House of Representatives
26 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 747

PETITIONS

Education

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– 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 showeth:

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

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That Charles Martin, a 24yearold graduate in building technology, and Geoffrey Mullen, a 24yearold graduate in political science, are serving a two year gaol sentence for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That their failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that their imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled from the record all convictions made remove from the record all convictions made under it, and cause Charles Martin and Geoffrey Mullen, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released and cease all further prosecutions under it.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will o’er pray.

Petition received and read.

Ordered that the petition be printed.

Mr BRYANT (Wills)- In accordance with the requirements of standing order 132 I inform the House that 1 intend to submit a notice of motion in connection with the petition:

That the House of Representatives appoint a select committee to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the National Service Act relating to conscription.

National Service

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduate in Building Technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly, touched by its provisions.

That his failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduate in Building Technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National

Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly, touched by its provisions.

That bis failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment roust therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduate in Building Technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly, touched by its provisions.

That his failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

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

Petition received.

Petitions

Mr ENDERBY:

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That the present procedures of the House of Representatives regarding the presentation of petitions are inadequate in that no machinery exists for the automatic and careful consideration of the contents of petitions.

That thousands of petitioners, who rightly resort to petitions in an attempt to communicate their opinions to the House, are misled in thinking that their opinions will ever be considered by the House.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take steps to appoint a Standing Committee which will (a) consider all petitions presented to the House and (b) recommend to tho House any action which it thinks should be taken with respect to them.

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

Petition received and read.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, 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 showeth:

  1. 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;
  2. That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  3. 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 ‘riot control’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

  1. That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. That Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances 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.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr ROBINSON:
Assistant Minister assisting the Postmaster-General · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– 1 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 showeth -

  1. That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1923, 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;
  2. That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  3. 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 ‘riot control’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.

  1. That the Parliamenttake note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. That honourable members urge upon the

Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances 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.

Social Services

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The serious decline in social services has intensified the hardships faced by pensioners and families on lower incomes.

Therefore as a matter of urgency the Commonwealth Government should immediately allocate extra finances to social services.

The petition of the undersigned urges your Government to increase immediately

Pensions - by $5.00 per week.

Child Endowment - to $3.60 per week per child.

Maternity Allowance - to at least $1 1.7 for each child born.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The serious decline in social services has intensified the hardships faced by pensioners and families on lower incomes.

Therefore as a matter of urgency, the Commonwealth Government should immediately allocate extra finances to social services.

The petition of the undersigned urges your Government to increase immediately

Pensions - by $5.00 per week.

Child Endowment - to $3.60 per week per child.

Maternity Allowance - to at least $117 for each child born.

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 students of Class 6 L of Griffith Primary School in the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That there are 37 children in our class as there is a teacher shortage;

That we are trying to make secondary school though the shortage of teachers is disappointing and it is not known whether teachers can be provided for us;

That we do not think children who wish to learn should be made to suffer in a situation which was not caused by, them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take immediate steps to provide us with teachers for high school.

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

Petition received and read.

Aboriginals

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners, asin duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. The Federal Government and all State Governments recognise the right of the Aboriginal people of Australia to own and control all lands set aside as reserves, all land that has been excised from reserves, all traditional grounds, all Crown land now leased to Aboriginals and an increased share of Crown land to be made available to them.
  2. The Federal and State Governments recognise the right of the Aboriginal people to compensation for lands lost, and to consult with Aboriginal groups to this end.
  3. To urge that the Australian people inform themselves as to the present conditions of Aboriginals on reserves and elsewhere in Australia, particularly in regard to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by the Australian Government.

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

Petition received.

page 750

NOTICE OF MOTION

National Service Act

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That the House of Representatives appoint a select committee to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the National Service Act relating to conscription.

page 750

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. I preface the question by reminding the Minister that Royal Australian Navy personnel serving in submarines receive additional pay, commonly referred to as hard lying pay, and those serving in small ships receive half that amount. I ask: Will the Minister, in view of Judge Rapke’s report, consider extending this hard lying payment to Navy personnel serving in HMAS ‘Sydney’ as the circumstances and the conditions would appear to warrant this payment?

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

-The Kerr Committee at the present time is examining the whole question of sailors’ and officers’ pay. It is true that an additional payment is made to submarine personnel in the Navy because of the hard lying conditions and that this payment may be extended to personnel on other vessels. This is one of the terms of reference of that Committee. We expect to have a submission from it which will materially affect all the wages and conditions of men in the Service. I expect that I will be able to make some further announcement on this matter in the next few months.

page 750

QUESTION

POLLUTION

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Has he made arrangements to meet the States to discuss the protection of the environment? Has it taken some States 6 months to obtain appropriate people as commissioners? Is the Minister aware that some large and powerful firms are anxious to co-operate with the appropriate authorities in the protection of our environment?

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I know of the great interest of the honourable members for Macarthur and Bradfield and many other honourable members in the work that this Government is doing in the field of the environment. In reply to the first part of the question, I have been able to arrange with the State Ministers concerned a meeting to be held in Canberra on 17th September in order to find ways and means of co-ordinating our activities. It is true that a meeting had to be postponed until some States were able to set up their own departments and get them in working order. This has now been done.

Referring to the last part of the question I am certain that as a result of increased activity, not only on the Federal scene but also in the States, a larger number of companies have been taking much greater care to prevent damage which might otherwise have been occasioned to the environment as a result of their activities.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Mr NICHOLLS:

– I ask the Minister for Defence: What is the present position of the Australian order for the FI 1 1 aircraft? Does the Minister intend to make a statement to the House on this question this year, next year, or when? Further, will we pay for the aircraft with Australian or American dollars?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– The situation is that under the agreement between Mr Laird and the former Minister for Defence, Mr Malcolm Fraser, the Government has until approximately the end of this year to make a decision on whether or no it will accept the Fill. Some few weeks ago Air ViceMarshal Hey, Air Member for Technical Services, went to the United States of America. He has produced a report which is now being studied by my colleague the Minister for Air, and which will be passed on to me shortly. 1 will be having discussions with Cabinet on this matter at a later stage.

page 751

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. It relates to the recent substantial increase in the rate of infant mortality among the Aboriginal population in the Alice Springs area. Has the Minister given consideration to a letter which I wrote to him in which I drew to his notice the views expressed by Dr Kalokerinos of Collarenebri as to the reasons for this increase? Is he aware of the very great amount of research undertaken by Dr Kalokerinos into the causes of the very high rate of Aboriginal infant mortality? Is he aware that Dr Kalokerinos believes that an inquiry ought to be held immediately into this very important matter which involves the lives of Australian children? If he is aware of these matters will he say what action he has taken?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– I am aware of the keen interest of the honourable member for

Henty in the work of Dr Kalokerinos in the field of the welfare of Aboriginal children, particularly in parts of the central north west of New South Wales, and of his views on the importance of vitamin C. Dr Kalokerinos has recently been in parts of the Northern Territory and has been examining what are in his view the causes of infant mortality there, particularly in Alice Springs. The views that he has put forward expose a method of therapy for Aboriginal children different from the therapy usually employed in the Northern Territory at the present time. This means that there is a degree of difference in approach between medical specialists.

I have asked my colleague, the Minister for Health, to see whether the views of Dr Kalokerinos can be placed before an expert panel of medical officers. If Dr Kalokerinos will submit his proposals as soon as possible to my colleague 1 am assured that that will be done. I have no means, as Minister for the Aborigines, of taking the matter any further, but should a research project be necessary as a result of this examination it might be possible to provide, through the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, funds for a research programme. But that would have to go first to the Minister for Health.

page 751

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the PostmasterGeneral: ls it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has sacked Mr Michael Willesee from his position as compere of the programme ‘Four Corners* on the ground that he was making guest appearances on a commercial radio station during the illness of the regular compere of the programme on that radio station? If so, can the Minister explain, or will he ascertain, why Mr Willesee has been singled out for sacking while another ABC television compere appears in whisky advertisements, writes a column for a Sunday paper and hosts fashion parades and while the Deputy General Manager writes regularly, under his own name, book reviews for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald”?

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

– I noticed in one of the morning newspapers a comment which related to Mr Willesee standing in for someone at radio station 3AW in Melbourne. This, of course, is a responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Mr Willesee would be employed by the Commission under contract. I do not know the content of the terms of the contract, but I will make investigations in relation to it if the Leader of the Opposition so desires.

Mr Whitlam:

– Please.

Sir ALAN HULME:

– I will also investigate the other matters which he raises.

page 752

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Science been drawn to a statement by the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart that some church schools will be closed due to insufficient government support? Can he advise what amount per capita of federal financial assistance has been requested by the church authorities? Has there been any indication that church schools in other States could also be forced to close? If so, will the Government investigate the position in conjunction with the States with the object of averting what could develop into a serious education problem for Australia?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I agree with the honourable member that if a significant number of independent schools were to close this would immediately constitute a very serious education problem for Australia. It would have one immediate consequence of putting greater stress and strain on the State systems, but quite apart from that practical reason, the Commonwealth has for a long time believed in and actively supported the dual system of education, believing that a system which provides a choice, as the system in Australia does, has particular advantages. For this reason the Commonwealth has in the past introduced policies designed quite specifically to support independent education outside the State systems. At an early date I will be seeking to make contact with the independent education authority and also, of course, with my colleagues, the State Ministers for Education. I know that there has been continuing discussion between the Commonwealth and other education authorities under the auspices of my predecessor.

The only other thing that I think I should say is that it is not only to the

Commonwealth that independent authorities ought to look for assistance for independent education. The State governments all have policies of supporting independent education, as does the Commonwealth. But it should also be worth noting that the one State that does least for independent education is the State of South Australia, and I would hope that that State might be able to lift its support of independent education in a manner commensurate with other States.

page 752

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr KIRWAN:

– 1 address my question to the Minister for the Interior. Following upon my correspondence with him regarding the rights of 18 to 20-year-old persons to vote in Federal elections under section 41 of the Constitution, what is the reason for the Government’s refusal to allow 18 to 20-year-old persons to vote in Federal elections in States where they have the right to vote for their State parliaments? Is this refusal a further indication of the Liberal-Country Party desires to avoid decisions of the people whenever possible, as with gerrymandered electorates and preferential voting?

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

– This is a matter of Government policy and it has not yet been resolved.

page 752

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OPERA COMPANY

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. What special assistance is to be provided for the Australian Opera Company so as to enable it to strengthen its opera company and orchestras to a level which would enable it in 1973 to present at the opening of the Sydney Opera House performances of truly international quality?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– It is expected that the opening season of the Sydney Opera House will be one of the greatest cultural activities in Australia’s history. It is expected that this will take place some time in 1973. In order that the season shall be of world standard, the Australian Council for the Arts has asked me to see what can be done to build up the standards of the Australian Opera Company and its associated orchestras. The Government has received this request and has decided that the grant to the Australian Opera Company and the associated orchestras, in this financial year, will rise from $895,000 to $1,295,000, an increase of 45 per cent.

We expect that this aid will be continually built up so that by 1973 we shall have in Australia an opera company which is of world class. I believe that when the Opera House in Sydney is operating it shall be a mecca for people who wish to see our cultural achievements. I would think that not only will there be an increase in aid from the Government to help in the work of the Australian Opera Company, but also will there be a comparable increase in subscriptions from those other bodies which are well wishers in respect of the work of this Company which has already had such a marked effect on our cultural achievements over the last few years.

page 753

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL HOUSING

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In order to protect ministerial reputations, is the Prime Minister prepared to initiate an inquiry and report to the House on the allegations in yesterday’s and today’s ‘Canberra Times’ which imply that Ministers are being allocated houses in Canberra out of priority and at bargain rates, keeping in mind that today’s editorial in that newspaper refers to ‘a corrupting influence’ and ‘ingredients for scandal’?

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

– I preface my answer by saying that Ministers, particularly those who must be in Canberra for long periods such as the Minister for the Interior, must have accommodation suitable to their needs in order to permit them to carry out their duties efficiently.

Mr Foster:

– They should stay at the Kurrajong.

Mr McMAHON:

– That is where some of them do stay - and at other hotels as well. However, I do not regard this as a satisfactory way of providing accommodation for Ministers who have to work under such difficult conditions as they do. I have not read the articles quoted by the honourable gentleman. I will discuss them with my colleague, the Minister for the Interior, and let the honourable member have an answer as soon as I can.

page 753

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service seen the editorial comment in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’ that the Government should have no interest in the affairs of trade unions unless a state of industrial emergency were to exist? Does the honourable gentleman believe this to be in accord with public opinion?

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

– I did glance this morning at the editorial of the Melbourne ‘Age’ to which the honourable member has referred. I must say frankly that I found it misinformed, mischievous, and misleading. I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly on this issue, except to say that of course the matter to which the Melbourne ‘Age’ editorial refers is not one on which there has been any pronouncement of Government policy. That newspaper would be better advised to keep its powder dry at this stage. I do not canvass the issue, except to refer in brief to the fact that what is put forward and presented in the editorial is very much out of step with public opinion as interpreted by gallup polls with the opinion of the business sector and also with the opinion of a number of prominent trade union officials who have made comment on this issue in recent months.

