $620 to $700 per annum. In addition, the amount paid on average for student fees has increased from $408 to $450. There has been also an increase in the number of tertiary scholarships. I am sure the honourable member will realise that since 1965 the number of tertiary scholarships awarded by the Commonwealth has more than doubled. Of course, we are still looking at this. In fact, this year 65,000 students are receiving scholarships the. total cost of which is about $38m. So the Commonwealth is doing a vast amount in this field.

Of course, it is not only Commonwealth scholarships which are available to students at universities; there are also State scholarships and bursaries as well as a number of other scholarships such as scholarships to Aboriginals and for teacher training in the Australian Capital Territory, and industrial scholarships. Many Commonwealth departments grant scholarships. For example, the Services grant scholarships in order to encourage the training of people who on completion of their courses will give a certain amount of time to the Services before they turn to private employment. It is not only scholarships which determine how many people go to universities. Certainly a scholarship makes it easier for a person to go to university and it does enable some to go who otherwise would not be able to go. But in the long run the number of people who can go to universities in Australia is determined by the bricks and mortar factor and by the availability of teachers.

Mr McMahon:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 2431

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the moving of a motion to refer to the Standing Orders Committee the question of the tune to be allowed for questions without notice.

This matter was brought before the House on 1st April and at that time was fully discussed by honourable members. Shortly I will quote the speech made in this House by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) during that debate. The Opposition pointed out then that since the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) assumed that office honourable members had been allowed 421, 401, 34i, 38 and 41 minutes for question time. For some time after the Opposition moved that motion on 1st April, during the discussion of which the honourable member for Bradfield made his remarks in the House in effect agreeing with the motion - I will quote his remarks from Hansard in a minute - the Prime Minister reformed for a period. It has been obvious in the last week or so that he has become recalcitrant again.

On 6th April we received for question time 43i minutes, on 7th April 49 minutes, on 20th April 441 minutes, on 21st April 42 minutes, on 22nd April 45* minutes, on 23rd April 52i minutes - this was actually only 30 minutes because that was the occasion on which the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was ousted - on 27th April 41 minutes, on 28th April 44 minutes, on 29th April 39 minutes, yesterday, 3rd May . 37 minutes and today the Prime Minister took approximately 8 minutes off our question time. I will quote now what the honourable member for Bradfield said on this matter when it was before the House on 1st April. He said:

The Prime Minister would ‘be wise to pay regard to the sentiments that have been expressed during this debate. I will not vote for ‘the Opposition motion at this point of time but if the Prime Minister does not pay regard to what has been said I shall have to reconsider my position oh another occasion However, I believe he ‘ is wise enough and sensible enough to - pay regard to what has- been said here today;

Quite obviously the Prime Minister has not been wise enough to pay heed to what was said in this chamber. Even now, when a resolution has been moved in this chamber , which affects directly his decision to cut down the time allowed for questions, the’ Prime Minister has left the chamber. That shows the respect that he has for the forms and traditions of this Parliament. It is vital that the back benchers have the right to question the Cabinet, to raise issues on a day to day basis on the administration of the Government, and to be able to ask questions without notice so that the Ministry is kept under the scrutiny of this chamber and of the public.

Now the Prime Minister has got up and walked out of the House, even though one of the members from his own side of the House, the honourable member for Bradfield, warned him last time the matter was before the House that he may have to reconsider his position if the Prime Minister did not show more common sense in the future. I ask that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. We cannot go on indefinitely having question time whittled down, as it has been steadily ever since Mr McMahon became the Prime Minister of this country. I have here figures showing the average time for questions without notice, going back over the years.These figures do not take into account minor points of order taken during question time but they do take into account such items as the suspension of Standing Orders. In 1970 we had a different Prime Minister of this country.

Mr Hurford:

– We would even prefer to have Gorton, wouldn’t we?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Sometimes we look back on him almost with nostalgia. He at least paid some respect to the forms and traditions of this Parliament and saw the need to. stop using the devices that are being used today. Let us look at the legislation which is coming before the House at. this point of time. Recently 2 important Bills were introduced into the House, at 2.30 in the morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member knows the wording of his motion and I suggest that he keep to it.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Very well, Mr Speaker. I was saying that the Government is guilty not only on this score but also on other scores. No doubt we will hear more about that as this week wears on. In 1970 the average time given to questions without notice was 43 minutes 7 seconds. In 1969 it was 44 minutes 10 seconds. So that is the answer to the Prime Minister’s suggestion in the previous debate on this matter on 1st April that the time for petitions was always included in question time. That has not been the case. I recall that when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister he always gave extra time if petitions took up a fairly lengthy period. Furthermore, I am quite certain that Mr Gorton did the same thing.

For these reasons I feel that the issues should be looked at. We have even found that the time for prayers has been included in question time. I do not think that is just. I suggest that in future the Standing Orders Committee should look very carefully at this issue to protect the Parliament and to ensure that honourable members are given ample opportunity to question Ministers, to ask them questions without notice, to put them under the scrutiny of this chamber and of all the people, and to make sure that in future this disrespect for the traditions of the Parliament is removed. In view of what the honourable member for Bradfield said at the last time this matter was debated, I ask him to express his attitude in this House today. I believe that many other members sitting on the back benches on the opposite side of the House should also join with us on this side to protect the traditions and the future of this chamber.

Mr Grassby:

– I rise to second the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh also has risen to second it. Is the motion seconded? Mr Clyde Cameron - Yes. I second it and I would like to speak now.

Mr Swartz:

– Will you reserve your right to speak?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right. You will not gag me?

Mr Swartz:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Bradfield.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– My name has been mentioned by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) in the course of this debate, and with approval. He made some strange suggestions. I thought he was implying that we should eliminate prayers. I think that prayers are rather necessary. I do not retract anything I said on the previous occasion, but I think that some of the things I said were not quoted. I did point out that the discretion residing in the Prime Minister was a desirable thing to retain because there were occasions when we may need longer time and other occasions when we may need a shorter time for questions. The honourable member for Chifley did not quote that part of what I said.

My sentiment is entirely with the honourable member for Chifley, but my head will not go along on this occasion with my sentiment. I do. think there is need for this flexibility, but I think that at the end of a sitting, as we are now, with so many Bills before us - too many Bills before us - to prolong question time would be wrong. I think the honourable member for Chifley has to choose his time for this kind of exercise, and I do not think that, when we have so many Bills before us, this is the time when questions should be prolonged. Therefore I will not support him on this occasion. I will continue to extend my tolerance, if I may put it so, to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I think he has acted reasonably on this occasion. I shall of course watch carefully to see whether I believe he acts with reason on other occasions. Now I believe he is right and I am afraid I cannot support, however much my sentiment might lead me to do so, what the honourable member for Chifley has said.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As I said I second the motion. I hope that the House will carry the motion to suspend the. Standing Orders so that we might refer the matter of question time to the Standing Orders Committee. The mover of the motion is not asking the Parliament to give a judgment on whether the Standing Orders have been abused or, if they have been abused, to give a judgment as to who is responsible for it. The motion merely states that the present Standing Orders insofar as they relate to question time are quite unsatisfactory. If honourable members think that the Standing Orders, as they relate to question time, are satisfactory and are satisfied with the way in which the Standing Orders are used at question time, they ought, as do so many hundreds of thousands of people, to listen to the Parliament in operation at question time I have done so. The way this Parliament behaves at question time is a disgrace to any institution, more so to . the . most responsible and highest institution within the democratic structure of this country. Any member who can listen to the Parliament at question time and feel proud of being a member of Parliament is easily pleased and must have had an extraordinary background.

Mr Robinson:

– Speak for yourself.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There is an example. Interjections come from honourable members who, on the surface, appear to be quite well groomed and well mannered but who in practice when they are put to the test are not able to measure up to their appearances. The real reason why question time is out of hand is that Ministers are abusing question time by having Dorothy Dixers prepared by their supporters in the Liberal Party so that they will have the opportunity to give prepared answers that appear not to be prepared. This gives the appearance to the Parliament and to their colleagues that they are extraordinarily efficient in their departments when, in point of fact, Ministers who must do this are admitting by their acts that they are inefficient.

It came to my notice only at the weekend that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has actually sent a memo to the officers of his Department - this is a most extraordinary thing, and if he is listening to the broadcast of the proceedings now I would like him to enter the debate and answer this statement - telling them that, instead of feeding information into the Minister as has always been the custom in the Departments-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion before the Chair seeks the suspension of Standing Orders to enable a further motion to be moved to refer to the Standing Orders Committee the period allocated for question time. I have not the actual wording of the motion in front of me. That is how I understand it. I would think that any action by a Minister outside the Parliament would not be a matter for discussion on the question of the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I am sorry for what I said about you the other day and if you feel that you have to even up I. withdraw it. It is not possible for me to deal with the abuse of question time-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not think that the question of abuse comes into this debate. The question raised by the motion is the suspension of Standing Orders to enable-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If we could change places, Mr Speaker, I might have a better chance of speaking, seeing that you are making the major contribution to the debate. We are trying to get Standing Orders which will permit people who have something to say to do so. I am saying that question time is so gravely abused by Ministers that this subject ought to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. This is the reason why the Opposition is asking for .the suspension of Standing Orders. It is for this very reason that we are asking that this whole matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. When we have a Minister who will tell his public servants to act as political ciphers in order that that Minister may be built up in the eyes of Parliament as an efficient Minister when in fact he evidently is a very inefficient one-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will read the motion to the honourable member. It is:

That so much of the Standing Orders be - suspended as would prevent the moving of a motion to refer to the Standing Orders Committee the question of the time to be allowed for questions without notice.

If the motion is carried, I think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh would be in order in speaking in the way in which he has been speaking. At this stage, the motion before the Chair seeks the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, that is the sort of ruling that I thought you would have given earlier. I would like to say this: The debate which will decide who is culpable will follow agreement to this motion. This motion does not seek to do that. At this stage we are asking the Parliament merely to acknowledge the fact that the public is sick and tired of the infantile way in which the Parliament itself has been forced to carry on or has been induced to carry on by the Ministry at question time. It is a disgrace. It is time that we looked at ourselves. It is time that the Standing Orders Committee met to decide what can be done to make the Parliament act more responsibly than it has. If honourable members vote against the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which will enable that simple thing to be done, all I can say is that they are easily satisfied and that the public outside will consider that they are easily satisfied too.

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

– The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) has raised this matter. I do not know whether or not he discussed it with his Party, but we certainly did not know that the matter was to be raised today. However, this motion is within the procedures of the House and it is accepted as such. As the honourable member knows from past experience - he was in this House previously - it has been the custom over the years to have this limitation on the period of question time. The times which he quoted showed some variation but, as near as possible, for some considerable number of years the period allotted to cover this part of the business programme in the parliamentary day has been 45 minutes.

This matter was raised by the honourable member for Chifley only a week or so ago. I drew his attention at that time to the problem of petitions which apparently he has in mind in relation to this question. In this first part of the parliamentary business programme during last year and continuing now a considerable number of petitions has been presented in the period set aside for question time. I suggested that this perhaps was a matter that could be considered by the Standing Orders Committee to determine whether or not the time allotted for petitions should be included in the period allowed for question time. This would need to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee on a substantive motion.

The honourable member did quote references to times allowed for questions without notice. I think that the times were of fairly recent origin. I have some statistics here referring to the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 and . also for the years 1962, 1963 and 1967. It is interesting to go through the figures for these years to see the variations that occurred. Taking as a sample the Budget session from August to September in 1954, we see that there was one period only in which the time allowed for questions went beyond 45 minutes; question time lasted for 46 minutes. On 4 other occasions the period taken up by question time was well below 45 minutes. Between May and September in 1955, on 3 occasions question time exceeded 45 minutes and on 4 occasions was below 45 minutes.

In 1965, between March and October, the periods allowed for question time were most consistent. On one occasion during that period question time was one minute in excess of 45. minutes. From April to November in 1962, the same pattern appears. At no time during that period did this part of the parliamentary programme exceed 45 minutes. In 1963, the same sort of pattern applied. There was no period in the sample months that were taken when question time went beyond 45 minutes. From March to November 1967, on only one day did . question time go beyond the 45 minutes allowed for that part of the parliamentary programme. I quote these figures merely to show that the limitation of question time to 45 minutes has been traditional and is a practice which has been applied in. the general sense.

I return to the point that the duration of question time is within the discretion of the Prime Minister. This has been the tradition of the House over the years. The honourable member, for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) did refer to the subject of question time being referred to the Standing Orders Committee as a direct question for consideration. But the honourable member knows also that the tradition over the year? - in fact, I think since the commencement of this Parliament - has been that the termination of question time is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. -

I turn again to the inclusion of petitions in the period allowed for question time. The period of 45 minutes to which I have been referring applies from the. time of the convening of the House. The programme on the notice paper, to which I have continually referred, includes prayers, petitions, notices and then questions without notice. These matters have always been taken together and have generally been dealt with in the period of 45 minutes. Surely if there is a problem as to whether or not questions should be concluded in the period of 45 minutes an honourable member should refer it to his own Party for discussion and ensure that, if it is to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, a substantive motion is brought before the House on behalf of his Party in a responsible way. No doubt the time taken up by petitions could be considered in those circumstances.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh referred to a general examination of the procedures of the House being made by the Standing Orders Committee. He knows that last year the Committee met for a quite substantial period of time and brought down a series of recommendations which were voted on in this House. A very substantial review was made by the Committee only last year. In fact, a number of residual matters which were referred by the Committee to this House are still on the notice paper. I have referred to the procedures and to the times that have been allocated. As I am sure, Mr- Speaker, that the Opposition would not want me to waste the time of the House in discussing this matter further, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2437

HOSPITALS: FEES AND COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The rise in hospial fees and the decline in Commonwealth assistance to hospitals and their patients.

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Australia’s hospitals are as sick as the patients for whom they cater. Public hospitals can neither pay the debts they owe nor collect the debts which are owed to them. Costly hospital buildings and equipment are under-used because the staff required to operate them is scarce or unavailable. Standards of hospital care are declining while hospital costs rise at an annual rate of up to 10 per cent.

The predicament of all our public hospitals has been caused by the failure of Liberal governments to co-ordinate hospital planning either between the States or within them. Liberal governments have failed to provide proper domiciliary care services for patients who, if given such services, could remain at home with their families or to provide enough beds for those whose need is long-term institutional nursing care. Hospitals have been reduced to insolvency by the inadequacy of Liberal hospital insurance and the parsimony of the Liberal arrangements under which pensioner patients are given hospital accommodation.

Yesterday, the Victorian Minister for Health announced a cabinet decision to increase hospital fees by 50 per cent from 1st July next. Patients in public wards will now have to pay $15 a day, in intermediate wards $20.25 a day and in private wards between $27 and $37.50 a day. Weekly contribution rates for hospital and medical insurance will rise in the case of public ward cover from $1.20 to $1.68, intermediate ward cover from $1.60 to $2.19 and private ward cover from $1.90 to $2.77. Similar increases are expected in

New South Wales. Since the Commonwealth last increased its general hospital benefit in 1958, hospital fees have quadrupled. Both hospital fees and hospital insurance contributions now exceed the means of all but an affluent minority. As Sir Henry Bolte has pointed out: ‘Soon it’ll be like America and you’ll have to be a millionaire to go into hospital*. As the £ Australian Medical Association pointed out in its submission to the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs:

A danger point has now been reached as a growing number of contributors fail to provide adequate cover, either because they cannot afford the increasing contributions or because they feel that the government, is not carrying its share of the burden of increased hospital charges.

Who can doubt that on this matter- the Association is right?

In 1953 insurance cover for intermediate ward cost nearly 3 times as much as public ward cover, in 1958 it still cost more than twice as much as public ward cover, but in 1968 it cost only. 40 per cent more than public ward cover. In 1953 Commonwealth hospital benefit met 24 per cent more of the cost of public ward accommodation than of intermediate ward accommodation but by 1968 the gap had narrowed to 5 per cent. These figures reveal clearly that there has been a drastic decline since 1953 in the position of public ward patients. Hospital insurance funds have steadily and stealthily transferred to public ward patients much of the insurance burden previously allocated to intermediate patients. The extra margin of Commonwealth assistance available to public ward patients in 1953 has been whittled away. Between 1953-54 and 1966-67 the after tax cost of hospital insurance for a family earning 75 per cent of the average weekly wage rose in terms of family income by 700 per cent but the cost for a family earning 4 times the average wage rose by only 14 per cent. Successive Liberal governments have systematically eased the burden of hospital costs for these sections of the community which are most affluent and increased the hospital burdens of those sections of the community which are least able to bear them.

On 3rd April 1968 the Senate resolved to establish a Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs. On 25th September 1969 the committee presented an interim report and on 2nd June 1970 it presented a final report. On 18th April 1968 the former Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, announced the appointment of Mr Justice Nimmo’s Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance and on 25th March 1969 that Committee’s report was tabled. Both reports highlighted grave shortcomings in hospital finances and grave deficiencies in the Liberal hospital insurance scheme. In tabling the Nimmo report the Minister said that the Government: at the earliest opportunity would initiate discussions with all the parties concerned to consider the practical implications of the recommendations.

On 4th March 1970 he undertook that the Government would: continue Its examination of the important issues raised by these recommendations, and actively pursue negotiations with the State governments.

Commonwealth officers and officers representing all States discussed the cost and method of carrying out the recommendations on 2nd April last year. Yesterday, in answer to a question I put on notice on 16th February, the Minister told me that Commonwealth officers had a further day’s discussion with officers of individual States in May last. It is now over 3 years since the Nimmo Committee was established, it is over 2 years since its report was tabled and it is over a year since its recommendations were accepted in principle. And for a year the Government has apparently done nothing. Despite its promise on 4th March last year actively to pursue negotiations with the State governments there have been no negotiations with the State governments since May last. No-one should be surprised at the inadequacy of hospital facilities, the insolvency of public hospitals and the irrelevance of pensioner and insured hospital benefits to current hospital costs.

Honourable members who seek information about these matters are frequently fobbed off with the answer that statistics are confidential, unavailable or available only on application to the States in which particular facilities happen to be located. When I asked the former Minister for Health on 16th September last year the number and percentage of beds in each State and Territory closed for lack of nursing staff he told me that

  1. . insofar as New South Wales and Victoria are concerned, accurate figures are not available.

I believe him. Failure to collect proper statistical information and refusal to publish available information are favourite Liberal techniques for concealing the shortcomings of all our government services and retarding the reform of those services. The Senate Select Committee recommended that:

In order to ensure that Australia’s health care resources are utilised in the most effective manner, and that decisions on future development of health services are soundly based, plans should be developed for the Commonwealth, the State and appropriate organisations and groups to participate in a co-ordinated national scheme for the collection and dissemination of uniform statistics relating to health economics and for general health economic research.

That was the Senate’s Committee’s recommendation.

The Nimmo Committee proposed in its recommendations on an independent National Health Insurance Commission that:

The Commission would be empowered to conduct research in relation to hospital and other health costs.

That was the Nimmo recommendation. The former Minister for Health announced in his statement on 4th March last year that the Government had accepted the Nimmo recommendation and that legislation to establish the Commission would be introduced. Fourteen months have passed, there is still no legislation. The new Minister for Health says that he regards the whole matter as one for ‘review’. Review in this context is a euphemism for rejection. I can imagine no prospect less palatable to Liberals than continuing an objective appraisal of those public functions in which they so consistently under-invest.

Relief from Liberal reticence has been provided, however, by Sir Henry Bolte. Australia’s only outspoken Liberal or Country Party Premier has not hesitated to make the predicament of Victorian hospitals well known. The cost of hospitals has risen in Victoria in the last 6 years from $64m to $140m. Their debts have risen in the last year alone from $ 10.5m to $25m, 138 per cent in one year. The Victorian Government advised hospitals on 17th February that:

No additional staff can be approved, indeed ,. casual and establishment staff vacancies should not be filled, save in extreme emergencies.

That is a quotation from the Victorian Government’s official circular.

Surgical equipment companies have warned hospitals that unless accounts of a heavy and long-standing character are soon paid their supplies will be cut off. The Victorian Hospitals Association now faces bankruptcy because debts owing to it for bulk purchases have become so heavy and have remained unpaid for so long. Does the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) believe that this situation is peculiar to Victoria? Will he say that it arises from some extraordinary extravagance or lack of thrift on the part of Victorian hospitals and on the part of the Liberal Ministers to whom they are responsible? Conditions analogous to those of Victoria exist in fact in every other State. They have been created by a Commonwealth stringency which equally penalises every State. Between 1963 and 1967 bed costs increased in Victoria by 28 per cent, and the Commonwealth benefit payable for pensioner patients kept pace; between 1967 and this year bed costs rose by a further SO per cent but there was no increase in pension benefit whatsoever. Similarly, bed costs have increased since 1963 by 90 per cent but the Commonwealth benefit for insured patients has been pegged at $2 a day throughout that period. Pensioner patients alone cost Victoria $35.5m in 1969-70 but the Commonwealth contributed towards the cost only $7.8m. Thirty per cent of fees due to hospitals for public ward accommodation are never paid because of the inadequacy of Commonwealth benefits for insured patients and the inefficiency of the Liberal hospital insurance scheme.

Nor is it in these respects alone that arrangements made by governments arc deficient. On 30th June 1969 motor accident victims owed 19 Victorian hospitals a total of $3,280,000. Collections of motor accident accounts amounted over a 5 year period to only 52 per cent of the sum actually claimed. Delays of this order are enough to disrupt the finances even of the most affluent organisations; their impact upon our hard-up hospitals has been catastrophic. It is neither equitable nor efficient to impose upon hospitals the burden of a legal system which takes up to 3 years for settlement of compensation claims. The Commonwealth should use its constitutional responsibilities with respect to insurance and social services to introduce a scheme not only to maintain the pre-accident income of persons injured in industrial and highway accidents but also to pay in full and at once the medical and hospital fees they incur. I have quoted from official Senate and Nimmo Committee recommendations and I have quoted answers which the former Minister for Health has given me. Also, I have quoted from recent documents released by the Victorian Government. Whatever the former Minister for Health who will follow me in this debate may say, all the matters whichI have quoted should be well known to him.

Australians will not enjoy effective, economic hospital services until the Commonwealth and the States co-operate in the establishment of a truly national hospital system. A Labor government will not and indeed cannot nationalise the medical profession but it will nationalise public hospitals. It will set up an Australian Hospitals Commission to promote the modernisation and regionalisation of hospitals. It will help the States to make them not, as at present, just adjuncts to doctors’ surgeries but centres of community medical care. Similarly, Labor will see that hospitals are compensated in full for all their patients including pensioners and compensation cases under Labor’s alternative national programme of family health care. Under Labor’s programme families will receive in return for a contribution equal to l1/4 per cent of their taxable income, with a $100 ceiling, free medical treatment and free hospital accommodation in single or multi-bed wards as doctors advise. Hospital planning on a regional basis and insurance coverage on a universal basis are the keys both to Labor’s health programme and to relief of that disastrous predicament to which all our public hospitals have been reduced by Liberal parsimony and the Liberal rhetoric of States’ rights.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · Barker · LP

– The House will be indebted to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) for placing on record what we have suspected for some time, namely, that a Labor government will nationalise the hospital system of Australia. There is no question of misquoting him. He said: A Labor government will nationalise the hospital system of Australia’. This is something which, under the Constitution, has been since Federation a State government responsibility. It was left in the Constitution for very good reasons, among them being the fact that the State governments are much closer to the felt needs of the community than is the Commonwealth Government located in Canberra. Indeed, in many cases hospitals in Australia are run by local authorities or independent hospital boards for the same reason. But the Leader of the Opposition has put on notice that a Labor government will nationalise the hospital system and centralise it under bureaucrats in Canberra. It is just as well to have it on the record and we can treat it on that basis.

Dr Klugman:

– Like immigration?

Dr FORBES:

– The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) says: ‘Like immigration?’ The immigration power was given to the Commonwealth at Federation for very good reasons, and the same considerations to which I am referring - the lack of contact at the local level, and the creation of a hospital system which is malleable and adjustable to individual circumstances and the felt needs of particular communities of people and particular areas - was one of the principal reasons why the hospital power was left with the States.

A Labor government would take that away. The Leader of the Opposition has just told us that. What is the reason for this drastic change which the alternative government of Australia proposes? What justification has he given for this drastic action by a Commonwealth government, this departure from a situation which has worked since Federation? The Leader of the Opposition said that he was quoting figures supplied by me and by other people. Of course, what he has done is to misquote figures. He has not produced figures where they did not suit him. He has quoted figures out of context to prove a point which could not be made if they were quoted in context. I take as an example of this process the question which he asked of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) the other day. I do not know why he asked it of the Prime Minister who, in all reason, could not be expected to have at his fingertips the detailed answers to questions on statistics in the hospital field which were quoted at him. One of the legs on which this question rested was this:

Moreover, have the States complained that the pensioner hospital benefit, which met 66 per cent of the actual cost of a hospital bed in 1954, now meets less than 20 per cent of that cost?

In fact, the ture situation was not the one indicated by the Leader of the Opposition. The pensioner hospital benefit represented not 66 per cent but 16 per cent of the actual cost of a hospital bed in 1954. The second part of his statement that it now meets less than 20 per cent of that cost is true. It is in fact slightly higher than the 16 per cent that it represented in 1954. I cite this to demonstrate the way in which the honourable gentleman misquotes figures in relation to health matters. The terms of the proposal for a discussion of a matter of public importance proposed by him are:

The rise in hospital fees and the decline in Commonwealth assistance to hospitals and their patients.

Let me tackle the main point on which the Opposition is attacking the Government, namely, the decline in Commonwealth assistance to hospitals. In fact, this is a complete misstatement. If we take the total cost of financing hospitals according to the latest figures available - that is, up till 1968 - we find that the Commonwealth percentage of the cost of financing hospitals was 17.7 per cent in 1964, 17.2 per cent in 1965, 16.2 per cent in 1966, 16.2 per cent in 1967 and 17 per cent in 1968. In other words, in those 4 years it has varied from 17.7 per cent in 1964 to 17 per cent in 1968.

I think it would be a fair statement in those circumstances to say that the alleged decline in Commonwealth assistance has not taken place. In fact the assistance has remained static.

Dr Klugman:

– What about the situation since 1968?

Dr FORBES:

– This is a percentage figure. The honourable member for Prospect asks: ‘What about the situation since 1968?’ I cannot give precise figures in relation to this but I can give the House a lead to what has happened. But before doing so I want to go back to another example of misquotation by the Leader of the Opposition. Actually, it is not a misquotation because what he said was true. He said that the Commonwealth hospital benefit for insured patients has remained static at $2 a day since 1958. That is an accurate statement. But what the honourable gentleman did not say is that this is not the only source from which Commonwealth benefits flow to the patients and into the hospital system. What the Commonwealth Government has chosen to do in relation to the hospital system and in relatation to assistance to hospital patients when it has had additional finance available for this purpose, has been not to increase the individual hospital benefit for insured patients but to liberalise its payments to special account patients.

In other words the Commonwealth has decided quite deliberately over the years to help those people who require hospital treatment and who are most in need. I refer to those people who, prior to the changes which came into force on 1st January 1969, were limited by the excluding rules of funds to so many days hospitalisation in a year at the full insured rate and the people who were excluded on the grounds of pre-existing ailments. We have quite deliberately decided to direct the available assistance to those most in need. Is the Opposition against that principle? Should we provide a little assistance, perhaps an increase of$3 or $2 a day, to the great mass of people to whom payment for hospitalisation is not a tremendous hardship or should we direct the available finance to helping those people in greatest need? As I said, this has been the principle on which this Government has worked. We do not retreat from it. We are proud of it. We believe that the available Commonwealth assistance should be used in this way.

The honourable member for Prospect asked what has happened since 1968. I cannot tell him precisely the Commonwealth’s proportion since 1968 but I can tell him what has happened to the special account since the Government’s reforms were introduced on 1st January 1969. In 1968 the payment by the Commonwealth through the special account was $4.5m; in 1969 it was $7.1m and in 1970 it was $16m, which is almost as much as the payment–

Dr Klugman:

– That is because you transferred everybody to the special account for 3 months when you changed the scheme.

Dr FORBES:

– We are talking about the amount of Commonwealth finance flowing into the hospital system. Does the honourable gentleman claim that there has not been an increase in the finance flowing into the hospital system? Of course there has been. In 1971 the Commonwealth payment is expected to be $19.6m, and this amount will increase year by year. When the information is available I would expect that it would be reasonable to say that until the last financial year the Commonwealth’s contribution in total - all the ways in which Commonwealth finance flows into the hospital system - has remained constant and has not declined as the honourable member has implied in this debate and which is taken to be his basic reason for proposing a drastic nationalisation of all hospitals in Australia.

The fact is that there are 3 major sources of finance for hospitals. The first is State governments. The second is the Commonwealth Government and the third is patients’ fees. The Commonwealth’s percentage has remained static over the years. In other words, as the honourable member has so rightly said, hospital costs have increased; the Commonwealth has maintained its percentage contribution to the total cost of running hospitals. I have given the figures to prove this. What has happened? Why have hospitals been in the difficulties about which the honourable gentleman has spoken? If the honourable member cares to quote from the table in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, known as the Wedgwood Committee, which he has been so keen to quote from whenever it suited his purpose, he will see the answer. Generally speaking there has been a steady decline over the years in the proportion of hospital costs met by State governments. There has also been a steady increase in the proportion of hospital costs met through patients’ fees, but this is as a result of a decision by State governments, which, after all, have the constitutional authority.

In circumstances in which the Commonwealth’s contribution has remained static most of the States have chosen to reduce steadily their contributions to hospitals and have arranged for patients to make up the difference by increasing the fees. To point the finger at the Commonwealth Government in these circumstances is nonsense. I suppose that the honourable member would say that the State governments cannot afford it but Queensland’s contribution has not declined. It is still much the same - very much higher than in any other State - as it was in 1964. If that State has the financial capacity to sustain its share of increasing hospital costs why do the other States not have a similar capacity? I do not know the reason for this. I am just making the point that the honourable member is pointing the finger at the Commonwealth for this situation when the Commonwealth has sustained progressively year by year its proportion of the total running costs of hospitals.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The public hospitals system in Australia faces an extremely critical situation. Twelve months ago when this subject was raised in this House, on the initiative of the Opposition, the former Minister for Health said in an attempt to rebut the Opposition’s argument that the public hospital services in Australia were ‘as good as I have seen anywhere in the world’. Since then the situation of public hospital services has deteriorated alarmingly. Victorian hospitals will write off every fourth $1 of patients’ fees as bad debts and this write-off of bad debts will exceed $3m this year. It is anticipated that metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne will have deficits exceeding $1Om and bank overdrafts amounting to $5m. The situation in country hospitals is every bit as grave. The situation in other State public hospital services is every bit as alarming. Today we have a different approach by the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) who represents the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) in this place. There are 2 prongs to his approach. First of all he argues that to become involved at the Federal level more directly and more forcibly in the needs of public hospital services is to nationalise those services, and then having put up the straw man, and set about demolishing it, he moved on to some rather questionable casuistic reasoning.

It is obvious that the Government is bankrupt of proposals to overcome the problems of public hospital services in Australia. This is alarming because wards are being closed, extensions to public hospital services cannot be undertaken and in some cases - I know of at least one - public hospitals cannot employ staff simply because the costs of staff and ancillary services are beyond the resources of the appropriate authorities. In the course of his argument the Minister tried to assert that there had been a sudden expansion of generosity by the Federal Government in a period of 3 months last year when it injected additional funds into the special account system. Fortunately the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) was present in this House at that time and he was able to nail the arrant dishonesty of the Minister in this respect and point out that this was purely a temporary feature and that additional funds were injected into the special account system because of a transition related to adjustments in the voluntary health insurance scheme which came about last year. And of course as par for the course whenever the Minister is swinging his stick in a debate on health there was an attack on the Opposition’s proposals on health insurance and public health services. The Minister has misrepresented what we stand for and what we aim at. Perhaps I could do a deal with him. I will give him an undertaking, which to me has many attractions because in spite of all his misrepresentations the Australian Labor Party still has 25 per cent more popularity in gallup polls for its health insurance scheme than has the Government. I will do a deal with him because of his misrepresentation and the fact that he is doing so badly. If he will stop telling lies about our scheme we will stop telling the truth about his. At least that might moderate the adverse effects which have been settling on the Government’s standing with the electorate on this issue.

Mr Turnbull:

– On a point of order. Is the honourable member allowed to say that the Minister is telling lies about this?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I think it might be wise for the honourable member for Oxley to rephrase the comment he made in relation to the Minister’s statements.

Mr HAYDEN:

– 1 said the Minister told lies, which is true. I regret this and I withdraw my remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggested to the honourable member that he might rephrase his statement. I suggest he do so and hot make a comment on what he said before he rephrases and withdraws the earlier comment in relation to the Minister.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw the earlier comment unreservedly. The real point at issue here is that there is a critical situation in public hospitals in Australia. They need more money. In 10 minutes I have to make my points briefly and ignore much of the casuistry which was part and parcel of the Minister’s address to this House. The public hospitals need more money. First of all, we can give them more money and 1 would expect a responsible Federal government to want to do this. The Labor Party gives the commitment in this respect that it will provide money for capital expenditures to improve, expand and develop public hospital services in Australia. It would do this through planning mechanisms developed in co-operation with State authorities. There is no coercion; there is no authoritarianism about this. It is a sense of urgency being expressed. There are other things we can do at the moment. We can see that when we spend money - it is always public money we are spending whether it is the hard earned money we extract from the taxpayers or the contributions made by members of the health insurance schemes - out of every $1 we get maximum mileage.

Let us look at the health insurance scheme. Under our proposals for a national scheme we could eliminate the need for reserves. Because of the nature of the scheme and the multiplicity of competing organisations an extravagant level of reserves has been built up. By the nature of the present scheme this is pretty much unavoidable. In 1970 reserves stood at $117m. Again, because of the features I have mentioned, operating costs exceed 12 per cent of contributions, or $25m. We could eliminate the need for reserves. We could slash in half the cost of operation through the economies of scale we can achieve with our scheme. I estimate that on 1970 figures $30m is immediately available to be distributed in benefits. Whether this sum goes to contributors, to hospitals or to whatever else there is, is something to be discussed later; but it is immediately available. This is what the Opposition is talking about There is in it none of this corny nonsense about ideology. It is a matter of economic efficiency which would concern any economist and any person with a sense of public responsibility.

By immediately levying against third party and workers compensation insurance organisations to cover the cost of hospital services - it is not a difficult task to develop the appropriate formula on past expenditures - we can provide more millions immediately for public hospital services. The chronic problem of public hospital services is that the cost of the services provided to people under these insurance schemes is often not met for rather extended periods. The upshot is that in the meantime the cost of the services has to be met by the hospitals, probably by overdraft. The hospitals pay interest on the overdraft and so their costs escalate. This is what the Opposition is talking about, a more efficient use of money and a more efficient use of services. From what I can see, there is an uneconomic distribution of expensive equipment. For instance, on the evidence available it appears that in Melbourne there are too many hospitals with expensive heart surgery equipment and not enough with needed renal equipment. The result is, firstly, an imbalance and, secondly, an economic distortion because there is too much investment in the more expensive equipment I have mentioned which cannot be used to maximum benefit for the community. There is some evidence of over utilisation of some resources, including specialist human ones.

If we look at the case which the Americans argue rather persuasively for tissue audits and committees of review, we can see clear evidence of how a reduction has taken place in the use of the surgeon’s knife. Dr Lawson, Director of Hospital Services in Tasmania, in an article which appeared in the ‘National Hospital Journal’ in 1969, pointed out that there is a significantly higher rate of operations in Australia compared with the United States and United Kingdom. For tonsillectomi he quotes a rate of 7 in Australia, 4 in the United States and 3.6 in the United Kingdom. For adenoidectomi the rate is 5 in Australia, 1.4 in the United States and 2.5 in the United Kingdom. For hysterectomi the rate is 2 in Australia and 1 in the United Kingdom. These are significant rates. A study in 1952 in New York of 23 hospitals showed that the rate of appendectomies moved between 2.9 and 7.1 per 1,000 of population. When tissue audits were introduced these figures were reduced substantially.

We can make savings on beds. The Australian average is 6.2 beds per 1,000 of population. The United Kingdom works on a planning arrangement of 3.3 and is proposing 2 per 1,000 of population in a report entitled ‘Building for Health’. The Kaiser Permanente programme works currently on a rate of 1.7 beds per 1,000 of population. A recent President’s commission in the United States of America cleared the Kaiser system as the most effective, most efficient, least costly and yet the most satisfactory in the delivery of personal health services in the United States of America. I have not touched upon matters such as domiciliary services, nursing homes, the problems of provision of food and the handling of laundry and the need for up-grading management and giving a professional orientation to this area by realising that the non-medical administrator of a big public hospital in future has to be seen as a high-powered, highly skilled executive with a great deal of responsibility. These are some of the areas in which we can save significant amounts of money by more efficiently using the money currently available. We will get more mileage per dollar.

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

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– This has been a most remarkable debate. Hie matter of public importance before the House relates to:

The rise in hospital fees and the decline in Commonwealth assistance to hospitals and their patients.

During the debate the Labor Party has moved from the word ‘assistance’ to what might be termed a takeover, the nationalisation of hospitals. This was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). If that is the intention, which it no doubt is, of the Opposition if ever it comes to power, it will have to spell out, not in a few words at the end of a speech but in an entire speech, what it means by the nationalisation of hospitals in this country. I firmly believe that the Australian people do not subscribe to the centralising of the affairs of this nation in Canberra. My experience is that the hospitals and many other enterprises in this country are better run by the States and the various organisations within them than they would be by a government in Canberra. This is a very significant step. It has never been stated by the Opposition in clearcut terms that I can remember that it intends to nationalise the hospital system. If it intends to nationalise hospitals in this country how much further does it intend to go in nationalising the various organisations in this country? Having gone this far, I would expect the Opposition in the near future to spell out in clear terms exactly what it means. It owes this not only to honourable members in this House but also to the people of Australia. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the Leader of the Opposition did leave his statement on this matter to the end of his speech today. He did not refer to it at the beginning. I understood the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) to indicate during his speech that the Labor Party was not satisfied with the distribution of equipment, for instance, in Victoria. I understood him to indicate that he or his Party, if the opportunity arose, would direct the various hospitals in relation to this point. This is in relation to the establishment of a equipment and where it should be in a State hospital system. Of course, there would not be, under a nationalised hospital system, a State hospital system. It would simply be an Australian system. The Opposition must spell out in precise terms what it means to do.

The motion relates to the actual costs incurred by hospitals today. We all know that these costs have risen. But nobody or no organisation within this country can avoid the increases in costs which will take place if there is a continual erosion of the economy. I am referring to inflation and the excessive rises in these areas. Over the last few months the Government has been endeavouring to do something about inflation. During question time this morning the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) was asked a question about the 35-hour week. The Minister indicated that the effect on the nation of a 35-hour week, if it were introduced, would be an increase in costs of between $2,000m and $3,000m, depending on which way it was done. These are the sorts of figures that must be looked at.

Hospitals and other organisations cannot avoid the flow-on from these types of things. If major increases in wages occur which are beyond productivity then the hospitals cannot avoid the impact of them, nor can anybody else. I refer not only to the wages of hospital personnel but also to the flow-on from buildings, machinery and general requirements of a hospital for which the hospital has to foot the bill. Despite what the motion states, the Commonwealth has increased its contribution towards medical and hospital services. The Minister stated this earlier in the debate. No organisations in this country can avoid these additional costs if inflationary pressures are allowed to proceed. They are having a detrimental effect not only on the hospitals but also on many other sections of the community.

The motion also refers to assistance to hospitals and their patients. To take an example, quite recently the Commonwealth has taken over the area of medical costs for the low income earner. The Leader of the Opposition in commenting on this point said that the Commonwealth has not assisted those who can least afford it. This is not correct. A year or two ago subsidised health insurance was introduced and this takes care of those people who have an income, I think, not exceeding $42.50.

Mr Buchanan:

– It is $46.50.

Mr HALLETT:

– There is a subsidy for people with incomes from $42.50 up to $46.50. As I understand it, for those people earning less than $42.50 the complete insurance is paid, and there is a sliding scale from there on. The Government has assisted these people in no uncertain fashion. I hope that I have not misquoted the Leader of the Opposition on this point. People on low incomes are being taken care of. The Government has helped in many areas of the hospital and medical situation. The increased costs are a great worry to this country. Hospitals are being caught up in them, but I do not believe that the nationalisation of hospitals in this country will be the answer to the problem. Hospitals are State instrumentalities. They are a State responsibility and that is where they should stay.

Negotiations have always been carried out between the Commonwealth and the

States on these and many other issues in relation to financing of hospitals and assistance to the States in many areas. Over the last few years the Commonwealth has assisted greatly in health matters. Negotiations with the States will no doubt proceed. I suggest that the Opposition should outline completely what it means to do. The term ‘hospitals’ is a very broad one. There are lots of hospitals under different management in this country. The Opposition, having gone this far, should spell out to the Australian people all the details of its statement. I think that is a fair request.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) joined the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes), who represents the Minister for Health in this chamber, in quibbling about the concept of nationalisation. Of course he plumped for the present system. I will quote what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said because I think that the Minister and the honourable member for Canning have slightly misinterpreted it. The view they expressed was that the system would be over centralised. The statement made by the Opposition reads as follows:

We will set up an Australian Hospitals Commission to promote the modernisation and regionalisation of hospitals.

The reality of our so-called glorious free enterprise system is that there is no autonomy or freedom at all. The hospitals in all States are right now controlled by a centralised hospital authority which has all sorts of names in the various States but which is still a central control. The local hospitals have no freedom at all. If they want to spend one razoo they must have permission from the local hospital commission. There is inadequate finance, and most of them can do nothing.

Mr Buchanan:

– But that is a State problem.

Dr CASS:

– I will come to that in a moment. The Minister, in answer to a quip from this side of the Parliament, said: Should we direct the available finance towards those in greatest need?’ The answer, of course, is: ‘Yes, we should.’ He said at another stage: ‘We are talking about the amount of finance flowing into the hospital system.’ When the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) argued about the actual source and whether the assistance was for ordinary patients or for patients of a. special kind, the Minister said we are really concerned about the total funds and how they get there. He indicated later - to take up an interjection a moment ago - that the decrease in finance was due to the State governments not paying or maintaining their proportion; their proportion of finance for the hospital system is falling; the patient’s contribution is going up to offset the State governments’ fall; the Commonwealth’s contribution remains steady. I quite agree with all that.

In attempting to find an answer to the financial plight of the public hospitals it is important to analyse the sources of their finance. Scotton and Deeble in 1968 showed that 71 per cent of hospital finances comes from government sources, either State or Federal; 3 per cent comes from workers compensation and third party insurance; 15 per cent comes from the so-called voluntary insurance funds; and 2 per cent comes from charity - leaving only 9 per cent of the running expenses of hospitals to come from the pockets of the sick individuals. In real terms, since the Commonwealth hospital benefits payments are dependent on the patient’s belonging to a hospital benefit fund, one can call the so-called voluntary insurance funds another form of taxation.

Thus with third party and workers compensation insurance, which are also compulsory, it is logical to accept that 89 per cent of the running expenses of hospitals comes from taxation of one sort or another. If one includes the mental hospitals, the picture becomes even worse, because they are financed mainly by governments. So we find that the patient fees cover only 6 per cent of the total running cost of public hospitals and mental hospitals. In 1968 this amounted, if we include charity, to only S30m in a total hospital bill of over $380m. However, this $30m is not extra money for the community. It is the actual cost of the hospitals and finally the community pays for it. It does not matter which way it damn well pays; it still comes out of your pocket and mine.

The most efficient way out surely would be to establish a national health insurance fund with financial collections via the Taxation Office, as is already the case with all other social services financed by the community. That is not a revolutionary thought. We are doing it already. For the year 1968 the management expenses of the hospital funds were $ 10.2m, their surplus funds amounted to $4.6m and their other income, from their non-profit investments no doubt of $63.7m in reserves, amounted to $3.7m. This totals $ 18.5m paid by members of the community, but which never goes to pay for hospital services but simply to service the benefit funds themselves.

With the increasing costs of running large public hospitals, the present policy of the State and Federal governments is increasing the financial burden on the lower income earners and the unfortunate individuals who happen to fall ill. In other words, the survival of the hospital service, with its highly specialised, extremely expensive facilities necessary for the more comprehensive treatment of a wider range of illnesses which only a few years ago were considered untreatable and often fatal, now depends on the few sick individuals in the community, for about §30m a year. A trifling sum if collected from the whole population via taxation becomes an intolerable burden on the seriously ill members of the community.

I now come to the hospitals. In Australia there are about 9.4 hospital beds and nursing home beds per thousand of population. This is similar to the position in other Western countries. It is thought that 4 beds per thousand of population are necessary for acute illness and the remainder are required for chronically ill or convalescent patients. With the rapid development of medical technology, particularly at the specialist level, hospital services should be integrated with a central major teaching complex of 1,000 beds and distributed around it a number of small satellite hospitals containing the remaining beds necessary for a population of, say, 250,000. The beds in the central hospital complex should be mainly for acute illnesses, not as they are at the moment for acute, chronic and convalescent cases, although some will be needed for convalescent patients. However, the convalescent beds should be limited to the minimum necessary for the transitional care of patients recovering from acute illness for which they were admitted to the hospital. As soon as possible, they should be transferred from the central hospital to a small satellite hospital where they will be near their families and their general practitioner and away from the large impersonal institution.

The central teaching hospital complex ought to contain all the departments necessary for total comprehensive care of the patient. It should include pediatric, geriatric and psychiatric departments. This would do away with the need for special institutions for the aged, the mentally ill and children at the moment. The fragmentary approach to the patient inherent in the concept of separate institutions tends to set these various specialities apart from general practice, so that the patient suffers from lack of comprehensive management. Quality is never discussed in these debates. In this situation the specialty often tends to miss or lag behind in utilising recent research advances. Separate institutions also inhibit the medical student from obtaining a balanced, comprehensive view of patients; the present system encourages the view of patients as diseases rather than people with diseases.

Much can be said about the design of these new sorts of hospitals so they do not have a mixture of medical and surgical cases and so on. it is far more intelligent to talk not in terms of medical or surgical but in terms of acute emergencies Whether they are medical, surgical, psychiatric or geriatric is quite irrelevant. Intensive care units will need to be near operating theatres, resuscitation facilities and so on. These should be geographically separated from the less critical areas of the hospital. Likewise the specialised laboratories and diagnostic services should be available mainly in the intensive care area. However, it must be emphasised that all the complexes ought to be within the one teaching hospital complex.

Finally, I mention the medical staffing of these hospitals. Both senior and junior specialists should be salaried. At present criticism is often levelled at the teaching and large public hospitals because of the waste of time if a patient goes to see a specialist in such a hospital. But this inefficiency is due not to the fact that it is a socialised or nationalised hospital but to the fact that these hospitals are run by private honorary specialist medical officers. They are not salaried or paid. They are not in the employment of -the hospital. They are donating their time to the hospital. Of course they have to earn their living in private practice; so they are often running late for their clinics because they are busy treating a patient in private, and why should they not be? They earn their money in probably less than 40 per cent of their working time. So of course the public hospitals suffer.

The answer would be to recognise that a minor increase in funds from the Government is necessary for the Government to take over the whole financial responsibility of the public hospitals. If it did that it would take the burden off the backs of the individuals who are ill. I would much rather pay the money while I am well and earning, not when I am sick and unable to earn to pay for my hospital expenses. If the Government does that it can reorganise and increase the efficiency of the hospitals, pay the salaries of the doctors and ensure that they are there to offer of their best to the public hospital system all the time and not only as a by-product after they have earned their keep somewhere else, quite reasonably, attending to private patients, as is the case at the moment.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– I believe that the House and the public must be getting awfully tired of these matters of public importance on subjects that are not thought through and which are expressed in terms that hold the person who submits them for discussion up to ridicule. It is obvious from what the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) has just said that he has an ideal which everyone would love to go along with. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitiam) said something about the nationalisation of hospitals, but he then seemed to talk about the old scheme that he favoured, which did not envisage the complete nationalisation of hospitals. He came back to that mystical li per cent of income that his scheme would cost. 1 have said repeatedly in this House that the scheme involving that li per cent is completely impossible of achievement. If the honourable member for Maribyrnong had his way, it would be Hi per cent or some such figure. I would just like to remind him that in our own State of Victoria, as he will be quite aware, we are building a hospital at Moe on the same lines as that which he has just elaborated. So these things are being done to the best of the ability of the States.

I said that the public must be getting a bit tired of these debates because it seems to me that the Opposition tries to jump on every band wagon in an attempt to pick up a little bit of sympathy. It is no criticism for the Leader of the Opposition to say in his opening remarks that the hospitals are as sick as the people in them. These are the clever, slick words we have heard so often. We all know that hospital finances have been under very great strain for a long time. They always have been and I rather suspect that they always will be in spite of the idealism I have heard this morning from a couple of members on the other side. The first fact I want to establish is that the hospitalisation of people is essentially, basically and definitely a State responsibility. The Commonwealth has entered the field by providing aid from time to time because of its desire to assist the States, not because it has the responsibility. It recognises that State finances are strained considerably. The demand for hospital services has increased enormously. The expanding range of drugs, medical procedures and techniques also have helped to increase hospital costs but, in another respect, they have reduced them by making a patient’s stay in hospital shorter than it used to be.

The second fact that I want to stress is that overall the national scheme provided by the Commonwealth Government to the people of Australia is still the best in the world. I have said that very often in this House. If we examine the services available to Australians and if we consider what they are able to obtain we see that, in respect of hospital needs, there is no delay in obtaining a bed when it is essential. I know that honourable members could quote occasions when somebody has been run from hospital to hospittal trying to find a bed but, taken overall, our hospital services in respect of bed availability are far ahead of what conditions are in other countries of the world.

Dr Gun:

– Do the poor get a choice?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Of course they get a choice. The honourable member will not nail me down to an individual case in which somebody is told: ‘You go in there) or else’. I would love to have enough time to deal with the case of my own wife who was sent into a hospital in Melourne with the words: ‘You go there or else’. That was the worst thing that ever happened to her.

The statement has been made that pensioners are imposing a burden on the States and that this burden should be assumed by the Commonwealth. Sir Henry Bolte has been very outspoken on this point. But he chooses to forget the States have always given pensioners free treatment; this is part of their contribution to social services and existed long before the Commonwealth came to the rescue with $5 a day with respect to hospitalisation of pensioners. This has been the traditional state of affairs.

Mr Foster:

– Is $5m a year a rescue?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Most decidedly. This is the responsibility of the States. If I presume that the Opposition is genuine in saying that it would take over the cost of this service entirely, this means that the Commonwealth would need to provide only another $250m and this would make no difference to the overall cost of hospitalisation and so on! So, where does the li per cent mentioned by the Opposition get us in relation to costs imposed on the Commonwealth?

This matter of public importance proposed for discussion is so badly worded as to say that the ‘Commonwealth has made no increase’. The Opposition points out to the difficulty experienced in the treatment of low income patients. It seems to have overlooked completely the subsidised health insurance scheme under which the Commonwealth pays Commonwealth and fund benefits - both benefits - in respect of low income earners, persons on the unemployment benefit, persons receiving the sickness benefit, and migrants. The expenditure last year on this item was $3. 6m only. I would have thought that the amount would be greater than that but I am quite sure that as this scheme becomes better and better known and as people take advantage of it, the amount required will increase greatly.

The important point is this: This debate has been inspired by the increase in hospital fees in Victoria from $10 to $15 in respect of public wards and corresponding increases for other wards. The hospitals will be reimbursed to the full $15 a day in the same way as they are being reimbursed today at the rate of $10 a day. The rate of contribution by the Commonwealth is increasing all the time.

Special accounts have been mentioned. I do not need to go into any detail on this subject beyond saying that the contribution by the Commonwealth through special accounts last year in this respect was $16m. Honourable members opposite cannot say that the Commonwealth is not helping or that there has not been an increase in the Commonwealth contribution. Because of the fact that hospital rates have been increased in Victoria by 50 per cent, next year this amount of $16m plus approximately $4m in respect of the subsidised health insurance scheme will rise by 50 per cent. So, approximately $30m will be coming from the Commonwealth Government. This is considerable assistance.

I would like to go into a great amount of detail as to what will happen with regard to the hospital benefit funds. Increases in the contributions to be paid will occur. But is not everything increasing? Did I not read today of an extraordinary claim in which one union is seeking to increase the wages of its members by up to $39.40 a week? Of courses increases are occurring. Unfortunately this is one of the facts of life. The Opposition could help the community in this respect much better by dampening down such moves rather than making continual extravagant statements supporting them.

Contributions to medical and hospital benefit funds will need to be increased. I mention both ‘medical’ and ‘hospital’ funds although today we are deaing with hospitals only. The increases that have been announced in Victoria are tailored to fit in with the formula under which hospital benefits contributions and payments are made. It is obvious that as from 1st July, if these rates apply from that date, it will be necessary for the funds to have made arrangements for the rate of contributions to be changed so that hospitals will receive full reimbursement as they do now.

Finally 1 mention something which has not been referred to already. This is that, in the nursing home field, the Commonwealth last year spent $47m. This may not be direct expenditure on hospitals, but the very fact that thousands of beds are available in the health field to this section of the community means that the Commonwealth is making a great contribution. I conclude by pointing out that, with co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth - apparently the Opposition does not appear to believe in this - slowly and surely our health scheme is being improved all the time. It is still better than any health scheme anywhere else in the world. In the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada or anywhere else a patient will not get the same beneficial treatment that is available to the Australian people today.

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

– Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 2449

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2243), on motion by Mr McMahon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on the Ministers of State Bill 1971, 1 would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the ministerial statement relating to Assistant Ministers. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Orders of the Day to be discussed together.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministers of State Bill 1971 increases the number of Ministers from 26 to 27. The ministerial statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on Assistant Ministers announces that there will be the appointment of an unspecified number of Assistant Ministers during the parliamentary recess. Both the Bill and the statement are designed to extend the Prime Minister’s patronage. They are designed, therefore, to consolidate his position in the Liberal Parry.

Ordinarily, when a Prime Minister announces that he proposes to introduce a Ministers of State Bill to increase the number of Ministers, absolute priority is given to that Bill. It is the first Bill brought in under the legislative programme of a new Prime Minister. On this occasion, we had to wait some 7 weeks for the Bill to be introduced. We had to wait until the approval of the Australian Democratic Labor Party was secured.

The Opposition opposes both the Bill and the proposals in the ministerial statement. First of all, let me dispose of the arguments given in the statement for having new Assistant Ministers. The whole question of the status of Assistant Ministers was thrashed out early in the lifetime of the restored Menzies Government under Speaker Cameron. On this occasion the new Prime Minister has been very circumspect in outlining the constitutional and the executive responsibilities of the proposed Assistant Ministers. They will have no parliamentary responsibilities. The right honourable gentleman uses this argument, among others:

Numbers of those who in times past held office as Assistant Ministers were in due course elevated to full ministerial status.

Never in the memory of any member of the House has there been an illustration of that elevation - that eminence. In 1950 three honourable gentlemen were appointed as Parliamentary UnderSecretaries. They were Mr Falkinder, Mr Howse and Mr Hamilton. None of those gentlemen became a Minister. Only one other honourable gentleman has been appointed as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and that was the present Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). He remained a Parliamentary Under-Secretary for 10 years.

Mr Swartz:

– For 9 years.

Mr WHITLAM:

– For 9 years. His frustration in that post has been shown during his period of 10 years as a Minister, because throughout that decade he has been making up at question time for all those years during which he was unable to answer questions.

Secondly, the Prime Minister suggests that Assistant Ministers are necessary to assist Ministers who are in the Cabinet. There are 3 Ministers who assist Ministers in the Cabinet under the present arrangements. The Prime Minister is assisted on Aboriginal affairs by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and on other affairs in general by the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock). The Minister for Trade and Industry and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is assisted in respect of tourist activities by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). The limitations of the powers of the proposed Assistant Ministers is shown in another section of the Prime Minister’s second reading speech in which he said that they ‘will not be able to take political responsibility in the administration of any department’. In other words, they cannot answer to this Parliament for anything they do as Assistant Ministers. Moreover, they will not be able to answer questions either on notice or without notice.

As far as the Parliament is concerned, the Assistant Ministers will be private members. They will, however, have secretarial assistance superior to that of any other private members, including the whole of the Opposition front bench, except my Deputy and me. This will have the additional disadvantage, as far as the Parliament is concerned, of still further favouring those who are on the Government side and handicapping those who are on the Opposition side. My colleagues, except for my Deputy, are unable to get any assistance in the preparation of their second reading speeches or in the circulation of their second reading speeches.

Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I had given reasons for the Opposition opposing the proposal to appoint Assistant Ministers. I now give the reasons for the Opposition opposing the Ministers of State Bill which will increase the number of Ministers from 26 to 27. The Bill determines the number of Ministers. It does not determine the number of departments. It is already possible for a single Minister to be a Minister for more than one department. Nor does the Bill determine the allocation of departments. The locus classicus for disparaging the idea that one must have more Ministers for more departments is the speech by Mr Menzies, as he then was, when he filled the position of Leader of the Opposition shortly after the war. A proposal was made to make separate ministries for the Postmaster-General, the Army and the Navy. Honourable members would appreciate my quoting his comments on each proposal. He said:

I have yet to learn that to be PostmasterGeneral and nothing else is a heavy job because on the whole 1 would think that the Postal Department was best run by a Postmaster-General who was deaf and dumb.

Again, he said:

If I desired the perfect definition of a cushy job I should like to be Minister for the Army.

Finally, he said:

All I can say is that the Minister for the Navy will not die of overwork. He will probably die of inanition.

The right honourable gentleman could not have foreseen the variety of causes for which Ministers for the Navy would go to their doom. Going backwards, in recent times there have been the new Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay); before him, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen); before him, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly); before him, the present Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp); before him, the present Administrator of the Northern Territory and, before him, the new Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes). In fact one has to go back to the term of the new Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) before one comes to a Minister who has held the Navy portfolio for any length of time, and that right honourable gentleman, during his recent 3 years on the bridge, almost took the ship down with him.

The Prime Minister devotes his whole argument in favour of increasing the number of Ministers to the necessity of divesting himself of some of his responsibilities. These responsibilities, however, are not so insignificant that they should go from the summit to the most junior Minister who is to be appointed. Some of the responsibilities of which he is to divest himself - those related to Aboriginal affairs, the arts and the environ ment - could well justify separate departments.

First, let me refer to the position of Aboriginals. Their position has been highlighted by the fascinating judgment - the very erudite judgment - of Mr Justice Blackburn in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. We now have to face the situation that Aboriginals, because they have been nomadic, have no land rights under the system of law which Captain Phillip implanted from England 200 years ago. We have to face the situation, for instance, posed by the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 107, Indigenous and Tribal Populations, of 1957; in particular the position posed by Article 2 of the Convention which states:

The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the population concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupied shall be recognised.

Australia did not support that Convention when it was concluded. It has done nothing to implement it since. I have been asking questions steadily about it ever since 1960. Furthermore, we have to face the situation posed by the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. We can no longer claim that this Parliament does not have the power to carry out those international conventions. Since the 4-year- old referendum we have all the powers we need.

Secondly, I turn to the position of the arts, lt would almost seem that the new Prime Minister is indicating at the outset of his term that the arts are expendable. He has ejected all those responsibilities from his Department. As an interim step he has given them to the Vice-President of the Executive Council. He has created, in fact, a new department for that gentleman. He has created that department as a limbo for those ideals of the Holt and Gorton eras towards which he is indifferent or hostile - a dumping ground for public servants who received preference under his predecessor and a niche in which to install Ministers who are being recalled or elevated to pay off debts or give State representation.

The new Minister will be the most junior of a ministry of 27. It is my conviction that Australia should now have a department of the arts and that such a department should be guaranteed sufficient institutional flexibility to permit a free exchange between its constituent offices and universities, trusts, companies of the performing arts, associations of artists and the mass media. I envisage that it would be responsible in particular for advising the Commonwealth on the allocation of existing subsidies for the arts and the introduction of new subsidy schemes where need so clearly still exists; for providing Commonwealth support of major cultural festivals, such as the Adelaide Festival of Arts and the Festival of Perth; for Commonwealth sponsorship of international goodwill visits to and from Australia by leading artists, musicians, literary figures, theatrical companies and exhibitions; and for encouraging the Institute of Aboriginal Affairs in its study, of the important aspects of Aboriginal life, art, music and lore, aiming especially at the training of suitable Aboriginals to carry out the task of editing and transmitting Aboriginal culture. I envisage that it will enable us to remove censorship from its present purely administrative context within the Department of Customs and Excise and reestablish it in the setting of cultural and community standards to which it properly belongs.

There has been one particularly flagrant example in the field of the arts where it has been impossible for successive Prime Ministers to give proper attention - the National Art Gallery. A committee of inquiry into the gallery was appointed in September 1965. It reported in March 1966. In January 1968 an architectural competition was announced. In July that year the winner of the competition was announced and in the same month an interim council for the gallery was appointed. Between December 1968 and February 1969 the position of Director of the Gallery was advertised at home and abroad. In July 1969 applicants for the position were interviewed. In September 1969 the previous Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, told me that the establishment of the Australian National Gallery Trust Fund recommended by the Australian National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry in March 1966 had not been ‘brought to our attention’ in any significant way. In May of last year the former Prime Minuter told the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) that the Interim Council had made a recommendation to the Government on the appointment of a Director, that no appointment had been made but that he hoped one would be made ‘shortly’. Later that month the former Minister for the Interior, Mr Nixon, stated that the location of the Gallery would be between the Administration building and the lakeside.

In September last year the former Minister for the Interior told the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury): ‘Design studies for the National Art Gallery certainly are proceeding’. In October last year the former Prime Minister told me that the establishment of the Australian National Gallery Trust Fund was ‘under consideration*. In February this year the former Prime Minister told me: ‘A very distinguished international designer of art galleries’ had ‘decided that he would not accept the position’. In March the right honourable gentleman told me that in giving that answer to me he ‘believed that an offer had been made, which was being considered but later was not accepted’. He had noticed that ‘Mr Sweeney has stated that he had not received an offer and he has now received one’. Just over a week ago I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Alan Hulme) about this matter and apparently the appointment of a Director and the appointment of a permanent council of the Gallery are still pending.

The third matter on which I suggested that there should be separate department - the third of the significant group of matters of which the Prime Minister is divesting himself - concerns the environment. Honourable gentlemen are familiar with the history of the 2 Senate committees which have been appointed to inquire into this subject and of the nature of the recommendations they have made. It is quite clear that the present Prime Minister, as well as preceding Prime Ministers, have not been able to give proper attention to these matters. I do not say that the present Prime Minister descends to the system of communication adopted by his predecessor where the private secretary acknowledged the letters from Premiers. Nevertheless it is clear that the Prime Minister should divest himself of these matters. They should, however, be given not to the most junior Minister but to senior Ministers who can devote an appropriate amount of their attention to these fields.

There are a great number of departments which could with advantage be consolidated. All honourable members are familiar with the arguments for consolidating some of the defence departments. Let me cite, however, the case of the transport departments. Transport is an area in which consolidation could be undertaken with advantage because under existing administrative arrangement orders no fewer than 8 Federal Ministers share responsibility for Australia’s transport facilities with 6 State and 900 municipal authorities. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) controls shipbuilding, light houses, light ships, beacons and buoys but not overseas shipping which has been appropriated by his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), or stevedoring which belongs to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). He controls land transport except when it is located in the Northern Territory and comes under the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt); when the question is one of Commonwealth Aid Roads to be settled by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden); when beef roads involve the Minister for National Development; and when restrictive trade practices are the issue and the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) has his say. He has no control whatsoever over airways which remain the province of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). In short, the areas of transport which do not fall within the authority of the Minister for Shipping and Transport greatly exceed those for which he is in fact responsible.

Is it any wonder, in these circumstances, that the state of Australian transport is chaotic? Our 90 ports are administered by more than 30 different authorities under arrangements which have remained unchanged in their essentials since the 18th century. Our railways are circumscribed by State borders as they were in the 19th century. The division of responsibility for road construction and maintenance among hundreds of authorities of disparate engineering and financial capacity flouts alike the demands and the experience of the 20th century.

We live in a large continent with large concentrations of population hundreds of miles apart. We are an urban and industrial country living by the export of primary and mineral products. In the Australian economy today, cheap, fast and flexible transport is the key to efficiency in almost every field. Equally, it is essential for civilised living in our crowded cities. The key to Australian transport needs is an integrated transport system. We can make a start at developing such a system by integrating federal responsibilities under a single Minister for Transport. The Minister should be expected to bring about as rapidly as possible a reduction in the number of State and municipal authorities with fingers in the transport pie.

In particular he should aim at drawing together the State railways under Commonwealth management. Federal management of railways is the accepted practice in other federal nations. The railways of West Germany are federally managed. In Canada a Federal Government corporation runs one national railway system and a privately owned corporation runs a second national system. Mergers between railways in the United States of America are encouraged by the Interstate Commerce Commission with the approval of the Supreme Court. In Australia, the Commonwealth has had to provide the funds to link, standardise and re-equip our disparate State railway systems. Clearly, the next step is for it to unify their management.

In listing the matters of which he would divest himself, the Prime Minister singularly failed to mention one longstanding anomaly dating from the days when William Morris Hughes persuaded the British Government to allow him as Prime Minister to communicate directly with the British Prime Minister and absolved the Australian Governor-General from reporting to the Dominions Office. The Australia House complex is still the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Department. I have not heard a single argument for a generation why communication with one country should be through the Prime Minister’s

Department and why it should not pass, as all our communications with all other countries have always passed, through the Department of Foreign Affairs as it is now named. But more importantly, there is the question of communications with the States. Here we have a wretched record. I have given the example in regard to Aboriginals of a 1957 ILO Convention and a 1965 United Nations Convention. These are becoming matters of internatioal embarrassment and indeed opprobrium for us. We have been unable as a nation to carry out our obligations during the 1968 Human Rights Year. It appears that we will not be able to carry out our obligations in 1971 which the United Nations General Assembly has designated as International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

Honourable gentlemen will see from an answer which the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs gave me yesterday - it appears at page 2418 of Hansard - the long record of State obstruction or, at best, lack of co-operation. Honourable members will see that New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have still not satisfied the requirements of a 1950 United Nations convention and that most, if not all, of the States have not yet satisfied the requirements of a 1953 United Nations convention. And, as I have stated already, there was the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the group of 1966 international convenants on human rights. The Commonwealth takes the attitude that it cannot honour its international obligations unless the States pass complementary legislation. The States have failed to do so, in some cases going back over 20 years. Very clearly the Prime Minister should be more free - more diligent - in pursuing communications with the States.

This morning the question was asked as to why I had asked the Prime Minister about some particular attitude of the States. The answer is that under our Constitution communications between the Commonwealth and the States go through the Prime Minister and the Premiers - the heads of the respective governments. I hope that now that he has divested himself of so many of his responsibilities for Aboriginal affairs, the arts, the environment and a very great number of other administra tive or housekeeping functions, the Prime Minister will give proper attention to those matters which in a Federal system require co-operation by the States. He should now be more free to press the States to refurbish Australia’s international reputation by carrying out their obligations under those conventions which the Commonwealth alone can contract but which the States for too long have been allowed to frustrate or subvert.

I can only touch here on other aspects of Commonwealth and State relations with which I dealt at greater length 4 weeks ago in a debate on a matter of public importance concerning Commonwealth and State and regional functions and finances. I pointed out that we already have under the Constitution an inter-State Commission, a Commonwealth Grants Commission and a Universities Commission. On these models I suggested there should be a schools commission, a pre-school commission and a hospitals commission. I suggested also, particularly in the light of the break-up of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and the breakdown of the River Murray Commission, that we should have a MurrayDarling authority leading to a national conservation and construction authority. I. pointed out that there should be a fuel and power authority to co-ordinate those responsibilities of the Commonwealth, the States, semi-government authorities and international companies in these respects.

I conclude by saying that the Commonwealth cannot much longer persist in its procrustean endeavours to fit the problems of the last 3 decades of this century within an administrative framework which might have been adequate for the needs of the first 3 decades of this century. Neither can the Commonwealth afford to be dilatory in adopting the programme, planning and decision making techniques which have paid off so handsomely within the private sector of the economy. The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd and other companies, which are as old as the Commonwealth, would not think of running their affairs within the framework that existed at the beginning of this century. The Commonwealth must set itself the task of bridging the gap which exists between their practices and its own. Ultimately, it must make the pace for industry in planning and administrative techniques. It is an historical absurdity that the government of any country should lag behind its private sector in the application of techniques which have so much to offer in the identification of a rational order of priorities, the development of efficient programmes with which to pursue those priorities and the establishment of relevant criteria against which to measure results. The Prime Minister, however, does not need to accumulate further Ministers in order to divest himself of the accumulation of the years in the way that he outlined in his second reading speech on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I wish to say a few words about the Ministers of State Bill 1971 and the ministerial statement on the appointment of Assistant Ministers, which are now under discussion and on which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has spoken at some length. The Ministers of State Bill provides for an increase in the number of Ministers from 26 to 27. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has stated that it is his intention to delegate a number of Assistant Ministers to support senior Ministers in their tasks. We on this side of the House are opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons, as have been stated by the Leader of the Opposition, and also for another reason. Whenever I look at the Ministry in this place and think of it being enlarged with Assistant Ministers and an extra Minister I cannot help but think of the television programme entitled ‘Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width’. That is almost precisely what this Government is asking this Parliament to do in respect of the Ministry at this time. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, no justification has been given for the appointment of an additional Minister and very little, if any, has been given for those who may be constitutionally debarred to be appointed as Assistant Ministers.

In his second reading speech the Prime Minister stated that it was necessary to increase the Ministry from 26 to 27 in order that some of the work that has fallen onto other Ministers might be taken up and that the appointment of an extra Minister for the tasks outlined would relieve Ministers of certain obligations they have at the present time and would allow them more effectively to carry out their own duties. That may be right and it may not be. But as the Leader of the Opposition stated, there is plenty of scope to amalgamate some of the portfolios and in that way we could save considerable expense in the appointment of an additional Minister and avoid the appointment of another man to what we think is already an overloaded Ministry. No matter how you look at this one cannot escape the conclusion that the prime motive behind the appointment of another Minister at this time is to promote to the Ministry one of the supporters of the Prime Minister in the recent battle for leadership.

Is it possible to reinstate one of the deposed Ministers? There are so many deposed Ministers on the other side that it almost requires a special back bench to accommodate them. There are now 7. Possibly from amongst that number ona is to be promoted to this new portfolio. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said in introducing this legislation, in our view he has introduced this legislation so as to place a friend in a position of power close to him and so keep his support or at least remove an opponent. That has to be denied, otherwise we on this side are entitled to say that is the purpose. There is no doubt that the new Minister will have a lot of work to do but there is plenty of scope for amalgamation of Ministries, as I stated, wherein the tasks to be allocated to the new Minister could be absorbed.

Moving on to the question of the appointment of Assistant Ministers it is of interest to note the remarks of Professor Crisp who wrote an article sometime ago on an experiment of this sort by the Menzies Government, which is not a new one, as the Leader of the Opposition said. In his book entitled ‘Australian National Government’ Professor Crisp said:

Experiments with Assistant Ministers and parliamentary under-secretaries, carried on fitfully over the years, have not proved very successful.

Further on in that book he said:

In general the Menzies experiment has not been encouraging. None of the three 1950 appointees ever attained Ministerial office and the two who persisted in their office both retired from Parliament after some years.

Those honourable members on the other side who are looking forward to the future could be taking their first step to oblivion. Professor Crisp went on to say:

The one 1952 appointee finally achieved nonCabinet Ministerial office in 1961.

It is a long long road that has no turning, and in that case one survived. This is the incentive held out to honourable members opposite to support this Bill. I understand from the Prime Minister’s statement that one of the tasks of the Assistant Ministers will be to support certain senior Ministers in the discharge of their duties. I agree on one thing: A lot of them could do with assistance and for some of them I do not think one Assistant Minister will be sufficient. I think the Prime Minister may have to delegate 2 Assistant Ministers to some of the Ministers I have in mind. What will the Assistant Ministers do? In his statement the Prime Minister said:

As members of the Federal Executive Council, the Assistant Ministers will in general be able to exercise statutory functions of the Ministers they are assisting - including the making of’ appointments . . .

What a tremendous task for an Assistant Minister - to make an appointment; it would be a big job that day -

  1. . and the performance of other functions expressly conferred on the Minister - provided he has authorised them to this effect.

If the Minister did not like the Assistant Minister appointed to him, he could sit around all day and twiddle his thumbs. Who is to choose these Assistant Ministers? If, for instance, some personality on the other side of the House was chosen to assist the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton) and a few weeks ago he had helped him on the way out, it would make a farce of the situation. The Prime Minister went on to say:

Thus Assistant Ministers will be able to make appointments and perform other functions expressly conferred on the Minister by legislation.

In the first half of his speech the Prime Minister said only that Assistant Ministers could make appointments. It would be very difficult to convince me that a senior clerk - if one did not want to have a junior one - could not do that. The Prime Minister went on to say:

The Assistant Ministers will be assigned to assist certain Ministers of Cabinet rank, who have the responsibility, not only of administering their own departments, but of taking part in the continuing process of consultation which is an essential feature of effective Cabinet government. By appointing Assistant Ministers in this way I see the system of Cabinet government as being strengthened through allowing senior Ministers to give more time to Cabinet business.

Is it absolutely essential to have another section of the Ministry appointed to assist Ministers in what are their normal functions? Ministers are paid a high salary. They are given great assistance at the Public Service level. Is it necessary for them to have further assistance? If so, there is substance in the argument of the Opposition that there is a lot of incompetency amongst Government Ministers. The Prime Minister said:

Assistant Ministers will, of course, work in accordance with the authority given to them by the Senior Minister.

Then he said:

I emphasise that Assistant Ministers will not be able to take political responsibility in the administration of any department.

They will be glorified and reasonably well recompensed office boys- nothing more, nothing less. Any honourable member accepting the position should know that. The Prime Minister went on to say that during the Committee stage of a Bill it is proposed that the Assistant Ministers will sit at the table of the House. I can tell honourable members that we on this side of the House can sit at the table without having to be Assistant Ministers. But that is. one of the plums held out to honourable members opposite as to why Assistant Ministers should be appointed. In the final part of his speech the Prime Minister said:

Numbers of those who in times past held office as Assistant Ministers were in due course elevated to full Ministerial status.