Because the editorial was lengthy, Mr Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to make one or two other observations. I said before that the comment was mischievous. I mean just that. Of course, I know what section 45 of the present Act means and what its implications are. It is also mischievous to suggest that the matter that was raised by the honourable member for Bennelong was raised with an desire to take attention of other aspects of Government policy. Apparently Opposition members who are interjecting really do not want to join in an examination of this matter. I said that the editorial was misleading. There was a statement that my gross figures were, in fact, misleading. They are the figures which come direct from the Commonwealth Statistician. They are not my figures. They are imputed to me. Of course, I support the fact that the figures are correct. If one looks back over recent years - not just to 1970 - one can see a clear increase in strike activity in this country. In 1967 some 700,000 man days were lost; in 1968, 1 million man days were lost; in 1969, 2 million man days were lost and last year, 1970, some 2.4 million man days were lost. I suggest that what is presented in the editorial is misleading. Apart from the fact that it was misleading, it misinterpreted the situation. There was a reference in the editorial, as I recall it, to the fact that some - I emphasise the word ‘some’ - strikes are economically damaging and disruptive. I suppose that the inference that can reasonably be drawn from this is that a large number of strikes, in fact, are not. I put it to the House that we are concerned with the totality of strike action in this country and that totality of strike action is very disruptive indeed. So far as the business world and the leaders of the great industries of this country are concerned, often times a strike lasting-

Mr Armitage:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the Minister is not answering a question but is making a statement I submit that he should give it in the form of a ministerial statement after question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Whilst I agree with the sentiments of the honourable memoer for Chifley that answers to questions are becoming far too long - some Ministers offend more than others - I believe that the Minister, according to the Standing Orders, is in order at this stage but I request him to shorten his answer as much as possible.

Mr LYNCH:

– I certainly agree with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I take your point advisedly. I was suggesting to the House that strikes of short duration, if spread over a long period, are more disruptive to many industries than, say, a strike which may last for a period of 1 week. We are concerned with the totality of the strike issue. I put to the House that the editorial comment to which I have made reference is, in fact, a misinterpretation. I only regret that time does not permit a full exposition.

page 754

QUESTION

TRADE UNION BALLOTS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Does the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provide that ballots can be ordered on matters on which the Commission considers the opinion of union members should be obtained? Have any such ballots been ordered by the Commission? If not, will the Minister seek a report from the President of the Commission as to why these provisions of the Act have never been applied?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– It is curious that some members of the Opposition do not want a full exposition of this subject in part and yet other members seek to prod the issue. I suggest to the honourable member that he reflect on an answer I gave to the honourable member for Bennelong on Monday of this week. The situation is clear. The Government has indicated that this matter is under examination and consideration. I have indicated, quite properly, that in the light of that context it is not a matter of definitive answer. I suggest that the honourable member contain his interest.

page 754

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Primary Industry refers to the authoritative and confirmed report that money has been drawn against the first advance overdraft in respect of wheat deliveries in New South Wales and paid to growers in that State contrary to the agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the growers’ industrial organisation. I ask: Will the Minister, during the next 2 weeks, have prepared and present to the House a government audited statement showing (a) the amount of wheat delivered to the licensed receivers in each State in each year of the quota delivery arrangement, such statement to show the quality classification of the wheat and whether it was accepted for delivery as quota wheat, over-quota wheat or non-quota wheat; and (b) the total amount of money drawn against the first advance overdraft and the distribution of this money in its various categories, both interstate and intrastate, and having application to the quantities and classifications set out in (a)?

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

– As the honourable member will know, the basis for distribution of wheat after the introduction of wheat quotas was as a result of recommendations by the Australian Wheat Federation. The Federation made recommendations to governments on the total quantum of wheat that should be distributed and on the allocation amongst the States. In addition there was a provision that ready salable wheats should be acceptable as over-quota in certain circumstances. There has been correspondence between the State Ministers and myself. Within the Australian Agricultural Council there have been discussions as to the distribution of wheat. In the instance to which the honourable gentleman has referred wherein in New South Wales there was received into the Grain Elevators Board as ready salable wheat a certain quantity which was in excess of quota deliveries, this matter has been subject to discussion within the Australian Agricultural Council. It has been the subject of correspondence between the New South Wales Minister and myself. I believe there is a requirement for audited statements to be produced by the Australian Wheat Board to the Government in certain circumstances. I see no reason to require audited statements other than those which are statutorily required from the Board. However I can assure the honourable member that any question of overquota wheat is closely and critically scrutinised by the Agricultural Council. It will continue to be reviewed in that fashion in the future.

page 755

QUESTION

NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Minister for Social Services. Two days ago the honourable member for Perth asked him whether he would confirm Press reports quoting him as saying that a national superannuation Bill already has been drafted, and he answered that he had at no time indicated that such a draft exists. I ask him whether he will confirm that in a speech opening a. conference under the auspices of the Queensland Council on the Aging on 2nd July, in the presence of my colleagues, the honourable members for Bowman and Capricornia, he stated:

I can tell you we have already got a scheme of national superannuation prepared. I can say that such a scheme is ready for adoption and I believe it is of a practical nature.

I therefore ask him, as the honourable member for Perth asked him: Will he make this draft available for public consideration and comment, perhaps in the type of parliamentary paper which he has himself suggested?

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

– As I have indicated to the House, I will be giving consideration to this matter but no decision has been made upon it.

page 755

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES: AUSTRALIAN CONTENT

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any representations from people in the television industry concerning greater Australian content in television programming?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Yesterday I had not only a pleasant, but I ‘believe a very successful meeting with Mr Bobby Limb, Mr Jeff Ashby and Mr Nick Tate relating to the Australian content of television programmes. We had a long, and I ‘believe, profitable discussion. I was able to point out that arrangements have already been made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to ensure that in each period of 28 statistical periods there must be not less than 50 per cent of programmes of Australian origin transmission between 6 a.m. and 12 midnight; secondly, between the key hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. not less than 45 per cent of programme transmission time shall consist of programmes of Australian origin, this requirement to be increased to 50 per cent from 26th June; that between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. not less than 6 hours shall consist of first release Australian drama; and finally that not less than 4 hours shall consist of programmes for children of school age designed and produced in Australia under the supervision of persons qualified for this work and based on the recommendations contained in the ‘Television Programme Standards’.

I was also able to obtain for them by direct communication-

Mr Uren:

– I rise on a point of order. Why is the Postmaster-General so unhappy?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr McMAHON:

– I was also able to obtain definitions of some of the terms used in the Commission’s order which were asked of me by both Mr Ashby and Mr Bobby Limb. I believed that they were completely satisfied with the definitions I was able to obtain for them. They also asked me whether I could ensure that the television corporations themselves would be under an obligation to agree to the decision made by the Control Board. I was able to inform them of the statement made by Mr Arthur Cowan, that the companies themselves would observe the direction. I was also able to point out to them that if those directions were not observed the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would itself take action to ensure that the regulations were complied with.

I believe that this was a most successful meeting. I want to point out that it was a clear indication of the views of the PostmasterGeneral and the Government that we want a high Australian content in our television programmes. I believe that the people who saw me yesterday were not only dedicated and sincere but that they went away pretty happy with the fact that the Government has assisted the Control Board to take such decisive action.

page 756

QUESTION

CLUTHA DEVELOPMENT

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development. Can an assurance be given that Clutha’s exploitation of the South Coast coal seam will not leave the WollongongPort Kembla steel complex without adequate supplies of coal in the foreseeable future? If not, will the Minister take initiatives to prevent the scheme from proceeding? Also, will he support the call for a public inquiry into the Clutha scheme to consider claims that special privilege has been given to this overseas company, that the environment is seriously threatened and that the economics of the scheme deny a fair return to the Australian people?

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

– As the honourable member knows, the latter part to his question is a matter which concerns the State Government of New South Wales and any queries he has in relation to this, of course, he will naturally submit in that quarter. But as the-

Mr Whitlam:

– But the Joint Coal Board is responsible to you.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The Leader of the Opposition has just come to the second part of my answer relating to the Joint Coal Board, which has a responsibility to the

Commonwealth and to the New South Wales Government for the production and distribution of coal. The position as far as the whole of New South Wales is concerned is as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition just a couple of days ago, and I hope within a matter of a couple of days to be able to let him have some information about the survey that has been undertaken throughout the whole of Australia, including New South Wales. Thu survey which was undertaken separately by the Joint Coal Board in relation to supplies to cover industry in New South Wales indicates that there is no problem regarding the supply to industry in the future, nor is there any problem regarding the production of power in the future.

The report that I have from the Joint Coal Board indicates that this situation can be covered. In addition to that, as I say, this report that will be available to me shortly covering the survey undertaken by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in conjunction with the Joint Coal Board and the various State departments will clearly indicate that the situation will be fully under control as far as supplies of all types of coal for power production and for industry in Australia are concerned, and will allow very substantial reserves for export. This is a very important industry in Australia today. The situation is being carefully watched, and as I indicated before, we will shortly be in possession of a report regarding the total reserves in Australia.

page 756

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES DISCIPLINARY CODE

Mr HUGHES:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Does the Minister agree that before the proposed uniform disciplinary code for the Services can be introduced as a Bill it will be necessary for the Government to decide whether the death penalty should be retained for certain offences? Has any consideration recently been given to this question? When may a decision be expected?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– A considerable amount of work has been undertaken on the proposed legislation for a disciplinary code for the Services. However, there are still a number of major policy decisions which will have to be made. I am hoping fairly shortly - in the next week or so - to meet the Service Ministers and have some preliminary discussions. A number of policy decisions will have to be made and the one on the death penalty, which the honourable member has mentioned, is obviously one decision which will have to be made by the Government. After this decision has been made, of course, the legislation will be introduced into this House and honourable members will be able to debate it and vote upon it. I am hopeful that this will be possible during this sessional period. Perhaps the debate can be postponed until after honourable members have had an opportunity to look closely at the proposed legislation. But this does depend on how successful we are in overcoming a number of policy problems which still lie in this area.

page 757

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has he or the Government given serious consideration to the elimination of sales tax on freight? If he has not will he give this matter prompt attention as it affects people living outside the metropolitan area, has an effect on decentralisation and is an imposition on people living in rural areas particularly when they live more than 1,000 miles away from the capital city?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government is continually giving consideration to what can be done to assist those people living in decentralised areas and those who are living in rural areas far from capital cities. I think it would be of great benefit to the honourable gentleman and to all honourable members if I were to prepare a statement from details which I have had compiled recently as to the degree of assistance that does come from the Commonwealth to people in these areas in a variety of ways. I will write to the honourable gentleman and provide him with the details.

page 757

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Services, concerns the establishment of a regional office of the Department of Social Services at Swan Hill in Victoria. On a number of occasions I have explained to the Minister that such an office in the city of Swan Hill would serve thousands of people resident in Victoria and New South

Wales, and that at present the nearest regional offices of the Department of Social Services are at Bendigo and Mildura, respectively approximately 120 and 150 miles distant. Will the Minister state whether it is his intention to establish such an office at Swan Hill in the near future?

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– The honourable member’s interest in the affairs of his electorate is not concealed, I think, either from this House or from his electorate. I can give him only half an answer to this question. A decision has been made to establish the office which he requests, but I am unable to give him a time for its establishment. Some time ago my officers, together with officers of the Department of Interior, endeavoured to find suitable premises in the area. At that time they were unable to do so. But since that time, as the honourable member knows, there has been a very well appreciated restriction of Government spending, and under present policy it would not be immediately in prospect to provide the facility for which he is asking. Nevertheless, I can assure him that as soon as practicable the decision in principle to establish an office in Swan Hill will be implemented.

page 757

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT NOT GRANTED

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Swartz:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 757

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Adelaide making a statement.

It is time that the opportunity was given to members of this House to correct deliberately false statements which are made by Ministers at question time. These statements cannot be debated because no opportunity is given to debate them. I believe that the only way in which this situation can be overcome is for the House to exert the right of members to raise matters by leave in this place. The Ministry is not the only body in the House which is entitled to participate in the administration of the affairs of Parliament. Parliament must make its own decisions. I move this motion because I believe that by continually using its numbers and its powers to gag debates so that statements can go unchallenged, the Government, and the Ministery especially, are deliberately depriving this nation of a proper democratic process of government through procedures.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Yes, Mr Speaker, I second the motion. This is the second time this week that this procedure has had to be adopted. I take it that you take the attitude that as long as no reference is made to any member of the House, one can say what one likes about the people whom a member represents. Of course, it is true that if a member is mentioned he has the right - he does not have to seek leave - to make a statement to correct the situation. I do not know what the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has in mind on this occasion. But earlier this week there was a very clear example in 2 successive question periods. A former Minister for Labour and National Service, one once removed, had asked the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) about a particular electorate. The question concerned one electorate alone. There was no dispute about this at all. It could only have reference to one particular area. When the honourable member who had particular knowledge of the matters concerned, as well as being the representative of the area, sought leave to make a statement leave was refused. Accordingly an attempt was made to give him an opportunity to speak by moving the suspension of Standing Orders.

The sheer fairness of our proposal is apparent. If an attack is made on a particular organisation, a particular electorate or the people in a particular electorate at question time, when the proceedings are broadcast and moreover at an hour when it is very easy to report the matter fairness would seem to dictate that the person who knows about it and who might be said to have some responsibility for it should be able to counter it. Any honourable member in this chamber can refuse leave in these circumstances. In these cases leave is usually refused by the Leader of the House, not by some irresponsible maverick in the Liberal Party. It is done by the man who, on behalf of the Government parties, conducts the affairs of this House. Surely in these circumstances honourable members will acknowledge that the opportunity for a reply should be given.