Everybody knows that that is not correct. In the final paragraph the Prime Minister said:

I do not intend at this stage to make specific appointments to the office of Assistant Minister. These will be left until the parliamentary recess . . .

Every member on this side of the Parliament and the other side knows that they are not being announced because of the dissension they will cause.

Mr Reynolds:

– He is not game to announce them.

Mr DALY:

– The Prime Minister is not game to announce them at this time because of the dissension that will be caused. Let us have a look at who the prospective Ministers and Assistant Ministers are. Let us look at those in the second row on the Government benches. There we have the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson). They are ali ex-Ministers and all pretty good. They have told us so themselves over the years, as the honourable member for Moreton knows. There are 7 of them. Will one of them be reappointed or will they be in the unfortunate position of being not good enough to be a Minister but too good to be an Assistant? This could easily happen to those ex-Ministers.

Consequently the Opposition wonders who amongst them will come forth. Perhaps none of them will be appointed, because we have seen the kindly eye of the Prime Minister turned towards none other than the handsome honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who has newly arrived in this Parliament. It is said that he is the chosen son to take his place ahead of those other 7 gentlemen who, for no reason I can see, other than inability, were discarded from the front bench on the first occasion. Then we have the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) listed amongst the prospective Ministers and Assistant Ministers. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) is one who has been smiled upon. It is said. that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) has been considered. The new honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) smiles in the expectation that he too may be chosen. Surely the Prime Minister could not overlook the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who has served in that lowly position of Deputy Government Whip in the face of severe opposition. Of course, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) is hoping - but we are not - that he will be in the Ministry. But what will the Prime Minister do with the hopefuls who must miss out?

I am painting the picture of why the Assistant Ministers will not be announced now. Let us have a look at the discontented section. The young honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has been speaking a lot lately. He must think that he is somewhere down the line. Then we have the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie); the honourable ..member for Ryan (Mr Drury), a long serving member of this Parliament; the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham), who has had 2 or 3 attempts at getting into and staying in Parliament - a fair achievement. He has been here for a couple of years now and he should be entitled to be considered. I can see that the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) gives serious thought to his future here. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) is also making headway, we are told. Then there is the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn), and who would overlook the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) at this late stage? Even today he supported the Government, against his better intentions; so there must be something in the wind.

Mr Speaker, you can see the prospects that are before you. It must frighten you as much as it does us, to see who might be chosen. The situation would not be as bad if those honourable members were better qualified. But I would say that none of them would be much good. What about the Country Party members? They must have abdicated. Quite often the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) has been training in this place for ministerial rank. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) has prayed for success for years and now it seems that it will escape him. All of these things show that the situation opposite is not as it should be. That is why the Assistant Ministers have not been announced. To be truthful - I do not say this in a humorous vein - the members of the Ministry could be described as the misfits. Let me list them for honourable members.

The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) is a dentist. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) is a farmer and grazier, which is a little closer. The Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) is a clergyman. I suppose one could say that for the first time we have a sky pilot in charge of the Navy. When the Government wanted a Minister for Health it appointed a barrister. Repatriation was put under the charge of a grocer and wine and spirit merchant.

Did honourable members ever hear anything like it? With all the distinguished servicemen on the Government side - I pay tribute to them; some of them are in the Ministry - the Government appointed a barrister and solicitor as Minister for the Army. No wonder we are in trouble, with this set-up. The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) is a farmer. No wonder he is up in the air.

The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) is an accountant, company director and farmer. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) is a barrister and solicitor. The Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) is a university lecturer. Of course my distinguished friend at the table, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), has had wide experience as a grazier and stud farmer. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) is a farmer and grazier. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bury) is a company director, former bank officer and qualified economist, so I am told. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) is a farmer and grazier. To make the conflict more difficult in regard to foreign affairs, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) is a barrister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is an economist. Is it any wonder that there is a mix-up on the Government side? We find that the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in real life is a real property valuer. In other words, he may be able to supply land, but he is not coming forward on the practical side of the situation of which he is in charge.

If one runs through the list of misfits one sees that this situation exists right through. I do not reflect on the avocations of the gentlemen concerned, but I see the situation as being one of square pegs in round holes. Is it any wonder that the situation exemplified in the legislation before the House today will merely add to the difficulties? If honourable members think that the list I have read out was not so hot, they will be frightened by what may come about. Let us look at the Ministries. The Ministries change as often as one changes one’s shirt. We have had no fewer than 14 Ministers for the Navy since 1949. We have had 9 Ministers for Civil Aviation, 7 Ministers for Shipping and Fuel, 12 Ministers for Air, 8 Ministers for External Affairs, 7 Ministers for Immigration, 9

Ministers for Defence and 9 Ministers for the Interior. In other words, they chop and change in the Ministry. .A Minister hardly gets settled into a portfolio before he is out again, in many cases not because of his inability but because of dissension in the Liberal ranks.

This brings me to the major point of my argument. I have pointed out those things today in order to show the real purpose behind this Bill. It is so that the Prime Minister can quell the rebellion in his ranks. There will be 27 in the Ministry and others will be appointed as Assistant Ministers and, whoopee, the new Prime Minister has got the numbers in the Caucus. He will have no trouble. Out of about 70 members, 37 will be dependent on him. He will not have the worries of the previous Prime Minister. There will be no dead heats in ballots because 27 will be with him and he wilt have the support of several Assistant Ministers. Is this not true? Is this not the reason why the Government is not announcing the Ministry today? This is the real purpose of it.

On the more serious side, what is the Government doing for _ the Opposition while it is providing for expenses for the new Assistant Ministers, establishing a new department at great cost, and appointing another Minister at a salary of over $20,000? We on this side battle along as best we can with one or two secretaries for the whole of the Opposition. Our research is done by members themselves. This Bill is another way by which the Government is giving itself spoils. It is building up its own organisation at the expense of the public purse and is refusing at any stage to give any assistance, clerical, secretarial or otherwise, to members of the Opposition. This shows how frightened the Government is getting. It has to build up its own machine at public expense in order to stop the Opposition from taking office. It feels that by building up this machine and at the same time quelling the rebellion in its ranks it will be able to survive at the next election, whenever it may be.

Mr Archie Cameron, a former Speaker of this House, on one occasion stated in this House that it was very suspect whether or not an Assistant Minister under the provisions of the Constitution, could take any expenses for an office of profit under the Crown. Mr Cameron, like yourself, Mr Speaker, was a very distinguished personality and a very able and just man. He said in this Parliament that it was constitutionally challengeable whether those who accepted these positions of Assistant Ministers should not forfeit their places in this Parliament. I suggest that this matter should be looked at very carefully along with the other matters I mentioned a few moments ago. Instead of building up its machine, creating another portfolio and giving expenses to more Ministers, why does the Government not extend the expenses paid to members of the Opposition? Why not increase all round the allowances that should be paid to members on this side? Instead of spending money on a salary increase for one Minister in order to stop a rebellion in the Liberal ranks, why should not members on this side of the Parliament, who are working at rates not comparable to those payable to anybody outside the Parliament, get more? Why not do this instead of passing the increased expenditure over to a selected few in the Government ranks for the reasons I have mentioned?

I think it is regrettable in a democracy that a new Prime Minister sees fit to quell rebellion at Government expense. I think it is shocking that he will not announce his Ministry while the Parliament is sitting. That is another reason why between now and Thursday night the guillotine will be applied. We will be gagged out of political existence for a few months in order that these plums can be handed out and that those who support the Prime Minister can be rewarded. I can only describe this action - I hate to use the word here - as a despicable approach to democracy in this place, and I think the Government deserves to be condemned for it. I have shown the type of Minister we have and the type of men who might come into the Ministry; to say the least, it is a frightening position. I think that the Government and the people will suffer, and Australia certainly deserves a change of Government.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– Wisdom dictates that I should not follow the same pattern as my honourable friend, the member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), in speaking to this Ministers of State Bill introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr

McMahon). I want to make a few observations on this proposition. Basically it is simple. It is to increase the Ministry by one. The Opposition, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Grayndler, will oppose the proposition and will give its reasons for such opposition. In the first instance one must ask the question: Is it necessary? If it is necessary, why is it necessary? Is it to produce greater efficiency in the Government? Is it designed to give the Aboriginal people a greater sense of belonging, a greater sense of justice or a greater sense of possession? Is it to give a greater impetus to the performing arts of this country? Will the environment become more attractive and pleasurable? The answer must be in the negative.

The Bill merely lumps together a number of essential responsibilities into a Ministry that might well be named the Ministry of the Conglomerate. We may well pose the question: Why is this being done? Why is this proposition before the House at this stage? One suggestion that commends itself is that the Prime Minister is anxious to prop up his own tenuous position within the Liberal Party by handing out a further portfolio to ensure support and to add to the strengthening of the McMahon line. I merely make the point; I do not supply the answer. Is the Bill designed as a mild rebuke to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who has had the responsibility for Aboriginal affairs? While we on this side of the House do not agree readily that he has done all that we would have liked him to do, he has at least exhibited in that office a remarkable humanity in a very sensitive area. Could it be that this is a censure of a senator in another place in the field of tourist activity? Again I merely pose the question.

The whole proposition really has been conceived in haste and is an absurdity even for this Government. Let me list briefly the responsibilities that will be assumed by the new Minister if this fatuous proposal succeeds. In his second reading speech the Prime Minister stated: it will assist honourable members if I list the functions which at this stage will be under the administration of the new Minister.

I crave the indulgence of the House because they are fairly extensive. He stated:

These are:

Aboriginal affairs, including responsibility for the Council for Aboriginal Affairs and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Activities relating to the environment, including responsibility for the Office of the Environment.

Activities relating to the arts and letters, including responsibility for -

Australian Council for the Arts

Australian National Gallery

Commonwealth Art Advisory Board

Commonwealth Literary Fund

Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers Advisory Board

  1. National Library of Australia
  2. Commonwealth Archives Office
  3. Australian War Memorial
  4. Activities relating to the production of Australian films, including responsibility for the Australian Film Development Corporation -

Yet the story has not run its course. He continued:

  1. Grants to national organisations
  2. National Radiation Advisory Committee

He then referred to responsibility for the Government Printing Office and the Commonwealth Advertising Division. Finally he referred to the field of tourism, including the activities of the Tourist Commission. Having read that, do honourable members seriously believe that the impetus that is necessary in all these fields, in these areas of activity, can flow effectively from one Minister? It is not possible. We of the Opposition say that it is incredible that it has been proposed. This Bill is a diminution of the Aboriginal question. It is a downgrading of the importance of the performing and the creative arts, which was recognised by the former Prime Minister before he was unceremoniously removed from that high office.

Let me deal briefly with the four key areas of responsibility - Aboriginal affairs, the arts, the environment and tourism. In his second reading speech the Prime Minister said:

The effect of the successful referendum in 1967 was to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws in relation to the Aboriginals, as it already could for the people of any other race. Following the overwhelming vote of the people the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt, judged that initially the administration by the Commonwealth of Aboriginal Affairs should be within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

The present Prime Minister, while recognising the virtue of that decision, is now about to abrogate that responsibility. Will this new Ministry give more effect and a more humane consideration to the question of Aboriginal affairs than was given by the Minister for Social Services? I turn now to the field of the arts. The Commonwealth is becoming increasingly involved with and is giving assistance in a wide variety of forms to the arts and I have never disagreed with this in the House. I have welcomed it. The Prime Minister went on to say:

I have no doubt that this is widely welcomed.

Indeed it is. He continued:

We ought to continue to develop in this field and we will

This again was put forward by the Prime Minister with great initiative and great sensitivity. The very office of Prime Minister gave the performing arts of this country a certain prestige that a new ministry will certainly not have. I turn now to this question of the environment. The Prime Minister said:

An office to bring together and generally to superintend the Commonwealth’s work and responsibilities in the environmental field is a new initiative, and an important one.

I will digress here for a moment to say that it is an important issue - so important that the British Government has appointed a Ministry for the Environment with no other responsibilities. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out very cogently and quite clearly, the time has now arrived in this country when the whole environmental question is deserving of a single Ministry with the subsequent responsibility that this will bring about.

I turn now to tourism which again will be lumped into this great amalgam of ministerial responsibility. If the Government is really serious about its aspirations to continue and to expand the field of tourism surely to goodness this taking away from the existing set-up is a negative step. I quote now from the 1969-70 annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission merely to give some statistical evidence of the importance of tourism to this country. The report said:

The total visitor inflow of 387,197 earned for Australia $119min foreign exchange during 1969.

Preliminary figures for the financial year 1969- 70 indicate that receipts for that year were some 8127m and that visitor inflow totalled about 415,000.

Is it sensible - indeed is it practical - to entrust to the responsibility of one man all these various, diverse and sensitive activities with the large amount of money that is involved? The Opposition suggests that it is not. Let us look at the responsibility of the Federal Government in the field of arts, that is, the performing arts and the creative arts. It is necessary to understand that these are divided into certain areas of activity within the community. For example, the Arts Council of Australia is organised, generally speaking, on a State basis and receives support from the States and this Federal Government. The function of this Council is to encourage the arts by arranging tours in rural and metropolitan areas of opera, ballet, drama and music companies, and to arrange a wide variety of exhibitions in rural and metropolitan areas. Its financial success, as I have pointed out, rests largely with the State and Federal Governments.

I turn now to the Australian Council for the Arts, which is a different body altogether. It distributes Commonwealth money and advises the Commonwealth Government as to which groups should be assisted financially. Its functions and its access to financial resources are, of course, far greater than that of the Arts Council. For example, its allocation for the financial year 1969-70 was almost $3m. Basically its function is to study and report on the state of the various arts in this country. To elaborate a little further on this aspect of its operations, we have, for instance, overseas tours by Australian ballet companies which bring enormous prestige to this country by their artistic success and their great performances. We have had tours overseas by symphany orchestras, namely the Sydney and Melbourne Symphony Orchestras. The Melbourne Orchestra received distinguished and successful critical acclaim in the United States. Briefly that is an outline of the functions of these 2 distinctly different groups, although they hope to achieve the same ends in the creative and the performing arts.

It can be readily seen that in view of these diverse functions, this channelling of Commonwealth money is a realisation by the Commonwealth that it has a very important role to play in the promotion of the performing and the creative arts in this country. I cannot accept that a Ministry that is a kaleidoscope of tourism, the environment and of so many other extraordinary sorts of responsibilities will be able to carry out effectively and efficiently the contribution and the assistance to the arts that was enunciated by the former Prime Minister, now the Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton). The proposed new Minister will be responsible for the Australian Film Development Corporation which is to be set up under legislation passed through this Parliament last year. As everybody knows, the Corporation will begin with an initial capital of Sim. Its function is to excite the imagination of indigenous producers and creative artists in this country. It was launched by the former Prime Minister. I praised the legislation when it was introduced. Once more the new Prime Minister has divested himself of this responsibility - for what reason we do not know. That is best known to himself.

It can be readily seen from the figures I have quoted this afternoon that to propose that all these tasks be placed on the shoulders of one man is an extraordinary presumption of Homeric strength and an Everestian intellectual capacity. But specifically in the field of the arts it is disappointing and it will be a great disappointment to the Australian artistic scene. It is a retrograde step and it will create an impotence when we are crying out for virility in this area. It has in my view denigrated the importance of the creative arts that are deserving of, that should have and will have under a Labor government, their own ministry. It highlights the lip service paid by this Prime Minister to the arts and, indeed, to the environment generally. By this action in a very cynical political fashion with one stroke the Prime Minister has displayed an insensitivity which has been promoted by specific and selfish political desire to rally support to his Prime Ministerial future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that the House will reject this measure. I hope that the nation will note that not one member of the Government Parties - I repeat, not one member - thinks this legislation brought into the House by their newly elected Prime Minister of sufficient importance even to speak on it. There has been a very strange silence indeed from a usual vociferous chorus on most issues. The silence of the Government members is, I suggest, very significant. These measures advanced by the Prime Minister in no way accord the priorities to the arts, to Aboriginal affairs or to the environment consistent with the needs and the aspirations of the Australian people in this, the last term of the century. On those grounds I ask the House to reject this anachronistic proposal.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– This debate has 2 aspects. One is the appointment of an additional Minister, which is all very well and most likely will in some way assist the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) out of his numerical difficulties which arise because of the necessity to place friends and relations in the Ministry whilst at the same time maintaining some people of ability in high office. The Opposition is opposed to the manner in which this Bill has been brought forward. The Opposition also opposes the manner in which such important questions are considered.

The Prime Minister, almost out of the air, decides that he is no longer capable of carrying out the duties which previous Prime Ministers carried out.

He decides therefore that he will divide up his Department and appoint another Minister to do half his work. The Prime Minister then proceeds to bring forward a Bill. In the process, he hands on those operations of his Department which were to be the functions of the new Minister to another senior Minister and takes duties away from a junior Minister and makes them the basis for the appointment of a new Minister. This time the functions of the new Minister are not those functions which the Parliament - or more specifically the newspapers of Australia - was informed of at an earlier time. It is consistent with the activities of the Government that members of Parliament would be the last people to be informed of what the Government’s intentions were in this field. I think it would be in order for the Parliament to consider seriously whether or not the appointment of an additional Minister is justified and whether the situation of the junior Ministers is such that they could not accept some small increase in work load which would enable the present Ministry to do the current amount of work.

Another point is that with the addition of Assistant Ministers there will be an extremely lopsided situation between Ministers, members holding some form of ministerial authority and back bench members of the Government. This situation has existed in the past only in very small parliaments such as the Tasmanian Parliament where there are more chiefs than indians. A situation will be created very shortly in the Parliament where there are more Ministers than back bench members. I wonder whether members of the Liberal Party have considered the situation which will evolve in their Party room when they line up and find that some 40 people in the party room hold official positions within the Parliament and who would suffer considerable remunerative gain or loss by any displeasure they incur from the Prime Minister who has the life and death appointment of these people in his hands. What hope will back bench members of the Government have of influencing seriously Government policy? They will be that close to being outnumbered that it will not be funny. 1 think that is a matter for serious consideration.

The appointment of Assistant Ministers is not a new proposition. The last time this proposition was raised in Ibis Parliament, it came from the then Prime Minister. lt was dropped on the basis that he felt it was unconstitutional. It is a proposition about which the present Prime Minister has indicated that he does not think the Constitution would allow these men to be paid. I presume we have a very good set of Liberal philosophies in this: The Assistant Ministers will be expecting to work, but not to be paid. However, the Prime Minister has indicated that they will be entitled to out of pocket expenses and travelling allowances. I would ask - and I think the House is entitled to at least have this information before it before agreeing to the legislation - at what rates these allowances and out of pocket expenses will be paid? Will they be paid at the same rates that apply to Ministers or will they be same rates as apply to ordinary members of the House, because these members are ordinary members of the House. If they are paid out of pocket expenses at a greater rate than that to which members of the House are entitled to receive they are at least indirectly receiving remuneration for their positions^ am sure that most honourable members of “the House would find it much easier to discuss the whole situation of travelling allowances and remunerations, etc., rather than in this backhanded way of rewarding one or two close supporters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are seriously involved also in this proposition. The Prime Minister has indicated that these Assistant Ministers will sit at the table during the Committee stages of debates on Bills. This will be something new because normally we have Ministers sitting at the table who have absolutely nothing to do with the Bills being debated before the House. The Ministers who are in charge of such Bills are always too busy to attend to their business in this House. This has been especially so during the last 3 or 4 Budgets. Treasurers of the Commonwealth of Australia have not been present to deal with their Budgets. I would hope that no Government could have such contempt for the Parliament that it would consider putting Assistant Ministers at the table while the House debated the Budget and the Estimates of the various departments.

Mr Cope:

– We would all walk out if it did.

Mr SCHOLES:

– No, we would not. I would point out that the Standing Orders confer certain privileges on members of this Parliament. I would like to know now whether those privileges are to be extended to Assistant Ministers.

Mr Bryant:

– It is about time we had a few.

Mr SCHOLES:

– By the expansion of these processes we could end up in a position where every Government member is either a Minister or an Assistant Minister. There are nearly enough positions to go around to cover every one of them. They would be in a situation where they would have privileges to which ordinary members of the Parliament are not entitled. For instance, Ministers can speak on an unlimited number of occasions in the explanation of points during the Committee stages of a Bill.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he will be looking at the Standing Orders, and, if necessary, he will have them changed. I would suggest that before he decides to appoint Assistant Ministers in such a way as completely ignores the Parliament he should ask the Parliament whether it is prepared to amend the Standing Orders in order to facilitate these appointments and to facilitate the functions which these Assistant Ministers are supposed to carry out. What a ludicrous situation it would be. It could well happen because on most occasions when the Standing Orders are before the House and amendments are proposed a free vote is granted to honourable members. What a ludicrous situation it would be if Assistant Ministers are appointed with trumpet fanfares and the Standing Orders are not altered in order to afford them the privileges which will be conferred - wrongly, I think - to them. In this situation, they would not be able to perform their functions. I think that it is bad enough that Ministers should have such excessive privileges in the House. To confer those privileges on ordinary members of Parliament who are not responsible in any way to the Parliament for their activities would be totally wrong.

Mr Daly:

– They are very ordinary too.

Mr SCHOLES:

– That is a matter of judgment. At this time, our judgment would be different from that of those on the other side of the House. But our judgment would be right of course.

Another matter in this second reading speech which causes considerable concern is that Assistant Ministers in some way or other will take part in the running and administration of departments, but they will have no political responsibility and will not be able to accept political responsibility. In effect this means that they will not be responsible to this Parliament. This will create a lovely old situation: it will be another addition to the buck passing line. Already, when Ministers in this House are in trouble, they blame the public servants in charge of their departments, State Premiers or anyone they can find. In fact, some Ministers even blame Opposition members for their mistakes. Now we will have Assistant Ministers who, according to the Prime Minister’s statement, will not be subject to questioning by or responsible to the Parliament and who, with impunity, will be able to make all the mistakes they like. The Minister at the table, who will have to accept responsibility, will be able to stand up and say, T did not actually do this; you will have to see the Assistant Minister.’ And, after all, the Assistant Minister is not recognised by this Parliament as the person responsible. I think that this matter is open to serious question.

I now wish to deal seriously with another matter referred to by the Prime Minister in his ministerial statement. He said:

I do not intend at this stage to make specific appointments to the office of Assistant Minister. These will be kit until the parliamentary recess.

I ask why the Parliament is considered to be so irrational that such an important step is not to be taken while the Parliament is in session. There is no reason whatever why the Parliament must go into recess today, tomorrow or next week. If there is a pressing reason, I think it is the responsibility of the Government to inform the Parliament and the people of Australia why the Parliament cannot remain in session.

At present on the notice paper we have the greatest list of executions since the French Revolution - 17 guillotines in one motion, an amazing proposition for any democratic Parliament. If this was the second or third week in June, as it was last year when we were seriously faced with the possibility of not being able to have the Budget prepared in time, we could understand such a course being taken, but in this case we are in the first week in May, and it is one of the earliest times that Parliament has been going into recess in recent years. There must be an explanation for this; it may be that the Prime Minister is afaid of the Parliament. He says that he is a team man; possibly the team he belongs to is not the one that operates in this House.

I have one other point to make. The Prime Minister says that the Assistant Ministers will be members of the Executive Council. I presume this will entitle them to be called ‘honourable’. They will be entitled to make appointments. Many very important appointments are made by Ministers of this Parliament. Although I will not say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to this, I think that some honourable members would consider that many of these appointments most likely should be subject to further consideration. The Prime Minister does not specify any limit to the number of appointments that Assistant Ministers may make. They will be able to sit on the Executive Council and make appointments. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is an appointed official. Will these Assistant Ministers be able to participate in such an appointment? The Presidential Members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are appointed officials; not only are they appointed but they are appointed for life. Therefore, once they are appointed the only way their appointment can be revoked is by this Parliament’s deciding that they are incompetent.

Sir, it may be stretching the bounds of imagination a little far to suggest that an Assistant Minister may make such an appointment. However, the fact is that there is nothing in the Prime Minister’s statement to suggest what appointments will be made by these Assistant Ministers. When the Treasurer is overseas attending a meeting of the International Bank or doing something else - he is always too busy to deal with the affairs of the Parliament at Budget time, and no doubt he is too busy with other matters at other times, too - will the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer be able to appoint the Commissioner of Taxation or the members of the Tariff Board? Will Assistant Ministers be able to appoint people to high offices in the Public Service? What limits are involved in the making of these appointments? We should also consider the appointment of members of the Board of the Commonwealth Development Bank and other appointments made by this Parliament. All that the Prime Minister has said is that the Assistant Ministers will be members of the Executive Council and will be empowered to make appointments.

I assume - and I hope correctly - that surely no Prime Minister would say in Parliament that Assistant Ministers would be able to make appointments in the other sense of the word - that they would be able to make appointments for Ministers to see people; surely secretaries would do that. Therefore, I can only assume that the appointments referred to in the second reading speech are the types of appointment to which I have referred: Appointments to positions and posts. It is most likely that there will be some graded scale.

Up to grade X an Assistant Minister will be able to appoint a certain officer, but once that officer becomes more senior, further appointments will have to be made by Ministers, most probably first by a junior Minister and later by a senior Minister. I suggest that the whole proposition of Assistant Ministers is not well enough explained or defined. I do not think the Prime Minister has thought it out at all, and I am quite sure that the Government supporters have not even seriously considered it. The obvious reason for the appointments is to keep a few more people happy and to enable certain remunerations and staff facilities to be made available to back bench Government supporters, such remunerations and staff facilities not being available even to front bench members of the Opposition.

The real crunch of the matter is to gain a political advantage, in that staff, speech writers and so on will be made available to Government supporters, while the Government can stand back and refuse to grant even front bench members of the Opposition the same type of facility. After all, there are certain political advantages in having one’s speeches written and in being able to stand up in Parliament and sound like an expert on matters one knows nothing whatever about. In these circumstances, a Government Minister can even use the guillotine, passing through Parliament legislation which he wishes to pass and which 90 per cent of Government supporters do not even understand. This serious matter could have long term repercussions in the Parliament. I suggest that, if Government members are concerned about their own conditions and about the role that members of Government parties in Australia play, they should consider this question. They should not accept this type of buying off with a few sops. It is likely that there will be a public relations officer and a paid secretary, the use of a Commonwealth car and probably an allowance of $20 a day whenever these Assistant Ministers are not in Canberra. If honourable members on the Government side are prepared to accept this situation this is a very sorry state of affairs for the Parliament and this country. I suggest that before any action is taken on the Bill at least the Standing Orders Committee should be asked to examine the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister, and particularly to consider whether it will allow these Assistant Ministers to have the rank of full Ministers in the Parliament because, at the moment, there is no provision in the Standing Orders for them to sit at the table and play the part that it is necessary for a Minister to play during the Committee stages of a Bill.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Government members have stood aside, allowing Opposition members to speak successively in opposing this matter. Furthermore, the list of speakers, as handed to me by the Opposition Whip, is now complete.

Mr Bryant:

– That is not true; I put my name on the list.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GILES:

– May I repeat whatI have said? The list, as handed to me this morning by the Opposition Whip, is now complete. As there is pressing Government business, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 6

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I draw to the attention of the Committee clause 3 which increases the number of Ministers but before I discuss this clause I should like to comment on the way in which the Deputy Whip of the Government Parties is handling affairs. Yesterday the Government faced extreme difficulty in trying to keep the Parliament working and in adjusting schedules so that Government business could be handled expeditiously. I agreed to speak at such time and at such length as fitted in with the arrangements that were made. This afternoon when I rose to speak on this Bill–

Mr Turnbull:

Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has referred to me. 1 have not done anything as he has suggested. I ask him to put the record straight.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I would suggest that the Committee come to order. It might then be possible to hear the honourable member for Wills make his speech.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am not surprised at the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) who has no concern at all for the proprieties of parliamentary procedures and the conduct of business in this chamber. He uses every resource of parliamentary numbers to rig boundaries and so on and he never votes against the gag. He has given this issue no consideration.

Mr Turnbull:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman; what the honourable member is now saying is quite incorrect.

THE CHAIRMAN - Order! The point raised by the honourable member for Mallee is a debating point and not a point of order.

Mr BRYANT:

– I thank you for your protection, Mr Chairman. On 29th April this Bill was introduced into this chamber. Today, a few days later, we are considering what should be a fundamental rearrangement of the functions of government. The point I make is that at no stage have honourable members examined the functions of this Parliament in respect of what might be called the executive instrument of the nation. From 1900 until 1970 we have seen ad hoc adjustments of ministerial functions. Sometimes these have been made through dire necessity or to meet the nation’s needs as in wartime. Sometimes these adjustments have been made simply because a change of government has meant a change in the view of the way in which the Parliament should work, as occurred in 1949. In recent years we have seen continuing ad hoc adjustments to the numbers, not because there is any relationship between the Ministry and the functions of government, between the Ministry and the Parliament or the numbers of the Parliament, but because such adjustments happen to fit in with the needs for the time being. On this occasion there will be a reshuffling of the Ministry.

On behalf of the Parliament I resent the way in which Ministers are reshuffled at the behest of Prime Ministers and changing Prime Ministers. Each time there has been a change of Prime Minister some members of the Ministry have fallen by the wayside. I recall when the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) was Minister for the Navy. He was the first Minister for the armed Services who had taken the Parliament into his confidence - who had taken members of the Parliament to look at the work of his Department. So, of course, he was sacked. We may. find the same situation now. The honourable member for Mackellar, the Minister for Social Services and Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) is the only member on the other side who has shown a consistent interest in Aboriginal affairs. I say this in ali fairness to him, but there is every indication that he may not have much say in that area for much longer.

Today we are concerned with how the Ministry should operate. We are to have a new Minister. We do not know what his title will be or which function he will supervise. We are also to have Assistant Ministers. I think it is an unduly narrow reading of the Constitution to say that there cannot be Assistant Ministers, even through I disapprove of a third tier of the Ministry in that sense. But from my reading of section 62 of the Constitution relating to the functions of the Executive Council and the functions of government it would seem to me not to be difficult to overcome the constitutional problems. Members of the Opposition have a different view of the functions of a Minister from that of honourable members opposite. I believe that more, not less, parliamentary control is necessary. I have no idea what the number of Ministers should be and 1 have no confidence that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has given any consideration to what might be called, I suppose, an industry work and motion study, time and motion study, cost analysis or feasibility analysis.

We are debating a matter that relates to the administration of the nation. Recently my friend the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) asked a question about the number of committees and boards which were helping to administer the nation or doing whatever they are supposed to be doing and the reply to that question occupies 48 pages of Hansard. The honourable member for Grayndler is a particularly assiduous member of the Parliament. His question and the reply will be found in Hansard of 10th March 1971 on pages 763 to 810. In addition the ‘Commonwealth Directory’ sets out on page after page the innumerable duties of every ministerial portfolio. As my friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) earner pointed out, many of these duties would impose a heavy burden on a Minister. For instance, we have one Minister handling primary industry and another Minister mishandling housing. How can one person handle the functions of primary industry?

I believe that there should be a complete look at the situation. Some functions are purely governmental. These relate to the functions of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and perhaps control of the Public Service Board. On the other hand there are functions relating to transport and communications - Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian National Line, railways, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Post Office. Also there are fundamental areas of social policy, such as education and science. Further there are the areas of social welfare, works, the defence Services and so on. Each one of these is a formidable undertaking. We have never considered how the Parliament should operate. How is the Parliament to keep constant supervision and scrutiny of these areas? How will a Minister overcome difficulties of geography in a country of the mammoth size of Australia? I do not know whether we have reached the stage when a single Ministry as such is an anachronism and we might have to consider doing what I understand is done in private industry or major concerns and appoint a parliamentary board of some sort, call it what we will.

The honourable member for Casey (Mr Howson) as a former Minister should be able to show exactly how not to be a Minister. As I recall, he was misled by his Department. I think that was the situation; in fact, 1 am quite confident that that is what happened. But how did it happen? Did it happen because he was one man facing a great phalanx of people in a Service department? That may well have been the position. Was it because he was one person alone and had so many other functions to perform? We, as the administrators of an operational unit of the nation, ought to sit down and examine this. Honourable members on this side of the House oppose this legislation now. It is a totally irrelevant exercise so that the Prime Minister can reshuffle his friends and foes and so preserve his tenuous hold upon his high office. But as a parliamentarian I put it to honourable members on both sides of the House that we should examine very carefully the question of how Ministers are to operate.

Honourable members opposite have a leadership principle allied with tight party discipline. As a result no matter what happens, when even that humble person the Deputy Whip of the Government parties says: ‘I put the question’, bang, Government supporters roll out like the automata they are. I suppose this is what one may call a totally mechanistic political party. It is hard to tell whether honourable members opposite are run by transistors or by clockwork. Probably they are run by clockwork to make them contemporary with their political attitudes. Honourable members on this side of the House have a caucus which considers all matters as equals. However, we come to the point where we ask: How do we make a Minister, whoever he might be, respond to public demand? How do we make the Minister and the Government respond to the demands of the public on questions relating to Aboriginal affairs, for instance, or to the environment? These are the questions which we should be discussing today; these are the questions which should have been ploughed around in the parliamentary system for weeks before we came to a decision about this. That is why we on this side of the House reject this measure. I, as a person, reject the operations because of the totally discourteous, thoughtless and selfish way in which the Government, and particularly the Deputy Whip, have bandied the affairs of this House.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I want to take my time during the Committee stage of this Bill to say briefly that I am amazed at a statement which the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) made against me. On three occasions he referred to what the Deputy Whip of the Government parties had said. As a matter of fact, I have not spoken today.

Mr Bryant:

– I did not think that you were the Deputy Whip.

Mr TURNBULL:

– It does not matter what the honourable member thinks - I am the Deputy Whip of the Government parties. The honourable member for Wills knows this. Generally speaking he is only trying to make a play on things. I notice that the honourable member for Wills is rising now in order to get the call. That is the best thing he can do because if he puts right what he has said I will be happy.

Mr BRYANT (Wills) - I wish to make a personal explanation. I want to make it clear that I in no way referred to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). I realise that humble as the position of Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party is - that is the person to whom I was referring - it is much more exalted than the position to which the honourable member for Mallee is entitled.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– I call the honourable member for Perth.

Motion (by Mr. Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 52

Majority .. .. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That theBill be agreed to.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 52

Majority .. .. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be reported without amendment.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 52

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the report be adopted.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leave - proposed.

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I oppose the motion for the third reading on the ground that the Bill still has not been justified although it has gone through its first reading, second reading and Committee stages. Up until now only one Government member - the Prime Minister (Mr

McMahon) himself - has attempted to justify the changes in the existing Act. While he gave 3 purported reasons for the change, he did not give a justification. I think that even at this stage, as no other member of the Government parties has been prepared to say a word in favour of this proposition, we should look at it again and oppose it. When the Prime Minister presented the Bill on 29th April he gave 3 supposed reasons in favour of the change. The first reason was to free senior Ministers from other important matters - that is. matters which were important but peripheral or irrelevant to the Minister’s primary responsibilities. The second reason was to gain the administrative advantage which he saw in grouping together the matters which he proposed to group under the responsibilities of the twenty-seventh Minister. His third reason was to free the Prime Minister to perform his most important functions more effectively.

If one looks at those 3 reasons one finds that the first and third are the same and that the second is merely an unsupported assertion without any indication of what the advantages of that grouping might be. Indeed, in looking at the matters, it is difficult to see how grouping together the Historic Memorials Committee and the Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board will be a matter of any great administrative convenience at all. There are 2 main considerations in opposing the Bill. The first is that, although the Prime Minister stressed and drew our attention to the need to assist Ministers, who would in future be freed from some of the responsibilities he listed, he devoted no time at all to the effectiveness of the attention which would in future be given to the matters now to be grouped together. Most important of those would be the attention to be given to Aboriginal welfare. There are others in this Parliament, certainly in my own Party, who are better qualified than I am to speak on Aboriginal welfare.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the honourable member that he is now speaking on the third reading of the Bill. This debate does not cover the second reading of the Bill; it covers only a discussion of the Bill as reported. I have let the honourable member have some scope in this debate, but I suggest that he should come back to the Bill as reported and as adopted.

Mr BERINSON:

- Mr Speaker, my purpose in raising this matter arose from the fact that clause 3 of the Bill, which I take it is relevant to our discussion, calls for an increase in the number of Ministers from 26 to 27. My point in raising the matters I was attempting to discuss was to show that, firstly, we should not be increasing the number of Ministers.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2473

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2245), on the following paper presented by Mr McMahon:

Appointment of Assistant Ministers - Ministerial Statement, 29 April 1971 - and on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I move:

In support of this motion I deal firstly with what the Opposition considers to be a doubt about whether the appointment of Assistant Ministers is constitutional. To support my contention I quote the decision of’ a former Speaker of this Parliament the late Hon. Archie Cameron, on 27th May 1952.. It appears at page 818 of Hansard. A question had been directed to the Speaker relating to the constitutional position of the under secretaries who had been appointed at that time. Mr Speaker Cameron said:

Any honourable member who cares to do so, “may read in May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ that certain members of the House of Commons were debarred, in 1945, from sitting in the House because they had accepted certain offices under the Crown and that certain other members were so debarred in 1950. Honourable members will also find much relevant information in the report of a committee of the House of Commons which, in 1941, was charged with the duty of discovering the state of the law with regard to the holding of offices and places of profit under the Crown. The report of the committee contains some strong statements, and the point is made that it does not matter whether a member receives money or not. The test is whether he holds office, because a man may profit from the holding of office under the Crown without receiving money. In the authorities to which I have referred, case after case is discussed very fully, and opinions are expressed very distinctly. It is shown that several eminent parliamentarians, including Lord Palmerston, were disqualified from holding seats because they had accepted office under the Crown although no fee or emolument was attached to those offices.