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

– I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) to the position regarding the Standing Orders and the normal arrangements of the House. The Standing Orders are designed to give honourable members an opportunity to bring before the House matters of importance to themselves or of public importance. There are procedures which are well known to all honourable members and there are times when these procedures can be used. There is question time and there is the debate on the motion to adjourn the House. There is also the Budget debate and later on the debate on the Estimates when matters of this nature can be discussed. I would like to point out that it has always been the custom of the House to follow the procedures which have been laid down but in addition if any honourable member feels that he desires to take some action after question time in relation to a matter which concerns him personally he can make a personal explanation, and this is done constantly in this House.

If the procedures are to be changed this is a matter for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. They cannot be changed on an ad hoc basis. It is my duty to ensure that there is an orderly procedure of business through the House. The procedures are laid down to try to ensure that situation. If outstanding or special circumstances exist which move an honourable member to seek leave to make a statement on some matter which concerns him directly, I have never known leave to be refused. That position still applies. But if suddenly, not following normal procedures, approaches of this kind are made - as have been made twice this week - they cannot be accepted unless there is some change in the normal procedures. Having listened to the honourable member for Corio and the seconder to the motion, and having indicated the position as far as the Government is concerned in relation to the Standing Orders and to the procedures of the House, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In division:

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 59

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 760

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes. I have been misrepresented by a newspaper report purporting to emanate from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) appearing in the Northern Territory ‘News’ on 21st August last. The report carries the heading ‘Hunt name used without approval - MHR’. The report then said that the honourable member for Adelaide alledged that the Administrator, Mr Chaney, had used my name without my knowledge in a letter to the Legislative Council. The report then credited the honourable member with the claim that a. close look at my reply to a question by him in the House on Thursday last, 19th August, showed this quite clearly. In that reply I refuted the inference that he made that I was not aware of the Administrator’s letter to the Legislative Council requesting the Council to remain in session so that a. Government Bill to increase stamp duties could be introduced and passed. Unless the honourable member claims to have been misreported, he has misrepresented me in a most dishonourable and clearly deliberate manner.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister may not reflect on any honourable member and I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mr HUNT:

– I withdraw those last remarks.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:

– I claim to have been misrepresented in the statement just made by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt). I was not misreported in what I said. I went back to the Hansard report of what the Minister said, and I wish to point out to the House that in his opening statement in answer to my question he said only this:

Firstly, I refute the statement by the honourable member that 1 did not know about this matter.

He was not answering in particular the inference in my question that the Administrator of the Northern Territory had used the Minister’s name without his authority. In fact, he went on to be more specific and he said:

I have been in contact-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not debate the question of where he was misrepresented. The honourable member is now quoting from Hansard what the Minister said. I suggest that he explain where he has been misrepresented.

Mr HURFORD:

– I suggested that the Minister’s statement as reported in Hansard is completely misleading to the House.

Mr Bryant:

– I raise a point of order. Your ruling, Mr Speaker, seems to put us in the very difficult position that when a statement of this sort is made to the House there is no way in which any honourable member, irrespective of which side of the House he is on, can correct it without appearing to be debating the question. Would it not be correct to say that in this case the honourable member for Adelaide has been misrepresented in the way in which the Minister brought his name into his personal explanation and that the only way the honourable member for Adelaide can reply under the Standing Orders is to speak in the form that he was speaking?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, that is not so. I think the honourable member for Wills has found that the Chair has been fairly lenient in regard to personal explanations. When honourable members making personal explanations start to debate to and fro about what an honourable member said and what a Minister said it is a completely different thing. I think my ruling in these circumstances is correct.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do. On Tuesday last I directed a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) acting in his capacity as Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood). Quite accidentally a number of newspapers referred to my question as being on the subject of the New South Wales Police tapping telephone conversations, when in fact I was referring to the taping of telephone conversations. There is a difference, because tapping is authorised under certain circumstances and taping is not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member may not comment on the matter. I ask him to explain where he has been misrepresented.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My claim is in relation to the difference between tapping and taping.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 761

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Annual Report

Mr LYNCH (Flinders- Minister for

Labour and National Service) - Pursuant to section 58(l.)(c) of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956-1966, I present the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s Report on those statements.

page 761

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY EVIDENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1971

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill was introduced in and passed by the Senate last night. Its purpose is to rectify a difficult situation that arose out of the Senate’s own action in disallowing the Evidence Ordinance 1971 of the Australian Capital Territory last Thursday. The disallowance of this ordinance resulted in a serious gap in the law relating to evidence in criminal proceedings in the Australian Capital Territory, to the extent that it has been necessary for criminal trials to be adjourned until the situation can be rectified. The disallowed ordinance had been in operation since 29th March of this year. The Bill passed by the Senate is designed to keep the ordinance in operation until 31st March 1972. The passage of this Bill by the Senate was made necessary in order to get the Senate out of a difficulty of its own making when it disallowed the Evidence Ordinance. The Bill is of a mechanical or machinery nature. This is not the occasion I suggest, to debate the merits of the ordinance because that is to be continued in force by the present Bill. The opportunity for that to be done will arise when substantive legislation is introduced at a later date, and presumably, or hopefully, before 31st March 1972. It is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice in the Australian Capital Territory that this Bill be passed as quickly as possible.

Leave granted for debate to proceed forthwith.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The Opposition agrees to give this Bill an immediate passage. The reason for the action by the Opposition in this matter were expressed on behalf of the Opposition last night and earlier in the week in the Senate. I wish to take this opportunity to say what I have said on many occasions for the last 10 or 12 years. It is a matter of regret that the Commonwealth does not provide codes within its power and jurisdiction on matters of legal procedure and legal substance. There are a great number of matters in the field of the law where there can be no rational difference between the 6 States and the 2 mainland Territories. It is difficult in our Federal system to enact laws on many matters of substance or procedure. Usually the Commonwealth has taken the attitude that it should wait until there is a unanimity among the States or at least among neighbouring States to the Commonwealth Territories.

However, the unfortunate fact is that the States have even greater difficulty than the Commonwealth in attracting draftsmen. Draftsmen are becoming increasingly important in the field of law. As a matter of principle, the man who drafts the law should be even more important than the man who interprets it. There are great inducements for people to become judges; there are still not as great inducement for people to become draftsmen. I am well aware of the demands which are made on the Commonwealth’s draftsmen not only by the Government but also by the Opposition. If, however, the Commonwealth persists in the attitude that it must wait for the larger States or the neighbouring States to take the initiative the course of law reform in Australia will be very slow indeed.

The Commonwealth’s opportunities in law reform are becoming more important. The Australian Capital Territory is one of the most litigious areas in Australia. Not only is it litigious as between individuals but also is it litigious as between companies. For instance, we have found that in the MLC Company case and in the case of Queensland Mines Ltd there are very important commercial corporate matters which fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction. I would hope that an opportunity would be taken during the currency of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to have a proper code of criminal procedure developed by the Commonwealth for all fields open to it, including the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, courts martial and all those matters of commercial law which fall to the Commonweath under the Constitution. I can assure the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N- H. Bowen), who represents the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) and who has twice been an Attorney-General himself that the present Opposition is very anxious to have modern laws in these subjects. I feel sure that the Minister would know this. The law should not be confused; it should not be archaic; it should not be expensive to the extent that it is now. The Commonwealth, despite the relatively small number of people who live in its Territories, does have the opportunity because of its draftsmen and ‘because of its international contacts - and law is becoming more and more international - to take a lead in these matters.

So, once again I make these general comments as I have done so often before where there has been any matter of criminal law relating to the Territories, overseas forces and aircraft under consideration. I have said this in many cases concerning the Territory laws that have come before this place. It is, I suppose, well over a year now since we were given a draft criminal code for the Territories. It has not yet been enacted and there has been no debate upon it. To my mind it is one of the least imaginative or liberal criminal laws in this country. The Opposition will help to speed the passage of this Bill. It hopes that by the time of the expiry of the provisions of this Bill the present government - if there has not been an election in the meantime - will have done all that it can to bring in a modern, comprehensible and accessible code of criminal procedure for all those persons and Territories falling within its jurisdiction.

Mr N. H. BOWEN (Parramatta)- Minister for Foreign Affairs (12.0) - in reply - In the light of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has said about progressive ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory, I think I should say that this ordinance which has been disallowed by the Senate is itself a progressive reform and somewhat ahead of evidence acts in force in the various States. It was disallowed, not on the ground that it was not a good law, although some could debate particular provisions in it, but rather upon the ground that it should be debated in the Parliament. In regard to the date that is set - 31st March - if there should be an election before then the new Liberal-Country Party Coalition Government in power would bring in the Act which would put this back into force. The Bill should be introduced into Parliament before 31st March.

The second thing I wish to say is that there is a Law Reform Commission now operating in the Australian Capital Territory, so we are able to hope that there will be coming forward progressive and more modernised laws in the Territory as a result of the activities of this Commission. It would slow down probably the progress of law reform in the Territory if everything that was produced had to be put through as an Act of the national Parliament and fitted into a national programme of legislation. In the past, these matters have been put through by ordinance. Certainly, the ordinances can be debated. They have to be tabled, but the requirements of converting each of these into an Act which will take its place with all the surrounding law for example, the Acts Interpretation Act applies to Acts but not to ordinances could slow down very considerably the progress of reform in the Territory

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Speaker-

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

– I am sorry, the Minister has closed the debate.

Mr Bryant:

– I know. That is a matter about which I want to say something in a moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr N. H. Bowen) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I regard this as a very dangerous procedure. We have before us a statement about a Bill which contains 3 short clauses, including one which says:

Validation of provisions of Australian Capita! Territory Evidence Ordinance 1971.

How many honourable members at present in this House have a copy of that? Hasit been distributed? Is there a memorandum with it? I have a copy. It contains 33 pages and has 97 clauses concerning the rights of people before the courts, and the duties of the courts to the 120,000 who live in the Australian Capital Territory and to those who pass through it. I will not raise objection when the matter comes to the voting stage this time, but how on earth can we proceed in this way? The Senate in its wisdom passed the Bill. Honourable senators have been debating it for weeks. The Bill has come to this House; we have not considered it in any way; we do not know what is contained in it. I have not the competence to judge from a chance examination whether it is good, bad or indifferent. Do not tell me that legislation cannot pass through this Parliament after fairly close examination and still contain bad law. If this is the procedure this Parliament is to adopt we are departing from everything that Parliament is about. Let me record my protest in the strongest possible way that I do not believe we ought to pass this Bill this day in this manner. The Minister just stood and closed the debate. The other day he was talking about such matters as the civil rights. I do not think he knows what they mean. In the other place the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) said that the Senate had no right to do what it did because it was not the Government of the country. The Parliament is the Government of the country. A similar situation developed once before when the prisoners who were in Goulburn gaol had to be let out because the law was inadequate. I, with whatever power I have as a 125th part of this House, will not consent to this kind of procedure at any future time.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– in reply - The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) effects an element of surprise at this, a lack of knowledge of it and insufficient warning. Having regard to the course that this matter took in the Senate, I would be morally certain that the caucus of the honourable member’s Party would have discussed it. I think it is rather surprising to find the honourable member so surprised. This is a mechanical Bill. This is not the place to debate the substance of the Evidence Ordinance. There will be an opportunity for that when the Bill is introduced into the Parliament which, as I said, hopefully should be before 31st March next year. The purpose of this measure is to eliminate the difficulty created by the disallowance by the Senate of the Ordinance which brought about a situation in which no criminal matters can be heard in the courts of the Australian Capital Territory. The sooner that we adopt the machinery to restore the position, the better.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Before putting the question that the Bill be now read a third time, I point out to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that when I called the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) I did not add the words closing the debate’ because nobody else had risen in the chamber. That was the reason I just automatically called the Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 764

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– The right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) has asked that I make a statement on the measures for the protection of the United States dollar announced by President Nixon on 15th August. As honourable members will be aware, the situation in the international currency markets is changing from day to day and any assessment of the situation has to be treated cautiously at this point of time. However, in the view of the importance of the developments I feel it desirable to give the House a preliminary assessment. As honourable members will know, the present disturbed situation in the international currency markets was sparked off by the announcement of the President of the United States last week that convertibility of United States dollars into gold and other reserve assets was to be suspended, and a 10 per cent surcharge on all dutiable imports into the United States, other than those subject to quotas, was to be imposed. Both these decisions were announced by the President to be temporary. But it was made clear that the removal of the 10 per cent surcharge, and the resumption of convertibility of United States dollar balances, would be dependent on certain objectives being achieved by the United States as a result of negotiation in the fields of international trade and finance and the sharing of defence burdens.

As to trade, the President claimed that American products were at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates. He said that the import tax would be ended when the unfair treatment ended. In the field of finance, the President asserted the need for a widespread major realignment of exchange parities, and also for an improved system of international monetary arrangements generally. The President also said that the time had come for other economically strong nations to bear their fair share of defending freedom around the world. This latest disturbance on the international currency markets is only the most recent of a long succession of similar disturbances, centring on one major currency after another, and sometimes on groups of currencies. In 1967 we had the disturbances leading up to the devaluation of sterling. In 1969, the pressure was trans ferred from London to Paris and we had the devaluation of the French franc and the revaluation of the Deutschemark. More recently, the trouble has centred on the United States and has been attributable in large part to the growing balance of payments deficit of that country. This has led to a fall in United States official reserves and a sharp increase in its official shortterm liabilities. At the same time, there has been a substantial transfer of United States dollars on private account into the international monetary markets of the world. All this has served to weaken confidence in the United States dollar on the foreign exchanges.

A number of factors has contributed to the United States’ external deficit. Prominent among these is the rapid price and cost inflation in the United States over the last 5 years. The United States’ position has been exacerbated by the growing competitiveness of some of its trading partners and by restraints on the access of United’ States’ exports to markets abroad. Superimposed on this has been the heavy defence burdens of the United States. Defence expenditure abroad by the United’ States has recently been running at the level of about $US5 billion annually. One way and another, the balance of payments deficit has built up until, in the first half of this year, the deficit has been running at an annual rate of $US23 billion.

It is not surprising, in these circumstances that the United States dollar is now commonly regarded as being ‘over valued’. In other words, the existing exchange parity for the United States dollar overrates its international purchasing power. This, of course, is a matter of critical worldwide importance because of the pivotal position in the international monetary system of the United States dollar.

The United States dollar is the largest of the reserve currencies in the world today and many countries have fixed rates of exchange on the dollar. A great proportion of international trade and financial transactions has been settled through the dollar in the past. And the dollar has been adopted along with gold as one of the two basic units of value in the Bretton Woods monetary system. Other currencies have had their par values expressed in terms of the United States dollar and gold.

There is no doubt that the Bretton Woods system has made a major contribution to full employment, economic growth, and the orderly development of world trade and financial arrangements in the post-war period. It has achieved this as a result of the adoption of a number of working principles, not least of which has been the system of agreed parities of rates of exchange between participating countries, adjustable only with the consent of the International Monetary Fund in the case of fundamental balance of payments disequilibrium. This system of pegged parities has been of particular value to smaller countries as a protection against the prewar practice of currency manipulation and competitive depreciations. ‘It has also been of value to rapidly developing countries like Australia who do not have access to the economic dialogues centred on the United States and Europe.

Nevertheless, no system is proof against the ravages of time and the Bretton Woods system is no exception. The need for further development of the Bretton Woods arrangements has long been recognised, and the most recent innovation has been the establishment of special drawing rights which, in themselves, offer some alternative to the United States dollar and gold as an international reserve asset.

Another innovation, and this is very germane to the present situation, is that the Executive Board of the Fund has been discussing the case for a greater flexibility in the mechanism of exchange rate adjustments. There is a strong body of opinion which suggests that the present arrangements whereby exchange rates should not vary more than 1 per cent from parity should be changed by extending somewhat the operating limits within which currencies could be exchanged without being held to infringe their par values at the International Monetary Fund.

The action taken by the United States last week has short-circuited this debate and taken the question of exchange rate adjustments into the field of immediate practical necessity in the foreign exchange markets. The 10 per cent surcharge on dutiable imports would, were it to be continued, strike heavily at the exports of countries like Japan which have had a large and growing market in the United

States for goods of the kinds subject to the surcharge. Through the effect of this on industries in such centres it would in turn tend to reduce their demand for materials supplied by other countries in the normal course of events. The surcharge is currently under consideration in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The United States has, however, said that it sees this trade action as a means of securing revaluation of the currencies of countries which it considers to have an unwarranted advantage over it in point of trade competition because of their existing parities. If and to the extent that other countries were to revalue their currencies, the United States dollar would be devalued in relation to them. The United States Government has chosen this approach to its problem in preference to seeking a formal devaluation of its currency against all other currencies.

Amongst other things that course would involve the United States in altering the value of the dollar in terms of gold. The President has said that his Government does not intend to alter the present dollar price of gold. We have, as yet, no real idea as to what the final response of other major countries to the United States initiative is going to be.

Under the rules of the International Monetary Fund, the exchange parity of any country which is a member of the fund can be altered only if the country itself seeks a change. It seems reasonable to suppose that few, if any, major countries are likely to seek such a change unless and until other countries taken steps to do so. As yet there is no firm indication of concerted action amongst major countries to that end.

On Thursday of last week the Finance Ministers of the European Economic Community, meeting in Brussels, failed to reach agreement on any form of common action in the matter. The foreign exchange markets in Europe were closed last week but have re-opened this week. There have been no formal revaluations on the dollar but the majority of European countries have allowed their buying rates for dollars to exceed the Monetary Fund limits of 1 per cent beyond parity with the dollar. In point of fact, however, the markets so far this week have been fairly steady on the dollar and the dollar has fallen in value in most markets by something in the region of only 2 per cent to 3 per cent below the rates ruling before the markets closed. 1 want to stress that this is likely to be an interim situation since it has done nothing to achieve the more significant realignment of exchange rates which the United States, and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, consider to be necessary. This fact must be borne in mind in all our thinking and calculations. If, of course, a number of major currencies were to seek and obtain adjustments of their exchange parities under the International Monetary Agreement a question could arise as to whether Australia should seek some such adjustment. If such a. situation were to arise, we would need to make the most careful assessment of it from the standpoint of our own interests both international and domestic. But no such situation has arisen yet.

We are keeping closely in touch with developments and studying all possibilities. At the same time we are preserving for ourselves the greatest possible scope for independence of action. If it should come to a decision whether or not to seek some alteration of our exchange parity there will be only one proper basis for decision the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian nation as a whole. Meanwhile, in the state of uncertainty which must prevail until the large issues I have mentioned are crystallised and intentions on the part of major countries become clearer, foreign exchange markets are likely to be very unsettled and changeable. We may also see large movements of funds between financial centres. It will be a matter of adjusting our own exchange dealing arrangements to meet changing situations as they arise.

In this state of uncertainty in the foreign exchange markets it is not possible to settle on a firm exchange rate for the Australian dollar. However, in order to enable overseas transactions to be resumed, it has been decided to continue to fix an exchange rate with the pound sterling on a daily basis. For purposes of the last 3 days trading the existing parity with sterling that is, $A2.1429 for £1 sterling has been maintained. It is true that, as sterling has been traded at a rate about 2 per cent above parity with the United States dollar, this means that at the moment there is, in effect, a similar small appreciation of the Australian dollar in relation to the United States dollar. However, the situation is being reviewed on a day-to-day basis and any short term change in the rate should not, of course, necessarily be taken as an indication as to the long term rate that will eventually be settled for the Australian dollar.

For the time being, and until further notice, banks have been advised that they may undertake foreign exchange transactions in respect of normal trade transactions, other current account payments contractually due, and the reasonable requirements of travellers. Rates of exchange for these transactions are quoted by the banks under arrangements with the Reserve Bank and are based on developments in the London and other main foreign exchange markets overseas.

The Reserve Bank is not yet offering facilities to the banks to cover them for forward transactions and, of course, this limits the scope of banks to offer such cover to their customers. I think this is reasonable in view of the present unsettled circumstances on the foreign exchanges. We will be ready to adjust our position as required in accordance with the emerging situation.

I present the following paper:

International Currency - Ministerial Statement, 26 August 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– At the beginning of his speech, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said, and I agree with this, that his statement is little more than a preliminary assessment. The Prime Minister went on further to suggest that what has happened up to date is only an interim situation since it has done nothing to achieve the more significant realignment of exchange rates which the United States of America and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund consider to be necessary. However, I would like to make one or two observations about the situation on behalf of my Party.

I note that the Prime Minister suggests that at all times he will keep in mind the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian nation as a whole. It would seem that in many respects the action which the United States took in this matter was at least an endeavour to set its own house in order. I think there are one or two signs at the moment where the Australian house also needs to be set in order.

One of the great difficulties in discussions of this type is to separate what might be called the truly trading aspects of international exchange from what sometimes become financial and turn into unhealthy speculative aspects. If one reads between the lines of the Reserve Bank report which was tabled in this House the other day, one can find that there is a great deal about capital inflow into Australia which is not known and which, in my view, ought to be known. Until it is known and catalogued more systematically, the situation as we see it will be made much more dangerous than it is. I think the sort of thinking that is wrong in this matter was also described by the Prime Minister in his speech. The Prime Minister talked of what goes on. He said that we do not have access to the economic dialogues centred in the United States and Europe. What is at stake here is the future of the international monetary arrangements which, as the Prime Minister rightly said, came into operation to assist the smaller countries and the developing countries. The smaller countries and the developing countries are very far removed from either the United States or Europe. It is time that it was realised that more than half of the population of the world lives in developing countries. Australia is a developing country and is a neighbour to the undeveloped part of the world.

I think what was wrong in the present situation was that the United States acted unilaterally in his matter. It ought to have gone to the International Monetary Fund, like anyone else, to make any variation in its exchange rate. Technically, perhaps, the United States has not done that, but it certainly has not observed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As the Prime Minister pointed out, what in essence has been done here in regard to the import charges on trade is in breach of GATT. I hope that in the days ahead of this crisis the Government will stress this point in those councils. I do not know whether we should seek to become one of the Ten. After all, the Ten consists of European countries. What has to be stressed, if we become one of the Ten, is that we are a voice for the developing and undeveloped parts of the world. I think what horrifies people most about crises of this kind is that certain blocks of money measured in billions of dollars can almost seem to be transferred overnight, speculators can have a heyday and the victims are the trade terms of developing parts of the world. If this is the case there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing arrangements.

I hope that the system is not destroyed. I think that the special drawing rights were an improvement. I still have my own views, which in deference to my colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) I will not state, about the future of gold. It seems to me monstrous that in 1971 we still need to have reference to the shibboleth of gold. It seems unfortunate that if we are to have some other currency in the place of gold there will be a certain amount of loss of face on the part of those countries whose currencies cannot be regarded as the paramount one. The fact that there has been only a slight shift of a few points in the last few days indicates that the dollar is still the currency that most people want. It is certainly the currency that most people want to see stay stable. Whether a slight rise in the price of gold would help is not clear. It may be that it will, and this will certainly help the Australian gold industry in the process. Perhaps we could make some slight marginal increase above $35 to, say, $35.50 or $36. I think that these matters are worthy of consideration.

The Opposition has not attempted to make any capital out of the current circumstance because it is a critical circumstance. In the short term a country like Australia cannot do a great deal to influence the position. But I believe that, as in other fields, Australia could have used its position more than it has done. I hope that Australia will, in the future, raise its voice more than it has done. Australia should emphasise that what is at stake here is the stability of currencies and above all the exchange of trade between countries on terms that are reasonable and just to both sides. It seems to me to be wrong that the United States should insist that, in what is essentially a 2-way process - that is the relationship between one currency and another - it alone should be able to influence. I am afraid that it has the economic strength to be able to do that. But it is the preponderance of strength on the part of those who manipulate currency on the one hand and the unorganised nature of those who want to trade on the other hand that seems to me to be the fundamental problem.

I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to keep us informed about this matter in the future. As he promised he has given us a statement. As he said, it is preliminary and really not much has happened in the last few days other than that, the situation has not accelerated further into a crisis. I hope that the position will be maintained. I also hope that Australia can have more influence on the situation in the future than perhaps it has had in the past.

Debate (on motion by Mr Fox) adjourned.

page 768

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will give effect to the Government’s decision announced by the Treasurer to continue payment of bounty on phosphate fertilizers until 31st December 1974. The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1963-1969 is due to expire on 31st October 1971. It provides for payment of $12 per ton on standard superphosphate and $60 per ton of phosphorus pentoxide content of other superphosphates and ammonium phosphate produced and sold for use as fertilizer in Australia. The bounty has been the major factor in keeping selling prices of phosphate fertilizers stable since its introduction in 1963. Con tinuation of the bounty is considered essential to maintain this position in view of the cost situation and marketing difficulties facing primary producers. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 768

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill gives effect to the social service proposals announced in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer. Its main provisions are as follows:

  1. The standard rate of pension will be increased by $1.25 per week for those on full pension. Some partpensioners will receive part of this increase in accordance with details that I shall give in a moment. The basic new rate will be $17.25 per week.
  2. The married rate of pension - applicable also to B class widows - will be increased by $1 per week for those on full pension. Some partpensioners will receive part of this increase. The basic new rate will be $15.25 per week, or $30.50 per week for a married couple.
  3. The wife’s allowance, including allowances payable for unemployment and sickness benefits, will increase by $1 per week.
  4. The adult rate for long-term sickness benefit will increase by $1.25 per week, and the junior rate of 75c per week.
  5. The rate of child endowment for the third and each subsequent child under 16 years in a family is to be increased by 50c per week.
  6. The rate of child endowment for each child under 16 years of age in an approved institution is to be increased by 50c per week.
  7. Children’s allowances for age, invalid and widow pensioners and for unemployment and sickness beneficiaries will increase by $2 per week for the first child and by $1 per week for each other child. This will bring the allowance to a uniform $4.50 per week for all these children.

It is estimated that the pension and allied increases will benefit over 1 million persons, at an annual cost of some $66m. (Quorum formed.) The details are contained in a table which with the concurrence of honourable members T incorporate in Hansard.

The increase in child endowment will cost about $26.5m per year, and will benefit about 1,020,000 children, comprised in about 610,000 families. The total annual cost of the benefits, that is, of pensions and child endowment, included in the present Bill is thus about $92m.

The new benefits, of course, will only operate from the date of the passage of this Bill, so that the extra expenditure for 1971-72 will not reach the full annual figure. On the other hand, the present Budget will bear the full weight of last year’s concessions, which similarly did not Operate for all of last year; and there has also been a growth in the number of recipients of social service benefits, as well as the extra age and invalid pension payday this year. In the upshot, our social services outlay, excluding administrative expenses and capital grants for aged persons homes, etc. will be $l,182m for 1971-72, as against $l,035m for 1970-71, an increase of $147m or 14i per cent.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I would remind the honourable member for Sydney that there is another standing order which also might apply.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, you are going beyond your powers. This standing order must be observed at all times. A quorum is not present, so I ask you to call one. (Quorum formed).