Mr Speaker, it would be interesting to see whether your research would support the statement of your somewhat illustrious predecessor. It is significant that sitting at the table today in charge of this matter is the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). 1 will quote from Hansard of 28th August 1952 something that he said. The present

Leader of the House was appointed an Assistant Minister at the time the late Hon. Archie Cameron spoke on that matter. On 28th August 1952 the present Leader of the House made a personal explanation alleging that he had been misrepresented in regard to a clash with the Speaker over his accommodation as an Assistant Minister. Mr Swartz said:

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that prior to my appointment as parliamentary under-secretary, I was occupying a room in Parliament House which I shared, with the honourable member for Bowman (Mr McColm). As it was necessary for me to have a single room in order to carry out my new duties, I approached a member of the House of Representatives staff, who subsequently wrote to you, as the Speaker, setting out my request. After a short time, as no reply had been received from you, you will recall that I telephoned you in South Australia. My understanding of the result of that conversation was that you would not provide a room for an under-secretary but. that if I changed my accommodation with a private member, as’ a private member, then you would have no objection.

In other words, the then Speaker ruled in this Parliament that these positions were unconstitutional and he regarded it as within his authority to refuse accommodation in the precincts of this Parliament to the present Minister because he considered he would be condoning an unconstitutional act.

Mr Swartz:

– It was changed.

Mr DALY:

– Well, it is significant. Surely the Government should produce to the Opposition some eminent authority to prove the constitutional position. Certainly it is difficult for honourable members on this side of the House, or even interested parties, to challenge the Government in view of the cost involved. But before any government brings to the Parliament a proposal over which there is a constitutional doubt, we on this side of the House are entitled to have some judicial judgment as to the position. You, Mr Speaker, have not passed judgment on it. I would like to know whether you agree with what was done by your predecessor or whether you will give accommodation to these honourable gentlemen. Let us once and for all be clear about this. It will look a strange thing in a few months time if a challenge is taken to the High Court and 8 or 10 members of the Liberal Party, who constitute at that stage the Prime Minister’s majority, are declared ineligible to sit in this Parliament as holding an office of profit under the Crown. What a risk to take. Cannot honourable members imagine the wealthy supporters of the Liberal Party challenging a Labor government that did this? Cannot honourable members imagine how they would challenge the constitutional position again and again if a Labor government was proposing this?

This is contempt of Parliament; take it or leave it, gag the debate. At every turn when Opposition members have stood up to put the point of view I am expressing they are gagged because the Government has a guilty conscience on this question, and the desire of these people to have the plums of office and to get into the tart shop is so great that every one of them aspires to one of these menial positions. Yet they are prepared to look past the constitutional position and to hell with the Constitution as it were. They ignore the famous ruling of that famous personality and famous Speaker, and at the same time give effect to a proposal about which there is constitutional doubt. I am shocked that the Minister, who was involved previously in a similar matter, would sponsor a proposal in this Parliament when he had to fight for a chair to sit on in 1952, because the then Speaker thought his appointment was not constitutional. If for no other reason this is worthy of challenge in this place. That is why I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition that the House ‘expresses its disapproval of the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers’.

Is not the House entitled to know who will be appointed to these positions? Are the men to be appointed to these positions to be men of ability - extremely difficult to find on the Government side? Will they be any improvement on the incumbents of the front bench at this stage? Are not honourable members entitled to know whether those honourable members on the other side of the House who after long years here have shown no capacity will be appointed? For instance, imagine if appointments are open to the Country Party and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) is appointed. Can honourable members imagine anything worse happening in a democratic parliament? But bad as he is - I am talking in a political sense - it is just as bad that such honourable members are in the running for one of these positions. Why should not honourable members on the Opposition side of the Parliament desire to know from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) who will be appointed? When all is said and done - I will not go over it again - 7 exMinisters are sitting on the back benches. Will one of those ex-Ministers be appointed to one of the positions? Perhaps some justification may exist in respect of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) or some other honourable member who has been the victim in a faction fight. But if it is not men such as the honourable member, who will be appointed? That is one of the reasons why the Opposition has moved this amendment.

If the Government has a defence of the proposals, if they are sound and constitutionally based, if men are to be appointed who can add to the lustre of the Government, if such be possible, why is it that the Leader of the House gags this debate again and again? Why is it that the members on the Government side do not rise in their places to express their points of view? The only aspirant for a position who spoke today was the Deputy Government Whip, the honourable member for “ Angas (Mr Giles). All he said was: T move: That the question be now put’. That is the only contribution made from the Government side today. In other words, Government members are not prepared to defend the policy and the change that is. coming about. If they will not defend the policy why should it be accepted by honourable members on this side of the Parliament or by the people of Australia? These are questions that must be answered,

It is all right to sit silently and say that the changes are necessary. That proves nothing at all. Expenditure will be involved. No doubt every one of the Assistant Ministers will have a car and a secretary. We will probably be crowding 4 or 5 honourable members into a room to make way for some member climbing the long ladder to Liberal stardom in this illfamed Ministry that sits opposite us. We should not have to put up with this without some explanation or some defence by Government members. If any honourable member opposite aspires to be an Assistant Minister now is the time for him to win his spurs. He should defend this policy if he can, because if he can he will be entitled to be Prime Minister. As one of my colleagues said today, it is not so much a matter of honourable members opposite rising in their places to defend the appointment of Assistant Ministers that worries Government members; it is having to get up to defend the Ministry that worries them. That is the real problem. Any speaker on the Government side supporting the appointment of Assistant Ministers can not defend the Ministry because the very appointment of assistants implies that Ministers are not capable of carrying out the tasks to which they have been appointed. These are questions to which the Opposition is certainly entitled to have answers.

I will place before the House another substantial reason why we should not support the proposals and why the Opposition has moved this amendment. It is not the function of the Parliament to approve the spending of money to solve Liberal Party faction fights. When all is said and done, they are internal matters. The members of the Liberal Party should keep them hidden if they can. But they should not ask the public to pay just because the Prime Minister wants to get the numbers in the party room. That is not the way to conduct the affairs of the country. If this is not a fact, why does the Government not answer the charges made by the Opposition?

I made the proposal quite seriously from this side of the Parliament today that, apart from the constitutional position which is in grave doubt, the major consideration in the introduction of this legislation is to see that the Prime Minister achieves a majority over those who seek to dethrone him. It is not known from day to day whether there is to be a new Liberal Prime Minister. I was thinking that we have had stable government because the bolder of the office of Prime Minister has not been changed for about 30 days. The Prime Minister knows full well that the threat is there and wants to prevent it. At the time of his appointment the voting is 33 all, and it is said that he has lost a few votes since he got the job. So why should not the Prime Minister try to save himself at the taxpayers’ expense? These are the things that we must ponder because they are important. These are the pertinent reasons why honourable members on the Government side will not stand and defend the introduction of this legislation.

Members of the Country Party have never been so silent They are hanging together as best they can because they know that both Parties of the coalition have gone with the wind. Did honourable members ever dream that they would be selling their wares in this respect? It is a wonder that members of the Country Party, with their usual bushranging methods, did not demand the creation of 2 new ministerial positions - one for them and one for the Liberal Party.

One could talk for hours on the sinister implications of these proposals. One could talk for hours on the tremendous effect on the nation the appointment of certain honourable members I see sitting opposite as Assistant Ministers, if they should be so appointed. When efforts of those on the Ministry who receive full salaries are borne in mind, they will appear a strange lot when some receive no ministerial salaries at all.

The Government is not receiving results for the money that it has spent already on the present Ministry. Today Government supporters are prepared to bolster up that Ministry by the appointment of an extra Minister and by the addition of several assistants. No figure has been given to indicate how many assistants will be appointed. For all we know, the Prime Minister might be intending to appoint a couple of dozen assistants. He might appoint a shadow Minister for every Minister who sits opposite. The Opposition is entitled to know these things. It is important. The nation should know. I have moved this amendment with that in mind. I urge somebody on the Government side with a semblance of decency and with respect for democracy to rise and defend these proposals. The honourable member for Moreton, long renowned for his outspokenness in this place, is as silent as the grave now, thinking that he will come back quietly to the front bench. But I warn him that that is not the way to get there. He should use the methods that he adopted before and which paid off so well. In time he will reach his pinnacle again.

I put the proposal to the House that the amendment moved by the Opposition should be supported. More in sorrow than in anger, I look at a Government riddled with dissension, bickering and fighting. Prime Ministers are unwanted, and are changed as often as one changes ones clothes. The Government is trying at the expense of the public purse to bolster up the falling numbers behind the Prime Minister. Not a member opposite is prepared to stand up to defend the policy of the Government. As I have said, the only words uttered from the Government side today were those from the honourable member who moved that the question be now put. Those words came from one of the outstanding candidates for appointment as an Assistant Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that in justice to the people and to democracy that the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the Opposition will be carried because no justification exists for the proposals incorporated in the Prime Minister’s statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise to second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). I do so for a very important reason. Important constitutional queries are before the Parliament at the present time. A similar situation arose in the State of New South Wales not so long ago. It was decided then for reasons similar to those that have been advanced today by the honourable member for Grayndler in relation to the present administration that certain things should be done.

In New South Wales appointments similar to those proposed here were decided on. The distinguished Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Mr Speaker Ellis, ruled that such appointments should not have any recognition by the Chair and should not be recognised by the House. He instructed that no reference to the people appointed in this way should appear on the covers of Hansard. This was done.

No facilities were to be made available to them and no recognition of the positions was to be made by any of the agencies under the control of Mr Speaker. This was done in a very considered way, as I say, by Mr Speaker Ellis. The result was that, although the appointments were made, they had no significance - none whatever - and I think that the people who were appointed to them were less than happy.

Now, these are the issues that have been raised by the Opposition in a serious way. We are asked to accept a blank cheque in relation to this matter. The c nh speaker on the appointment of Assistant Ministers has been the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) who said that he would give further consideration to the details of the way in which these Assistant Ministers will work and that he would select during the winter recess the members who would fill the positions of Assistant Ministers. The Parliament is treated wilh enough contempt now by the Prime Minister and the Government without this type of action being followed.

The Opposition is posing very reasonable constitutional queries. Precedents exist for the queries that we put forward. I have quoted erne major precedent this afternoon. Another one was quoted by the honourable member for Grayndler. The Prime Minister again has not come into the House to deal with this matter. No-one else has risen to support it. I imagine from the silence that some shame attaches to the measure and there is no real conviction that this is something that should, be implemented. Government members are ashamed of the proposal. Obviously, if no-one is willing to defend it or to advance its cause, it has become the fiat from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister, for very good reasons which were delineated by my distinguished colleague, has decided on this legislation. He has introduced it. He stands alone in pushing it through the Parliament. I suggest that it is indeed a contempt of the Parliament for the Prime Minister to say that he will, using his majority, demand that members of the Parliament agree to something that he has not even thought out at all. He says that he will think out the details in the recess, when we are not here. So much is done outside the House in the recess; so much is set aside so very carefully from the scrutiny of the Parliament that, in fact, we are- denied the opportunity of performing our proper functions, and this sort of thing has come about time and again. Here, we have another example of it. In other words, the executive of the executives has determined and decided. He has said: ‘We will have these Assistant Ministers; we will use the majority, such as it is, to steamroll the measure through; we will then decide what in fact we will do with them, how they will work, and what use I, as Prime

Minister, will make of them.’ This is executive government in the most executive way. I suggest again that, because of the grave constitutional doubts raised in connection with this measure, it should be set to one side, at least until those doubts have been answered.

What is the position of the Speaker in relation to this matter? How does he act on it? What a ludicrous situation it will be if in fact he finds that the measure is totally unconstitutional and that Parliament has been bludgeoned into making a decision which the House, the Parliament and half the people in the nation are querying. We are being bludgeoned into making this decision. When the Speaker examines it, he may find that it is not proper and right and that there will be no recognition of it. This could be the situation because we have had no response to the queries we have put forward. Mr Deputy Speaker, I reiterate that this represents contempt of the Parliament.I join with my colleagues in registering a protest and in asking that, at least on this point alone, the matter be set to one side until the constitutional position has been properly clarified.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 52

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned.

page 2477

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

– I move:

I will refer to these matters when the motion to declare the Bills urgent Bills comes before the House.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The Opposition opposes this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. In a sense it is a continuation of the debate that we had last week when the Government, because it had decided that the House should adjourn on Thursday of this week, decided to move for the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule. I pointed out then to the Government that as a result of its attitude insufficient time would be granted to honourable members to debate the measures set out in the motion that we are now considering. Of course, what I said on that occasion has now been proved to be correct. The plain fact is that the Government has not sufficient time in which to deal with the legislation. Therefore, it proposes that a restriction will be imposed on the opportunity for honourable members to debate the legislation in this House. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) may smile and shake his head-

Mr Cope:

– I heard it rattle.

Mr BARNARD:

– The honourable member for Sydney said that he heard it rattle. Frankly, I did not hear it myself. The Leader of the House has now indicated that certain Bills on the notice paper will be debated within a limited period. He has referred to some of the Bills on the notice paper. Some Bills will remain on the notice paper. The Leader of the House has referred to no fewer than 12 or 13 Bills, and another 5 Bills are to be introduced. It is in these circumstances that this Government is moving to restrict the opportunities for debate in this Parliament.

Let me turn to the first Bill to which the Leader of the House referred - the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971. It is my recollection that this Bill was first introduced into this Parliament in 1970.

Mr Whitlam:

– On 19th March.

Mr BARNARD:

– On 19th March 1970. The Government has reintroduced the Bill again this year. Is there any more important legislation before this Parliament than the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971? At least 4 members of the Opposition want to speak on this legislation. The Government has talked about a confrontation outside over industrial matters, yet it is prepared to allow honourable members on this side of the House no more than 2 hours in which to debate this legislation. The Government knows that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who has devoted a great deal of time to preparing amendments to this legislation, would need at least 30 minutes in which to speak. Indeed, the Government has agreed to give him an extention of time, which would allow him a maximum of 45 minutes within which to speak in the second reading debate. That will leave a quarter of an hour for other honourable members to contribute to the second reading debate on this legislation which is of great significance and importance to people who work in industry in Australia. Although honourable members opposite have talked about the industrial difficulties which confront this country, they are proposing to allow honourable members in this House no longer than 1 hour in which to contribute to the second reading debate on this significant and important legislation. The Government’s attitude is a complete farce. It is a disgrace to the Parliament and to the Government, and it ought to be dealt with in the way in which honourable members on this side of the House believe that a motion which restricts the opportunities of debate should be dealt with. 1 come to the time limit for the remaining stages of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971. The Leader of the House has indicated that 1 hour is to be allocated for the remaining stages of the Bill. That means, in effect, that if the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who proposes to move a certain number of amendments to this legislation, exercises his right to speak on every amendment, he will not possibly be able to deal with all of them. If the honourable member for Hindmarsh deals with 2 amendments and is allotted 10 minutes within which to deal with each amendment, that will make 20 minutes, leaving only 40 minutes for honourable members to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill. This shows the hopeless situation in which honourable members on this side of the House will be placed in relation to this legislation. As I said last week - I do not want to repeat all that I said in that debate - the plain fact is that this House should be continuing in session. It is not good enough merely for the Government to decide that this House will adjourn on Thursday of this week and that because there is remaining on the notice paper legislation that has to be dealt with, the Government will determine how much time will be available to honourable members to debate that legislation.

One could deal with each of the Bills to which the Leader of the House has referred. Let me turn to the Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971. Last week we listened to the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) not only introduce a Bill into this House but also make a statement of some significance and of some importance to honourable members and particularly to the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea. Everyone knows that Papua New Guinea has been a subject of some contention. Some disagreement and some differences of attitude have been expressed by honourable members on both sides of the House. Despite the fact that the Opposition extended to the Minister for External Territories the courtesy of speaking for an unlimited time in order to make his statement, we are expected to deal with the Bill and the statement in the form of a cognate debate. According to the Leader of the House, 30 minutes is to be allotted for the second reading stage of the Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971.

Mr Swartz:

-That is only for the Bill. Additional time will be allowed for the statement.

Mr BARNARD:

– I am talking about the Bill. A period of 30 minutes is to be allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill. The honourable member who leads for the Opposition will have 30 minutes within which to deal with the Bill. That means that no other honourable member will be able to speak in the second reading debate on the Bill. Then we find that for the remaining stages of the Bill - there is to be no Committee stage - a period of 5 minutes is to be allotted.

Mr Swartz:

– If. I may interject, that is wrong, because half an hour is to be alloted for the debate on the statement, and that has to be added to the time allotted for the Bill.

Mr BARNARD:

– The Minister has indicated that he is being a little more generous than I indicated. But the plain fact is that he cannot deny that, even if an additional 30 minutes is to be added to the time that has been allotted for consideration of the Bill, there would still be insufficient time to enable honourable mem bers to deal with the statement. I point out for the benefit of the Leader of the House and of honourable members opposite that 7 honourable members on this side of the House want to speak on the Papua and New Guinea Bill or at least on the statement. We will be lucky if 3 honourable members are able to make a contribution to the debate.

So one could go through all the measures to which the guillotine will be applied. I come next to the Superannuation Bill 1970. One hour is to be allowed for the second reading stage of this Bill and hours is to be allowed for the remaining stages. But there are 7 honourable members on this side of the House who want to speak on that Bill. One can only assume that honourable members on the Government side do not intend to speak to this legislation. According to the Leader of the House 2 hours will be allotted for the second reading stages of the Wool Industry Bill 1971 and 30 minutes for the remaining stages. At least 5 or 6 members of the Opposition want to speak on this measure. And what about members of the Country Party? Is this not a matter about which they have expressed some concern? If all members of the Country Party spoke on this Bill they would have no more than 10 minutes each and all members of the Opposition would be excluded.

It can be seen that this motion deserves to be rejected. One would expect that sufficient members on the Government side would be prepared to stand up and be counted in relation to this motion. Already we have had an example of what the Government is prepared to do. It has been applying the gag consistently and preventing Opposition members from speaking. We have already dealt with the Ministers of State Bill 1971. Honourable members will concede that this was an extremely important matter for the Parliament to consider but the Leader of the House and the Deputy Whip on the Government side have gagged Opposition members. I gave notice to the Leader of the House this morning - and I state this for the record - that the Opposition will not grant leave to enable Ministers to make statements if this motion is carried. We think that that is a fair and reasonable approach and I have indicated to the Leader of the House that this will be the attitude of the Opposition.

I have not referred to all the Bills that are listed in the motion. I have referred to one or two of them but I am sure that honourable member will realise, from an examination of the motion, that there is insufficient time allotted to enable honourable members to debate legislation as. it should be debated- in the Parliament. This procedure is being forced upon us in the same way as the Government moved to set aside the 1 1 o’clock rule, simply because the Government believes that the Parliament should rise on Thursday of- this week. When the Government moved for the abolition of the 11 o’clock rule last week I asked what reasons could be advanced by the Government for so moving but no answer was given by the Leader of the House. Indeed, so far as I can remember, no member from the Government side - spoke against that motion. Is any honourable member opposite prepared to stand up today and deny that there is insufficient debating time between now and Thursday in which to deal with all the legislation mentioned in the motion?

Quite apart from the measure to which I have referred already, the Government still has 5 Bills to bring into the Parliament. The Leader of the House knows the titles of those Bills. I know some of the titles and undoubtedly honourable members will want to debate those Bills. One of those Bills is a States Grants Bill. Surely Opposition members who are vitally interested in such an important measure should be given the opportunity to be able to express their opinions. The Opposition does not oppose this motion frivolously. The motion involves an important principle and the Opposition is adopting a proper attitude. As I have already said, one would expect that some Government supporters would be prepared to stand up and be counted when their rights and the rights of the Parliament are being set aside in such a cavalier fashion by the Government and by the Leader of the House. In conclusion perhaps I should say that one should not blame the Leader of the House. He is merely the spokesman for the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). The Prime Minister has determined when the House will rise. He has determined how much speaking time will be available to honourable members. On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that we oppose this motion because we believe it is unjust in that it restricts the rights and opportunities of honourable members to debate legislation which should be fully considered.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? “ Mr TURNBULL- Yes. I am surprised at the Deputy “Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) saying that the Deputy Government Whip had continued to gag debates. I have not gagged a debate since I have been in this House.

Mr Foster:

– Oh yes, you have. - Mr TURNBULL- I have never moved the gag in this House and what has been said is completely untrue.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I should take this opportunity, if for no other reason, to indicate to the House that recent events have not swept me into a state of docility, neither of servility. This is a disgraceful proceeding. It is a proceeding unworthy of the national Parliament and a proceeding which does great affront to this country. (Quorum formed). This is the 16th year in which I have sat in this Parliament and in my recollection there is no precedent for this measure. True it is a precedent can be found dealing with the guillotine relating to Bills in the same genera but there is not, to my recollection, a precedent which offers an example where some 17 Bills, many of them plainly different one from another, should be taken together, and 17 Bills with an allotment of time of 19 hours and 5 minutes. Circumstanced as I am it would be very tempting for some and irresistible for others to take what I say in this House and to attach to it some mean or debased motive. I want to make my attitude perfectly clear.

The new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has taken over the Prime Ministership of this country at a time of great difficulty - difficulty so far as the economy and many sections of the Australian community are concerned. For my part I do not and I will not nurse any sense of bitterness. If I have something to say, I will say it. I think that has been the common experience of those who have sat in the Parliament with me in the last 16 years. I carry no chip on my shoulder. I carry no chip on my shoulder in respect of the Prime Minister or anything that he may have done. But I put the right honourable gentleman on notice. If ever a similar proceeding is introduced into this Parliament I will challenge him in the Parliament and in the country. This is a proceeding which no country with any sentiment or feeling for democracy should tolerate. How could any person with normal cerebral processes be expected to deliberate upon the massive question of rural reconstruction with the tawdry amount of time given over to it?

Let me tell in no sense of selfishness of my experience over the last weekend. I went to Rockhampton from Brisbane to open the Queensland conference of the Air Force Association. That took up the whole of Saturday. Because Monday was a holiday in Brisbane I worked on Sunday on 2 measures which, in my anticipation, would have been before the House this week. Those measures were the Fisheries Bill and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill. Neither is included in the programme for this week. I had no opportunity whatsoever to examine in detail, or indeed in general principles, the resale price maintenance scheme, the proposals for rural reconstruction or any other of the proposals which are now before us. This is a complete and utter travesty. I believe that the Government should take note of it:

If I vote against this measure I can hear some of the critics now. I can hear the summons being given to some of the scribblers throughout the country to labour upon some dyslogistic course as far as the honourable member for Moreton is concerned. Well, I say this to them: I do not give a continental what they do. What I am concerned about is that I can look this parliament in the face and that I can look the country in the face. I say plainly that this is a disgraceful performance and I will have no part in it. Because I will not give the opportunity to any person to say: ‘Oh, there he is, getting back, getting even’ or attribute to me what I have described as a base motive, I will not vote against this motion and neither will I vote for it. I regret putting myself in that position, but I am sure that my honourable friends on both sides of the House will see the dilemma in which I am placed. I believe in the authority of Parliament and this is not the first time on which I have espoused it. I want those who already have reached for the knives to know that this will not be the last time that I will espouse it because their knives no longer hurt. The authority of this Parliament will and must be returned, and I ask the right honourable Prime Minister, who presently leads the Government, to heed the warning that has been given to him or otherwise face disaster.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Honourable members on both sides of the House will have been impressed by what has been said by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). This is an utter travesty of what the Parliament should endure. A great variety of Bills is contained in the document which lists the Bills that are to be declared urgent Bills. -Seventeen Bills are to be put through by Thursday. Eight of those Bills have been allocated 2 minutes apiece. Apparently a great number of other Bills are to be put off. When Parliament assembled on 16th February 16 Bills were on the notice paper. Under this guillotine proposal some of them will remain on the notice paper until next August or September.

Since 21st April, 13 days ago, 28 Bills have been introduced. I shall mention some of those Bills to illustrate to honourable members on both sides of the House just how little opportunity they will have to debate the 9 Bills for which more than 2 minutes have been allocated. Firstly, there is the Commonwealth employees compensation legislation. One hour is allowed for honourable members to debate that legislation. The Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill and related Bills have been on the notice paper since March last year. The former Attorney-General made available to my colleague, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), the services of a draftsman from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. My colleague drew up the most elaborate private member’s Bill which has ever been prepared for this Parliament. The Government was given copies of the Bill. It has had plenty of time to examine it. The original legislation has been withdrawn and new Bills have been substituted. Under the proposed timetable there are to be 2 speakers from the Opposition side - the honourable member for Hindmarsh and one other who will have 10 minutes in which to speak on these measures.

The next measures listed in the programme are income tax Bills. The House has been given 1 hour in which to debate them. My colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), would be expected to take the maximum amount of time allowed for anyone leading on behalf of the Opposition, namely, 30 minutes. It means that after a Government supporter has spoken for the maximum time available to any subsequent speaker, which is 20 minutes, only 10 minutes will . be available for any member of the Opposition to speak. Obviously on a Bill of such technicality one would expect that there would be speeches by a chartered accountant, such as the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), and from a former senior officer of the Taxation Branch, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin). Those honourable members have been responsible for alerting the House to so many of the deficiencies and escape clauses in our taxation laws. They will have 10 minutes in which to put such arguments.

Then there is the rural reconstruction legislation. Under the proposed arrangements 1H speakers will be able to speak on this. I would imagine that more honourable members would want to speak on this subject. Certainly more than half a dozen members of the Opposition wish to speak to it. In justice to honourable members opposite, I would imagine that more than Si of them will wish to speak on this legislation because the position of people in the rural sector is more serious now than it has been for 40 years. A time limit of 40. minutes has been allowed for debate of the stevedoring industry legislation. After my colleague, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), has spoken there will be time for one Government supporter to speak for 10 minutes. Honourable members know from questions asked by Government supporters - not all of them inspired - that there would be more than one Government supporter who would want to speak on this legislation and one would think that that honourable member would want to speak for more than 10 minutes.

A time limit of li hours has been allowed for debate on the . superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits legislation. There can be 2 Opposition speakers in that debate. 1 would remind honourable members that it was because of repeated motions by the Opposition that a committee to investigate defence forces retirement benefits was set up. For over a year and a half efforts have been made by members of the Opposition - 1 have been among them - to try to get a debate on a national superannuation scheme and to refer not only to the benefits for Commonwealth servants while they remain Commonwealth servants, but also to the portability of their benefits if they go into other public or private employment. Two Opposition members can speak on this subject. There are members of the Government parties who also have taken an interest in this subject. I assume they wish to speak.

Under the Government’s timetable we are to debate the trade practices legislation. This is to be the first significant debate on such a subject for 5i years. The proposed arrangements allow for 4 Opposition and 3 Government speakers. Finally, we are to deal with the Wool Industry Bill. In this case 3 Opposition speakers and 2 Government speakers, with 20 minutes each and 1 with 10 minutes, will be able to speak on this measure. Are we to believe that Government supporters will be satisfied to have 2i speakers on a Bill dealing with the wool industry which for so long has been the greatest export earner and which, for the first time in a century and a half, is in real jeopardy?

I conclude by referring to the Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971. We have been given half an hour in which to speak on it. There are very many honourable members who would want to speak on this Bill. Admittedly, there now would be more honourable members from the Opposition side than from the Government side who would want to speak on this Bill because so many Government supporters have to eat their words of last year, and particularly early last year. The fact is that there has never been on any public issue in this country, still less in New Guinea, such a vast change of opinion in the community or such a change within Government parties as there has been on this subject. When one recalls the vilification - the vituperation - which my colleagues and I incurred and realises the vindication we have achieved on this matter one can see the reason why the debate will be chopped off after 30 minutes with one speaker from the Opposition and none from the Government. It was arranged only last week that there would be a cognate debate not only on this Bill but also on the constitutional statement made by the Minister, also last week. We had agreed-

Mr Swartz:

– That is on today’s blue sheet.

Mr WHITLAM:

– But when will it be reached and how much time will be made available for it? The fact is that many honourable members on this side of the House last year and this year spent some hundreds of dollars to equip themselves to speak on this subject, to discuss it and to think about it. It is true that when I have gone to New Guinea I have received an allowance to cover my accommodation costs. It is not a cheap place for accommodation. But those who went with me in January last year and January this year - the honourable members for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), Oxley (Mr Hayden), St George (Mr Morrison), Blaxland (Mr Keating) and Fremantle (Mr Beazley) - all have been out of pocket to the extent of hundreds of dollars. Private members get no reimbursement for their accommodation expenses in travelling around this country, still less when they go around the Territories. Those honourable members thought it was their duty to equip themselves with knowledge on this issue. They have done so but now they cannot speak upon it in the Parliament.

Let me mention some of the other matters which have been put off. As the honourable member for Moreton mentioned, there are the Fisheries Bill 1971 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill 1971, which were introduced on 22nd April. These are subjects upon which honourable members on both sides of the House would very readily con cede that the honourable and learned member for Moreton fifes taken a great interest, has delivered papers outside the House to learned bodies and has equipped himself with a knowledge of the relatedaspects of international law with which we all ought to be concerned. These are very basic natural resources for which Australia should be staking a proper claim and for which it can successfully stake a claim only if it sets its own domestic laws in order - if it puts those domestic laws in such a shape that it can negotiate with the other hundred-odd littoral states in the world. This subject has been put off. So also has the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970 which has been on the notice paper since April last year.

They are 3 cognate Bills which we all were told more than a year ago were of prime importance. They are now of so little consequence or it may be that there is so much dissension within the Government parties that they have been put off until next August or September.

Three electoral Bills are being put off. It may be that in this case the Government does not want to bring up the debate on Bills upon which it could be forced to a division on votes for 18-year-olds or a second representative in this House for the Australian Capital Territory or senators for each of the mainland Territories. There are 3 private members’ Bills on the notice paper on these very matters. One is the Adulthood Bill 1970, which I introduced and which has remained unresolved since 4th June last year. Another is the Territory Senators Bill 1970 which I introduced and which has remained unresolved since 20th August last year. The third Bill is the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971 which was introduced by my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) on 1st April last. All these matters have been put off for months. By the time we come back there will have been a new census and there will have been lost time in carrying out a new distribution - an equitable distribution - which would be justified by that census to be held at the end of next June.

This is not all that is being put off. There is a motion on the notice paper for the setting up of a select committee on airport and harbour development. Government supporters would have a majority on such a committee. Another motion asks the House to express its view on the recognition of the People’s Republic of China and its admission to the United Nations. As from today there will remain on the notice paper a motion expressing this House’s disapproval of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. None of these matters, albeit raised by members of the Opposition, can be said to be other than a serious matter which the Government will have to tackle internally and externally in the next few months. It is wrong that the House should be denied an opportunity to speak and vote upon these matters. - This House should not tolerate the truncation of debate, the denial of debate involved in this motion. The Opposition obviously must vote against the motion. I conclude by reminding honourable members that when the House assembled in the middle of last February it was proposed that the House should sit until Thursday fortnight. After his accession the new Prime Minister decided that the House should get up much earlier. We are sitting this week although it was not expected that we would sit. Nobody can say that the Government has undertaken engagements for consultation with the States or with other countries before Thursday fortnight. The business of the Government, in Australia and outside Australia, will not be impeded if this Parliament sits until Thursday fortnight according to the times originally proposed and in fact intended until 7 weeks ago. There is a multitude of matters, some brought in by the Opposition but an equal number brought in by the Government, which are just being put off until August at the earliest. We all know that none of them can be debated until the Budget has been passed, and that will be 5 months from now. Honourable members have the duty to vote for or against this motion. Let no Government supporter complain that he has not been heard on these important subjects if he votes in favour of this motion.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– I do not propose to use extravagant language or to speak at any length. Much has been said already. However, I should be recreant to all that I have said for years if I did not protest against this guillotine. This is not the first time that I have spoken on this matter. I have been consistent for years.

Mr Duthie:

– But this is the first time we have had a guillotine on a multiplicity of legislation.

Mr TURNER:

– This is unimportant. For years I have said that this practice has been adopted simply as a means of giving legislative effect to decisions of the Executive. This has not been a deliberative chamber. There has been no participation by Parliament as such in the legislative process. It has been nothing more than a rubber stamp, and this is what I mean by a rubber stamp. There is only one means by which matters become law and that is by passing the legislation through this Parliament. This is the sole function that governments have seen for this House. I am not speaking about only the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the previous Prime Minister, the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Labor Party. It has for years been the attitude of all executives, drawn from whichever side of the House, and all honourable members have acquiesced in this situation. It is of no use for honourable members to complain about this. The Opposition Whip has just said: This is just a case of the guillotine and this is quite different from anything else’. It is no different from anything else. It is all of one piece with what has been happening for . years and which has been acquiesced in by all members of this chamber. If we have been reduced to nothing more than a rubber stamp there is nobody to blame but ourselves. For years I have protested and nobody has taken the slightest notice. But this is not the first time that I happen to have been right. Let us have a look at the position. Seventeen Bills are subject to the guillotine. Here it is nearly dinner time on Tuesday, the House is to get up on Thursday night, and 17 Bills are subject to the guillotine. As has been remarked, the Bills are very different in character - discrete Bills - some of them conferring benefits on various classes of citizens, some of them related to the revenue, and others on large issues such as New Guinea, rural industries and restrictive trade practices. These are all large matters. The others are important to a large number of people.

Let us look at some of these Bills very briefly. In particular I am concerned about the rural Bills, such as the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill, the Loan (Farmers Debt Adjustment) Bill and the Wool Industry Bill. It is proposed for the first 2 I have mentioned that there should be 4 hours of debate - and, of course, 5 minutes. This means that there would be - With 20 minutes for each honourable member - time for 12 honourable members, say 6 from each side, to speak. I know of 2 or 3 honourable members opposite who are interested in rural affairs, who will wish to speak and who no doubt will speak. When I look at the serried ranks of my rural friends on my right and those on the Liberal benches - knowing that only 6 will be able to speak - I can see how many will not be able to speak. Obviously every rural member must stand up and make some braying noise designed to please his constituents. What time will be left, therefore, for any real debate when they have all made those appropriate noises?

This is a matter of concern to far more than our rural friends. The first Bill I mentioned makes provision for the spending of $100m in reconstructing rural industries. In World War I there was the first hundred thousand, the Old Contemptibles. But there is nothing contemptible about the first $10Om that is to go into rural relief. It is only the first $100m. Maybe it will become $500m or $ 1,000m, as some people have estimated. This is the beginning of it all. I have scrutinised the Bill a little and I find that it is about as leaky as a colander. We are beginning upon a path of immense importance not only to farmers and their representatives in this place but to all the people of Australia. Our primary and secondary industries will have to be reoriented and restructured. We are embarking upon a debate for which 4 hours to speak will be allowed - enough for 6 honourable members a side.

The Wool Industry Bill deserves far more than the 2 hours which has been allotted to it. I cannot accept that this is the way the affairs of a deliberative assembly should be run. It is fair enough for a rubber stamp. After all, the Government wants the Bills. It must have legislative approval before it spends money and it wants to spend the money. So the Bills have to be passed by this House and another place and signed by the GovernorGeneral. Do not let anybody pretend that this is a deliberative assembly or that the Parliament as such is participating in any way in the decisions that are being made here - decisions that will be with us for a very long time and whose consequences will reach far into the future. New Guinea is another great matter that has been mentioned. Australia is the last colonial power. Many honourable members on both sides of the House have given a great deal of thought to this subject. New Guinea has entered a new phase in recent times. I have believed for a very long time that the experience of Africa is not entirely alien to what will happen to New Guinea. Once people begin to think about independence it is not long before they demand it and then have it. I have thought this for a long time. But there are others who take a different view. We are the last colonial power and what we. do about New Guinea affects intimately the lives of more than 2 million people and also affects our own future and our standing in the councils of the world. The time allotted to debate this Bill is 30 minutes. I say that this is a deplorable way to deal with public affairs. The Parliament is being treated with utter contempt - not for the first time. It has been treated like this time and again, and not only by this Government. It has been the method of government, whichever party was in office. 1 said that I would not speak at length or in extravagant terms. There is no need to do so. I have spoken on these matters time and again, and time and again what I have said has been ignored. Now we have reached this situation. This is a matter of some consequence to our young friends in the Parliament who thought, when they reformed the Standing Orders a little while ago, that because the time for speeches would be limited they would be able to make more speeches. I told them that they would not, and now they know. I mention this, not to say: ‘I told you so’, but because if I have been right, as I have been on a certain number of occasions in this place - sometimes I have been the only one who was right - I would like the people to pay a little more regard in the future to what have been in the past fruitless protests about the treatment of this place merely as a rubber stamp.

Mr Cohen:

– We were wrong; we admit it.

Mr TURNER:

– Indeed you were wrong in your great reforms. I do not want to enter upon that subject now. I merely protest against what is being done. I will not support the motion.

Mr SWARTZ:
Leader of the House · Darling Downs · LP

– I hesitate to do this at this point of time, but we must move on to the substantive motion. I move:

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 3

In division.