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Let me now deal with some of these matters in greater detail. Standard rate pensioners, whose means as assessed range up to $10 per week and who thus receive full pensions, will get the full increase of $1.25 per week, bringing their rate up to $17.25 per week, exclusive of any supplementary assistance for which they may be eligible. The full increase of $1.25 per week will also be payable to standard rate pensioners qualifying for part of the interim 50c increase given last April, that is, to those with means as assessed between $10 and $11 per week. Standard rate pensioners with means assessed between $11 and $13.50 per week will receive graduated increases calculated in such a way that the pension and means as assessed together will total $27.25 per week plus, of course, any extra allowances for dependent children.

Similary, married rate pensioners whose means as assessed range up to $8.50 per week, and who thus receive full pensions, will get the full increase of $1 per week, bringing their rate up to $15.25 per week each ($30.50 per week for a married pensioner couple). The full increase of $1 per week will also be payable to married rate pensioners qualifying for any part of the interim 50c increase given last April, that is, to those with means as assessed between $8.50 and $9.50 per week. Married rate pensioners with means as assessed between $9.50 and $11.50 per week will receive graduated increases calculated to ensure that the pension and means as assessed will total $23.75 per week ($47.50 per week for a married couple) plus, of course, any extra allowances for dependent children.

A somewhat similar position will apply in the case of class B widows who also receive the married rate. Those with means as assessed ranging up to $10 per week or between $10 and $11 per week will receive an increase of $1 per week. Class B widows with means as assessed between $11 and $13 per week will receive graduated increases calculated in such a way that the pension and means as assessed will total $25.25 per week. In this year, when there is a real need to avoid any Budget policy which would add to the tendency of prices to rise, it has been thought desirable to direct the increased rate to those who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pension.

Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It is worth noting that the increases in the base rate are cumulative upon the interim 50c increase given last April. Measured from budget to budget the standard rate pension has been increased by $1.75 a week, and the married rate pension by $1.50 a week. This is by a considerable margin the greatest rise in a similar period in the whole history of Australian pensions. In terms of buying power, the basic pension is now considerably higher than it was at the time of the last Budget, and is in fact higher than it was ever been in the whole history of Australian pensions. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the following table which sets out the percentage increase between the 1970 Budget and the 1971 Budget.

It will be seen from that table that there has been a 5.4 per cent increase in the consumer price index; an 11.3 per cent increase in the standard pension rate and a 10.9 per cent increase in the married pension rate. Thus, between last Budget and this, pension rates have risen more than twice as fast as prices - that is to say that pensions as provided in this Budget will have an increased purchasing power. In fact, if in this Budget we had adjusted pensions strictly in accordance with prices, the standard rate pension would now be only $16.34 a week and the married rate pension $14.49 a week.

Ever since 1949, when Labor lost office, the trend has been to increase pension rates faster than prices, so that the real value of the pension continues to rise. If the old Chifley pension had been adjusted strictly in accordance with prices, it would today be only $10.80 a week. The difference between that figure and the rates now proposed is one measure of the increase in the real value of the pension during this period. It does not, of course, measure the whole of the improvement, since in addition we have brought in supplementary assistance and extra allowances for children, besides introducing new fringe benefits whose average value is of the order of $5 a week. Another provision of the Bill is to increase the wife’s allowance which is paid in certain cases to wives of age and invalid pensioners, who are themselves ineligible for the pension, from its present level of $7 a week to $8 a week. This increase will also apply in relation to recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits.

I now come to the provisions of the Bill which are specifically oriented towards the family and the welfare of children. First let me deal with the child endowment provisions in this Bill. At present child endowment is payable at the rate of 50c a week for the first child under 16 years in a family, $1 a week for the second child, $1.50 for the third child, with cumulative increases of 25c a week for each subsequent child. Endowment in respect of children in institutions is paid at a flat rate of $1.50 a week. Child endowment is now an accepted feature of family income and for some time the Government has been concerned that the larger family has been more adversely affected by wage and price increases than the smaller family with, say, one or two children. Wage increases which have to be spread over a greater number of dependants reduce the relative improvement in the position of the whole family.

This Government believes that at the present time an effective way of providing real benefits to the larger family is by way of increased child endowment payments. Accordingly, the proposal in the Bill before the House is to increase endowment for the third and each subsequent child in a family by 50c a week. This will mean that the rate of endowment in respect of the third child in a family will become $2 a week, in respect of the fourth child $2.25 a week and so on, increasing by 25c for each additional child. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the following table which sets out the weekly rates that will be payable for families of different sizes:

The rate of endowment payable in respect of the 20,000 children under 16 years of age in approved institutions will be increased by 50c to $2 a week.

Mr Speaker, the child endowment increases in the Bill will, as I have said, benefit more than one million children, spread in more than 600,000 families. The increases I have just outlined will help ease the financial stress facing many families. It must be remembered also that there are many other benefits and concessions provided by the Commonwealth that tend to offset the cost to parents of maintaining children. The cost to revenue of providing Income tax concessional deductions for children, including deductions in respect of education, exceeds some $250m a year. Through its various scholarship schemes the Commonwealth expends some $4Om a year. Assistance is given to families via the National Health Act where the family insurance rates for a family with children - however many children - are pegged at the rate applicable to a married couple without children; special assistance is also provided for handicapped children and children of pensioners, the last a matter which I shall deal with more fully in a moment. All these exemplify the attitude of a responsible government, which is to provide benefits in respect of children in a way which will assist in making them better citizens of tomorrow.

Now let me come to a most significant part of the Bill - a massive increase in the child’s allowance payable to all pensioners - age, invalid and widows, as well as to the recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits. Many social workers have drawn attention to the special hardship suffered by what are called one parent families and by families where the breadwinner is incapacitated. The Government has examined their representations very carefully, and now proposes to increase the payment for the first child, which at present is $2.50 a week, by $2 a week, making it $4.50 a week. The payment for children other than the first, which is at present $3.50 a week, will be increased to the same uniform level of $4.50 a week.

Since this is a key feature of our social services structure, perhaps the House will allow me to say something of the history of these allowances. The child’s allowance was introduced in 1943, and when the Chifley Government went out of office in 1949 it was paid only in respect of the first child of invalid pensioners and age pensioners who were invalids, and only at the rate of 90c a week - equal to about $2.25 a week at today’s prices. . Widows under the Chifley Government received no child’s allowance at all, except for the 50c a week difference between the class A widow’s pension and age and invalid pension rates then current. [Quorum formed.]

The Chifley 90c, which was payable only to certain invalid pensioners, was increased to $1.15 in 1951, and in 1956 second and subsequent children became eligible for an allowance of $1 a week. This allowance was then extended to the second and subsequent children of widows.

In 1961 the allowance payable for the first child of invalid pensioners and age pensioners who were invalids was increased to $1.50 a week, as also was the allowance for the second and subsequent children of widows. In 1963 payments for the second and subsequent children of invalid pensioners and age pensioners who were invalids, were increased to $1.50 a week and a payment of $1.50 a week was introduced for the first child of widows. For the first time widows with dependent children received a mother’s allowance of $4 a week. Tn 1965 the children of all age pensioners were included, and a ‘guardian’s allowance’ of $4 a week was introduced for single pensioners who had the custody of a child.

In 1968 the rate for all children was increased to $2.50 a week. In 1969 the rate for the second and subsequent chi. dien was increased to $3.50 a week, and mothers’ and guardians’ allowances were increased to $6 a week where there was a child under 6 or an invalid child. Now, in this present Budget, it is proposed to increase the rate for the first child from $2.50 a week to $4.50 a week, and the rate for the second and subsequent children from $3.50 a week to the same level of $4.50 a week.

I have set out this history in some detail, because it shows the development of a plan to provide an entirely new treatment of children in bereaved or deprived circumstances. From the position under the Chifley Government, where a widow received nothing extra for her children beyond her 50c a week, and invalid pensioners got only 90c a week allowance altogether, however many children they had, we have now progressed to the point where all children of pensioners- - age, invalid and widow - are to receive $4.50 a week each; where all widows with dependent children are entitled to a mother’s allowance of $4 a week; where some widows are also entitled to an extra mother’s allowance of S2 a week; and where some invalid and age pensioners are also entitled to a guardian’s allowance of $4 a week or $6 a week. All these childoriented allowances are, of course, additional to the very substantial increases in the real value of the base pensions which have been made since the time of the Chifley regime, and they are additional to the fringe benefits which have been introduced since that time.

With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the following table showing the position of a widow with dependent children.

Each budget brought in by our LiberalCountry Party Government has brought some real improvement in social services. It is right and proper that this should be so. The standard of the Australian community has risen, and pension recipients should share in that rise. In recent years, each budget has laid special emphasis upon one aspect, in accordance with an overall plan. This Budget, as I have said, is especially oriented towards the needs of dependent children, particularly towards the needs of children in deprived families, where bereavement or invalidity has struck. I do not think that the House or the country will disapprove of this orientation.

In accordance with established practice, it is proposed that the pension increases provided under the Bill will operate from and including the paydays following Royal Assent. The increase in endowment will operate in respect of the endowment period commencing immediately after Royal Assent and the increases in unemployment and sickness benefit rates will become payable from the first weekly payment falling due following Royal Assent. The Bill before the House is another practical demonstration of the Government’s policy of assisting first those in the greatest need - that is, pensioners with little or no other financial means. In addition, as I have said, our social services programme for this year is child-oriented.

Recent Liberal-Country Party governments have pioneered several new fields such as aid to handicapped children, subsidies to Meals on Wheels and voluntary bodies; a greater programme of decentralisation of operations; a new approach to rehabilitation services; an expanded programme of aged persons’ housing; and a complete overhaul of the scheme of Com.mouwealth Employees’ Compensation. While we now see all social service payments at a record level, we still have a long way to go. No worthwhile government will ever feel that it has solved all the social welfare problems which confront it, but it will always seek to deal with them as best as it can within available resources. This Government places its greatest emphasis upon improvements in social welfare. Under previous Liberal-Country Party Governments we have made great strides and under future Liberal-Country Party Governments will make even greater advances. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Hayden:

– 1 would like to ask the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) one question. He has refused to appear with me in a confrontation on the television programme This Day Tonight’, thus effectively preventing any public debate on this subject tonight.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order. Is he moving the adjournment of the debate?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, I am moving the adjournment of the debate and f ask the Minister why be is frightened to meet me in this debate on television.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will be out of order. The question now is that this debate be now adjourned and that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. All those in favour say ‘Ave’, ail those against ‘No’. 1 think the ayes have it.

Mr Wentworth:

– By leave, may 1 say that the reason-

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Wentworth:

– May I have leave?

Mr Hayden:

– The Minister may have leave as long as I will have-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There are 4 honourable members on their feet. I ask them all to resume their seats.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Hansard will disregard the comments from the Minister and the honourable member for Oxley subsequent to my asking them and other honourable members to resume their seats.

Mr Wentworth:

– 1 ask leave.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Kennedy:

– Yes.

Mr Hayden:

– Provided I am given leave-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat. The Chair is not interested in provisos.

Mr Barnard:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to see that justice is done in this matter. The Minister has been asked a question by the honourable member for Oxley. We will grant leave to the Minister to make his statement, provided he reciprocates.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I will reciprocate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is interested only in whether or not leave is granted. The Chair is not interested in any proviso.

Mr Wentworth:

– I will reciprocate, and when I next ask the honourable member for Oxley a question I will-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar- Minister for Social Services)- The only reason why 1 was expressing some reluctance to appear tonight on the programme ‘This Day Tonight’ was that I shall be appearing on the news programme and 1 did not want to over-expose myself. But in view of what the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has said, I think that 1 should appear. 1 shall be delighted to appear on television tonight with him and I am sorry for the viewers that I shall have to be on twice.

page 773

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government’s proposals in the repatriation war compensation field. The various improvements to existing pensions and allowances which were foreshadowed in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) are incorporated in the Bill now before the House. These will benefit the more seriously disabled ex-servicemen and the widows and children of deceased exservicemen whose death was related to war service. Specifically the Bill provides for increased payments to ex-servicemen who are totally incapacitated from war related disabilities or tuberculosis; to those whose incapacity allows them to work only part time or intermittently; to those who need the assistance of an attendant; to those who have lost one or more limbs or an eye; and to war widows and the children of ex-servicemen whose death was related to war service. The Schedules to the Repatriation Act express pension rates in fortnightly amounts, but it has long been the practice for honourable members to refer to weekly amounts. I shall continue that practice in explaining benefit changes.

I shall now proceed to explain the proposed changes in more detail. The special (TPI) rate, which is payable not only to the totally and permanently disabled, but also to the war blinded and the temporarily totally incapacitated, will be increased by $3.50 to $42.50 a week. The intermediate rate of pension, which is payable to those whose incapacity from war related disabilities or tuberculosis enables them to work only part time or intermittently, and who are consequently unable to earn a living wage, will be increased by $1.75 to $30.25 a week. Attendants allowances payable in addition to war pension to the most severely disabled ex-servicemen are to be increased. The higher rate of $14, payable to the war blinded who are also afflicted with total loss of speech or total deafness, and to those who have had both arms amputated, is to be increased by $2 to $16 a week. The lower rate of $8.50, which is payable to those who are blind, paralysed or have suffered severe amputations, is to be increased by $1 to $9.50 a week.