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will restrain himself.

Mr Foster:

– It is very difficult indeed.

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, would it be possible for you to refuse to accept this motion in view of the fact that it is an attempt to quell a Liberal riot on a motion in the Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr Speaker, I heard an honourable member just say that this is a bloody disgrace. Is that in order under the Standing Orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not hear it.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 51

Majority. . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I move:

Mr Barnard:

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

Mr FOSTER:

-I have waited for some considerable time for a situation such as this to arise in this House. I was quite confident that it would because of the stupidity with which matters have been brought before the House. Although I have felt ever since I came into this Parliament that the procedures of the House were somewhat inhibiting, I have come to recognise them; but I did not feel that I would see the day when the Government would introduce into this place at such a time the guillotine - a measure which will prevent proper and considered discussion of a number of Bills that are now before this House. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), who is not in this chamber at the moment, has to recognise that on this side of the House there are representatives of almost, if not in excess of, 6 million people. We on this side of the House regard ourselves as having an equal right at least - and I say that with some reservations - to debate the measures which affect the community and the welfare of this country which is so sadly and shockingly neglected by those who sit on the Government benches. I would need 21/2 hours to point out to honouraoble members opposite how dismally they have failed in regard to social welfare, education and defence, you name it. One can pronounce judgment against the Government on a whole host of matters.

The situation that has arisen this afternoon, as has already been mentioned by some Government members, is shocking. If any type of organisation, sporting, industrial, business or any other type said: ‘We propose to do this and you are not allowed to speak’, a meeting of its members would be called. The Government will stand up against a trade union organisation and demand that legislation be passed so that the people have a voice; yet it will not let members of Parliament have a proper voice in this House. The fact is, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that, despite the limited time permitted under the motion which has just been passed, one of the Whips on the Government side will get up and move the gag. The gag has been applied this afternoon in the most disgusting manner by the Government doing no more than look at the clock in the House or at somebody’s wrist watch. There has been no Government member in this House at all apart from the occupant of the Chair, the Minister at the table and the Deputy Whip, or whatever he calls himself, who was so recently interjecting. There was not one other Government member in the House during the debate on matters put before this Parliament, and yet they see fit to walk in and apply the gag.

The architect of this situation is the Prime Minister who has nothing more than a small toy to play with. This is the way he wants to regard this Parliament. It is time somebody gave him a do it yourself kit if that is his attitude. I can very well suggest what he should be given in reply to that attitude. Here is a man who not so many weeks ago sat before the television cameras. One would have thought, if one was ignorant or innocent, call it what you like, that this man may have had some credibility in view of what he had to say on television. He was going to be the upholder of Parliament and of the rights of members. He criticised what his own Party has been indulging in for some years prior to his election as Prime Minister. But now he has completely forgotten that. We had a measure in this House, which has now been adjourned for some time, dealing with quorums. I bitterly opposed the measure and will continue to oppose it in this House. It will mean that the number required for a quorum of the House could be jammed into a telephone box. I opposed it and all the measures which were put before this House when we had a so-called free debate on the matter.

What the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) said this afternoon is true. We new members who wanted to alter the procedures of the Parliament can see what has happened. What he said was very true indeed. I would also like to say that, as to some of the measures the Government has on the notice paper, what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said in regard to them is true. The measure in relation to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund is one. It was introduced in October last year and, although there was a suggestion finally that a committee be set up to investigate it, the Government does not want Opposition members and for that matter, possibly back bench members on the Government side to debate it. Honourable members apposite should be standing on this side of the House on this issue if they had any backbone at all. They have no rights now. They sold their rights down the drain when they voted for the guillotine measure. I have never been associated with any organisation that did not provide for some form of expression for its members. It does not matter a darn what number the Parliament sets for a quorum when the Government introduces measures like this and gives the people no voice whatever. The Government is introducing Bills involving the expenditure of vast sums of money. I am now informed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) that a number of Bills have been left out. Some of them, of course, relate to measures on which the Government has been active. The legislation concerning the Continental Shelf has already been mentioned. Was that not the measure which nearly brought the Government to its knees last year? The Government raced it through the corridors. It had a special plane bring the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) to Canberra. It had VIP aircraft flying all over the place. The Government was almost brought down.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr FOSTER:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was addressing myself to the motion that I have moved seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. I resume my speech now with some 13 minutes remaining. I hope that the Government does not apply the gag to me now as it has done so often in recent weeks. One of the reasons why I have moved the motion that I have is the fact that I and my colleagues on this side of the House are more than alarmed at the fact that members of this Parliament probably will be informed only by way of the. Press as to how this country is to be run in the ensuing months during the winter adjournment.

The fact is that Press statements within the last few days have suggested that the Australian National Line will be sold. Will we return to this Parliament for the Budget session in August - that is when the resumption of Parliament is scheduled at present - to learn that, through the machinations of Ministers and certain exclusive clubs in Melbourne, the Government has connived to dispose of the Australian National Line which is owned by the people of the Commonwealth? Will the Government carry out ; similar actions to those carried out in the late 1920s? Surely to goodness this Parliament ought to be able to expect to be treated in a manner somewhat different from that.

In addition to that, I can no more than surmise that the Government is so bereft of speakers on the issues confronting the country today or its members are so lax that no Government speakers have taken part in the important debate which took place in this chamber this afternoon. That debate this afternoon ought to have been the concern of the Government. Not one Government member rose to his feet to address the chamber in regard to the legislation before the House providing for the appointment of an additional Minister and in regard to the Ministerial statement foreshadowing the appointment of under secretaries, junior ministers or Assistant Ministers - call them what we will - who will receive huge expense accounts. During the course of the winter recess there is not one Minister in this place - and all Ministers draw very high salaries - who will not be sitting in black limousines in cities from one end of the country to the other and who will pay no regard whatsoever to the problems facing the Australian people generally. - Today, yesterday and in weeks and months gone by, we have heard Government members - that is, those who are permitted by the dictatorship that prevails on the other side of the House to speak - saying all along the line that the trade union movement today is responsible for all the evils afflicting this country. I mention rural industries. 1 only wish that those people who sit in the comer to my left and who represent rural industries would move to the left politically. But they are not likely to do that. They are crying out that the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement are the cause of the ills in our rural industries. They have had a continuity of office which unfortunately has lasted in this country for in excess of 20 years. How much longer do they think that they can go on hoodwinking the people?

The fact is that the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) is dictated to by a Prime Minister who has been a short time in office. This Prime Minister treats the House in a manner of absolute truculence. I might add that truculence is usually a characteristic of small people. The Prime Minister continues to deride honourable members on this side of the House on almost every measure that we see fit to debate here.

Because of its muddled way of thinking, the Government is completely and absolutely unaware of the present situation in this country. It has introduced into the House a measure known as the ‘guillotine’. Most people associate a guillotine with a revolution, but there is nothing revolutionary in the mind of the Government - nothing at ali! Why the Government should wish to apply the term ‘guillotine’ to its action is somewhat beyond me.

The fact is that the Government is denying to honourable members on this side of the House the right to debate the issues concerning the electorate. The Government seeks to push into the background anybody who wishes to stand in this place, in a university or at a school and put forward views at any type of public meeting. Whether there are young people in the streets who want to demonstrate or whatever the situation may be, the Government comes down on the side of criticism of their action. It does so with almost absolute and positive hate. The Government is not looking at the issues as they exist today. If is not reading the signs today.

The fact is that the Government will be run over by the younger generation of this country, as it ought to be run over. This will be because of the fact that the Government will not recognise that people other than its own members and those who support it have any right to think or to have a mind of their own. Provided we in this place when we stand up follow the modest attitude of the Government and the moderate attitude adopted by it - my way of describing an attitude as moderate is to refer to an attitude in which the Government will not move in any way, shape or form-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!

Mr FOSTER:

-. . . but will-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Sturt to order. The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. 1 suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that the motion before the House at the moment seeks the suspension of the Standing Orders for a specific reason. Therefore, the terms of the motion do not open up an opportunity for a wide and general debate on the many subjects that have been and are being discussed by the honourable member.

Mr FOSTER:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I expected you to say that 3 minutes or 4 minutes ago. Let us look at some of the measures that the Government has not the courage to debate in this Parliament at this time. The Government has not the courage to say that Parliament will continue to sit for the next 2 weeks, 3 weeks or 4 weeks to debate these matters. I mention first the Continental Shelf (Living National

Resources) Bill which, as I said before the sitting was suspended, is the Bill which’ almost sent the Government to the wall. At the time when this Bill was before the House last year Government Ministers were running up and down the corridors adjacent to this Parliamentary chamber to try to prevail upon the then Prime Minister, the present Minister for Defence (Mr Gorton), to show some courage in his attitude. This is more than I can say for many other honourable members on the opposite side of the House. Those Government Ministers were endeavouring for hours during the course of that day to prevail upon the then Prime Minister to drop that legislation. What does this Bill seek to do? It seeks to: . . establish the exclusive right of the Commonwealth to exercise sovereign control over the resources of the sea bed off the Australian coast from the low water mark to the outer limits of the Continental Shelf.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as this was said to be such a vital matter, how much longer are we expected to sit here without even looking at the Bill? If you. are going to use the forms of this House - outdated and outmoded as those forms may be - to push the issue aside forever and a day and then to bury it because you have not the courage, and the Government Parties have not the courage to bring it forward because you are frightened of divisions without your own ranks-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr FOSTER:

– Another thing, Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I point out to the honourable member that the Chair does not do anything with respect to legislation. I suggest to the honourable member that he makes his speech-

Mr FOSTER:

– I thought that I was making the point that the Parliament is not doing anything. That is the reason why I am on my feet. Not only yourself - that is not a reflection on yourself and the Chair-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that he restrain himself or the honourable member may not continue his remarks.

Mr FOSTER:

– Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, this only reflects the position that I have been driven into as an elected member of this Parliament. I have had to rise in a manner, in which I have risen this evening.

Mr Giles:

– Rot!

Mr FOSTER:

– It is not rot. I would remind the honourable member for Angas that he has moved the gag against mc personally some 30-odd times since my election to this place. He has probably moved the gag against honourable members on this side of the House in excess of 130 times. I am on my feet for the very reason that I am asking, almost pleading, that the elected members of this Parliament - not just those whose votes support the Government - be given the right to bring matters before this House and to have those matters debated.

The Fisheries Bill 1971 is another Bill on the Notice Paper. What is it designed to do? Where is the courage of the Government? Does it wish to continue to push this Bill under the carpet? In introducing this Bill, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) said:

This Bill is the culmination of the review of the Government’s fisheries legislation … to provide more adequate machinery for the management of Australian fisheries, as found necessary in the light of their spectactular growth in recent years.

Another Bill that the Government wishes to pass by and to push aside is the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971. Debate on this Bill is long overdue: Is the reason why the Government does not bring this Bill on for debate because the Government wishes to continue with the present electoral set up in Australia which favours a system which elects to this Parliament 22 members of 1 Party which, at the last Federal election, across the length and breadth of the Commonwealth, polled less than 8 per cent of the total vote? Ought not the Government to stand condemned that, in common with other measures, this Bill has remained on the notice paper for as long as I have been a member of this Parliament? This subject has been aired in the Parliament. The machinery of this Parliament has been prostituted by members of the Government in order to deny to members of this Parliament their right to debate this Bill. And you, Mr Deputy Speaker, wonder why I am irate.

I am irate because of the situation faced by young people today in respect of housing. How much longer will the Government allow land speculators to continue to operate? How much longer will the Government permit interest rates to increase - for ever, and ever and ever? - loading on to the shoulders of these young people a burden that is intolerable? There is a proposal regarding the nomination of senators. What has the Government to fear in regard to this measure which has for its purpose the recognition of the right of people living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to elect a person to the Senate of this Parliament? Thousands of people are being completely and utterly ignored.

Where is the courage of this Government which wants to scurry away from this place this week? Members’ on the Government side want to scurry away from the House this week because they believe it is not good politics to have the House sitting when the Government parties are in such disarray, protected as they are by the media and the Packer Press. I should like to have something to say about that matter if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would permit me, but as I would not be permitted to do so, I will not go on with that. Honourable members opposite will scurry away and have no really sincere reason for doing so. The Prime Minister comes into the chamber when it suits him to do so. I know he has some responsibilities. Probably he considers it his greatest responsibility to mend the gaps that exist in his Party. The fact is that at question time in the House we have only a heap of Dorothy Dix questions that he and his parliamentary colleagues have sat around a table and worked out. I believe that makes a mockery of question time which I describe - and I think this is very apt - as a time for questions without answers and for discussion by the Prime Minister and Ministers. It is the right of Opposition members to expect that their questions will have some regard paid to them.

Another Bill before the House is the House of Representatives (Quorum) Bill. In the dying stages of last session when this Bill came before the House I had something to say on it just before the din ner adjournment. It is a fact that when this House is not in session the Government consists of 13 Cabinet members. I am not exaggerating when I say that they could be jammed into a telephone box. If there were many of the size of the Prime Minister they could probably be jammed into an area half that size. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is just not good enough that when the House is not sitting some 13 people can deal with the problems that confront this country, matters that should be brought before the House, and govern 12 million people, putting out Press releases every now and again after having had those releases written for them by members of their staffs.

I conclude on this note. Government members may say ‘Hear, hear’; it is hard to get through to them. They come into the House each morning for prayers. I cannot do that while the Government can send kids to Vietnam to be slaughtered and while it can cause a country such as Cambodia to be put in the situation into which it has been put. Government members should support the motion before the House so that they cannot be accused of turning their backs on the people and the interests of this country. This House will be allowed less time to debate the Trade Practices Bill than Government members have spent in criticising Bob Hawke. Government members said that legislation to control resale price maintenance could not be implemented, as it would be unlawful. Now, somewhat reluctantly, the Government is introducing such legislation. The Government should be condemned for ever and a day for not having paid regard to the way in which housewives of this country have been taken down at the cash registers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I second the motion moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). I believe the honourable member certainly has demonstrated that, for a number of reasons, he has capacity and is well able to put his case. This evening, the honourable member has continued his speech supporting the motion he moved earlier this afternoon. If carried, his motion would provide for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow a debate on the question of continuing the sittings of this Parliament for another 2 weeks. I believe the honourable member for Sturt gave all the valid and sensible reasons why the motion should be carried. Undoubtedly honourable members on the Government side must be most unhappy about the situation that has developed in this House not only today but over the last 2 or 3 weeks. I think there has been growing apprehension. No-one who had the opportunity this afternoon to listen to the honourable members for Moreton (Mr Killen) and Bradfield (Mr Turner) could have failed to be impressed by their points of view. At least they had the courage to stand up and speak on behalf of Government members.

How many more Government members are prepared to stand up in this Parliament in the way in which the honourable members for Moreton and Bradfield stood up this afternoon, when they gave chapter and verse of the problems that honourable members in this Parliament now face as a result of the Government’s decision only, a week ago to suspend the 11 o’clock rule? This was the first clear indication given by the Government to honourable members that it had made a firm decision or, to put it in its true perspective, that the Prime Minister had decided to curtail the activities of this Parliament. I know that it can be argued, probably successfully, that towards the end of a session honourable members have always taken the opportunity - indeed they have been forced to take it - to protest at the Government’s attitude in curtailing the business of the House, thus restricting the rights and opportunities of honourable members to speak. When one looks at what has happened over the past 2 weeks, it would be ludicrous if it were not pitiful. I think that is the only way in which the Government’s attitude can be expressed.

As I have already said, members on both sides of the House have clearly stated this afternoon that it is impossible for the Parliament to deal seriously and sensibly with all the legislation that still remains on the notice paper, even though the Government has decided that some Bills will remain on the notice paper. I do not want to repeat what I said this afternoon in a previous debate to the effect that some of the legislation we are now dealing with has been on the notice paper since March 1970 and we are still dealing with it. One further point that I believe would confirm the Opposition’s argument that the sittings of the Parliament should be extended in the terms of the motion outlined to the House by the honourable member for Sturt relates to general business. I do not think any honourable member has taken the opportunity to refer to this matter this afternoon. However, 5 notices of general business have been given and are on the notice paper. I gave notice of one such matter on 4th March 1970. Notice of the second item was given on 20th August 1970; notice of the third item was given on 14th May 1970; notice of the fourth item was also given on 14th May 1970; and notice of the fifth item was given on 30th March 1971. All of these notices relate to matters of very great importance. They are matters of public importance, but the Opposition will not have an opportunity to debate any of them. Like questions on notice, these matters will remain unanswered when this House rises on Thursday night.

I believe that Government supporters appreciate the fact that a very serious mistake has been made and. that there is an obligation on those who have’ the responsibility for making these decisions to ensure that honourable members have an opportunity to debate intelligently, logically and under proper circumstances the business before this House. Nobody can suggest, as the honourable member for Moreton pointed out this afternoon, that this Government is acting in a proper and responsible manner in curtailing the business of this House. The plain fact is that the Government intends that this House should adjourn on Thursday night and it will rise until 17th August - a recess of nearly 4 months. It has been pointed out quite properly that what the Government accepts as its responsibility is government by the Executive, not government by the Parliament. This Government does not believe in giving an opportunity to honourable members to debate under proper circumstances legislation which is of great importance to all honourable members.

Earlier this afternoon I had an opportunity to refer to a statement which had been circulated by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). I reiterate what I said during that debate. I do not blame the Leader of the House himself; after all, he is only an instrument. He is carrying out the instructions of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). who is obviously stalling for time. It is quite evident from what one is able to discern from the speeches of honourable members opposite that there is a great deal of ill feeling between members of the Australian Country Party and. the Liberal Party. There is not general agreementon these matters. I believe it ought to be noted for the sake of the record that not one member of the. Country Party rose this afternoon and protested in any way at all at the Government’s action, first of all. in moving for the suspension of the II o’clock rule last week, secondly in moving to apply the guillotine today and, thirdly, in making the decision some weeks ago to adjourn this House on Thursday night, irrespective of what opportunities are given to honourable members to debate matters. .

This is the situation which we face. I believe that it has been proved conclusively by the general contributions to the debates over the last 2 or 3 weeks, and more particularly this afternoon, that there is a need for this House to continue in session. No honourable member,’ particularly the Prime Minister himself, has been able to give a valid or responsible reason why this House should adjourn on Thursday night. Why does not the Prime Minister indicate to this House that in his opinion there is no need to give honourable members the opportunity to discuss the important provisions of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill which is to come before this House? The Prime Minister has been most vocal outside this Parliament in condemning members of trade unions and honourable members on this side of the House because, in his opinion, they have had the temerity to speak out for those whom they represent.

No more comprehensive legislation has been introduced into this House during the current parliamentary session than the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill which we will be expected to debate probably in the dying hours of this session. A period of 2 hours is to be allowed to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and other honourable members to take part in the second reading debate and in the debate on. the remaining stages of the Bill. What opportunity will there be for honourable members on this side of the House to contribute to that debate? One can understand Government members not wanting to participate in this debate. They are not interested in these matters. They are more concerned about making statements outside the Parliament - irresponsible statements, such as the one made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) to which the honourable member for Sturt referred in his very capable address earlier this evening. He pointed out that the Minister for Shipping and Transport had had the temerity to make the statement outside this Parliament that the Australian National Line ought to be sold. The state-, ment was aimed at the people of Tasmania who depend completely upon shipping services. These are the kinds of statements that are made outside the Parliament. Surely an opportunity ought to be given to honourable members to deal with these matters in the place where they should be discussed. When the Parliament goes into recess the usual number of statements will be made by Ministers, by members of the Cabinet or of the Ministry as a whole. They . will express outside the Parliament attitudes which involve policy matters and honourable members and the Parliament generally will not have an opportunity at all to deal with these matters.

The plain fact is that this Government has adopted a dictatorial attitude towards the proceedings of this House. All that I can say in conclusion, in supporting the motion proposed by the honourable member for Sturt and which I hope will be carried, is that the Government has adopted a dictatorial attitude. It is quite obvious from those honourable members who have spoken in this debate that they are not satisfied with the proceedings of this House and that they believe full opportunity ought to be given to honourable members to deal with the legislation which still remains on the notice paper. It can be dealt with effectively and in a responsible way only if this House continues to sit for another fortnight. The amount of legislation that still remains on the notice paper is quite obvious from an examination of the notice paper and of the statement which was circulated by the Leader of the House this afternoon. That statement has been described as an irresponsible statement. It is an irresponsible statement

At the commencement of my speech I said that while I have been a member of this Parliament there have been occasions towards the end of parliamentary sessions when the guillotine has been used, but it has never been used in the way in which it is being used by the Government on this occasion. The Government seeks to restrict the opportunity of honourable members to debate no fewer than 17 Bills. I believe, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has so often said in this House, that the rights of honourable members are being denied to them by the Government. The Government treats Opposition members with- complete-

Mr Grassby:

– Contempt.

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

– On the contrary.

Mr BARNARD:

– When the AttorneyGeneral interjected, I was about to say that the Government has been completely autocratic in its attitude. It has complete contempt for honourable members not only on this side of the House but on its own side pf the House. We say, having seen the statement which has been circulated, that the Government’s attitude is a disgrace to this Parliament, to the Cabinet and to the nation.

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

– I was very interested to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) refer, in certain terms, to the statement which was circulated earlier today. So far I have not had an opportunity to move the motion which is contained in that statement and to present the statement to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then can make his comments on the statement within the Standing Orders. Over the years, all honourable members have had the opportunity of listening to comments by the Opposition - when I say the Opposition perhaps I could refer to the Government Parties when they were in Opposition - in the closing stages of a sitting complaining about not having the opportunity to debate measures and being restricted in the time allowed for speeches because of reduced debating time. Of course, these complaints become quite familiar.

Today, as they have done in the past, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) repeated references to matters of this nature and, of course, we all have complete sympathy for them. No doubt, if at some distant time in the future I bold the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition - this would be in my old age - I will say exactly the same sort of thing. But the point that should be made is that one could gain the impression that this particular session had been truncated and that the debating time had been reduced to a comparatively low level having regard to other sessions and that thereby the Opposition was being prevented from debating motions and Bills before the House. I will be referring to this matter when we deal with the substantive motion which I shall move later.

It is interesting to note that the average number of sitting days for the autumn session of this Parliament is about 28 or 29 days with an exception last year when, because of certain circumstances, the session went a little longer. I shall refer to that later. It is also interesting to note that toy Thursday we will have been sitting for 31 days in this session. In other words, the number of sitting days for this session, which as honourable members know started earlier this year in the middle of February, will be greater than for the average autumn session. I think that this should be recognised, because one could gather from the comments that have been made by the mover and seconder of themotion that, in fact, the Government had been cutting down on the number of sitting days when, in fact, the number of sitting days is above the average. I cannot inform the House what the final number of hours will be. I can mention only that supper has been ordered for tonight and tomorrow night. Allowing for the additional days and for what I believe will be sufficient debating time for the measures that are before the House, the number of hours for this session can be equated with the average for recent years. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that whilst, when I get the opportunity to move it, the substantive motion will be referring to 17 measures it refers to only 8 matters.

There will be cognate debates on a number of matters where the substantive pieces of legislation deal with machinery amendments to a number of other Bills.

Mr Bryant:

– How do you justify-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Wills does not restrain himself I shall have to deal with him.

Mr SWARTZ:

– 1 am not worried, Mr Speaker. I can speak loudly enough to overcome that disability.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! My comments apply also to the honourable member for Chifley who is out of his seat.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The point I was making is that, whilst 17 Bills are referred to, there are only 8 actual matters to be concluded in a matter of another 2 days and 2 nights. This is in addition to the time available tonight to debate the matters that are on the blue paper. The times that, have been allocated in the paper, which I hope to be presenting shortly, will not be too far out when compared with the debating time that is normally allowed for such measures. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, we did discuss these matters earlier. It is quite proper that Opposition members should react and respond as they have done on this particular occasion.

Mr Cope:

– How do you reconcile that with the attitude of the honourable member for Moreton?

Mr SWARTZ:

– This perhaps indicates, I suppose, the difference between our Parties and the Opposition Party. Members on our side of the House can object and can, on a matter of principle in which they firmly believe, not support a motion, but we have seen the fate of a member of the Opposition who adopted that same attitude. I should like to make just 2 final points on this motion, with which we do not agree. The first is that reference was made to the compensation Bills and the time allowed for their debate. I do not think the comments were exactly fair, because the original intention was that these measures - the Bills concerned with compensation - would, in fact, remain on the notice paper until the Budget session. I had informed the Opposition of this. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whom I know to be a fair and reasonable man, will admit that we discussed this and agreed to bring forward these Bills because the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) indicated that he wanted them brought forward and, in the special circumstances, intimated that he would require only a certain amount of lime.

Mr Foster:

Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It could be -that I am wrong, but I think, because of what has been said about the participants in this debate, that I should point out that the Minister is dealing now with Bills which the Government has consented to place before the Parliament this session rather than-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order but a debating point and the Chair is not concerned with debating points.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I shall not refer to that matter again except to say that this was done by arrangement with the Opposition. About 5 Bills would not be on the list but for the special request of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. The Government agreed to bring the Bills on for that reason and it is a desire, within the Opposition, that they be passed. I might say that the honourable member for Hindmarsh had a good ally in the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who also wanted this course to be followed, but this had not been the original intention. I merely explain this because the time allocated for the debate on those measures was questioned.

The second matter I want to mention concerns my colleague, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes). Tonight, on the blue paper, provision is made for a cognate debate on a ministerial statement dealing with Papua New Guinea and the Papua and New Guinea Bill. A certain amount of time has been allocated for this debate in the statement which I will present to the House shortly. This time has been queried by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members. The Leader of the Opposition said that only half an hour had been allotted for debate on the Bill but, by arrangement, because I think the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) was anxious to have a cognate debate on the statement and the Bill, a cognate debate will take place and the time allocated will be sufficient for the 8 speakers who have indicated that they want to speak on this matter. That is why only half an hour was allowed for debate on the Bill but it has nothing to do with the total time. It was at the special request of the Opposition that a cognate debate was arranged and the Government was pleased to accede to the request. I conclude by saying that whilst I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed by the Opposition, in view of all the circumstances the Government cannot agree to the motion.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– In the long history of the Parliament - -

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2497

DECLARATION OF BILLS AS URGENT BILLS

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

– 1 declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Compensation (Commonwealth Employers) Bill 1971.

Mr Stewart:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) moved:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of 17 Bills.

I do not know whether I am allowed to do this but I will do it: I suggest that the Clerk remain seated while I take this point of order. Mr Speaker, in this House the Opposition has to rely on what we on this side can find out for ourselves. When I rose to speak on this point of order the Clerk rose from his chair to give you instructions. I am asking you, Mr Speaker, to rule on my point of order on the basis of the arguments I will put to you. I cannot see thai you have the right to any further assistance than is available to honourable members on this side of the House. I take the point that the Leader of the House moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to allow one declaration of urgency and to move one motion for the allotment of time in respect of 17 Bills. That motion was carried and immediately after it was carried the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) moved for a further suspension of the Standing Orders to require this Parliament to sit for another 2 weeks. Let me quote the relevant Standing Orders under the heading ‘Suspension’. They are: 399. In cases of necessity, any standing or sessional order or orders of the House may be suspended, on motion, duly moved and seconded, without notice: Provided that such motion is car ried by an absolute majority of Members Having full voting rights. 400. When a motion for the suspension of any standing or sessional order or orders appears on the Notice Paper, such motion may be carried by a majority of votes. 401. The suspension of standing orders is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought 402. The whole of these standing orders shall continue in force until altered, amended, or repealed. 1 submit that when the Leader of the House moved for the suspension of Standing Orders he did so for a specific purpose and that was to declare the 17 Bills urgent Bills. He had the right to do that but by not making the declaration at that time he forewent that right. No meeting, once it has suspended its standing orders, can move on to any other business until the purpose of the suspension has been completed. Yet tonight we had one suspension carried. The substantive motion for which that suspension had been moved was not put.

Admittedly the motion of the honourable member for Sturt was defeated but let us have a look at the position in which the Parliament would have been placed had his motion been carried. We would have had one motion carried for the suspension of the Standing Orders so as to declare 17 Bills urgent Bills and a further motion carried requiring the Parliament to sit for another fortnight. Upon the declaration of the 17 Bills to be urgent Bills there would not have been sufficient business listed on the notice paper to keep this Parliament going beyond Thursday. We could not have survived for the fortnight. The Parliament was placed in the position of having 2 motions for the suspension crf Standing Orders and if they had been carried the second motion to enable this House to sit for another fortnight could not have been put into operation. I want to quote to the House from the House of Representatives publication ‘A Short Description of Business and Procedures’. Under the heading Suspension’ on page 3 it reads:

It is not unusual in the functioning of the House for it to be found necessary to suspend standing orders or a particular standing order to permit certain action to be taken. Common instances are to grant unlimited or extended time for particular speeches, the introduction of particular Bills without notice and their passage without delay, the consideration of some Bills together, the introduction of new business after 11 p.m., etc. . .

The standing orders may only be suspended by motion and this is usually in one of the following forms:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- . . .

That standing order … be suspended for the remainder of the session. .

A motion of this nature may be moved by any member without notice, but to ‘bs passed must be carried by an absolute majojrity of members having full voting rights. (The present House has 125 full voting members - an absolute majority of which is 63.) If the motion has been moved pursuant to notice, or with the leave of the House, it may be carried by a simple majority of members present. (S.O.’s 399-401)

Last night after the motion for the adjournment of the House had been moved the Clerk rose and gave notice that today the Leader of the House would move for the suspension of the Standing Orders to declare 17 Bills urgent Bills. I submit that it is up to you, Mr Speaker. The Government is not taking any notice df the Parliament. The Government is riding roughshod over the Opposition and you, too, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. It is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr Stewart:

– I withdraw the remark. I only wish that I could talk to you as the honourable member for Phillip. I suggest that until the Chair in this Parliament has some say in the way in which the Standing Orders are used by the Government you will be in the hot seat. You had a minor riot on your hands not so long ago. The same feelings exist on this side ‘ of the chamber at the moment. The Government can have orderly debates or chaos, but it does not have to worry. It is you, Mr Speaker, who has the worry. You are the one who bears the brunt of it. You are the one who has to keep order in the House - not the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, who appears in the House less frequently than his predecessor did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member rose to raise a point of order.

Mr Stewart:

– The point of order is that the substantive motion for the declaration of the Bills as urgent Bills was not put at the time that the suspension was carried by the House and the Parliament has no right to continue with that motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In relation to the questions that have been raised by the honourable member for Lang and in relation to his particular reference to my position I would like to say, first of all, that I interpret the Standing Orders of this House according to my view of what they are. I receive no directions from anybody on the Government side or on the Opposition side. I am amazed to think that because a Speaker endeavours to carry out the Standing Orders in the correct and proper manner he should be the target of some veiled threats in relation to his position. I conclude on that note.

Mr Uren:

– What is your ruling?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am talking at this stage. The position as I see it now is that the honourable member for Sturt rose and moved the suspension of Standing Orders, which an honourable member is entitled to do at any time. He was acknowledged, and moved the suspension of Standing Orders which, as the honourable member for Lang has said, would have changed the situation if it had been carried. Prior to that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, of which notice was given, had also been put to the House. That motion was then carried. I can see nothing which says that the motion shall be put forthwith. The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which the Leader of the House has moved is, in my view, correct, and stands.

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, your ruling appears to be based on the presumption that, following the suspension of Standing Orders, the Standing Orders still apply. I fail to see how that can be. The motion to suspend the Standing Orders having been carried, it is then for the House to proceed to comply with the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders or to proceed with its normal business. The acceptance by the House of subsequent business would, in my opinion, quite properly indicate that the House had resumed its normal business. I suggest, Sir, that it is difficult to understand how a motion to suspend the Standing Orders could be proposed, as was proposed by the honourable member for Sturt, if in fact the Standing Orders had already been suspended by a previous motion. Therefore, I suggest that the House, by accepting the substantive motion of the honourable member for Sturt to suspend the Standing Orders for a specific purpose other than that with which the previous resolution had dealt, accepted it as a fact that the Standing Orders were operable at that time and had not been suspended. So the motion was not moved. I suggest that your ruling, Sir, does net appear to be in line with the practised rules of debate. As has been suggested by the honourable member for Lang, the Standing Orders were already suspended and therefore it would be impossible for a second motion for the same purpose to be carried.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House cannot have it both ways. It wants the rights of honourable members to be recognised. It is the right of an honourable member at any stage to move the suspension of Standing Orders. The honourable member for Sturt was duly recognised and put his motion, as he was entitled to do. When the suspension of Standing Orders is moved, I think all honourable members know that the business at that stage is held in limbo until such time as the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by any honourable member is dealt with.

Mr Howson:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. I think that the Opposition, although having quoted standing orders 399, 400, 401 and 402, has failed to read the important one, which is standing order 92.

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, my point of order is that you have already ruled on the point of order, so the honourable member cannot take a point of order on a point of order that you have decided is not a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do not confuse me.

Mr Howson:

– The honourable member for Grayndler was not listening to what was put by the honourable member for Corio. It would be useful if sometimes he would listen to the people on his own side as well as to the people opposite him. The important standing order here is standing order 92. There is nothing in that standing order which says that this procedure has to be taken immediately after the suspension of Standing Orders. I believe that you, Mr Speaker, have been entirely right in this and that the honourable member for Corio is entirely out of order in the course that he has taken.

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, I am. pleased that you showed wise judgment in ignoring the previous point of order–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the honourable member raising another point of order?

Mr Daly:

– No. I propose to speak to the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member cannot speak to the Bill at this stage. No Bill is before the House. Has the Leader of the House finished the list of Bills?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– No. I am about to start. I wanted to give the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) an Opportunity to speak. I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971

United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971

Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971

Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971

States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971

Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971

Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971

Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment

Bill 1971

Superannuation Bill 1970

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1970

Trade Practices Bill 1971

Wool Industry Bill 1971.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Mr Grassby:

-Mr Speaker, I desire to move an amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Under the standing order relating to the motion proposed by the Leader of the House, which I hope I correctly interpret, no debate or amendment is allowed.

page 2500

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– (9.11)- Mr Speaker, I move:

I am reading the Standing Orders with increasing interest. I note that there is no opportunity for the Parliament to discuss this important matter that concerns the Parliament if we allow standing order 92(a) to stand unaltered. I suggest that honourable members should get out their copies of the Standing Orders and consider what I am putting to them. Two distinct issues are being placed before us at this moment. The first one is the limitation of debate and the second one relates to the number of Bills we are to consider as urgent and the times to be allocated to debate them. T believe that at this moment it is important that we discuss the principle of the limitation of debate in this House. Therefore I have moved that standing order 92 (a) be suspended. This is the issue as I see it: This Parliament is the inheritor of a system of debate that has evolved over 600 or 700 years. This Parliament is the forum of the nation: yet this evening the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) is able to move a motion which, unless we move for the suspension of Standing Orders, is able to change the whole system on which the parliamentary debating organisation is based. Therefore I have moved this motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I second the motion. Briefly, I think that the suspension of standing order 92 (a) at this time is extremely important. I believe that those who framed this standing order would have intended that the guillotine should apply only to a single Bill. I would have thought that in the past the guillotine has been used by moving that a single Bill be declared urgent. I do not know whether there is any precedent for more than one Bill on different topics to be included in a declaration such as that made by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). But I suggest that when 17 Bills, some of which are of extreme importance and some of which are among the most technically complex Bills to come before this Parliament in a number of years, are declared urgent, it is a little ludicrous to suggest that in 20 minutes the question as to the time allocated should be dispatched - I think ‘dispatched’ is the right word - and finalised. I suggest that it is proper that a greater amount of time be allowed for debate on this matter of urgency.

I think that a full and proper debate on this matter in the Parliament may well clarify some of the issues which have bogged down the business of this Parliament during most of today and which may well bog down the business of the Parliament for some considerable time to come. 1 fail to see how the Government can expect co-operation when it acts in the manner in which it is acting at the moment. I also find it difficult to understand how a question of this nature can be put through the Parliament and how we can limit debate by allocating such a restricted time to consider matters of such importance as the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That matter is not under discussion at this time.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The present discussion arises from the question that certain Bills be declared urgent. The motion before the Chair is that we suspend the Standing Orders so that we can debate the declaring of these Bills urgent and the time allocated for debate. I second the motion because I believe that it is ludicrous for this Parliament to suggest to people such as those in the trade union movement and the employers who will be subject to the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill and who have a very important interest in it - the income tax legislation is another important matter - that this Bill was passed and became law after proper deliberation by this Parliament when we know, the Leader of the House knows and the people who will blindly support him at a later stage know that this Bill will not be discussed properly by the Parliament and will not be given anything like proper consideration. We all know that no proper opportunity to move amendments to the Bill will be given to this Parliament.

I support the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. I think this House has a very important duty to make sure that it remains the House of Representatives, the House of government. Do not let any Government member fool himself into thinking that by using the guillotine to push Bills through this House the Government will limit debate on these measures. They will be debated fully by the Senate. The abdication of responsibility by this House, which was evident the last time the guillotine was applied on the National Health Bill, will continue. If honourable members opposite want to make themselves second rate citizens in the Parliament they are going the right way about it.

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

– Whilst I appreciate what has been expressed by the two honourable members opposite, I am afraid 1 cannot accept the motion as it stands. This matter is related to the Standing Orders, and the Standing Orders are quite clear. They lay down that, when the question is put before the House that Bills be considered urgent Bills, no debate or amendment is allowed at that point of time. That is quite clear. Then, of course, the Minister in charge of the House at the time moves a motion allotting the actual time for the debate of the Bills that have been declared urgent. In this case the time has been circulated. Again the debate takes place at that point of time. I think the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) is waiting to commence the debate. Certainly it is limited. The limitation is imposed by the Standing Orders. If there is any suggestion that further time would be required in these circumstances, it is open to the members of the House, through their own parties, to submit the matter to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. But I suggest that the Standing Orders as they stand must apply in this case.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– in replyThe point before the House, and one which I hope the Standing Orders Committee will consider rather deeply as soon as it can get round to it, is this question of what is urgent in this sense. We use the word urgency’ in reference to certain debates in this place, although that is not the term used in the Standing Orders. This evening we are being asked to consider 17 Bills before the House as being urgent. In doing that we are asked to suspend the procedures, practices, traditions and protections that have evolved over 600 or 700 years. It has not been by chance that we have evolved the system of the first reading, whereby traditionally a Bill is circulated so people can discuss it and consider it; the second reading, on which there is a total debate; the Committee stage, in which the Bill is taken apart piece by piece, comma by comma, and the schedules are considered; then the report of the Committee and the third reading of the Bill.

These practices have not been developed by some chance or at the whim or fancy of somebody who wants to get more pay by drawing the procedure out. They have been part of the traditional development of the Parliament to protect the rights of discussion and to protect people against hasty legislation. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) is saying that he has 17 Bills which are so urgent that all those principles, traditions and practices that we have developed over the centuries, which we have adopted from the British House of Commons and which have become a part of parliamentary tradition throughout the world, no longer apply. There are matters that are urgent. At various times, sometimes on small matters and sometimes on matters of crisis, the Government has said emphatically to the Parliament of the nation: ‘This is urgent. We had better do something about it tonight.’ Is someone to tell me that the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill has suddently become so urgent in the sense that the word urgent’ is being used? Of course it is not urgent. It is urgent and important that something be done about it. but who can say it is so urgent that tonight wc have to prevent discussion on it so that it can be put through?

All the stages we have developed so painfully and evolved so carefully over the years are to be discharged. The United States Naval Communications Station (Civilian Employees) Bill has suddenly become urgent, and so has the AngloAustralian Telescope Agreement Bill. Some of these Bills have been on the notice paper for months. They have suddenly become urgent. If it had been a question of procedure and if it had been said that in the forthcoming weeks there were so many other things that we ought to do - I believe there are - that it would be worthwhile getting these things out of the road, this side of the House, as invariably happens, would have co-operated. But when we are asked to surrender all of our traditional rights, then our rights come before any motion before the House. 1 believe that every member of this Parliament has as much right to speak and as much a duty to put his point of view as has the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I surrender nothing of equality in this instance. If the 125 members in the House want to speak on something we are obliged to listen. If they have something to say they are duty bound to say it. It is not a question of some forum in which there is a procedure of 1, 2, 3, 4 out, where we get legislation through like shelling peas. It is a question of the right of the people’s voice to be heard. I represent 120,000 people and most of my colleagues represent between 80,000 and 120,000 people. We are their voice here. They have no other way of speaking in this Parliament. There is no other way in which their voice can be heard. The trade union movement has no other access to the forum of the nation or to the legislators than through members of this Parliament. The constituents of honourable members opposite who hold seats in wheat growing areas have no other voice but that of their member. None of us should surrender this vital and fundamental right. The Leader of the House this evening made great play of the fact that we are doing what we have always done. They used to burn witches once. That is a continuation of the argument that leads to gas ovens and concentration camps.

It is 550 days or thereabouts since this Government was re-elected in 1969 and we have met for 101 or 102 days. It is said that Standing Orders are being used as an instrument of executive government. I do not believe that it is an instrument of executive government. Let us consider the schedule. Obviously someone has sat down and said: “What will we give them for this? Here are 17 Bills’. A process of arithmetic has been used to determine that there should be 5 hours 30 minutes on this Bill, 2 hours 25 minutes on that Bill and so on through the drill without the slightest consideration of whether the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill was urgent or whether the Income Tax Assessment Bill would be properly discussed.

Mr Stewart:

– Four hours on a Country Party Bill.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes, 4 hours on a Country Party Bill. This is what I am challenging tonight. When will we use the English language both correctly and precisely? When will we use the Standing Orders for what they are, the machinery by which Parliament decides the affairs of this nation? As the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and honourable members on this side of the House have said so adequately, eloquently and continuously today, we are departing so serously from the traditions of general parliamentary government and democratic rights that, we are putting the Parliament itself in a hopeless position.

When I pause on occasions such as this and consider the operations of the majority of honourable members opposite and the thoughtless and discourteous way in which they proceed with their functions, I see how hopeless is the position of those people who do not live in democratic communities such as ours where there are some traditions. No wonder the people of Germany were helpless in the 1930s. No wonder the people in South and North Vietnam and over most of the world are helpless when authority is exercised in this way. Where is the Prime Minister tonight? I believe one of our problems is that the Prime Minister, under whose authority, I suppose, these Bills have been declared urgent, is not really a member of this House. He entered Parliament in 1949 and became a Minister in 1951. He has never been a real member of Parliament; he has always been an executive instrument of some kind. His predecessor was much the same. They were not parliament men. For heavens sake, what is wrong with honourable members opposite? There are 65 or 66 members in the 2 Government parties. Are there not more than 2 who will abstain from voting? Some of them say privately: ‘We wish we could discuss this better’; ‘We wish we did not sit at midnight’; ‘We wish to meet next week and discuss this’; ‘Why can we not do so and so about something?’ How is it that every one of them has surrendered his initiative? They are all private revolutionaries and public doormats.

The honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) is barking over there. When did he ever say anything sensible? The right honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), a member of the Privy Council and one of the country’s most distinguished citizens, mark you, has sat here and let the Leader of the House, a member of another Party, use him as his rubber stamp.

Mr Daly:

– It is easy to get into the Privy Council now.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. The Privy Council has been demeaned and degraded when the honourable member allows himself to be used in this way. We are being asked to consider each one of these Bills separately whether they are urgent or not in the sense that ‘urgent’ has been used tonight. I say they are not urgent. As my colleagues on this side of the House have said so consistently today, while this practice continues the House of Representatives will not be the forum of the nation but just a piece of machinery for executive government. The Senate, if it wishes, will meet perhaps for weeks. The Senate has become the real Parliament of this country. The Executive decides its authority without let or hindrance from the freedom fighters opposite, so the House of Representatives has become what we might call the banana republic of the parliamentary system. Matters are decided at the whim and fancy of the Senate, on the one hand, and by the executive government on the other. I hope that honourable members will vote for the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can consider each one of these Bills, whether they are urgent or not, in order to get down to the urgent business of determining for how long and by what process the debate will ensue.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 46

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

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

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971

For the second reading, 1 hour;

For the remaining stages, 1 hour.

United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971 - For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, S minutes.

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971 - For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971 -

For the second reading, 1 hour;

For the remaining stages, 30 minutes.

Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971 - For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971-

For the second reading, 4 hours;

For the remaining stages, 5 minutes.

Loan . (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971-

For the second reading, 30 minutes;

For the remaining stages, 5 minutes.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971-

For the second reading, 40 minutes;

For the remaining stages, 5 minutes.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes.

Superannuation Bill 1970-

For the second reading, 1 hour;

For the remaining stages, li hours.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) 1970-

For the second reading, 30 minutes;

For the remaining stages, 5 minutes.

Trade Practices j Bill 1971-

For the second reading, 2i hours;

For the remaining stages, li hours.

Wool Industry Bill 197 1>-

For the second reading, 2 hours;

For the remaining stages, 30 minutes.

There are 17 Bills which will be the subject of this motion. However, because there will be cognate debate on several of the Bills, the time limit in fact applies to only 8 separate debates. In addition, 3 or 4 new Bills are to be introduced before the House rises, these Bills not being included in the present proposals. The programme of revised meeting times makes some 25 hours available for discussion of the legislation regarded by the Government as essential for passage during the remainder of this week. Discussions have been held with the Opposition regarding the time for debates, seen as important by both sides of the House, within the maximum sitting time available for the rest of this week.

The motion I have moved seems to the Government to give the best opportunity for maximum consideration of all the legislation affected. I may say here - and I will repeat to some extent what I have said before - that the House in 1971 has (at for about as many hours as is usual for an autumn period of sittings. Last year, the House sat on 38 days totalling 398 hours, and this was due especially to the fact that there had been a House of Representatives election at the end of the previous year, with a number of measures from that period being left over to be considered. I will now give figures for more average years. In 1969, the House sat on 29 days for a total of 292 hours; and in 1968, it sat for 28 days, totalling 293 hours. By the end of this sitting, it is expecttd that the House will have sat on 31 days for a period well over 270 hours. As I say, at present that figure is only a rough estimate because we are not yet quite sure of the number of hours; however, present indications are that we will sit for well over 270 hours.

Last year, 56 Bills were passed during the autumn sitting. In 1969, 5 Bills were passed; and in 1964, 64 Bills were passed. This year some 44 Bills are. expected to have been passed by the end of this week. Therefore, it will be seen that during the sittings an average number of days and hours has been spent considering legislation and other matters. In relation to the total time that has been made available, fewer Bills have been dealt with in this period than were dealt with during the sittings in the previous 3 years. Every possible opportunity has been given to the Opposition to propose for discussion matters of public importance; I am sure that the House will agree that there have been a good many other motions designed to give Opposition members plenty of opportunity to express their points of view. Moreover, the Government has never sought to prevent general business being called on throughout the whole of this period of sittings, but has allowed it to be dealt with during the period of these sittings. Also, until this week, the provision for Grievance Day has been fully availed of as well.

As has been said in previous debates today, 7 or 8 Bills will be introduced and dealt with to the second reading stage - some are already on the notice paper and some will come on later - and will remain on the notice paper to be considered during the Budget session. As all honourable members know, this is a normal practice - although it was questioned tonight - which, to my knowledge, has been followed every year since this Parliament has met. One reason for this is that during the first week of the Budget sittings, after the Budget is introduced on the Tuesday evening the debate is then adjourned to enable Opposition members to have the opportunity to study budgetary matters so that they can commence the Budget debate the following week; so there is an opportunity during the first week of the Budget session for full consideration to be given to matters left on the notice paper. Therefore, it has been the practice to allow some business to remain for consideration during the first week. This practice is being adopted again on this occasion. In conclusion, I ask honourable members to note these facts when considering this motion.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– As I listened to the speech of the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), I had to think twice whether I was listening to the president of a benevolent society or to a Minister in a democratic Parliament. A moment ago, he stood up and, like Cassius Clay, said: T am the greatest; you have had everything you have wanted, such as long hours of debate on important issues; we have consulted you, let you move motions, and let you have the full right of expression. We have done everything possible to make it a harmonious Parliament and in that way to see that you have put your point of view.’ What the Minister should have said was that any concession given by this Government was forced out of it by the Opposition. On every occasion, if we wanted anything it had to be forced by vote and motion. When the Minister referred to the traditional practice in this Parliament, he referred to the practice followed for 20 years by this worn out, tired old administration. When he said that it was normal practice to leave Bills over and so on, he was referring to the normal practice of a tory government. That is not the way a Labor administration would work.

What person in this country ever thought that he would see Bills put through the Parliament on a mass production basis like a sausage machine? In this case 17 Bills are concerned. Although I have been a member of this Parliament for 28 years, I have never seen the guillotine applied to more than one Bill at a time. Now the Minister at the table, the head of the benevolent society, has put 17 Bills in the sausage machine and will run them through while we wait. These Bills cover the widest possible variety of subjects. For some of them there are 12 or 14 pages of detailed comment by the Minister, yet some of the Bills are to go through in as short a time as 5 minutes. As one looks through the list of Bills, from the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill right down to the Wool Industry Bill, one sees that the Bills cover the widest possible variety of subjects, yet they must be debated in the 20 hours provided before the sittings of this House are wound up.

The Minister said that he consulted the Opposition. What he did was to walk around to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and say: This is what we are going to do; we will bring it in this afternoon.’ That is the Liberal method of consultation with the Opposition. When a Party is a few numbers short, what can it do with an arrogant, over-bearing Government which is perpetrating at this moment what we might term the rape of democracy? The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), a former Minister of the Crown, is as silent as the grave; his hopes are still raised by the thought that he might be back again as an Assistant Minister or something. He is frightened to talk on these issues before the Parliament. I suggest that the Minister for National Development, supported by those behind him, has used the axe with all the skill of an executioner to suppress, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said tonight, the right of members to speak on these measures and to express the views of their electors.

Let us examine some of the Bills. There is the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill - it takes nearly 5 minutes to say it. That Bill is to go through all stages in 5 minutes, and I will say why that is so. This is a case where the Minister in charge of the Bill will be one of those to be assisted by an Assistant Minister; he does not know what the Bill is all about and is not prepared to allow more than 5 minutes discussion on it. This is a cover-up for the matter brought before this Parliament today. Only incompetent Ministers would not allow more than 5 minutes for these measures to be discussed. For all stages of the AngloAustralian Telescope Agreement Bill 5 minutes is allowed. If honourable members on this side of the Parliament did this type of thing, honourable members opposite would say we were anti-American, or something to that effect. The situation is that honourable members opposite are making a farce of government. I congratulate the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on getting away from this weird mob. He certainly did it in a round-about way, but is he not justified, when he sees this kind of conduct in the Parliament? Is it any wonder that today the notable honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) stood up in this Parliament and warned the Prime Minister: ‘You will be brought down if you do not let democratic procedures take their course.’

Let the honourable member for Wannon tonight express the same attitude and the same courageous views as those expressed by the honourable member for Moreton today. Let him support the Opposition in what is a fight for justice and democracy against suppression in this place. The honourable member for Wannon, who is trying to interject, should stand on his feet and support me. I would be delighted to welcome his support. Quite frankly, I know that he is short of friends on the other side of the House, but he would pick up one or two friends over here tonight if he did what I have suggested. On behalf of the Opposition and myself, I place on record my condemnation of this Government for its treatment of the people, even more so than for its treatment of the Opposition. Let nobody be misled. Whatever we have got in this Parliament we have got by vote, force and expression.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Grassby:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to move an amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Angas.

Mr GILES:
Angas

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like-

Mr Foster:

– Doesn’t he ever learn?

Mr GILES:

– Now that the empty vessels have succeeded temporarily in containing themselves, perhaps I should say a word or two in relation to the motion before the Chair. I think that the first thing–

Motion (by Mr Cope) put:

That the honourable member for Angas be not further heard.

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time available to the honourable member for Angas has expired.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

- Mr Speaker, I rise to move an amendment to the motion before the House. I move:

That all time allocated in connection with the Bills listed 1 to 17 be trebled to provide for adequate deliberation.

In speaking to this amendment I point out that in these 17 Bills we have some of the most complicated measures that have presently come before the Parliament. I say presently’ in terms of this session. We have the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971 which I might say–

Mr Howson:

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order to move an amendment to this motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. The honourable member for Riverina is quite in order.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I point out that in relation to just one of these measures a former officer of the Taxation Office, who had 28 years of service with that office and who has already spent 61/4 hours studing the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971 and the 2 related Bills, is already faced with some problems concerning their interpretation, which he intended to raise at the Committee stage. It is interesting to note that in order to resolve the remainder of his difficulties he has to share the 40 minutes allotted to honourable members on this side of the House for the second reading debate.

The second example I would give of the absurdity of the present allocation of time is the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971. At the Committee stage we will have 5 minutes in which to deal with a measure which affects 1 million people in the countryside of this nation.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I move:

That the time allotted for the debate be extended.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that the motion is out of order. The matter has already been determined by the House. The time for this debate has been limited to 20 minutes and therefore there cannot be an extension of time. The House has already agreed to this.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Dr Gun:

– When?

Mr SPEAKER:

– When the matter of urgency was raised, it was resolved under standing order 92.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2508

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1971)

Mr Speaker, the Customs Tariff Proposals which I have just tabled relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966- 1970. These Proposals implement the Government’s acceptance of recommendations by the Tariff Board in its report on pulp having regard to the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. The Board recommended that duties on softwood pulps be increased from free to 20 per cent, ad valorem, under both the general and preferential tariffs, except in respect of softwood pulps of New Zealand origin. New Zealand softwood pulps and pulps of other types from all sources remain free of duty.

The Government also accepted the Board’s recommendations that by-law admission of pulp from any source should be accorded when suitable pulp of New Zealand origin is not available or when the individual importing company obtains or undertakes to obtain from New Zealand 75 per cent or more, in terms of quantity, of its import requirements for which New Zealand pulp is suitable. By-law admission of pulp from any source will also be granted if suitable New Zealand pulp is not available on terms and conditions no less favourable than those applying to pulp from other sources under normal trading conditions. The decision of the Government to accept the Board’s recommendation honours an undertaking given to New Zealand in 1968 that Australia’s import requirements should first be met by supplies of New Zealand origin. Honourable members may recall that the Australian and New Zealand Trade Ministers agreed in April 1968 on certain measures for increasing New Zealand’s export trade in pulp and paper products. Their decisions were incorporated in an interim exchange of letters dated 14th February 1969, which were made public at that time.

The Tariff Board recommended that admission under by-law of softwood pulps from any source should be accorded when suitable pulp of New Zealand origin is not available or when the individual Australian importer has obtained, or has undertaken to obtain, from New Zealand, 75 per cent or more of bis import requirements for which New Zealand pulp is suitable. Where this criterion is not met, a duty of 20 per cent would apply to imports of softwood pulps from other than New Zealand sources. All other pulps, none of which is exported from New Zealand, would remain free of duty. In the view of both the Tariff Board and the Government, these arrangements for the importation of softwood pulps from New Zealand should allow Australian users, to import sufficient of these pulps from other sources to maintain product quality and characteristics, and to ensure that neither production costs nor competitive positions in finished products are prejudiced by obtaining the bulk of import requirements from one source. It provides also continuing access to the Australian market for third countries.

The recommendations of the Tariff Board have been discussed with the New Zealand Government, which has agreed that the arrangements are satisfactory. The New Zealand Government has also undertaken to accord hardwood pulps from Australia a preferred position in the New Zealand market. For the information of honourable members, I will table shortly the text of the letters exchanged between the two Governments recording this agreement. These proposals also include an administrative change in relation to cigarette paper for use in an excise factory. This paper is not subject to revenue duties applicable to cigarette papers used in rollyourown cigarettes but only to excise duties on cigarettes when used for that purpose. At. present duty exemption from revenue duties is accorded by Excise Regulation 21 but it is desirable that the correct tariff provisions be established. For prac tical purposes no change in duty is involved. I commend the proposals.

Debate (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns) adjourned.

page 2509

IMPORT OF SOFTWOOD PULP

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present copies of an exchange of letters on 6th April 1971 between the New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade and the Australian Minister for Trade and Industry concerning import of softwood pulp into Australia.

page 2509

PULP

Tariff Board Report

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

– I present the report by the Tariff Board on the following subject:

Pulp (N.Z.-Australia Free Trade Agreement)

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2509

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2276), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 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 suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill as they are obviously 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 both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! ls it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The House finally settles down to some business about 7 hours late. I think that this Bill was originally listed to come on at about 3 o’clock this afternoon. I know that what I am saying has nothing to do with this debate but I just like to rub a little bit of salt into the wound now and again. Because of the uncompromising attitude of the Government we are 7 hours behind time.

Mr Giles:

– The honourable member is wasting time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The honourable member says that I am wasting time. I have plenty of it. He has wasted plenty of time. It is a bit boring to have to wait for so long when we have a government such as this. The 2 Bills before the House at present are the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971 and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1971 which are complementary pieces of legislation. One is dependent on the other for the operations of the stevedoring industry in Australia today.

By these 2 Bills the Government will be able to levy sufficient money on a scale already agreed upon in accordance with labour employed in the industry so as to provide the necessary funds for long service leave, annual leave, sick leave, public holiday pay and the payment of redundancy allowance. This scheme was brought about as a result of a conference, constituted back in 1965, known as the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, lt was made up of representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Following the taking of evidence a report from the Conference was brought down finally in 1967. The report was accepted by this Government. Some of the basic recommendations of the Conference provide for permanent employment in major ports, a pensions scheme for regular employees in all permanent and continuous ports and arrangements to cope with redundancy. The recommendations of the Conference are, I believe, a genuine attempt to bring some degree of stability to the Australian waterfront industry. The old system of casual labour was dispensed with and one of permanency, in which a man worked for the same employer every week, was substituted. Under the present system a man receives his wages, his sick leave, his holiday pay and his annual leave from his employer. He gets to know his employer. Previously a man would work for an employer one week and would work for another the next week, the next shift or the next day. As a result there was continual confusion and continuous trouble on the waterfront.

The new system has brought some degree of stability to the waterfront industry. I believe it will bring a greater degree of stability and so eliminate many of the strikes which, from a union point of view, were necessary in the past to maintain the wages and conditions of men who worked on the waterfront. The Opposition supports this. Most of the money referred to in the Bills has been eaten up in providing for one of the major proposals in the agreement, namely, that relating to redundancy. As a result of mechanisation and new methods in the industry the degree of redundancy has increased. I shall cite 2 examples of the change which has taken place on the waterfront. Today 168 men are employed at the White Bay container terminal in Sydney. In the past 12 months they handled about H million tons of cargo, lt is difficult to arrive at an exact figure of how many men would have been employed if that amount of cargo had been handled by conventional methods, but in the old days of conventional shipping somewhere between 700 and 800 men would have been fully employed for 12 months to handle H million tons of cargo.

Honourable members can see that there has been a major change in the industry and that men employed on the waterfront are entitled to the conditions and concessions which have been granted to them. The same thing can be said about Newcastle where 2 new coal loaders have been introduced. The first coal loader that was introduced in the river was of only minor consequence, but the second major coal loader installed in the coal loading basin has meant a considerable reduction in the employment of men. I state 2 clear examples. In the old days before coal loaders were installed about 800 men were employed on loading ships with coal. In 1970 the number of men was reduced to 130 and in that year they loaded 7,032,000 tons of coal. In 1965, before the last coal loader was installed, about 250 to 2 . 0 men handled 2,545,000 tons of coal. Honourable members are aware that there has been considerable mechanisation in the handling of cargo on the waterfront.

We on this side feel that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has stated very clearly the position in his second reading speech on these Bills. He gave a clear analysis of just where the money came from originally, the way in which it has been disposed of and the necessity for the increased charges which have been recommended in these Bills. As to the number of voluntary redundancies, somewhere in the vicinity of 344 men have voluntarily agreed to leave this industry. The cost of voluntary redundancies amounts to $137,778 for long service leave; $407,226 for severance pay and $366,406 for pension fund payments, a total of about $911,410. The payment of this money has been necessary to persuade men to leave this industry. I think some men have made quite satisfactory arrangements. I have previously discussed numerous cases in this field. I know of one case in which a man would have had to work for the next 18 months for about $16 a week. Redundancy payments have in a number of cases persuaded men that now is an opportune time for them to get out of the industry. If it is necessary to make these men redundant they have to be paid and the industry as a whole should be prepared to bear the cost involved. This is what this Bill actually provides for.

One question which has been asked of me is whether the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority agrees with the lowering of employee quotas in some ports. 1 will deal with one port I know fairly well, namely the Port of Newcastle. The employee quota at that port has been reduced to 450. Originally that port had a total employment of about 900 waterside workers and about 800 men handling coal. All the employees now come under the one union, the Waterside Workers’ Federation, which covers the coal handling and the general cargo sections. When we realise that the number of employees has been reduced from about 1,700 to about 450 I think it is time for us to stop and have another look to determine whether a situa tion is being created whereby men are being pushed out of the industry - persuaded to leave the industry - or whether a natural wastage is being allowed to occur to the extent that the work force at that port is far too small in number. Since the introduction of the quota of 450 men there have been serious labour shortages in the Port of Newcastle. I think one of the worst labour shortages was in January this year when there was a shortage of 257 men, which is more than half the employee quota. When labour is not available ships are tied up and left lying idle. A ship which is lying idle in a port can incur a cost from $2,000 to $4,000 a day depending on the size of the vessel. These additional costs have to be passed on in increased service charges.

This is a matter which the Government should take into consideration. I hope that the Government is satisfied that the quota system is in the best interests of the stevedoring industry in the handling of cargo in the ports of Australia. I can cite only one port but there must be numerous other ports in Australia in which ships are left lying idle because of a shortage of labour. The Waterside Workers” Federation is not prepared to provide casual labour, it is not prepared to go back to the old system of paying attendance money, of hiring casual employees and so on now that there is permanency for employees on the waterfront. 1 hope that the permanent employment scheme will continue to operate successfully. I do not think that employers of waterside labour should be allowed to reduce employee quotas to the level whereby ships are tied up in ports. Whilst the present system of permanent employment on the waterfront is a great incentive to the men I think that one of the reasons why port employee quotas have been reduced is because the waterside workers now have a greater incentive to get in and do the job.

Under the old casual labour system the employees went on a job and they made it last as long as they could. I do not think that anyone can blame them when you realise that as soon as a job was finished those employees might have been out of work for a week or lo days, receiving only attendance money. Now that there is permanency there is an incentive for the men to get in and do the job. I have been assured by responsible officials amongst waterside workers that there has been an increase in throughput of at least 15 per cent as result of the introduction of permanency on the waterfront. What is happening now b that the men go on to do the job and - to use the phrase of the men on the job - they get stuck into it and clean it up as quickly as they can in the knowledge that when the job is’ finished their shift is over. This has meant that there have been quite considerable savings in costs due to the quick turn around of ships in ports after they have been loaded with cargo or have discharged their cargo. The cost involved in keeping a ship in harbour is about $2,000 to $4,000 a day. The costs include labour fees, victualling costs, salaries for the crew members, power costs and everything else connected with overheads. These costs, as I said, have been reduced ia many cases but I issue the warning that employee quotas should be closely examined to ensure that ships are not allowed to lie idle in port for too long now that there is a greater throughput by the men on the job.

The Opposition supports this legislation because it believes that the increased charges, which we know will be passed on in other ways, will ensure the payment of long service leave, sick leave and annual leave entitlements. It is agreed by the employers of waterfront labour and by the Waterside Workers’ Federation that this will at least give some chance to stabilise employment in this industry and to iron out many of the differences which have occurred in past years between waterfront labour and employers. The Minister in his second reading speech made some reference to the number of disputes which have taken place on the waterfront in the last 12 months. Let us face the facts of life. One dispute was over the refusal of the employers of waterfront labour to confer on the question of a new award. Most of the things which had been put forward on behalf of the waterside workers were agreed to by the employers.

Mr Foster:

– That is right.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The honourable member speaks with some experience. What the Waterside Workers’ Federation put forward was later justified in confer ences. Is it any wonder that workers have to take the extreme action of calling a stoppage when employers and the Government are not prepared to confer on these things? I will agree that some stoppages have to an extent been political but I do not know how we can eliminate strikes of that type of short duration on political issues. All unions at some time indulge in them because they feel that they are justified in doing so. Recently there were disputes on the question of redundancy. I took part in a stop-work meeting concerning the disputes. I attended a meeting and listened to the propositions put forward by the responsible union against the shipowners’ intention to make redundant some 100 men. Finally after negotiations had taken place the number was reduced to 50 men. Then the union had to take action to preserve the employment of 50 of its members. It should not have to do this. When the Minister condemns and criticises a union for going on strike, he should be clear about the reasons why it went on strike. In many of the cases 1 supported the action which was taken.

On the question of redundancy, I think it is absolutely stupid and ridiculous to lay off 100 men and expect the other members of that branch of the union to go on working overtime. That is not the way the workers look at these questions. The fellows who are left on the job will not work overtime so that the employers can lay off their workmates in that industry. The way they look at it is that they are fighting for their mates today and their mates will be fighting for them the next day. These are some of the reasons why some of the stoppages took place. The shipowners and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority have been stupid in their approach of endeavouring to reduce the quotas, particularly at Port Kembla and Newcastle, beyond a fair and reasonable level. The union knows what is a fair and reasonable level and it was not prepared to accept the number of redundancies that the employers were putting forward. The Opposition supports the 2 Bills because it believes, as I said earlier, that they will result in some degree of permanency and stability in the industry.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– As the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has pointed out, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr

Lynch) gave a clear exposition of these Bills in his second reading speech a day or two ago. I shall not repeat the bulk or, for that matter, any of what he said. While the honourable member for Newcastle drew attention to some of what he suggested was the justifiable causation of disruptions in the stevedoring industry, 1 think there are other things to be said about this line of employment. First of all let me draw attention to the specific matters which are covered by this increased charge in the stevedoring industry area. It is a levy on the stevedoring employers in respect of work performed by the waterside workers whom they employ. The purpose of the levy is to raise funds in 3 areas.

The first area is to cover the long service leave scheme, the pension scheme and the industry redundancy scheme within the waterside industry. The second is to cover annual leave, sick leave, compassionate leave for casual employees, attendance money for casual employees who are available but not required to work at particular ports at particular times, and award and statutory holiday pay for casual employees. Thirdly, it is to cover administrative expenses of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, including salaries and superannuation of staff, transport and transfer costs of waterside workers and capital costs, including amenities such as cafeterias for waterside workers. I think it is fairly well known in the broad that, as the honourable member for Newcastle suggested, conditions have improved considerably in the waterside industry, perhaps to the extent that some of us believe that probably nobody in the community is better served except perhaps the members of the Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of recent fame.

I have itemised quite a series of provisions which I think nobody can deny are of the social and work service kind and which in times past have long been absent for workers in any category of industry. Given the situation as it is now, I do not think that anybody could maintain that the conditions were below par. The definition of forms of labour into permanent and casual employees and the further definition of ports into permanent and seasonal ports are great steps forward. However, that may be and the casual system as a whole having gone out of operation, we have a basically permanent waterside force which is considerably better served, it would appear from various figures, than it once was.

Let me draw attention to the movement in earnings in the last couple of years for which figures are available to me. In 1967- 68 at permanent ports the waterside workers worked an average of 38.4 hours and received an average of $70.85. Two years later, in 1969-70, at permanent ports they worked 37.4 hours for an average of $81.65 gross earnings. That is not bad going. The honourable member for Newcastle was quite specific in what he said. I bow to his knowledge of the particular port to which he referred and to his greater involvement in these things than I have had or am likely to have. Nevertheless, when we take the total figures, irrespective of the conditions at the port of Newcastle or any other port, we find that the incidence of permanency, the reduction of casual labour, the increase in mechanisation and automation - in other words, the total rationalisation of the waterside work force - have not produced quite the results we might have expected from such propitious circumstances.

Let me quote 2 or 3 more figures in terms of years, gross man hours worked and man hours lost through unauthorised stoppages. In 1955-56 the total man hours worked in the country was 38.8 million. The total man hours lost through unauthorised stoppages was 3.35 million, or 8.6 per cent of the total man hours worked. The situation has improved since those dastardly days, because in 1960-61 we had reached the point where 30.27 million man hours were worked and 1.19 million man hours were lost, which came down to 3.9 per cent of the total man hours worked. That was a great improvement over the mid-1950s. In 1964-65, to move ahead another 5 years or so, there were 31.8 million man hours worked and 1.19 million man hours lost through unauthorised stoppages, which represented 3.7 per cent of that year’s labour.

Let me turn now to the final year which I am able to take and which I think is the most important one in relation to what I am saying. One would imagine that with the implementation of permanency and the reduction of casual labour from 1969 onwards everything in the garden would be rosy, despite the problems at the port of Newcastle or anywhere else. One finds, however, that whilst 28.15 million man hours were worked 1.07 million man hours were lost, or 3.8 per cent of the total. This is the highest increase since 1960-61. It would appear overall that the great improvement in the conditions of the waterside work force is not reflected in the percentage of unauthorised stoppages taken over the total number of hours worked. That, to me, is a cause, if not for alarm, then certainly for some degree of unhappiness.

The honourable member for Newcastle questioned, doubtless rightly, whether the best interests of the stevedoring industry were being served in terms of the movement of labour, port quotas and ships laying up. I would like to ask the further question whether those stoppages in that proportion - almost as large a proportion as honourable members opposite waste in divisions - are in the best interests of the people of Australia. Finally I would like to draw attention to the general purposes of these Bills, which are to increase the provisions under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act. It is important to bear in mind that the charge rates which were fixed back in 1967 have been held pretty much at those levels during a period in which costs have risen rapidly in the waterside industry. The increases which are now being covered by these Bills are necessary. They have come about because of an accumulation of arbitration decisions through the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as well as through changes in wage rate structures and conditions of employment in the stevedoring industry. All of these have been awarded with the consent of the industry’s employers and are not directly matters of governmental authority. They are award payments of one kind or another. I would like finally to join with the Minister and with the honourable member for Newcastle in suggesting the relevance and the desirability of the passage of this legislation, but I would like again to underline my qualifications of the general operations of the waterside industry

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), who has just resumed his seat, saw fit to go through the time lost on the water front through strikes over a great period of time. He completely confused himself because he does not understand lost manhours, strikes, stoppages and whathaveyou. So I do not feel that I should dwell for any great length of time on what the honourable member for Denison has said other than to say in criticism of him that during the course of his speech he said that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) had a greater knowledge of the measure before the House than he had. I suppose that was the truest part of his speech. It is obvious from his speech that he knows little or nothing about the waterfront and the things associated with it, its history or anything else. Coming from the political background that he does, that does not surprise rae. He probably has never had reason or cause to listen to a battler’s argument or point of view. Therefore he is not able to inject into this debate anything real in relation to the problems of the industry. 1 would like to draw his attention to the remarks in the second reading speech ot the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in introducing the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill. For his benefit I will quote what the Minister said if the honourable member has not already read it. The Minister said:

On the credit side it is fair to say that the technological changes which have occurred in the stevedoring and shipping industries since 1967 have been achieved with the co-operation of the Waterside Workers Federation.

I pause to say that if it were not for this co-operation the industry could be in a vastly different position from the position it is in today. I have some personal and firsthand knowledge of what happened during the period from 1965 to 1967. If the honourable member for Denison will pay attention for a short time, I will point out to him that members of his Party introduced into this Parliament in which he is sitting now some of the most vicious industrial legislation that has ever been put on the statute book against any trade union in this Commonwealth. The intention of that legislation was that the trade union movement should cause more friction and more industrial strife on the waterfront so that the Government could have an election on that score. But what the Government did not foresee was the emergence of discussions and round table conferences which, at a very vital time when the industry was about to change drastically, meant real benefit to the country as a whole. The Minister further stated:

This is in clear contrast to the experience oi certain overseas countries where the stevedoring employees strongly resisted the introduction of new techniques.

I hope that this has sunk through to the honourable member for Denison. I will not quote further from the second reading speech of the Minister, but I suggest that before the honourable member for Denison criticises the union he should at least acquaint himself with the views of his own Minister.

The measure before the House, as has been said by the honourable member for Newcastle, is designed to increase charges generally in respect of the employment of waterside workers. I will be brief in my remarks tonight because I do not think there is a great deal to which to reply. But I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the position generally within the industry has improved vastly over the last few years, and had it not been for the Waterside Workers Federation and the Woodward conferences, as they turned out to be, as I said a few moments ago, the industry could be in a vastly worse position than it now is and in a worse position than a lot of the countries that the Minister referred to in his second reading speech. The industry, of course, is not out of its problems today. It is all very well for the honourable member for Denison to talk about maximum wage rates in some ports and to pay no regard to those areas within the responsibility of the Federation that are not so fortunate. The Federation is a trade union which down through the years has held sacrosanct the protection of its members irrespective of whether they be in A, B or C class ports. The industry still has its problems in regard to a number of ports where the weekly take home pay of the waterside workers is much less - indeed far less - than that of waterside workers in the major and capital ports. Unless they work a time which gives them the right to a guaranteed wage they get no such guaranteed wage. Such ports still exist in Australia. I suggest to the honourable member for Denison that he should perhaps get a copy of the union’s latest publication on this and he will see the ports spelt out. If my memory serves me correctly, he will find that some Tasmanian ports are listed, although I would not be sure. The industry still faces many problems because this Government has not taken sufficient notice of the trade union movement within the industry for almost 10 years - if not 10 years, at least 8 years - in regard to the programme it set out for the introduction of containerisation. Members in this House have heard me on frequent occasions direct my remarks to that matter.

Containerisation has meant a costly burden on the general taxpayer and on the industry itself. It has meant that fewer jobs are available to the members of the union. I personally held a very strong view when I was actively associated with the organisation - I still hold the view - that if it is good enough over the years for the private shipping companies and ship owners to take from the Australian taxpayer and the export income of this country the maximum amount possible - this has always been spelt out in what the traffic can bear - it is good enough for that industry at least to offer compensation to members who are surplus in the industry or who leave it because of their age or who make a conscientious decision to leave the industry. Containerisation is not the last word in change in the industry. Let me quote this article:

LASH - Lighter Aboard Ship - has proved successful in American ports and 500-ton ship cranes will be plopping barges into Australian harbor waters next year.

Nervous duckings must be heard in the board rooms of shipping companies who put all their eggs in the container basket

Spyros S. Skouras Junior, multi-millionaire President of Prudential-Grace Lines, which has sunk millions into a USA LASH fleet, thinks LASH will become the world’s most important ocean transport system in the 1970s.