In keeping with the tenor of the foregoing proposals, which provide improved benefits for the more seriously incapacitated, increased payments are also proposed for all those who have lost one or more limbs or an eye. Those amputees who have always been paid the equivalent of the special (TPI) rate will receive an increase of $3.50 a week. Amounts which are, in addition to pension, payable in respect of other amputations or the loss of an eye will be increased by various amounts according to the degree of incapacity suffered. The new amounts payable, will range from $1.70 to $11.20 a week. I should add that the $11.20 a week has been raised by $4.10 in this Bill. Increases, are also proposed in rates payable to war widows, to their children, and to those children who have lost both parents. For war widows themselves, the Bill provides an increase of $1.25 raising the basic rate to $17.25 a week. For the first child of an ex-serviceman whose death was related to war service, an increase of $1 a week will be payable, while the rate payable in respect of second and subsequent children will be increased by $2 a week. The new rates for all these children will be $7 a week. For a child who has lost both parents, the increase will be $2 and the new rate will be $14 a week.

As in the past, service pensioners are to receive the benefit of increases in age and invalid pension rates. This Bill contains a minor amendment necessary this year to incorporate into repatriation legislation those increases which do not apply automatically. Honourable members will no doubt appreciate that, although all the war compensation increases proposed in this Bill will be paid in full, the consequent increase in income may affect those also in receipt of means test pensions. For those whose means test pensions are reduced because of their war pension increases, the reduction will vary between 10c and $1, giving an overall result of an increase. For example, a single TPI pensioner in receipt of a service pension will receive an aggregate increase of between $2.50 and $3.40 a week in his total payment, that is, with his TPI payment and the service pension. On the other hand, a TPI pensioner with a wife and 2 children, who also receives a service pension, but with no other means, will receive a total family increase of $5.12 a week. This is because of various liberalisations introduced into the means test pension provisions by this Government in recent years which allow some means test pensioners to receive increases in those pensions as well as the full amount of their war pension increases.

The Bill also appropriates the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent necessary to provide during the current year the additional payment to which the Bill gives effect. The foregoing amendments will come into force on the date on which the amending Act receives royal assent and the pension increases will be paid on and from the first pension payday thereafter. A table which sets out the repatriation Budget details in respect of war pensions and allowances has been prepared and, for the convenience of honourable members, is being circulated with copies of this speech. The measures I have outlined, together with increases granted last April, represent further significant advances in repatriation measures this year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 775

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is the usual practice of the Government to keep the rates of pensions and allowances payable to seaman war pensioners under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act in line with the rates of pensions and allowances payable to other war pensioners under the Repatriation Act. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to raise, in relation to seamen, various rates of pensions and allowances in line with the increases of corresponding rates being made in the Repatriation Bill just introduced. These increases are in accordance with the higher rates announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget speech. Clause 3 of the Bill increases the intermediate rate of war pension by $1.75 per week to $30.25. The intermediate pension is paid to seriously disabled persons whose war caused incapacities render them incapable of working other than on a parttime basis, or intermittently. Clause 3 also increases the pension rates in respect of the children of deceased seamen coming under the Act. The weekly rate for the first child rises by $1 «o $7, and the rate for each other child rises by $2 to $7, thus bringing the weekly rate of pension for each child of a deceased seaman to a uniform amount. Where the mother is dead also, the rate rises by $2 to $14 per week for each child.

Clause 4 substitutes a new First Schedule to the Act to provide for an increase of $1.25 in the weekly rate of pension payable to widows of Australian mariners. The Second Schedule to the Act prescribes allowances for attendants for specially handicapped seaman pensioners. The weekly rate of S8.50 is increased to $9.50 and the $14 rate, payable where both arms have been lost, is increased to SI 6. The Bill does not have to provide for the increase of .$3.50 to S42.50 per week in the rate of TPI pension or for various increases in the weekly amounts payable in respect of the disabilities described in the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act, as the increased rates under that Act will apply automatically to seaman pensioners by virtue of section 22a of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. As usual, the increases in pensions and allowances will be payable on the first pension pay day after the date on which the Bill receives the royal assent. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 775

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament to amend the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act No. 67 of 1961 by removing from that Act the time limitation on Commonwealth contributions towards expenditure by the Western Australian Government on the railway standardisation works in that State. Members will recall that the 1961 Act provided for both standardisation of the main line from Kalgoorlie to Perth and Fremantle and certain works of a developmental nature. These were to facilitate the development of an integrated iron and steel complex at Kwinana based on the iron ore deposits at

Koolyanobbing. The Act also provided for a larger number of new standard gauge locomotives and rolling stock. The Act also provided that the Commonwealth would accept, as a charge against the rail standardisation project, expenditure incurred by Western Australia up to 12 months after the completion date and actually made within 24 months of that date. The completion date was 14th June 1969. That is the date when regular services commenced. This meant that expenditure had to be incurred bv 14th June 1970 and made by 14th June 1971.

Although regular freight and passenger services are now operating on the line, the project is not yet complete. The main reason for this has been the necessity to re-design and expand the marshalling yards and freight terminals brought about by a more rapid increase in traffic than originally expected. Recognising the difficulties encountered by the State the Commonwealth agreed that it would bc reasonable to delete the time limitation and substitute an overall limitation on the cost of the project. Under the 1961 Act the Commonwealth undertook to provide 85 per cent of the total expenditure subject to the time limitation to which I have already referred. The current estimated cost of completing the project is S125m. Accordingly, under the new arrangements, it has been agreed that the Commonwealth contribution will be limited to 85 per cent of this estimated cost, that is, $106,250,000. The Bill before the House amends the 1961 Railway Agreement Act as necessary and ratifies the new agreement which incorporates the above principles. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 776

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As it is now past the time provided for the grievance debate, Order of the Day No. 1 will not be called on.

page 776

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report

Debate resumed from 24th August (vide page 61 1), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the report of the Standing Orders Committee brought up on 20th August 1971 be adopted, and that the standing orders of the House be amended as recommended by that Committee, to come into operation on Tuesday, 28th September 1971.

Upon which Mr Martin had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

Standing order 40 be omitted and the following standing order be inserted in place thereof:

Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on each Tuesday at half-past ten o’clock a.m. and Wednesday at half-past two o’clock p.m., and on each Thursday at half-past ten o’clock a.m. rising at fi o’clock p.m. on each Thursday*. (Quorum formed).

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– Honourable members will recall that on Tuesday last when I was speaking on this matter I sought leave to continue my remarks at a later stage following a series of interjections and a good deal of talk in the chamber. Leave was granted and the sitting was suspended prior to the evening resumption. First of all I wish to explain certain things. It is necessary for me to do this to be able to put my case in the right light as far as the amendment by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) is concerned. The Standing Orders Committee has recommended in relation to the days and hours of sitting:

That unless otherwise ordered the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on each Tuesday and Wednesday at half-past two o’clock p.m., and on each Thursday at half-past ten o’clock a.m.

To this, the honourable member for Banks has moved inter alia:

Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on each Tuesday at half-past ten o’clock a.m. and Wednesday at halfpast two o’clock p.m., and on each Thursday at half-past ten o’clock a.m. rising at 6 o’clock p.m. on each Thursday.

After moving this amendment, the honourable member for Banks said:

This would enable honourable members who can go home on Thursday night to make their arrangements accordingly.

This is the very thing to which I object: I oppose the amendment and I wish to give the reasons why I oppose it. It is recognised that, if it is known that the House proposed to rise at 6 p.m., honourable members will want to leave the House at 2 p.m.. 3 p.m. or at other times before 6 p.m. because they desire to get home. The honourable member for Banks has interjected that he stays here all the time. He may stay or he may not stay. I do not know. I am not making an attack on him personally. I am talking of what happens. No honourable member can deny - the Party Whips, of which I am one will know this - that many members who live in Sydney and Melbourne are asking for leave to get on an early plane home. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) said some very nice words which I appreciated. He said he was very sympathetic with me in that I may have a job to keep Govermment members in the House all the time. If any honourable member should know about this, it should be the honourable member for Grayndler for the simple reason that be was Whip when the Labor Party was in government. We also sat on Fridays on different occasions when the Labor Party was in government. What happened? On a number of occasions as early as 3 o’clock the Labor government, realising that there was not a quorum decided to lift the House. This is a wellknown fact and honourable members can look in Hansard to prove it. Therefore, I believe that the House should sit right through until 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m., or whatever time is set on a Thursday night. Speaking personally, if the House rose at 6 p.m. I would certainly stay here until that time - 1 have never left before then - and if I could get to Melbourne, perhaps I could stay there and continue home the 165 miles by car the next day. I believe that this amendment is really only encouraging honourable members to ask for leave to get away earlier than the time the House will rise. Can the honourable member for Banks say that because he stays until the House rises he is confident that other honourable members will do this? I am not, and I have proof of what has happened in the past. Even during the last few weeks and during the debate on the Supply Bill, I have proof that honourable members just will not stay here. They want to get away. I am very happy that we are returning to the old system of sitting on 3 days for 3 weeks and then having a week off. I say this for the simple reason that when the House met, under the present system, on the Tuesday of the first week I had to leave home on the Sunday. I would be here on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,

Thursday and Friday and then return up country again only to leave home again on the Sunday because the House would be meeting on the Monday. Therefore I was travelling on 12 days out of the 14. Honourable members have a much better chance of conducting their business in their electorates and also in this House under the old method. When (he Standing Orders Committee was discussing this matter 1 said that if it wanted my opinion on the different proposals it should look at Hansard to see how I voted when the matter was before the House. Honourable members were saying that they would have a great opportunity to stay in Canberra over the weekend, to attend committee meetings and to carry out work they could not do at other times. But how many honourable members stayed over the week end? Some honourable members told the House at that time that they would not stay here. Only one or two stayed and the whole thing was just a farce. I appreciate very much that this motion will be carried and that we will return to the cycle of 3- weeks sitting and 1-week up. I believe it is in the best interests of all honourable members. Of course, the system under which the Parliament is operating now suits those honourable members who represent city electorates in Melbourne, Sydney and some in Brisbane but it does not suit honourable members who should receive consideration, those who have to come from the far flung places of this Commonwealth to this House. It does not suit them, and it is not in the best interests of sane government in Australia. Therefore, I support the motion that standing order 40 be carried and hope that the amendment will be defeated. I do not think it is in the best interests of the country. I have some admiration, shall 1 say, for the honourable member for Banks for bringing forward an amendment which he thinks is a good one but I do not think it is good and naturally I will vote against it.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I basically support the recommendation brought down by the Standing Orders Committee. ] seconded the amendment moved by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) because I think it has some merit. I think it is fair to say that the new system we adopted - the 4-day system meeting in 2 consecutive weeks - has proven to be ineffectual inasmuch as honourable members do not stay in Canberra over the Saturday and Sunday. In fact, it makes it much more difficult to get back to your home over the weekend. Coupled with this is the situation that arises whereby it is impossible for members to return to their electoral offices to deal with electoral work for a period of 12 days. Coming to Canberra on the Tuesday returning home on the Friday, leaving again first thing on the Monday morning of the next week and staying in Canberra until leaving on Thursday evening or Friday morning means that honourable members are away from their electoral offices for 12 days. Therefore, I prefer to return to the old system. In the first place I voted to retain the old system.

The proposal advanced by the honourable member for Banks is basically this: Most honourable members are in Canberra on the Tuesday morning some time after °a.m. It would not be too difficult for honourable members from the closer capital cities - Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide - to be here by 10.30 a.m. Most honourable members from the far flung areas are here in Canberra the night before, anyway. Therefore, it would be possible for the House to meet at 10.30 a.m. on the Tuesday, in which case the House would have 2i hours of business, before the luncheon adjournment at 1 p.m. That 24 hours could be well compensated for by the House rising at 6 p.m. on the Thursday allowing honourable members who live in the closer capital cities to return to their homes on the Thursday evening and for those honourable members who come from Perth, parts of north Queensland and other outlying areas who normally stay overnight anyway, to return home at the normal time. This system does have the advantage of 2) hours compensation either way- If the House meets on Thursday evening the dinner adjournment is from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and the House rarely sits beyond 10.30 p.m. which means that effectively there is only 2i hours debating time after the dinner recess on Thursday. I think it would be beneficial for many honourable members to be back in their homes on Thursday evenings. This would bring about a situation where they were away from their families on only Tuesday evening and Wednesday evening and would be back in their offices first thing Friday morning. I think every honourable member is aware of the fact that having to pack one’s bag, checking out of hotels, getting on planes and getting back to one’s electoral office at midday Friday leaves most honourable members reasonably tired. Therefore, it is difficult for them to give their time for the rest of Friday afternoon to constituents. But if they were in their homes on Thursday evening in most cases they would be able to have a night’s sleep, even if they arrived home late Thursday evening, and be fresh on the Friday to see their constituents. Such an arrangement would allow for honourable members to be in their electorate offices on Mondays and Fridays. I think this is important. I do not mind coming to Canberra for an extra week or for any extra weeks, but 1 think this system of being locked up in this political incubator for 5 days in 2 consecutive weeks is too much for most honourable members to stand. I think everyone has expressed the opinion that wandering around the corridors and being in the House for debates for so many hours in one week is too much. It leaves most people fairly dull by the end of the week. The other system which is now proposed with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Banks, which 1 hope will be carried, would allow for as much discussion and for the House to debate as many issues as it does under this system and allow honourable members to remain home for an extra night during the week.

Mr Turnbull:

– It would allow some members.

Mr KEATING:

– It would allow some members, but those honourable members who live further away than most of the capital cities, generally leave the night before anyway, and return home the morning afterwards. So I do nol think they are inconvenienced. Therefore, 1 support the amendment.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I shall vote against this amendment for the reasons put forward by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) which I felt were sound reasons. I regret to some extent the terms of the motion, although I feel certain that the House will carry it. A good deal of mis-information has been given in this debate. I remind honourable members of the facts. It has been said during the course of this debate that the system of 2 weeks on, 1 week off, was given a trial and it did not work. Many honourable members have said this, including the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). He said that everybody was going away over the short week end, that they were not staying in Canberra, that it was a farce and things of this character. The truth of the matter is this: Owing to the rather extraordinary events of the last session the system was put into operation for only 1 weekend. It was never tried. I do not suppose this kind of disturbance is likely to occur again in the history of this House. It has occurred only once. But because of this disturbance the system was never tried.

We have heard much imaginary nonsense from some honourable members. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) spoke about members being killed in the rush. There have been other statements. This was all imagination, because the system was tried on only 1 weekend during the whole of the session so, in point of fact, it has not been tried properly. Honourable members may feel that they do not want it. They are perfectly entitled to do so. The wishes of honourable members should be respected in this regard. Their wishes will be enforced, because honourable members will vote and naturally the majority vote will carry the day. However they vote will determine the question. But I think we should put the facts straight and forget the kind of fantasy that has been emerging from the lips of speaker after speaker. They have said that we have tried the system and it has not worked. The facts are, if we look at the record, that it was tried for only 1 weekend.

To some extent I also regret the proposed change because I believe it will leave less time for the business of the House and of the Senate. Two things which have happened should be brought to the notice of honourable members. The first, which I for one think is good, is that the Senate has established a series of committees. This House is going in for more committee work too. I believe that the time required for the business of the House and committees will tend to increase. Therefore, the step now proposed is a retrograde step because it will cut into the ability of members to carry out properly their real job. I regret the downgrading of the work of this House which has appeared in this debate. I know that honourable members have duties outside this House. They have duties to their constituents and in their constituencies, but the proper and most important work of members is in this House, in the committees and in the party meetings which are ancillary to the work of this House. This is what members are really here for, although I would be the first to agree that there is real work to be done in the constituencies also.

This House will be less effective if all of us think only of what we are to do in our constituencies, in the Liberal Patty, in the Labor League or whatever it may be. I know that a good member will keep in touch with his constituency. He is here to represent his constituency so he needs to meet his constituents to find out their views. He wants to get from them the feeling which will help him in his vote and his conduct in the House. But let us remember that this is a means to an end. The real business of all honourable members is here in the House, in the committees and in the party meetings which go along with being a parliamentarian. Honourable members perhaps will find that the shortage of time will be worse than they think, because not only is the weight of committee work very properly being increased but also, as honourable members will know and as those on the other side of the House would be the first to admit, because it is the business of the Opposition perhaps to oppose, in the last session and, indeed, in this session, we have had the use of procedural devices to interrupt and obstruct the business of the House in a way that it has never been done before, certainly not in the 20-odd years that I have been a member. In the last 2 or 3 weeks of the last session, which was a crowded session at the end, a great proportion - perhaps 30 per cent or 40 per cent - of the time of the House was taken up by procedural motions, idiotic points of order and things of that character. I note that this kind of practice is appearing again in the ranks of the Opposition.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think that the Minister is getting a little wide of the question before the House. The question before the House is whether it shall accept the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee or an amendment which proposes to change the sitting hours to include 10.30 as the time of meeting on a Tuesday morning and- 6 p.m. as the time to adjourn on a Thursday. What has the matter of procedures and obstructions in the House to do with the question we are considering?

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, on that point of order: I was pointing out that the hours of sitting must be made adequate to the business of the House. I am pointing out that the House has taken longer than usual to transact its business and I am forecasting that, on the conduct of the Opposition during the last few days, it would seem that this kind of obstruction will continue and therefore the House will need more time to get through ils business.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I understand the relevance of the Minister’s remarks to the motion before the House.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to continue in this vein. I just wanted to point out the facts to honourable members. They will find, I fear, that because of the new tactics of obstruction which the Opposition is making a practice of at present, it will take a long time to get through the normal business of the House.

Mr Keating:

– Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the Minister has concluded his remarks. I anticipated the point of order. I was going to advise the Minister that he was getting away from the subject matter of the motion.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I have said what I wanted to say, Mr Speaker.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I support the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee and oppose the amendment. I agree entirely with the first part of the speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), but after 16 years in this House I should not like the news to leak into my electorate that I did agree with him - for the first time. However, his final remarks did not, in my opinion, touch on either the motion or the amendment. I am not reflecting on your opinion, Mr Speaker, because there may have been some relevance in those remarks. The Minister claimed that the Opposition was being obstructive. Most of the obstruction was retaliation. Honourable members will recall that in the last week of the last period 19 bills were foisted onto the House which was allowed only 21 hours of debating time. The gag was applied to important measures. Yet apparently the Opposition is supposed to sit here day after day and have its nose rubbed in the dirt without taking remedial measures. T do not think we would be worthy of an Opposition if we did not take measures.

I will outline the reasons why 1 oppose the amendment which provides for a 10.30 start on Tuesday mornings. The mover of the amendment has not been a member for very long and he would not understand that there are many parliamentary committees which meet every Tuesday morning, some meetings being public inquiries. One such committee is the Public Accounts Committee. Other committees include the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr Martin:

– The committee members get paid for their meetings. They could meet later.

Mr COPE:

– YOU have had your say; surely I can have my say.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr COPE:

– The honourable member said that members can be here at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesdays. This is not so of all members. Some members also would have a dickens of a job getting home on Thursdays. There can be transport difficulties particularly with aircraft. They would find it difficult to be here by 10.30 of a Tuesday morning. It has been said that most members from remote electorates come here of a Monday night. That may be so in some cases, but not in every case. I know that a lot of Queensland members come to Canberra on Tuesday mornings. They would lose the Monday nights in their homes or their electorates.

Mr Jacobi:

– The same with South Australia.

Mr COPE:

– -This applies to South Australia as well. I have no complaint about the views put forward by the honourable member. I am only expressing the view which I think everyone has agreed with over the years. In my opinion the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee that we should revert to a 3-day week is acceptable to the majority of members.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:
Fisher

– The honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) was good enough to show me his amendment before he moved it. However, I am afraid I cannot agree with it because I do not think he has taken into consideration the difficulties of members who travel much further than between Canberra and Sydney or Canberra and Melbourne. I agree with what the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) said about committee work on Tuesday mornings. Also we need to acknowledge that Cabinet works on a Tuesday morning. This is the regular meeting time for Cabinet and it is necessary, whatever government is in power, for Cabinet to meet and carry on its business.

Take the position of a Queensland member. If Parliament were to meet on a Tuesday morning I would have to travel to Canberra on the Monday. If this were to happen we might as well retain the present 4-day week. 1 would need to travel for most of Monday in order to be here for Tuesday morning sittings.

Mr Turnbull:

– You would also have to travel on Sunday.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– If we have sittings of 3 days a week it would not apply. If we adopted the amendment moved by the honourable member for Banks I would have to travel to Canberra on Monday. The honourable member’s amendment provides that business would stop at 6 o’clock on a Thursday night. If my memory is correct, I think the air services could not get me even to Brisbane on a Thursday night. Apparently my Queensland colleagues and I would be expected to sit around and twiddle our thumbs while members who come from Sydney went home. Why can we not sit for 3 hours on a Thursday night? Why should we throw that time away? In other words, the honourable member for Banks is saying: ‘Do away with the time that is now given for committee work, do away with the time allotted for Cabinet discussions that are so necessary in the scheme of things and let the Sydney and Melbourne folk go home on Thursday nights’. Honourable members who do not live in Sydney or. Melbourne would still have to wait interstate to catch their planes on Friday morning. Therefore, I believe the honourable member’s amendment does not help at all. If we accept the amendment moved we may as well stick to the present system of sitting 4 days a week. T think that is all that needs to be said.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– As a member of the Standing Orders Committee I will support the proposal to revert to the former pattern of sitting days. I also advocate a change back to the old sitting times, although they are actually not under discussion at the moment. We have tried the system in which the House sits 4 days a week for 2 weeks and is in recess for the third. This system came into operation on 13 th October 1970. I agree with those members who say that this arrangement has not been truly tried. I believe that the Tuesday morning of the second week, when we met on a Monday, should have been used for the purposes of Parliament. Committees could have been held at some other time or even could have sat when the House was in session. Many of our parliamentary duties are carried out while the House is sitting. I attended a two hourlong committee meeting yesterday which were held by members from this side of the House. Committees could sit while the House was sitting if there was a proper arrangement by the Whips to pair members attending meetings on joint committees. So I feel that the system of 4-day a week sittings possibly did not get a fair trial.

The 4-day a week sitting arrangement would be much more advantageous for members from distant places, especially those from Western Australia, because they could stay in Canberra over the weekend between the Friday sitting day and the Monday sitting day. However, folk who come from Sydney and Melbourne can be home in three-quarters of an hour or one hour. Of course, they go home every weekend except when they have had to attend to committee work here.

I would like to stress one thing about this Parliament. No parliament in the world has members who travel so much or so far to their parliamentary duties as do members of this Parliament. A Western Australian member who flies from Perth to Canberra at the beginning of a week travels almost the distance from London to Moscow. They fly the same distance back to Perth at the end of the week. That example illustrates the distances that members travel in Australia. So the Standing Orders Committee and the House have to work out a fair balance as between the time members of Parliament spend at home and the time they have to spend here.

The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) said that our proper function is to be in this Parliament. 1 agree. But anyone who neglects his electorate will not be re-elected to this place. There we have it in a nutshell. No-one can neglect his electorate and survive in this Parliament. So what is the use of talking a lot of rot about what one can do in the national Parliament if one neglects one’s home base. No army will attack a new area without consolidating its home base. No member of Parliament can survive in this place unless he does his duty as well as he can in his electorate. It is plain nonsense to say that this place is not important. None of us in this place would say that. This is the most important legislature in Australia, bar none. We will not underrate the work done here.

The time spent by members in Parliament is time given to the nation’s legislation which affects every man woman and child from Cape York to Hobart, from Sydney to Perth and from Brisbane to Geraldton. This place is vital in the parliamentary system of Australia. We all appreciate that all members in this Parliament are sincere and hard working, more so than we ever had in years gone by. Next month I will have been in this place for 25 years and I can look back over many Prime Ministers and even to the time when the Chifley Labor Government was in office.

Mr Reynolds:

– You will see a good few more, too.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I hope so. I remember that 25 years ago Tasmanian members had to travel to Canberra by boat and train and they stayed the whole session here. Members now travel by plane and we can get home to our electorates each weekend not only for family reasons - and they are very important reasons - but in order to look after other matters. The people of Australia now demand that then member be available in the same way as they demand that their doctor be available to them. As a matter of fact, I think we are far more available than doctors. Indeed, some doctors will not come to patients any more; patients have to go to the doctors.

The problems of the country have multiplied with the type of life we are living today. Life today has many more pressures and the problems have multiplied. The work of a member at home is a vital adjunct to his work in Parliament. We spend about 75 hours a week at our work. Not many of us in this Parliament would spend less. That total includes, of course, work done here in Canberra. Some 32 years after the 1939 Budget, which amounted to $200m, this Commonwealth has a Budget of over $8,900m. The intensity, extent and quantity pf the work here have trebled in the interval. Our work in our electorates also has trebled. Unfortunately we still have the same number of staff to help us handle this work - only 1 secretary. Members of the Opposition front bench have not been given any additional assistance.

Just in passing, I believe that the Government should give consideration to creating a pool of 6 typists for the use of members of our front bench who have to research for and prepare important speeches and keep up to date with the Government on every issue with their field. But though the work has trebled our facilities have remained the same. Air transport brings us to Canberra quickly and takes us home quickly and I feel that because of the volume of work at home we must continue to have enough time to attend to our electorates. There is no doubt the 3-week cycle did crowd in on this. We could not spend every Monday and every Friday afternoon with our constituents and with a fortnight away things do mount up. This applies in electorates in which people have problems. Not every electorate perhaps has the same number of problems but we have to try and get a balance betweeen the time we spend at home and the time we spend in Canberra. The 3-day week is all right on the condition that we spend more weeks in Canberra. This is the secret.

The old system involved 3 days in Canberra. We came up and started on Tuesday afternoon at 2.30 and finished at midnight on Thursday. This is what we are going back to. We sit on Tuesday afternoon and night, Wednesday afternoon and night and Thursday morning, afternoon and night. That is not sufficient time to handle all the legislation, as we found at the end of the last sessional period. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) mentioned a moment ago that we discussed 19 Bills in 22 hours.

Mr Kelly:

– Come on Gil, we want to have a go.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I would have finished a lot sooner, but now you have upset my thoughts. Why can you not keep quiet until I finish? Now I will have to forget all about that.

Mr Kelly:

– Sit down.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I will sit down when I am ready. A lot of honourable members get up here and keep on speaking until their time is up. This is my first speech this session and no-one will stop me till my time runs out.

Mr Kelly:

– Now, where was I?

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is how discourteous you were to me. I do not appreciate it very much. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was speaking about what you said regarding the concertinaing of legislation at the end of the autumn sessional period. If we could spend more weeks in Canberra on the 3-day week basis we could get through the legislation in an even, orderly fashion. None of us would mind spending an additional 3 or 4 weeks here if we did not have to sit past midnight on any night and if the Government spread the debate of legislaton much more evenly as was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) after the fiasco at the end of the autumn sessional period. This is important and I would not vote for the 3-day week if we were not assured of spending more time here to deal with the legislation which, as I have said, has trebled in quantity in the last 20-odd years and in many respects is more important, too. The 3- week cycle did break down because so many honourable members had to go home on Friday afternoon. Some were unfairly criticised for doing this. As the Opposition Whip let me say that the Government Whip and I had to deal with all the pairs that this necessitated. We have to do this every day in fact, but Fridays were a nightmare. I am glad to be getting away from it because we used to have 13 or 14 honourable members on each side who needed to be paired. We had to (et most of those people go home at that time or they would not have arrived home on Friday night. For instance, if we did not let the Western Australians and the north Queenslanders go at 2 o’clock on Friday afternoon they would have had to stay the night and go home the next day and that is not fair.