He sees LASH ships from European seas dropping their barges in US East Coast ports, to be transhipped from there to Latin America, the US West Coast and the Far East.

Transhipment of barges from one LASH ship to another is easy, and ‘all continents will be linked in a giant global transportation system.’

Mr Skouras claims ‘the economies to be realised through this system are staggering.’

WITH the LASH challenge to be met next year the Conference Lines are already under threat because of escalating container freight charges, beyond the capacity of key export industries like wool to pay, the movement of meat exports back to conventional ships and the loss of much of the fruit trade to non-Conference companies.

Also, the Europeans’ ro-ro ships are proving their worth and conventional ships that combine various cargoes- old-style general, utilised and container - refuse to become obsolete.

Wool represents at least one-third of northbound container cargoes: if wool goes to contract non-Conference shippers- likely ‘ in view of the wool industry’s inability to pay current freights -

Imposed on them by the private shipping companies I have referred to earlier - the container consortia are in mortal trouble.

We can’t crystal-ball gaze, but it could be that the cellular ail-container ships, representing hundreds of millions in capital investment on sea and land, will have shorter lives than their owners and Australian Liberal-Country Party sponsors anticipated.

Honourable members might recall that 1 said in this House only a few days ago that we might see a shocking situation in this country - if the people have not the good sense to change the government and kick the present Government out of office, where it should be - with the Government bleeding the taxpayers and inflicting further burdens on those who produce the primary products which supply the trades for the container consortia. The combination of companies has spent millions and millions of dollars on this project. Within the next 12 months, we could see the first arrival of ships of the type I have just referred to, which will make them obsolete. This is the type of thinking the Government should be adopting in regard to this measure. This is what it should be concerning itself with insofar as the union movement is concerned in this area.

If the LASH vessels come into being there could be further problems in the industry as far as redundancy is concerned. I remind the House that some few weeks ago I raised the question of redundancy of workers generally throughout the Commonwealth. We are likely to face the situation in the next 5 years where tens of thousands of people will become unemployed in industries such as the one about which we are speaking tonight, in the clerical field and what have you. My condemnation of the Government on this aspect is well known in the House and I do not see fit to embark on it once again.

Slowly but surely over the last few years we have seen not only the trade union movement but others opposed to it in the industry showing real signs of concern. At last they have heeded the voice of the trade union movement as to what has been happening almost since the first days of trading in Australia. Their voices are raised in protest at the actions of the Government in aligning itself with the Conference Lines and coming into this House and saying that it bought in because it wanted to have an Australian voice in the Conference Lines. There was no such voice. Recently there was a ‘Four Corners’ programme on this matter and one fellow from Melbourne, whom I will not name here, said:

I am very concerned that unfortunately we have not our own ships, our own merchant navy. We are subject to prices and conditions laid down by the Conference Lines where we as Australians have absolutely no influence.

This is quite contrary, is it not, to what was said by the former Minister for Trade and Industry who vacated this place of his own volition some months ago and who hoodwinked this House for some years over the benefits to Australia of the ANL vessels. I am not saying that Australia should not have its own fleet. We should have retained the one which we had and which was sold out by a Liberal government in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I am very worried today because during the last week, as was mentioned in an earlier speech tonight, we have had a so-called responsible Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) going around the more select clubs in this country hawking the national shipping line. That is just not good enough in any day and age, particularly in 1971.

I conclude my remarks on a note of criticism of the Government in regard to its action in these matters and its complete and utter misunderstanding of industrial relations generally. I draw its attention to the fact that it should look no further than the waterfront industry to see the benefit to an industry of collective bargaining. One of the initial points to come from the Woodward Conference was that if there were to be any innovations in mechanical handling, the use of forklift trucks or what have you, before the employers introduced such innovations they should acquaint the local union branch members with them so that, where there was likely to be any difference of opinion, they could get around the conference table and thrash it out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett)Order! The time allotted for the second reading of this Bill has expired.

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 Kevin Cairns) read a third time.

page 2517

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE ASSESSMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 29 April (vide page 2278), on motion by Mr Lynch:

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 Kevin Cairns) read a third time.

page 2517

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 27 April (vide page 2052), on the following paper presented by Mr Barnes:

Papua New Guinea: Constitutional Development - Ministerial Statement, 27 April 1971 - and on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this matter. Before the debate is resumed on this Order of the Day I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion and the Papua New Guinea Bill. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Orders of the Day to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Papua New Guinea Bill 1971 and the ministerial statement entitled Papua New Guinea: Constitutional Development both arise from the report of the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea wherein it recommended certain constitutional changes for its own country. Summarising those recommendations, the report recommended that there be 18 persons elected by the people to represent regional electorates. The Australian Labor Party proposes to oppose in the Committee stage clause 3 (c) of the Bill which perpetuates the system of regional electorates. The report also recommended an increase in the number of members representing open electorates from 69 to 82. It recommended 3 nominated members, nominated by the House of Assembly, and also 4 official members. In its recommendation that 100 members be elected by the people, it has reached the point that the Labor Party was suggesting when earlier legislation was before the House. The Opposition believes, however, that the country should now be divided into at least 100 constituencies, that they should be open electorates and that this would be a desirable form for the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea.

There is no doubt that the changed attitude of the House of Assembly on the prospects of earlier internal self-government than was originally anticipated is part of the fallout from the visit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and his party to Papua New Guinea in January 1970. This had the very salutary effect of ending the sense of infinite leisure with which, in a world of very intense pressures, the whole approach was being made to the development of self-government and ultimately independence.

It was a powerful intrusion of outside thinking. Expatriate thinking in Papua New Guinea is very isolated. It was quite pathetic that some of the most prominent expatriate figures in Papua New Guinea could go down to greet the mission sent by the United Nations, to thunder at it as if they could expunge the attitude of the outside world on the United Nations and stand there and say to the United Nations mission: ‘What has the United Nations done for Papua New Guinea?’ The United Nations conferred the trust on Australia just as the League of Nations originally conferred the mandate. Then, the trustee or mandatory power assumed the full responsibility. One would have thought that these people would have known that in Papua New Guinea.

My sympathies have been with the first post-war Minister for External Territories, Mr Ward, then Mr Hasluck - as he was - and now the present Minister, Mr Barnes, in trying to make good the years that the locust has eaten in Papua New Guinea. There is no doubt, looking back through the years between 1919 and 1939, when we smugly talked about the Papuan achievement, that Australia’s performance was pathetic. It was pathetic in education. Nothing was done to develop any form of selfgovernment of any significance. Honourable members can look back on the absurdities of the Rabaul strike of 1929 and see that at large meetings of expatriates the death penalty was demanded for a 1-day strike. That is the situation from which we have come. Of course, this is enlightened. We find it very hard to accept the view that we have had nothing but a typical colonial history until very recent times in Papua New Guinea. 1 say that the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development ran away from two vital issues. The Committee danced away from the fact that of its own knowledge it knew that the island of Bougainville wants secession, and it flinched from the desire of the Gazelle Peninsula for autonomy. I am not saying that those desires are right. I leave that question to one side. I am saying that we will not be able to ignore these attitudes. I believe that if Papua New Guinea goes into independence with the situation in the Gazelle as it is now, it will be a tragedy. I believe that, if we want to assist Papua New Guinea towards being a viable and stable democracy, we should get rid of some of these burning land questions that worry the people. The point about the land situation in Papua New Guinea is that it simply conforms to a rather typical colonial pattern. I will always thank God for Sir Paul Hasluck for one reason: Like prising barnacles off the bottom of a boat he prised the Returned Services League from its belief that Papua New Guinea was a field for Australian soldier settlement.

We are simply incapable of understanding the incredible arrogance of the outlook that was taken as a matter of course in Australia that somebody else’s country should be a sphere for our soldier settlement. That attitude disappeared in 1952. But these land questions are dangerous. The history of European clashes with native peoples is the history of the land grab. This was officially ignored in the debates in the House of Representatives over the acquisition of the copper bearing lands at Bougainville. It is ignored in debates on the Mataungan affair. It is ignored in the superficial and unreal report of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development on the troubles at the Gazelle Peninsula in violence against the introduction of the multi-racial council.

The concentration of attention was happily, hypocritically, safely and selfrighteously on those who broke the law, skilfully skirting the question of the justice of the laws being imposed. The real issue was the white man’s law of land taking. In Bougainville it was the issue of the power of the Administration to take over forcibly mineral bearing land on its own indefensible terms. In Gazelle the problem is the legacy of the sovereign acts by which successively the Germans, then the custodian of enemy property, and then Australians gained hold of native land. It was a question of whether the multi-racial council’s control of the Tolai cocoa project constituted the thin edge of the wedge for another expatriate acquisition of resources. The misrepresentation of this issue to the Australian public has been one of the tragedies in our misunderstanding of the situation developing up there.

I want to query one point. This is our belief that what is happening in Papua New Guinea is the Westminster system. The Westminster system has several important features to it, one of them being the state of public opinion. Lord Balfour said:

Our alternative Cabinets though belonging to different parties, have never differed about the foundations of society. And it is evident that our whole political machinery presupposes a people so fundamentally at one that they can safely afford to bicker and so sure of their own moderation that they are not dangerously disturbed by the never ending din of political conflict.

T am not sure of Papua New Guinea in that respect. Especially am 1 not sure of Papua New Guinea in that respect if the House of Assembly is doing what the House of Assembly has been doing at our request and trampling on local land rights as in Bougainville.

It is easy to get the majority of highlanders to remove the land of the Rorovanas at Bougainville. But try it with their land and see how they would vote. If we face this situation honestly this is the old technique of divide and rule. The Westminster’ system presupposes in its classic working a focal point of loyalty and that is the Crown, lt safeguarded the rule of law. .Service to the Crown is an honour. That concept subtly but effectively discourages corruption, although in the temptations of the mineral bonanza Ministers of State governments in Australia have abused the powers of the Crown to enrich themselves. I believe that this concept that service to the Crown had honorary features is disappearing from us. The Crown tends to strengthen the Government with the philosophy of divine sanction, if not divine right, and it gives continuity to the state in the changing of expendable governments.

No focal point of loyalty exists in Papua New Guinea. We think that we have been training the people in a Westminster system of government. I believe that this contradicts all of colonial experience. The powerful governor surrounded by his nominated advisers over a period of 70 years or 80 years is a training in the American presidential system of government. Nearly every African leader aspired to the powers that he saw in the governor. He never aspired to powers that he saw in the Prime Minister because he has never seen a prime minister, Papua New Guinea has never seen a prime minister. Until it has a prime minister and a prime ministerial form of government there is no training in the Westminster system being given to the people there. We have continued with this presidential system for so long without recognising that this is what the administrator system is, with some modifications - ministerial members have now been appointed - that I think we are deceiving ourselves if we believe that the people have had any training in anything other than a presidential system.

I believe that the aspirations of the people of Papua New Guinea are very important. If they want to delay the processes of selfgovernment and independence - if they understand what is being talked about in self-government - that ought to count as important with us. But their technical opinions on the form of government are not seriously to be considered. Is it seriously believed that if one went around the many villages of Papua New Guinea and asked the people: ‘Do you think a Swiss cantonal form of government would solve the problems of Bougainville and the Gazelle Peninsula?’ they would not know what one was talking about. But it is extremely probable that a Swiss cantonal form of government would solve the problems. We are giving them a training in a Swiss system of government if we have an entire Parliament electing the people who will be ministers. Elective ministries are vital in the Swiss system. The parliament elects the ministry irrespective of party from all parties. The ministry is a multi-party arrangement. What is taking place in Papua New Guinea has far more resemblance to that, where you really have a total political spectrum of strong conservatives in some of the Ministerial Members while others are quite radical, taken right across the Parliament except for the Pangu Party, which virtually has made itself the opposition. The Cabinet - if we can call it a Cabinet - that has so far been derived in Papua New Guinea has resemblances to the Swiss system. Therefore, in the intial stages of independence, I think that Papua New Guinea needs a strong central figure to be a focal point of loyalty. I believe that it may ba found more in a presidential system of government than with a prime minister who, if the classic prime ministerial system develops, is merely one of the alternative choices in the country. All his acts are controversial, so that he is not a person who can maximise the unity of the community; he is a controversial political figure.

In the main we welcome the changes that are being made. We note that the Ministerial Members believe that independence may be accelerated and that the whole planning ought to be on the basis of accelerated independence - the faster it is done the better. This has now become the opinion of the House of Assembly, and we think that it is a welcome sign. I believe that the expatriate community is ceasing to be so Rhodesia-like; it is beginning to accept the realities of the modern world, and is less likely to try to use the highlanders as a brake on development. I believe that if the former attitude were continued, it would split the country. I do not believe that the aspirations of young people and others can be denied by manoeuvres. We welcome this proposal, but we believe that the Parliament should be based on entirely open electorates.

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

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– The excellent statement of the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) recognises that Papua New Guinea is moving rapidly towards self-government. The statement encourages this movement, giving it all the necessary support without seeking to determine Papua New Guinea’s future for it. It is the height of folly and irresponsibility to encourage rapid development without giving the necessary physical, financial and psychological support to enable this to happen. This was unfortunately the folly and irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), who was seen by countless people in Papua New Guinea to be taking away with one hand without being prepared to give back anything with the other hand. He was seen to be cutting and running because difficulties were mounting. He was seen to be sacrificing the long term interests of the emerging nation and the long term national interests of Australia for short term and external political capital.

The Leader of the Opposition went to Papua New Guinea with his heart and his mind closed to the people there. With as little understanding as he sometimes seems to have for his own Party and the people of Australia, he impressed on the people of Papua New Guinea, in his colonial style, his own array of ideas. However much he may have been subsequently advised to moderate his stand since his first disastrous trip, the fact remains that Labor policy, as be stated it, was that, should the Labor Party be elected in 1972, Papua New Guinea would be made self-governing, whatever the people of Papua New Guinea thought, whatever fear, division and hopelessness it caused there, and whatever harm it did to Australia’s long term relationships with Papua New Guinea. I stress that this is not a question of whether self government is to apply in 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978 or any other year: It is a question of our sensitivity to their wants, a question of whether we determine their development or they determine their development as far as possible.

The Opposition’s policy of cut and run has been rejected by the Minister and the Government. However, of much greater importance is the fact that the Opposition’s policy has been rejected by the people’s representatives in the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly, and it cannot be said that the members of that House acted hastily, without long and deep consideration of the issues or without evidence of all shades and intensity of feeling in the country. Nor can it be said that the House of Assembly was talked or pressured by the Australian Administration into its findings, for the plain fact of the matter is that the House of Assembly, of its own initiative, set up the Select Committee on Constitutional Development, which travelled widely in Papua New Guinea, visiting other developing societies and hearing a great deal of evidence. The House of Assembly has accepted the great bulk of the Committee’s recommendations. Now the Australian Government has considered and accepted the recommendations, indicating that it will take all necessary steps in pursuit of them.

Therefore, what has been asked for and what we have agreed with is that the development of the Territory shall be geared to preparing the country for internal self-government during the life of the next House of Assembly, that is, from 1972 to 1976, so that should it become a reality earlier than expected, or if it is in fact requested by the people then, the move to internal self-government can be made at that time with the least possible amount of administrative disruption. This recommendation reflects the finding that the majority at this stage does not want selfgovernment before 1976 but that the view of the majority could well change before then. I repeat that this recommendation, which the Government has accepted and which is so different in spirit from the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely the result of the free initiatives and the hard considerations of the people’s representatives of Papua New Guinea.

The extent of the distress which Labor policy has created is measured by a motion which passed through the House of Assembly by 36 votes to 11 and which stated that, if Labor won the next election in Australia and attempted to impose selfgovernment on Papua New Guinea without the consent of a majority of the people, the next House of Assembly should petition the United Nations to direct the Australian Government to act in accordance with the freely expressed will and desire of the people of Papua New Guinea, as guaranteed by the United Nations declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, and by the policy of the present Australian Government. Here we have the extraordinary and sorry spectacle of the Parliament in Papua New Guinea having to think of seeking the protection of the United Nations against the dictatorial policy of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister’s statement clearly recognises the tasks and difficulties confronting the Government and the Papua New Guinea Administration and Parliament. The Government’s policy is as important for what it does not say as for what it does say. It does not attempt to predetermine either the broad framework or the details of the system of government which is ultimately to be reached by the people themselves. It would be foolish and futile for us to attempt to impose on the new nation even the institutions which mean most to us.

Mr Beazley:

– Or impose some concepts of land ownership, either.

Mr STALEY:

– Quite. It will seek those forms which seem to be best to meet the needs of the future and the continuities of local customs. I agree with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that nowhere is the dangerous potential of non-indigenous institutions and laws more apparent than in such matters as land tenure and justice. It is widely understood that a particular problem facing Papua New Guinea is to find that system of government which can develop a sense of national identity while recognising and expressing the view of an immense diversity of local groups. This cultural complexity will continue to be the source of a great deal of political tension, but the history of developing societies suggests that the worst problems are encountered where there is a very small number of very large groups pitted against one another. All through the country there is an appreciation of the importance of the local government councils. If they are continually encouraged they could give the local community sufficient sense of participation to help contain the inevitable tensions with the central government.

The present thinking in the House of Assembly is that there should be one central government with a parliament of one chamber, though it is clear that the issue of the establishment of an upper house is not closed. I was pleased to see that the Constitutional Development Committee has left open this issue. The nature of modern government has not necessarily rendered upper houses obsolete. Indeed, the Australian Senate is at present finding a new and vital role in Australian government, and it could be that the particular needs of the local communities in Papua New Guinea could well be met with the provision of an upper chamber which has built into it the local and regional factor - perhaps by way of election to the upper house via the local or regional scene.

Mr Bryant:

– Do you suggest that there should be an upper house?

Mr STALEY:

– The question of an upper house is left quite open in the report of the Constitutional Development Committee. So what we have is a system where the future relationship between the chief Minister, his Ministers and House of Assembly is necessarily left up in the air. It is high time, incidentally, that the Ministers should be officially recognised as Ministers and not as Ministerial Members, by a further amendment of the Act.

The matter of localisation is of the utmost importance. Here the administration is faced with the almost irreconcilable demands of rapid, economic an.l social development and the demands this makes on a Public Service which is already overburdened and inevitably understaffed. So with too little time in which to do their basic jobs, the expatriate officers have to train local officers to take over their jobs at the same time.

Papua New Guinea wants and we must continue to supply Australians of the highest skills and dedication. We need to do much more to develop and to tap to idealism of Australians to serve both Papua New Guinea and our nation and to be prepared fully to reward and reassure those who accept this challenge. I welcome the Minister’s indication that he is locking at this matter at the moment. Young Papuans and New Guineans whom we encountered at the university in Port Moresby spoke of the importance ot expressing the heart and soul of their people as they develop their society, and of not cutting the roots and ties with local village life and custom. The Government’s statement which we are discussing is in exactly the same vein.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– As I listened to the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) I could not quite understand how he just dutifully rolls up and stands in whatever direction he is pointed when the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) calls the tune. He is a part of the Liberal Party’s apron strings ideology. He believes that the people of Papua New Guinea are not quite ready yet for self government. I can remember when that distinguished leader of the Liberal Party, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, thought that the people of India were not quite ready foi self government. Of course, from the way in which this country is being run at the moment and from the way in which this Parliament has been operating tonight, it is quite apparent that honourable members opposite do not think that we are ready for self government either. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) did this in his 2 visits to the Territory-

Mr Mackellar:

– You are not sure.

Mr BRYANT:

– When I say I think, the honourable member can be sure that it is surety in its own right. The Leader of the Opposition took hold of the tree of complacency in both Papua New Guinea and Australia and shook it so that all those who were roosting in the boughs had to start to think for a change. I believe that he contributed a great deal to awakening a new spirit in Papua New Guinea. I agree with my friend the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that this was a very important contribution. It is nonsense for the honourable members opposite to say that the Leader of the Opposition created derision, division and so on in the community of Papua New Guinea. The community was complacently organised, complacent in itself. The Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party for years have been advocating that the evolution of political institutions demanded greater pressure being placed upon people to make the political decisions themselves. That is what we have been advocating. It seems that the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) has at last - dilatorily - come to the same conclusion.

I think that we do not want to underrate our achievements in Papua New Guinea. We have established law and order - terms which are not very popular as they are a part of the repressive institutions, one might say, of this country. But a system of law and order operates over the whole of the Territory. This is a remarkable achievement. Social services of various kinds and health and education programmes also are operating over the whole of the Territory. Communications have been developed in the Territory. There are the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the internal broadcasting system. The airlines also operate in the Territory. Unfortunately, there is a very meagre road system in the Territory. There is a national political system in the Territory. I believe nobody can deny these achievements.

However, I believe that they are skeletal. They provide a framework. I suppose that not many of the developing countries of Africa and elsewhere have had conferred upon them such an effective framework. But I want to make it quite clear that I believe it is only a framework and that in recent years it has been bedevilled by the undue conservatism of honourable members opposite. We have not taken enough steps in the field of the Public Service in Papua New Guinea. Only a handful of people have achieved the capacity to reach the top of the Public Service. These, of course, are some problems which the people in Papua and New Guinea will have to face, but I have no doubt that given proper arrangements with this country and a proper association with us so that they can always call upon expert advice, they will be able to overcome those problems. The Australian comumnity itself faced similar problems in the last century.

We have bedevilled Papua New Guinea with a double standard economy. On the one hand, there is the attitude that wages must be kept at the lowest possible level so that in the future the economy is able to stand them and, on the other hand, there has been established a system of costs which is closely related to the Australian system of adding a little bit extra to prices in order to make additional profits, dividends and so on. 1 think that we have been unduly cautious on the political side in Papua New Guinea. We should have insisted on the ministerial system long ago. I am not too sure about the future role of the Army in Papua New Guinea. This is no reflection upon the present members of the Pacific Islands Regiment who are rising in the ranks. But anybody with any eye to history or with any sense of what is going on in the world should be at least thoughtful or perhaps concerned about what the Army can do in a situation such as that in Papua New Guinea.

My friend the honourable member for Fremantle has pointed out the difficulties of land ownership in Papua New Guinea which we have not resolved. I went to Rorovana 18 months ago and sat on the beach with the people there. They told me of their problems, their concerns, their worries and their anxieties. I am still puzzled as to how people with any sensitivity at all can proceed with that project about which the people were so deeply concerned, even although I have no doubt that in the long run it will produce advantages to the community.

Sitting suspended from 11.29 p.m. to 12 midnight

Wednesday, 5 May 1.971

Mr BRYANT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I mentioned that one of the problems which the Territory faces is the question of handling the Army. As I said, I do not want to cast any aspersions upon current members who are rising in the ranks of the Army, but history shows and current political facts around the world show that armies can be dangerous to growing democracies. One of the problems probably is that the Army is much more richly endowed in so many ways, being directly a part of the Australian defence system, than other forces in Papua New Guinea such as the police, which are supplied from the Administration funds.

The big question that the Territory will face is that of separatism. It is hard to say whether regional assemblies should be established and whether Bougainville should have an assembly of its own. It may well be that that would compound some of the difficulties and divisive factors. In some parts of the world and at some stages of history, it has been a fruitful way of moulding communities together and in other parts it has been divisive. But the real issue that we are discussing tonight is what kind of parliament we expect the people of Papua New Guinea to have. I think that countries are tending towards representative institutions as their legislative bodies. Even those countries which are not notable for their devotion to democratic practices call their systems parliamentary. At an Interparliamentary Union gathering one will find representatives of a large number of countries which could not be described as democracies by any manner of means but which have their parliamentary systems.

I believe that we made an error long ago when we kept the numbers of the House of Assembly small. The House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea faces tremendous problem of distance and of communication between the people. Because much of the communication has to be by word of mouth the member is in an impossible position. I recall that when the Assembly was first established and we debated it in this House, the Opposition wanted the salary to be higher than it is, the facilities and resources that were placed at the disposal of members to be better than they are still, and the actual number of members to be about 100 which, I suggest, is about the present total. The parliamentary problem will be solved only when there is a large number of members, all with the interests of the community in their hearts and in their minds, voicing those interests in Port Moresby or wherever the capital is.

I believe that, at this stage, we should take some steps to see that members have adequate resources at their disposal. We should not leave to the House of Assembly the difficult decision as to the resources that its members shall have. This is hard enough in a mature, hard-bitten community such as ours, where we have to face up to a lot of criticism on questions of salaries and conditions and so on, but members of the House of Assembly will not be able politically to allocate themselves the necessary resources. I believe that this is an important question. Another question facing us is whether it is necessary for there to be an established party system in Papua New Guinea. An established party, operating over the whole Territory, could be a uniting device. If the people of Bougainville and the people of the Highlands have some kind of political ideology to vote for then that is a unitary factor, but this is unlikely to happen in a large measure at the present time. We should not be too dedicated to the idea that there must be a government and an opposition - that there must be some who govern and some who give advice, whether or not it is taken. There is no inevitability about there being a 2-party division.

My colleague from Fremantle pointed out that there was something to be said for the Swiss system. We have raised this before. I think the Minister has described it as having some viability. He has said that a political group can show it has the numbers to govern. It is not so much that it has the numbers to govern but that a dozen or so members of the House should have the confidence of the House in themselves. I believe that the Westminster system, in as much as it involves members of the Ministry being members of the parliament, is the appropriate system. It is true, as my friend from Fremantle pointed out, that the Presidential system has been the one that looked most like the operations in Papua New Guinea over the last 25 years or so. But it is one of the sad facts of recent political history that none of the systems works. They will work only when the people in the systems have the capacity, the background and the national unity to make them work. It is difficult to find in South America or Africa any example of a Presidential system that I would take for a guide.

I believe that as soon as possible we should give members ministerial authority. My observation is that in recent months, since the establishment of the ministerial membership system - I still do not know why they are not called Ministers - several have become Ministers in the true sense. In my field of professional interest - education - 1 think it is fairly obvious that Mr To Liman has become a Minister in the sense in which we use the term. I think we have to pay some credit to the director of the education system in as much as it is obvious that that is the way he thinks it should be. I think there are one or two other areas in which the Ministers have actually become Ministers in the way in which we think of the term. In a parliamentary system we impose a tremendous burden upon a man who becomes a Minister. He is the chief executive of a department. He is supposed to take the initiative along certain lines of policy. He has to approve things that the department does. He has to keep a close scrutiny and a close watch upon the things that the department does and upon those things that the community needs. He has to liaise with other Ministers. He has to respond to public needs. Apart from that, he has to be a local member. I think that one of the unfortunate things that may occur at the next elections is that those members who are Ministers in Papua New Guinea are the ones who are likely to become electoral casualties. I think that if there is anything that we can do, irrespective of their politics, to ensure that there is a better line of communication between the members of that Parliament and their community, we should do it.

The other issue that I think is terribly important to us concerns future arrangements with Australia. That country will be important, not so far as defence is concerned but in as much as it has 2i million to 3 million people. It is about the size of

New Zealand and has about the same population. The people whom I have come to know fairly well resent very much the restrictions imposed upon their travelling to and from Australia. On the Saturday that we arrived back at the airport in Brisbane, returning from the Anzac Day services the previous week, about 100 people came out of the aircraft and lined up for customs clearance. There were 20 or 30 people in each queue. In one queue there was a girl who, I would assume, came from Papua New Guinea. She bad darker skin than anyone else. I said to my colleague, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds): ‘I will bet that when that girl gets to the counter she is taken away and grilled’ or whatever the appropriate term is these days for interrogation. It was true. When she reached the counter she was investigated very thoroughly. I do not know whether the girl was permitted to enter Australia. That is not good enough. Somehow we, as a community here, have to come to a better arrangement with Papua New Guinea. My view is that perhaps we should have some consultations, with members of the Territory House. We might establish a joint committee of this Parliament and that Parliament.

There are a number of things that we should do for Papua New Guinea before it becomes fully independent. I do not believe that independence is any more than an evolution of the parliamentary system. Perhaps we should do something about a parliament house. My suggestion is that a building be erected at the university, to be used as a university after 10, IS or 20 years - or whenever it is - when the Parliament moves to a new site, which is projected. That would be something. I think that would be an important development for the university. We should offer some specialised assistance in roads and communications. We should do something about the economy. We should guarantee the future of the education system. Papua New Guinea is our most important trusteeship. There are those areas in which I think we have done quite well, but on the whole I believe that our good work has been bedevilled by an undue caution, by a failure to trust the people of Papua New Guinea adequately and by a failure to develop an effective Public Service. I appeal to the House and to the nation generally to give much more thought to the future arrangements that we will have between the people of the Territory as people and the people of Australia.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I must say that I was very pleased to hear the more moderate approach of the 2 speakers for the Opposition - the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) - which was in marked contrast to the statements of their leader. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Wills admit that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) went to New Guinea he really was not expressing a policy, all he was trying to do was to get people to think. The honourable member for Fremantle again repudiated his leader’s statement by saying in regard to indigenes: If they want to delay the attainment of self-government this should be regarded as important’. In other words, the Australian Labor Party is to put some stress at last on what the indigenous people think.

I am a bit concerned about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle to abolish regional electorates. I point out that the honourable member’s own leader said on 12th January last that the House of Assembly and its members should now be taken seriously as the representatives of their people, and treated by all Australians with proper respect and seriousness. These people who should be treated with proper respect and seriousness in the House of Assembly rejected by 47 votes to 17 an amendment to abolish regional electorates. Yet the Opposition is not prepared to take notice of that rejection. I welcome the statement by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) most sincerely for not only does it point out very clearly the outline of the future development of Papua New Guinea, but it also demonstrates for all of us to see the difference in approach between this Government and members of the Opposition. This difference in approach is tremendously important. I believe that everybody should take note of it because it reflects very clearly what one could expect under a Labor government. It is the difference between the authoritarian and the co-operative approach. On one hand the Leader of the

Opposition has consistently told the people of Papua New Guinea: ‘You will have independence in 1972 or early 1973 should Labor come into power at the next Federal election in Australia’. In other words, the Opposition has taken no notice of the majority view expressed in Papua New Guinea, except for tonight, that independence should be delayed. Instead it has imposed the authoritarian dogma: ‘We in Canberra know best. You will have independence whether you want it or not, whether you are prepared for it or not, when we tell you’.

On the other hand the Government has consistently held the attitude that independence must be a matter of agreement between the people of Papua New Guinea and the Government of Australia. It has held the view that independence would not be forced on the people against their will or withheld against their will. This is not only a wholly responsible attitude but one which recognises the right of the indigenous people to have the major say in the decision when independence should be promulgated. Contrast this attitude with the authoritarian, dictatorial attitude as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I used the word ‘responsible’ in relation to Government policy with respect to Papua New Guinea. I did so very deliberately. The Leader of the Opposition has undertaken two quick trips to New Guinea over the past couple of years and in each case he has told those who attended the meetings that were held what a Labor Government would do with respect to Papua New Guinea regardless - I repeat regardless - of what the indigenous people wanted.

In certain circumstances statements were issued before the party even arrived in the Territory. This is a typical example of authoritarianism and dogmatism. On the other hand, the Government has supported the formation of a Select Committee of Constitutional Development with members drawn, not from the ranks of Labor Press secretaries or ex-Australian trade union organisers, but from indigenous and expatriate members of the elected representatives of the people of Papua New Guinea; people who live and work in the Territory; people who can speak the lan guage of the Territory and who, presumably, have some knowledge in depth of the customs and mores of the Territorians. This Committee, as the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) pointed out, toured the Territory twice to explain the issues and discuss the proposals with people at the village level. The Committee presented 3 interim reports, visited each district twice and held a total of 236 meetings with the people of the Territory. Surely it must be obvious to even the most obtuse of people that such a committee, with the membership it had, with the work it did, with the meetings it held, with the views it heard, would be in a better position to speak for the majority of the people of Papua New Guinea than would a raiding party of Australian Labor Party theoreticians as exemplified by the recent visits to the Territory of the Leader of the Opposition and his minions. Of course it would. And it is noticeable and a credit to that Committee that with only one amendment the report was accepted on the voices by the members of the House of Assembly on 11th March of this year.

The report and the recommendations make interesting reading because they reveal very clearly that at the moment the majority of people of Papua New Guinea feel that internal self-government should come about no sooner than during the life of the 1976-1980 House of Assembly. The report also stresses, very rightly I believe, that the rate of political awareness and development in the Territory is increasing. A very interesting sentence in the report states that the Committee is aware that the election of a Labor government in Australia ‘could result in internal selfgovernment becoming a reality before the majority of the people are prepared to accept it’. What a damning indictment of Labor Party policy that sentence is. In contrast to the implied criticism of that sentence I have just quoted let us look at paragraph 14 of the report. It states:

Your Committee believes in the planned gradual development of Papua New Guinea for internal self-government, and believes that the attainment of internal self-government should merely be a further step in an orderly process of development.

Here the Committee clearly envisages a continuation of Government policy with its clearly started belief in the correctness of that policy. As the Minister for External

Territories has stated the Government accepts these recommendations with respect to the timing of the movement towards internal self-government. But I would like to stress some of the words of the Minister. He said:

In accepting- the recommendations - the Government will adopt a flexible attitude. It will prepare a programme for movement to full internal self-government in the period 1972-1976 but the execution - of that programme will have regard to the state of opinion as it develops after the 1972 House of Assembly elections and to the policies of the political leaders who then emerge.

There are 2 very important aspects of this section. Firstly, the need to be flexible. Secondly, the Minister has recognised that there will almost inevitably be a number of changes amongst the peoples elected to the House of Assembly in 1972. Because of the comparatively recent nature of political activity at a national level, many of the new members will be untrained in the ways and workings of a national parliament and therefore would be in a less favourable position initially when taking part in debates in the House. At this stage the party system of political organisation is in its infancy in the Territory. I have no doubt that the party system will be advanced considerably following the 1972 elections and it is possible that a number of representatives who are not in favour of early self-government, organised into a party and commanding a majority in the House, may decide that the declaration of self-government should be delayed. Of course, the reverse could be the case. The Australian Government is very wisely in my opinion maintaining its policy of increasing localisation within the Administration and at the same time leaving the final decision on the date of self-government to those who will have the responsibility of administering the country.

The Minister has made mention of the expatriate officers. Anyone travelling in Kew Guinea must be struck by the superb job officers of the Administration have done and are continuing to do, particularly in the more remote areas of the country. The personal hardships, dangers and problems faced by these officers over the years deserves the highest praise, and I believe it is absolutely essential for the future wellbeing of the Territory that expatriate officers should be maintained to provide guidance and training for the indigenous officers of the Administration. An efficient, loyal and honest public service is the cornerstone of development for any nation. These traditions of honesty, efficiency and loyalty must be instilled into all who enter the public service, and these traditions are not instilled, developed or passed on overnight. The problem of building such a public service in an under-developed country with a population consisting of people with common backgrounds, religious beliefs, cultural mores and language is difficult enough. The problem becomes enormous when one is dealing with over 700 different groups of people in a country where ground transport is slow and inefficient, where radio and telephonic communications are grossly underdeveloped, and where there are enormous cultural and educational differences, not only between tribes but also between age groups within tribes.

Under these circumstances it is essential that expatriate officers be recruited and retained in order to assist the growth and development of an indigenous administration. Not to do so would place an almost insuperable check on the fragile growing points of local development. Not to attempt to check the loss of experienced, respected expatriate officers is short-sighted in the extreme. To encourage their departure is grossly irresponsible. If they are retained, then realistic and worthwhile initiatives will need to be taken in consultation with these officers to ensure that they can see some future for themselves and their families when the time comes for them to leave the Territory. 1 note also in the constitutional recommendations of the Select Committee’s report that the system of government for Papua New Guinea should be a single central government as at present. There are 2 aspects of this recommendation that I would like to comment upon. Firstly, there is a real danger, I believe, of fragmentation of the Territory should selfgovernment come before either the elected legislators or the Administration are ready for it. Here again I would like to stress my belief in the importance of experienced expatriate officers whom I see as providing an enormous stabilising force in the first difficult years of independence. I am not saying that fragmentation could not occur even if expatriates stayed, but I believe that it would be less likely to occur. 1 regard fragmentation as one of the worst prospects facing the Territory. Secondly, I believe that the adoption of this recommendation results in the need to develop and strengthen local councils. The development of a district will, to a large extent, depend upon the efficiency and capacity of the local council. This is particularly so in Papua New Guinea because of communications difficulties. Of necessity the central government will be a remote concept for a majority of the population, hence my concern for the necessity for strong and purposeful local government to which Territory residents can more easily relate. 1 am concerned at the proposal to establish a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Whilst I can understand that particularly for an underdeveloped people a Bill of Rights provides a tangible expression of personal privileges, nevertheless the proposal has drawbacks which can overweigh its usefulness. A Bill of Rights seeks to outline in printed form concepts which in themselves are extremely difficult to define. In seeking to define abstract concepts one imposes the constraint of the written word and hence opens the way for endless argument and disputation as to the intended meanings of the words. This is fine for those engaged in the legal profession, but does nothing much for the citizen. This is not a theoretical objection. One has only to look at the number of legal cases involving disputes about aspects of clauses contained in the Bills of Rights of individual countries and the objection becomes very real. Whilst we have the principle of absolute equality of citizens before the law - with everyone, no matter what his station, subject to the law - whilst we have the independence of the judiciary and whilst we have the right of freedom of speech and assembly so long as the freedoms of other people are not infringed, the rights of individual citizens are protected. So long as we have parliamentary scrutiny of allegations with the concept of ministerial responsibility, we do not have to go to a court or a judge appointed for life. Ministers of State can be subjected daily to questions and crossexamination, and in the final analysis governments pursuing a certain line of con duct can be voted out of office. These safeguards are there for every citizen, without the necessity for a Bill of Rights. Not only the actuality but also the spirit of freedom is protected.

The problems which face the people of Papua New Guinea are enormous - economic, administrative and political. The range of sophistication within the peoples of the Territory is probably as wide as anywhere in the world. Formal education is still confined to a relatively small proportion of the population. Communication is difficult and costly to improve. Depite these problems the people of the Territory are moving towards the point where their future destiny relies upon their own decisions. The attainment of the decisionmaking capacity and the administrative machinery necessary to put these decisions into effect are being developed. This Government, in its sympathetic approach to the move towards self-government - action taken in conjunction with the expressed wish of the people of Papua New Guinea - must be congratulated.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– I rise to support the statement of the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), the purpose of which was to inform the House that the Commonwealth Government had accepted the recommendations of the House of Assembly’s Select Committee on Constitutional Development. The Committee made extensive tours of the Territory before it made its recommendations. On two occasions it toured practically the whole of the Territory and held about 236 separate meetings with people in different areas. The Committee’s recommendations have been approved, with one or two minor exceptions. It is obvious, therefore, that the Committee’s report reflects the opinions and desires of the people of the Territory and of their elected representatives.

The Committee found widespread lack of appreciation and understanding of the implications of self-government and thai the great majority of the people said that they were not in favour of it, mainly I think because they did not understand it. The Committee also found that there was an accelerating rate of political development. It recommended that the Territory be geared for self-government during the life of the next House of Assembly, that is, in the period from 1972 to 1976. It said that target dates should not be arbitrarily set. The Committee believes that planned, gradual development of Papua New Guinea is needed before self-government takes place. The attainment of internal self-government should be merely a further step in the orderly process of development.

The Committee’s recommendations are sound. They have been stated clearly after months of careful research and investigation, covering many hundreds of conferences with local people and their representatives. The Committee recommended strongly that regional electorates should be retained for the present at least. The future of the Territory is very important to Australia, as it is to the people of the Territory. Australia has a responsibility which has been given to it by the United Nations. This responsibility is a sacred trust. The Territory is becoming increasingly important to us in trade. Where trade relations are mutual trust can be developed as well. We cannot ignore the importance of the Territory from the defence angle, both for the defence of our own country and for the defence of the people up there. Last but not least, Australia’s image in Asia will be reflected in the way that Australia and Papua New Guinea get on in the future in this process of development.

There is no doubt that Australia can be justifiably proud of its incomparable job in colonial development. I have seen the Territory over a period of about 25 years. Anyone who has seen what has happened there cannot but admire the steps that have been made. Certainly in the early days things were not all that we hoped for, but in recent years we have come a long way and have done a great job. It is a fact that no colonial power in history ever had as its first intention the betterment and uplifting of a primitive people. I agree with my colleague, the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) who was with me in New Guinea recently, when he says that the progress of this primitive nation along the road to development over such a short time is one of the world’s wonders.

Australia has been able to do this and still retain the respect and friendship of the New Guinea people. This is something that has not been possible in many other countries which have been under colonial administration. I think it is tragic and criminal - one could use even stronger words - to seek to destroy for political purposes half a century of dedicated service by many people, the good will of those years of service and the peaceful development so far achieved. This is apparently what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) set out to do. 1 am sympathetic with some honourable members opposite, particularly with the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley who) must have been embarrassed, although he would not admit it, by his Leaders actions. The Leader of the Opposition would have accomplished what he set out to do - to embarrass this Government and not give a damn for the New Guineans - but for the shrewd human judgment of tha people of New Guinea themselves.

What was an act of crass stupidity backfired both at home and in New Guinea. But he did destroy to some degree the co-operation and friendly association of the New Guinea people. He promoted a lack of confidence between many New Guinea people and ourselves. He promoted a lack of confidence in those who were responsible for developing that country. Perhaps worst of all, his open support of the very small lawless group on the Gazelle Peninsula was quite insane and stupid if one realises how near this policy came to creating very serious trouble, possibly even the massacre of women and children. Many of the best informed people who have lived and served in New Guinea for many years - this applies both to expatriates and indigenes - agree that perhaps we are trying to go too fast rather than too slow.

I have heard people express the opinion - again both New Guineans and expatriates - that one can give people training and education but one cannot give them experience and background over night. This takes time. The Australian Press has often been irresponsible and generally illinformed on New Guinea, and recent articles claiming that the Australian Government is being forced to accelerate its movement towards self-government are just too ridiculous for words and are completely untrue, as anybody who has been up there on a number of occasions would know. These articles are a complete distortion of the facts because the Federal Government has, all along, said that the decision will be with the people of the Territory. I refer again to the Committee’s report which was prepared by the people and by their representatives in a voluntary capacity, lt has been accepted by this Government. The Committee went on to say:

A strong and efficient public service is essential if Papua New Guinea is to have meaningful selfgovernment. The Committee and the people appreciate that there will be a need for expert officers to serve in both the public service and the private sector for an appreciable number of years. 1 think this is where we come to what is perhaps one of the most important problems facing New Guinea today concerning its progress along the road to selfgovernment and self-development, and that is the need to spell out very clearly indeed without any equivocation the future provisions for the expatriate officers who will become redundant as indigenes are trained to take their place. The Committee itself lays great stress on this matter. I have discussed this matter not only with senior expatriate officers but also with indigenous Administration officers and members of various parties in the House of Assembly. Perhaps the strongest plea came from members of the Pangu Party who told me that nothing could be more important to the future success of self-government in the Territory than the retention of experienced, efficient and dedicated expatriate officers. Many of these men have had 20 years service and may have 15 or 20 years more service to give to the community. Their guidance, their experience and, above all, their sympathy and understanding of the people is invaluable in the work that lies ahead of performing a job of inestimable value not only to New Guinea but also to Australia They must not be disadvantaged. Any money spent in guaranteeing their future security should be considered as an extremely worthwhile investment for Australia. I know the Government is aware oi this and is taking action, but I believe this question is one of extreme urgency.

I want quickly to touch on local government. Back in 1955 there were only 9 local councils in the Territory. Today there are 147 made up of shrewd people who are progressive in their ideas. They are doing an excellent job. They are developing a social and political responsibility and are seeking to do a really first class job in local government. The House of Assembly also carried a resolution asking that more agricultural officer be appointed. This is, I think, tremendously important because for a long while yet New Guinea will be dependent upon its agriculture for the livelihood of many of its people. But there is tremendous development in the field and industry. Timber production has increased tremendously. Factory production has increased a very great deal over the past few years. The New Guinea people themselves are able to adopt methods that are introduced and shown to them, and this is evidenced by the tremendous growth in the production of cocoa beans produced by the indigenous people themselves, not by expatriates, from about 280 tons in 1960 to 5,833 tons in 1970. Coffee bean production has increased from 18 tons in 1960 to 1 5,000 tons in 1970.

Land tenure has already been touched on. It is a tremendously important problem indeed and one that will take a lot of solving because of the various rights over the land. One man has the right to farm the land, another to take timber off it and another to hunt over it. Their land rights are very complicated and their land laws do not coincide with ours. This requires a good deal of understanding. I believe that this statement outlines another stage in the remarkable progress towards selfgovernment and eventual independence for Papua New Guinea. I believe Australia is doing a very worthwhile jib in New Guinea and one that can be an example to the rest of the world. New Guinea has developed to a point where it has reached a very crucial stage, and irresponsible statements at this point of time could do a great deal of damage. The majority of its inhabitants perhaps want to go slowly, but the situation demands close co-operation between the 2 governments at all levels, with a greater sympathy for and a greater understanding and a much wider and more intimate knowledge of the people up there by Australians generally. I believe they are a wonderful people who are experiencing the pangs of the birth of a new nation. It would be criminal to stir up trouble deliberately between the different sectors of

New Guinea. I believe that New Guinea has a tremendous future and that that future is very closely tied with Australia. I strongly support the Minister’s statement and congratulate the Government for doing its utmost to keep up with, and if possible one step ahead of, developoment in Papua New Guinea, and that is not an easy task.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2531

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 2251), on motion by Mr Barnes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I believe that this is a subject on which one should say what one really believes. Mr Ray Whitrod, the former Commissioner of Police in Papua New Guinea, with all the benefits of police intelligence, warns that independence and self-government for Papua New Guinea should not be delayed because of the worsening race relations there. I am going to say quite bluntly that 1 think the Ministerial Member of Immigration, or the Minister for Immigration if he is to become that, in Papua New Guinea should have the power of deportation. I do not know whether he already has it. But for a long period Papua New Guinea has had a fairly high cut of different types of expatriates - missionaries, administrators and so on. This is ceasing to be true and race relations are deteriorating accordingly. This has become apparent in Port Moresby over the years. Once upon a time I could walk around at night at Port Moresby quite undisturbed. The last time I was there I was spat at and bottles were thrown at my feet. I understand that the situation is the same in some of the other developing areas. Do not for heaven’s sake think that economic development, bringing in a lot of expatriates, does not bring in a lot of lethal problems.

Honourable gentlemen opposite have tried to hypnotise us with this expression of ‘self-government’. I went right through Papua New Guinea conducting discussions with all sort of leading Papuans and New Guineans and ordinary village folk, and there is not the slightest doubt in my mind - none whatever - that, in the high- lands, highland members of the House of Assembly have been put up to speak against self government. I do not mind that, so 1 asked questions to try to elicit whether these people - they included members of the House of Assembly - really knew what self-government was. I said: Do you believe Papua New Guinea should now be controlling its own education?’ Yes’. ‘Agriculture? ‘Yes’. ‘Health?’ Yes’, ‘Trade?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Communications?’ Yes’. 1 went through the whole lot and they had said yes to everything that added up to self-government. It reminded me of the Taft-Hartley Act which became poison to the trade unions in the United States of America. At a gallup poll 71 per cent of the people of the United States opposed the Taft-Hartley Act and never did less than 71 per cent support every clause in it.

I want to know what those people had been told was meant by self-government. When some of us explained to them that self-government was the control of every function of government except probably internal security and external defence they tended to believe that they were ready for that now. Not everybody does. Some passionately said that they did and some still did not. But I agree with the United Nations Mission, or some members of it, that there is far too much brain washing by expatriate interests suggesting that if Papua New Guinea is to have independence it has to have a lot of money. Nigeria had a lot of development. Nigeria had a lot of money. Nigeria had a lot of corruption. There are some poor countries in Africa. Lesotho is an example - that looks much more like attaining to unity than wealthy Nigeria.

I am so grateful to learn from Government members that they believe in imposing nothing on the people of Papua New Guinea. Do they seriously think that an election every 4 years is as intimate a thing to them as the ownership of land? And whose concepts of land ownership, whenever anything valuable has been discovered, has been imposed on them - and imposed on them by armed force and with tear gas and batons? If we say to the Government: You should accelerate selfgovernment, then that is a more serious matter than tramping on them and on their very conception of land ownership.

These people have a slogan. There are an awful lot of slogans flying around in Papua New Guinea because the people there are clutching at simple points of politics that they do not always understand. You could easily make them believe that self-government is a bad thing. It could mean that we clear out, as large numbers of them said. They would be abandoned. But one of the things which has every trace of coming from their own wisdom is this: Money disappears, land lasts forever. That is a very important conception as far as they are concerned. They have an interesting thing to say about the former German possessions in the Gazelle Peninsula which were passed on to Australia by conquest through the Custodian of Expropriated Property. ‘We certainly believe’, said one of their leaders, ‘in a fair deal for the white man. We will give them back their axes and beads.’ That phrase has gone like a slogan round the place too.

We regard these things as important. 1 stress again that the House of Assembly committee came at these things in Bougainville and the Gazelle and then ran away from them. Everything in Papua New Guinea has been imposed. The plantation system was imposed on them - it was not their idea. Wage labour was imposed on them - it was not their idea. Indentured labour was imposed on them - it was not their idea. A judiciary, with judges wearing wigs, was imposed on them - it was not their idea. Every form of parliament that they have had has been imposed on them and was not their idea. Now, not all of these things were bad. These people are being brought into the 20th century. But to say that all of us waited for them to say: ‘Yes, we want a judicial system with judges and wigs, and please bring us Queensland criminal law’ is complete nonsense. All sorts of things in their lives have been imposed by outside suggestion of tha colonial power and in most respects this has been very good.

The Leader of the Opposition made perfectly clear that with the coming of selfgovernment and independence he was prepared to continue the financial grants; he was prepared to continue the expatriate officers in a Department of Pacific Relations. If people are frightened because of complete misrepresentations of what he said - I was with him and I heard what he said - then that is very unfortunate. This has occurred because a good deal of party politics has been played with what he said, and what he had to say about the rule of law up there was upheld by the Supreme Court. There are worse things than fragmentation. Fragmentation is a frightening word. The West Indies Federation came apart and instead of staying as a federation we now have Trinidad, Tobago and Guiana and various other places. So what! The central African federation fell apart; it fell apart amicably. So what? Pakistan’s unity is being maintained and is it not beautiful? Nigeria’s unity was maintained and was that not beautiful?

I am concerned about human relations. I do not want a deterioration of Australian relations with the people of Papua New Guinea but as it is increasingly dawning on them that they will not own the economic resources of their country in minerals and other things they are becoming disturbed. They have other sets of expatriate advisers besides Australians. Bougainville is a Catholic island and the Catholic clergy there are largely American. They say to the people that in the United States if you own the surface of the land you own the minerals under it as well; that is United States custom. The people know that American Red Indians got millions of dollars out of the ownership of oil in their reserves. I know that the American Catholic priests have told them this. Australian expatriates talk about this as some American plot. It is the most normal form of conversation one could imagine. Our crown ownership of minerals under the surface of the land might be better or it might be worse but it is fairly unusual and it certainly does not accord in the slightest degree with the native land traditions.

So I am not concerned about this question of imposition. We have sat and watched the Government impose things on people in Bougainville and elsewhere that are fa more serious and which are a far more serious infringement of their convictions than a question that is fairly remote from them, namely voting once every 4 years. The New Guinean tradition which one sees delightfully in their local councils is really debate and concensus. I think this is why a House of Assembly of a congressional style, which can toss out the Administration’s legislation if it does not like it without the Government falling, is probably better from their point of view. I do not want to air this because I think ultimately Papua New Guinea will decide its own form of Government. But do not let us utter frightened words about secession. Lord Granville and Bismarck in 1884 made a decision to divide the Solomon Islands. Germany got Buka and Bougainville and Britain got the rest of the Solomons. Supposing Buka and Bougainville wanted to go back into the Solomons. Are we to mourn about that and say: ‘No, divinely inspired Granville and Bismarck put this line through here and it has to stay forever’? Germany happened to administer Buka and Bougainville with German New Guinea and that is why we got it as a mandate and that is why it is separated from the Solomons.

The Government does not dare hold a referendum on Bougainville because, and I say this definitely, it would get i 97 per cent vote in favour of secession. Now it is getting this idea that secession must not take place because Bougainville happens to have the resources and the House of Assembly was used as an instrument to coerce the people of Bougainville. They know that the highlanders would never have dealt with their own land in the way they have dealt with the land of the people of Bougainville. That whole episode eccelerated the secessionist tend.dencies over there. There is a repetition of slogans. Toua Kapena gets up in the House of Assembly and says: ‘We believe in the wages that New Guinea can afford’. He is supposed to be the Ministerial Member for Labour speaking for his own people - they are all happy with $5 a week and $12.50 rations. Again I say to to honourable members that in French New Caledonia, competing with the same goods in the same world markets the wages are 7 times as high as they are in Australian Papua New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:

– Is this for plantation workers?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– For plantation workers, yes. French New Caledonian plantations workers receive $120 a month but the workers in Papua New Guinea receive $17.50. That is in Australian dollars. There is chicanery about that. I want to touch on the question of wages because Toua Kapena says that New Guinea cannot afford higher wages. I do not object to a statement like that. But who is New Guinea? Nobody called New Guinea is paying plantation wages. Those wages are paid by Burns Philp & Co. Ltd, W. R. Carpenter & Co. Ltd, Steamships Trading Co. Ltd and a lot of other companies. If we are to put this situation properly, as it would have to be put if there were an arbitration system, then one must say that Burns Philp cannot afford to pay higher wages. Carpenters cannot afford to pay higher wages, Steamships cannot afford to pay higher wages. That is what Toua Kapena really means. When a Ministerial Member makes that statement he makes it in good faith. It is a statement of a character which, when one reads it, one can see that it probaly has been handed to him by somebody else. I think he is being misled by advisers.

Mr Mackellar:

– How much do the indigenous plantation owners pay?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I do not think the indigenous plantation owners have a wage system at all.

Mr Mackellar:

– They do not pay as much as the others.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– They may not pay as much as the others but there are all sorts of traditional obligations that they have to their own people which make up for it. I am not concerned about the plantation workers. The Australian National University has pointed out that they receive rations from their own villages. In its analysis it has also pointed out that this means that highly affluent Australian agriculture is being subsidised by subsistence agriculture of (he villages. I think their physique is magnificent. All sorts of traditional things come to a man. But see a man in Port Moresby who is really only on the wages of $7 a week and one will get, as has been pointed out, the rising incidence of tuberculosis, the shanty dwellings and all of those things. I think the conditions of wage earners in Papua New Guinea are thoroughly miserable and will remain miserable as long as the Toua Kapenas can leave trade union letters unanswered for over 9 months when they make a claim for wages, when the employers leave their letters unanswered and there is no system of arbitration which can bring the matter to an engagement to see what is really fair. I speak about these things because I think that this, rather than some particular constitutional step which the Government is taking at the moment, is basic.

Often we talk about the tragedy of the Congo as if it was due to the absence of technicians. It was not. It was due to the presence of hate. I do not believe that there is at the present time a dangerous level of hate in Papua New Guinea which could threaten the structure. But it is palpably rising. It is rising in the Gazelle Peninsula. We have come to the edge of an armed clash several times. It is rising in Bougainville. I ask honourable members to please note that it is rising in the most advanced areas if literacy is the test of advancement. They are areas of the longest conduct, contact and are the most easily accessible. They have in Bougainville made very great sacrifices. The English Geographic Magazine pointed out that 400 million tons of overburden is coming down their rivers and the land is being affected quite seriously. I leave all that aside. But 1 do think that certain stages of selfgovernment could be very salutary. I could imagine nothing more salutary than the deportation of a few Australian louts. It would go like a shock through that community and it would start curing the assumptions of superiority that so many of them have. The power over immigration and emigration - who comes into their country and who goes out of it - would be a very important step in self-government and 1 believe that it would lead to certain changes in attitudes that might improve race relations.

I promised that I would give an honourable member a certain chance to speak in this second reading debate. What we desire is the wellbeing of the people of Papua New Guinea. Our fundamental disagreement with the Government is that it has far too touching a faith in economic development. Economic development by expatriate business can become a major source of corruption. It did in Nigeria, where nearly every Minister was corrupt. But who bribed those Ministers? Expatriate businessmen. The bribes came in party subsidies, governed for the interests of the expatriates. At receptions in Nigeria, I heard them all talking about foreign capital. When I was driving with one of their ministerial drivers, he poured out his hate of the wealth that these people were making compared with the wage level that he had. That hatred ultimately burst in Nigeria with disastrous results.

I do not believe that New Guinea is a Nigerian situation. I do not think that enough people in New Guinea are working for unity. They have been encouraged to be roads and bridges members. The highlanders have been encouraged in their grievances. I think that this is a weakness. But I believe this: Solve the land problem in the Gazelle before independence. Buy the people out if necessary through the Reserve Bank and put in some extra grants for the highlands, and we will find with reassurance of localisation of land ownership a denunciation of tensions and the creation of that social atmosphere around Government institutions which is more important than Government institutions as structures in determining whether they work.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

I thank the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) for the few crumbs of time that he has allowed me. In fact I defer to his wide and, I presume, deep experience of this area about which we are talking. At the same time I think I shall have the temerity not to agree with all of his interpretations. Some of the things that he said in fact incline me to change the emphasis of what T wanted to say. In particular I take up the question of fragmentation. I think I heard the honourable member aright to say that there were worse things than fragmentation. Perhaps he is correct. But he went on to draw analogies and parallels of a geographical and historical kind with other areas around the world which had come to self-government in recent history. Some of the examples that he took - certainly one or two of them - indicate the contrary to the point that he made. I think that they are relevant to New Guinea. The honourable member pointed particularly to Pakistan as an example of what can happen. What has happened in Pakistan was on the cards right from the very time of partition. If honourable members care to read the papers by Oskar Spate of the Australian National University or papers by other people who were informed at the time they will see that it was totally predictable that a country with 1:000 miles between its 2 wings might come to something of the pass which is current at the moment.

Likewise, the honourable member drew an analogy with Nigeria. Without taking each one of these in turn, because they are not totally common in their themes, there is one thing that is common. It is a geographical component. This is totally relevant to Papua New Guinea. The question of the spatial geographical separation underlying cultural and other differentials as in Pakistan is, I think, relevant here. In New Guinea we have a situation of an essentially highland core, unusually in the world context, more populated than the lowland surrounding it. To generalise somewhat widely but I think accurately enough, this is a basic differential of the lowlanders versus the highlanders in their attitudes to self-government, if not to the matters that concern us in the Bill that we are discussing now. The Bill provides for increases in the number of open electorates from 69 to 82 and the number of regional electorates from 15 to 18. I think it should be clear to all and sundry - I know that it is clear to honourable members who have already taken part in this debate - that these electorates in their totality are coincident; that is to say, both the regional electorates and the open electorates cover the whole of the Territory. Therefore a number of open electorates is contained in each of the fewer regional electorates.

One of the propositions is to increase the number of regional electorates from 15 to 18, thereby making them coincident with the 18 districts of the Territory. 1 believe that to be a very simple and sensible politico-geographical manoeuvre whereby the districts, which have some sort of entity and which gain for themselves a political ethos and geographical boundary, become coincident with at least one form of their electorates - in this case the regional electorates. It simplifies the position. It enables each member to represent a district totally and coincidentally. There are many approximations to that situation, many parallels around the world in State systems elsewhere. In our own system, for example, an anology may be drawn - again it is of a general nature - with the senatorial electorates and the single member House of Representatives electorates. The effect is something the same, although in the case of New Guinea the representatives of each type of electorate sit in the same House of Parliament, rather than in 2 separate Houses governing jointly. That is the position at the moment.

I suggest that the proposed moves are certainly of the right order. Even if they are not, the key to the whole situation is the fact that they are based on the Arek Constitutional Committee’s report. In talking about self-government in detail or in general, for New Guinea or anywhere else, and in considering paternalism and things of that nature, it seems to me that we could be on no firmer ground than to adopt and to concur with the provisions understood and recommended by the people themselves. I will not take the time to detail them, but each of them is founded in the Arek Constitutional Committee’s report. I want to take a little further the question of paternalism and in particular the reaction - it is almost a fear - of honourable members opposite to it.

Almost all honourable members opposite who have spoken in this cognate debate have shown their inclination, as in other area previously, to denigrate paternalism. I would describe it as an anti-colonial overreaction. I believe that it is an overreaction in the sense that paternalism certainly should not continue indefinitely, with one people considering themselves superior to other people; but one should not throw out the baby with the bath water. With the report of the Arek ‘Constitutional Committee before us, I think it is drawing a long bow to say that for some reason or other the people who rushed around the Territory at a greater rate than any of us have done, even including the honourable member for Fremantle have deluded themselves, have been manipulated or have otherwise got the message wrong.

It is pretty clear from what they say that the conservatives, as is well known to honourable members who have spoken in this debate, are to be found in the Highlands and in more populous numbers, and the activists or even the radicals are to be found in the Lowlands, particularly in the Peninsula. I do not want to push the environmental deterministic line too far, but we cannot escape from it altogether. It is there, and any recognition of this geographical component in the political realities of New Guinea is a wise move, irrespective of our recognition of the historical factors, cultural and linguistic differences, problems of land tenure and the like.

I do not want to take up too much time in discussing the impact of the Leader of Opposition (Mr Whitlam) during his visits to the Territory. However, embarrassing or not embarrassing it may be, I take up just one phrase mentioned by the honourable member for Fremantle earlier in the debate. If I remember correctly, he spoke about the powerful intrusion of outside thinking into the Territory. I agree with that in 2 senses. I believe it was a powerful intrusion for good, perhaps, in the sense that it alerted the Australian people to the issues involved, more rapidly than they might otherwise have been, although I would not go too far in that. I believe it was an intervention or intrusion for harm with regard to the Territory itself.

Those with whom I travelled recently in Papua New Guinea interviewed about 4 or 5 local government councils. One of the most telling pieces of evidence that came forward in response to our saying that generally speaking we did not seek to raise political issues but wanted to learn what we could from the people about what they wanted came, when what we said was interpreted, from one member of the Pangu Party, whose name I shall not reveal, when he said: ‘They do not wish to make trouble like one Mr Whitlam’. That is as factual as I can make it. It was an interesting reaction from the member of the Pangu Party. He was not a member of the United Party or some other political area of interest. I believe that what I have said cuts both ways. Although it may have stimulated some interest here, I believe it has put fear and apprehension into a great number of people in Papua New Guinea and has fed the overly radical elements in that community. In saying that, I do not mean that there should not be some radicalism or some issuing forth towards greater progress. There must be someone in the vanguard to pull along the majority behind them..

Honourable members who have spoken before me in this debate have touched on some of the other basic issues involved. The question of fragmentation and of governmental tiering is highly relevant. The Committee suggested that it had some representations for regional’ government. We had similar enunciations from some local government councils. Our inclinataion was to say that a 3 -tiered form of government, that is to say, a central government, possibly regional governents and local autonomous councils would not be what we would recommend given the Australian experience of the difficulties of integration between 3 different levels of government. Therefore, it is interesting to see that at least for the time being the concept of State-type governments in between–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Composition of House of Assembly)

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

The Opposition proposes to divide the Committee on clause 3 because of paragraph (c), which deals with regional electorates. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) referred to the powerful intrusion of outside ideas. I saw the famed shock go through Papua New Guinea after the Foot mission, and there was an especially violent reaction among the expatriates. We have to tell the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea what we think about this regional question. In regard to handling the problems of their country the intermediate certificate of education does not give anybody an expertise in the House of Assembly higher than that of a wise local leader who might be totally illiterate. Some chieftains or father figures from the villages show much more wisdom in the House of Assembly than do others who come from these regional electorates. If the regional electorates brought to the

House of Assembly 18 economic experts or people with some high degree of expertise in any field, there would be something to be said for them, but the intermediate certificate is simply an illusion that has been put to them. We believe that they heed to face this fact It is for this reason, although we do not propose any amendment, that we will vote against this clause. We believe these people would be better off with 100 members in open electorates. We believe that would get the number of educated men info the House who might have some contribution to make from that point of view, but as we also believe that this is really resting on a form of illusion we intend to vote against the clause.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr Deputy Chairman, the Government accepts the clause as it stands. We have encouraged the House of Assembly in democratic procedures, and we accept the wishes of the House of Assembly.

Question put:

That clause 3 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. M. Hallett)

AYES: 49

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The time allotted for discussion of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted and Bill read a third time.

page 2537

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1971 of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the Parliament between 28th April 1971 and today. In particular the Bill validates duty collections under Tariff Proposals Nos 7 and 8 (1971) introduced on 28th April 1971 and Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1971) introduced today. Proposals No. 9 (1971) are the subject of the Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate.

The Bill will validate duty collections on tariff changes arising from the acceptance by. the Government of the Tariff Board reports on:

Pins, hairpins and curling grips;

Refractory products;

Mining and metallurgical machinery, in respect to diamond drilling machines only; and

Pulp (New Zealand - Australia Free Trade Agreement).

Honourable members will note that the validation extends only to 30th June 1971. The tariff alterations will be re-introduced by ‘Gazette’ notice to operate from 1st July 1971 in a form compatible with other tariff changes which may operate from that date. I commend the Bill.

Leave granted for debate to continue.

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 Chipp) read a third time.

House adjourned at 1.21 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 2539

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Papua New Guinea: Gazelle Local

Government Council Tax Receipts (Question No. 2372)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What number and percentage of taxpayers paid their personal taxes to the Gazelle Local Government Council while It was multi-racial.
  2. What (a) amount and (b) percentage of taxes was paid.
  3. By what amount was the Council’s overdraft increased.
  4. Was the overdraft guaranteed; if so, by whom, on what date and to what amount.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government has provided the following information:

1969-1970-623, 45.7 per cent 1st July 1970 to 14th January 1971-910, 6.3 per cent.

1969-1970- (a) $57,088; (b) 45.3 per cent. 1st July 1970 to 14th January 1971- (a) $7,276; (b) 6.3 per cent.

Bank overdraft- 1969-1970- Nil. At 28th January 1971-$405.

The Administrator on 10th November 1970 wrote to the Commonwealth Bank and requested an overdraft for the Council. The Bank agreed to an overdraft of $10,000 on the basis that the Administration would repay the Bankis necessary.

Tax collections were seriously disrupted by Court challenges to the validity of the Council and enforced delays in prosecuting defaulters. Even staunch supporters of the Council were reluctant to pay tax when others were successfully avoiding obligations. The uncommitted majority have treated the occasion as a tax-free holiday, tax collection having become anincreasing problem in the area before the establishment of the multiracial council. Figures on taxpayers and amounts paid are noindication of support or otherwise for the Council vis-a-vis the Mataungan Association but are symptomatic of the unsettled situation.

Censorship (Question No. 3229)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Cus toms and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has he received a letter from the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne containing recommendations on censorship adopted by the Melbourne Synod.
  2. If so, did the Synod recommend that an immediate committee of inquiry at Commonwealth or State level be set up to investigate the correlation, if any, between erotic material and adverse behaviour.
  3. Will he give effect to this recommendation.
  4. If so, will he ask the same committee to report also on the correlation between the portrayal of violence and adverse behaviour.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) From time to time various inquiries have been conducted overseas to examine the effects of erotic and violent material in books, films, television and other media. The results of these inquiries have been available to, and have been studied by me and officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. In addition, reports of the effects of policies initiated in Denmark and Sweden are closely studied.

I do not think that at this time, especially bearing the economic situation in mind, much more would be gained by setting up a Commonwealth committee suggested in the Report of the Anglican Synod.

Wool (Question No. 2776)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many applications were received from wool growers for assistance under the $30m grants scheme.
  2. How many applicants received assistance.
  3. What was the average amount paid to growers.
  4. How many growers received the maximum amount of $1,500.
  5. How many grants of (a) $1,001-$1,500, (b) $901-1,000, (c) $801-$900, (d) $701-$800, (e) $601-$700, (f) $5014600, (g) $4014500, (h) $301- $400, (i) $201-5300, (j) $1014200, and (k) $100 and less, were allocated in each State.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. More than 40,000 applications have been received. These included duplicates and cases where more than one member of a family unit submitted separate applications. After matching and consolidation the number of applications requiring a determination was some 34,750, of whom some 14,000 were found to be ineligible.
  2. As at 8th April 1971, 19,756 applicants have received assistance.
  3. $1,012.04
  4. 8,862 as at 8th April 1971.
  5. Statistics of the nature requested have not been compiled. The allocation of payments to growers in each State to 8th April 1971 is:

New South Wales- $5,667,280.56 to 5,805 growers.

Victoria- $1,785,908.06 to 2,196 growers.

Queensland- $4,402,965.98 to 3,403 growers.

South Australia- $1,528,332.48 to 1,750 growers.

Western Australia- $6,044,048.11 to 5,917 growers.

Tasmania- $551,767.59 to 669 growers.

Australian Capital Territory- $13,480.27 to 16 growers.

Department of Customs and Excise:

Preventive Officers (Question No. 3019)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What system of promotion for Preventive Officers is followed in his Department.
  2. How long has this system been in operation.
  3. Is he able to say whether there is grave dis satisfaction amongst the staff over some recent promotions.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. The criteria for the selection of officers for promotion to positions of Preventive Officer are contained in section 50 (3) of the Public Service Act and specify that consideration shall be given first to the relative efficiency of officers available for promotion to a vacancy. In the event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers, consideration shall then be given to their relative seniority.

Additionally, the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department, has determined that an officer shall not be transferred or promoted to a position of Preventive Officer unless the officer complies with the following conditions: 1. (a) he has attained the age of 21 years, but has not attained the age of 40 years, or, in the case of a discharged member of the Forces, within the meaning of section four of section one hundred and thirty-nine of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1962, has not attained the age of 51 years; and

  1. be has achieved a satisfactory standard at a selection test and medical examination approved by the Board as being appropriate for that officer; or

    1. He was permanently occupying on 3rd September 1964 an office of Preventive Officer, Grade 1, 2 or 3.
    1. The present section 50 (3) provision has been in force since the amendments to the Public Service Act in 1945 emanating from the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Systems of Promotion and Temporary Transfer (commonly referred to as the Bailey Committee).
    2. I am unaware of dissatisfaction with any recent promotions. I understand that some dissatisfaction has been expressed concerning certain recent temporary transfers and the matter is being reviewed by the Department and the Public Service Board.

Pacific Islands Regiment (Question No. 2979)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. . How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates hold each commissioned and non-commissioned rank in the Pacific Islands Regiment.
  2. What pay and allowances are received in each case.
  3. What is the annual cost of the Regiment
Mr Peacock:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the hon ourable member’ question is as follows: (1)

  1. Indigenes -

Rates of pay for private soldiers are:

Trainee level- $720-1,005 per annum (5 increments)

Lower skilled level-$885-l,200 per annum (5 increments)

Skilled level-$$l.070-1,265 per annum (3 increments)

Higher skilled level- $1,200-1,330 per annum (2 increments)

NCOs are paid for skills in each of the four levels mentioned above, providing a pay range from $1,200per annum for a Lance Corporal at trainee level to $2,395 per annum for a Warrant Officer, Class 1 at the higher skilled level.

Officer rates of pay range from $2,235 per annum for a Second Lieutenant, on appointment, through,. Captain at $2,795 to $2,995 per annum to Brigadier at $5,515 to $5,745 per annum.

In addition, a service loading of 25c per day is payable and provision is made for living out allowance of 54c per day, and patrol/sea-going allowance is applicable.

Expatriates -

Expatriate members of the Australian Regular Army (ARA) serving with the Pacific Islands Regiment are paid the same rates of pay and allowances as ARA members serving in Australia, but in addition are paid a District Allowance at the following rates:

Married, Living Out - $1.78 per day

Married, LivingOut, but wife employed by Commonwealth - $1.10 per day

Members Living In - 77c per day

A Territory Allowance is also payable at prescribed rates according to marital status and accommodation occupied.

  1. The annual cost of the Pacific Islands Regiment, based on strengths of 96 expatriates and 1,369 indigenes is $3.052m.

Service Equipment and Stores (Question No. 3129)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What has been done in the past 2 years to implement the principle of single management of service equipment and stores.

Mr Gorton:
LP

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

In December 1969 the nucleus of a section was established in the Logistics Division of the Defence Department to study supply organisations, policies and procedures in the Defence Group of Departments with a view to determining the extent of re-organisation, co-ordination, rationalisation and standardisation required.

In the same month a high level Steering Committee was established under the chairmanship of a Deputy Secretary,- Department of Defence with terms of reference which consisted, inter alia:

To identify the present procurement organisation, functions and procedures of the Service and Supply Departments, both within Australia and overseas, and to submit proposals:

recommending rationalisation measures;

for the management control by one authority of common user items including the application of the Single Manager concept and its implications.’

Under the direction of the Steering Committee commodity areas were selected on their potential for single manager arrangements. Studies of these commodity areas have been completed or are in progress, and as a result, the Steering Committee has so far approved the single management of food preparation and serving equipment (excluding 2 group/classes with little commonality) and common weapons, their associated spares and ammunition through 30mm by the Army.

An implementation plan to give effect to these changes in responsibility is being prepared at the present time.

It has also been decided that the RAAF be responsible for the complete supply support of Navy HS748, Macchi and Iroquois aircraft, also the Army Light Observation Helicopter. In respect to the Macchi, they have already assumed responsibility for the supply support of this aircraft.

The Defence Procurement Steering Committee has recognised that, apart from common supply terminology (in which area considerable progress continues to be made), the development of standard demand and issue procedures and the codification of service holdings to the Defence Codification System, are essential prerequisites to the proliferation of single manager arrangements. They have therefore appointed a Study Team to examine the development of standard demand and issue procedures for use by the Services and have sought a high priority for codification of commodities selected for single management.

Additional staff have recently been engaged by the Department of Defence to carry out studies in selected commodity areas and assist the Services and Department of Supply in the implementation of single manager arrangements.

Education: Primary School Libraries (Question No. 3309)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he consider making grants to the States for the purpose of providing approved minimum standards of library facilities in primary schools according to local needs.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

The Government is providing$27m for libraries for secondary schools during the three years 1969 to 1971. I have recently announced that the Government intends to introduce legislation into the Parliament later this year to extend the secondary schools libraries programme for a further three years from January 1972, and will make available $30m over this period.

The Government recognises that libraries have a significant and necessary place in primary as well as secondary schools, but it has not been possible from available funds to assist the library needs of primary schools. The Government considers that in assisting secondary school libraries it is supporting the area of greater need requiring the greater expenditure per student.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710504_reps_27_hor72/>.