Mr Scholes:

– They would not get home for the weekend at all.

Mr DUTHIE:

– No, they would not. All the honourable members we had to pair on Friday afternoons had to travel long distances and we were doing it for sheer humanitarian reasons. On the matter of work I just want to make the point that we as members of Parliament are understaffed. When I was in the United States last year I checked the staffing arrangements very carefully. Every Congressman in the United States has 8 on his staff and every senator. has 14. Yet the moment any salary rises for members of Parliament in Australia are mentioned or even dreamed about there are critical editorials in newspapers throughout the country. Every time we increase expenditure to try and make ourselves more effective as members of Parliament the Press immediately starts a campaign against us and it is completely outrageous and completely mindless and without any knowledge of what goes on in other countries. So I make the plea that the Government should have a look at the staffing position again, particularly for our front bench members. I assume that the new Assistant Ministers will get a secretary - I guess that is understandable - and I think that our men on the front bench deserve secretarial help with all the work they have to do. So I will vote for the 3- day week hoping, firstly, that there will be no sitting past midnight because if this happens we will cause trouble using the Standing Orders. I think it is outrageous and wrong to expect honourable members who spend 14 or 15 hours a day in this place to sit past midnight. Secondly, I hope that we are given more time to consider legislation.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) has used his full entitlement of a quarter of an hour and taken up the time of the House when he knows that a lot of other honourable members want to speak. I would suggest that this matter is one on which many people are waffling and saying what they would do and what they would not do, trying to make good fellows of themselves by telling us how hard they work in their electorates. If they got up, spoke up and shut up we would not need to sit anywhere near as long as we do and we would not need to sit an extra day of the week. But this place being what it is we have to take people as they come.

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

– What about you?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– That includes me. This prepared amendment shows the complete immaturity of the honourable members who have moved it. They are only new to the place so they do not really understand what is going on. They have not caught up yet and are not likely to do so for a long time. I am all in favour of sitting on the Tuesday morning. I think it is a complete waste of valuable time to shut this House on Tuesday morning.

Mr Fulton:

– Cabinet sits then.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– 1 know that Cabinet Ministers say that they must have time to sit but they can sit during the rest of the week. They do now. The honourable members who sit on committees and are paid for doing so say that they must have the time to sit. They can sit on Mondays. It . is a paid job and they should be prepared to do it and not sit and take a sitting fee on the day that the House is sitting. I know I have done it myself for years but I am just stating the facts. So we should be sitting on Tuesday morning. We should be sitting full time 3 days a week at least. There is nowhere near enough time given to the consideration of Bills. It has been rightly said by many honourable members that the volume of business has become so large now that it is impossible for Bills to be given full consideration. There is no opportunity given for them to be considered at the Committee stage. They are put through before honourable members have had time to sit down’ and examine them. But for anyone to say that in exchange for Tuesday morning we should rise at 6 o’clock on Thursday is completely ridiculous. Only a few people from Sydney could get home. Even honourable members travelling to Melbourne could not get home. The last aeroplane leaves at 5.45 p.m. and they would have to leave here at 5.15 p.m. So the same old story that we have now on Friday would be repeated.

I just want to add one more thing and that is that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) said that the 4-day week had not been given a fair trial and this is quite right. We did make a change to the 4-day week at the suggestion of the Standing Orders Committee and now for some reason or other pressure has been put on and we have decided to go back to the old 3-day week. If it had been tried properly and we had had committees meeting on the Monday before the Tuesday sitting and on the Friday after the Monday to Thursday sitting of the second week we would have been able to do a lot more of the committee work that is sadly neglected in this place. The honourable member for Wilmot said that while the House was sitting yesterday he spent 2 hours attending 2 separate meetings. I know that this is done, but this is not the way in which the Parliament should be run. I make the plea that at some time or other honourable members should consider whether it would not be much better for them to return to their electorates every third week instead of every fourth week. I would prefer to keep in touch with the people in my electorate by being able to see them every third week instead of every fourth week as is proposed. Unfortunately, the amendment was not properly thought out.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– 1 support the system of days of sitting under which we are working at the present time, that is, sitting for 2 weeks and having one week off. But I am a very sensitive and kind-hearted sort of a fellow. I feel very deeply for those members who come from Sydney and Melbourne. They must be suffering great inconvenience and experiencing great difficulties. When one looks at the situation one finds that they are very unfortunate if they are not back home an hour after the Parliament adjourns. This must be terrible. The mere fact that I leave Canberra tonight and cannot get home until tomorrow morning should not worry me when I see the inconvenience which is caused to these other members. We hear the plea from these members and we have to take notice of what they say.

Under the present system of sitting days, these members cannot spend all day Monday and all day Friday in their offices. This is terrible. Under the system which they want adopted I will not be able to spend a Friday or a Monday in my office for 3 weeks. But here again, I should not let this influence the way in which I will vote on this question. Also, I feel very sorry for those members who have huge electorates of approximately 4 or 5 square miles. I have to look at the inconvenience that this causes them. My electorate is only 900,000 square miles, which is nine-tenths of the total area of Western Australia. It is very easy for me to get from one point to another point 1,500 miles away. Why should I worry about that? Just because the present system suits me, 1 should not worry if it is changed. I am touched by the generosity and mateship which exists in this place in relation to the question of sitting days.

Let us consider the report of the Standing Orders Committee. It says that experience has shown that the present sitting pattern does not provide as efficient or convenient an arrangement as was expected. Where was the experience gained? As the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) said, the present proposal was tried for one weekend. Actually, I never experienced it at all because that weekend I was in New Zealand attending to parliamentary duties. So I certainly have not had any experience of what the Standing Orders Committee is talking about. What is meant by the present sitting pattern not proving to be efficient? How can anybody say whether or not it has proved to be efficient if it has not been tried? Surely that is something which must be considered. Then it is suggested that the proposed sitting arrangements will be more convenient - convenient to whom? Let us be told that. Then the Standing Orders Committee said that a majority of members favour a return to the previous pattern of sittings. The members of the Committee did not ask me for my opinion and I do not know whether they asked anybody else. This is the Committee’s proposition. I say it is a lot of rubbish, and that it is only in this place that we will ascertain what the true feelings of members are. I do not intend to delay the House because, as I say, I feel terribly for these members. This is something that you cannot continue to talk about for long or you will break down.

I want to say something about the amendment which, if carried, would make the position more convenient for the members from Melbourne and Sydney who are suffering so many hardships. It is proposed in the amendment that on each Thursday this House should sit from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. That is very good. It would allow those members from Melbourne and Sydney to get home on Thursday night. I would be lucky if I got home on Friday night, for the simple reason that if I left Canberra at 6 o’clock on Thursday night when the House adjourned I would be able to get a plane to Melbourne, but I would not get any further. So I would have to stay in Melbourne.

Mr Turnbull:

– You are not the only one.

Mr COLLARD:

– A number of other members would be similarly affected. Some members of the Australian Country Party who represent Victorian electorates would be in the same position, as would some members from New South Wales. Also, the members who represent electorates in

Queensland north of Brisbane would certainly be in a similar position. As the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) said, Tasmanian members also would be in a similar position. But still, we should not let that worry us; the members from Melbourne and Sydney want it this way, so I suppose that we have to have a look at it. The proposed sitting pattern should be thrown out, and if honourable members are fair dinkum and have the courage of their convictions they will throw it out, and we will continue with the present arrangement for which they voted just a few months ago, because as yet it has never been tried.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I must say, as has every other honourable member in this House, that I have great sympathy for the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard). The only thing that occurs to me is that I wonder how he conducts a house to house canvas in his electorate. I suppose that it is not unreasonable to have the sittings of the Parliament designed to meet the convenience of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Often I think that he may have many advantages. It must be just as inconvenient for his constituents to find him as it is for him to find his constituents. However, I want to take up only a few moments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! The honourable gentleman has already spoken to the motion. If he speaks to the amendment he will be in order, but if he speaks to the motion he will be out of order.

Mr JESS:

– Then I shall move to speak to the amendment. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) told us why he will not vote for the amendment, and I can see his view. He referred to the business before the House and how experience has shown that the former pattern of times and sittings of the Parliament was perhaps more productive than the present system. He also said that he will support the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee if we sit for more weeks. I do not think that this question has been sufficiently emphasised by honourable members on both sides of the chamber. I will support the Committee’s recommendation and vote against the amendment on the understanding that we will sit for more weeks. I think that this is the understanding of most members of the Parliament.

I am not too sure how I will link what I am about to say to the amendment, but the honourable member for Wilmot said that this was the most important Parliament in the world and naturally that is the reason why we should consider amendments. He could have fooled me, and this is why I rose to speak. This is Australia’s national Parliament. The honourable member referred to the great issues which we have to discuss and which perhaps we would be able to discuss more effectively or less effectively, according to which amendment was accepted. But at the same time, recently I noticed the salary that is paid to the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and compared it with the salary that is paid to members of this Parliament. As I say, the honourable member could have fooled me as to our importance. Having said that, I think we have heard sufficient. Therefore I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 50

Majority .. ..5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) Order! The question is, ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.’ The ayes will pass to the right of the Chair and the noes to the left. I appoint the honourable members for Henty and Wilmot tellers for the ayes and the honourable members for Banks and Fremantle tellers for the noes. (The bells being rung)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That has nothing to do with the Chair.

Dr Klugman:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not prepared to accept the count because both the honourable members counting on the other side are supporting the other side. Can you trust them?

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

AYES: 97

NOES: 12

Majority .. ..85

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)The question now is:

That the report of the Standing Orders Committee brought up on 20 August 1971 be adopted, and that the Standing Orders of the House be amended as recommended by that Committee, to come into operation on Tuesday, 28 September 1971.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 2

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Let me tell members of the Opposition what the position is. The House had decided that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. For the information of honourable members I shall read standing order 181. It is as follows:

No amendment may be moved to any words which the House has resolved shall stand part of a question, or which have been inserted in, or added to, a question, except it be in the addition of other words thereto.

Dr Everingham:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that when I rose earlier to speak to the amendment you stated that all amendments must be dealt with in order and that another amendment could not be moved until the previous amendment had been dealt with.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No one is questioning that statement. The House has decided in a certain way and the amendment that the honourable member for Capricornia proposed to move cannot be moved.

Dr Everingham:

– My point is that there was no time at which my amendment could have been moved under your original ruling.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the report of the Standing Orders Committee be adopted.

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

AYES: 77

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 789

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECT COMMITTEE ON PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have received advice from the right honourable the Prime Minister that he has appointed Mr L. H. Irwin to be a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits in the place of Mr Garland, the Minister for Supply.

page 789

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 25th August (vide page 727), on motion by Mr Snedden:

Thatthe Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Whitlam had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘the House condemns the Budget because (a) it breaks the Prime Minister’s pledge to Parliament on taking office to bring into effect for 1971-72 a fundamental review of social services and of methods for adjusting them, (b) it contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government and (c) it produces no programmes for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:
Fisher

– The discussion on the Budget each year is interesting. Much of a muchness arises from year to year. Generally, an amendment is moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). On this occasion, there is really no substance in his amendment. At least, there is nothing to back up the accusations he makes in it. He said that we need a fundamental review of social services and methods of adjusting them. I think that since the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has been the Government Leader he has certainly shown goodwill towards meeting this fundamental necessity by providing 2 increases in the pension and by providing various other increases. The second reason of the Leader of the Opposition for his amendment is that the Budget contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government. That is exactly what the Government did at the last Premiers Conference. Everybody knows that local government is entirely a function of State government, and that any funds made available to the local authority must necessarily be made available through the State government. Thirdly, the Leader of the Opposition claims that the Budget produced no programmes for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security. It is the confidence that is maintained in business, in industrial matters, in foreign affairs and in many other spheres that shows that this Government has met these needs to the full. A lack of confidence would be evident were the Leader of the Opposition to become Prime Minister of this country.

The Leader of the Opposition commenced his speech with an absurd statement. I just wondered, as I listened to him, how he could be so irresponsible and absurd. He brought criticism against the Government for not giving the lead on international currency matters. Surely ho knows that the Australian dollar is not a major currency unit, even if as a nation we regard it as very significant. For Australia to make a decision prematurely before there was any devaluation would be silly. That statement by the Leader of the Opposition shows his irresponsibility. We must necessarily wait to evaluate the position before we make any decisions on those vital matters. Does the Leader of the Opposition suggest that because some other nation whether it be Japan or Timbuktu might make a decision next week in relation to currency matters, this Government should have the prevision to declare what it will do? It shows how gullible the Leader of the Opposition is.

Honourable members can understand his gullibility in going to China and accepting its policies so readily. He accepted the domination that comes from a oneparty government. I do not suppose that the Leader of the Opposition met a leader of the opposition in China. 1 wonder whether he found one there? He accepted the policy of domination of the Chinese Government. He accepted Communist policies of China rather than the policies of Taiwan. Communist China believes that the people of Taiwan should be suppressed and forced to accept Communist domination. They have been successful in avoiding the domination of that Government by setting up their own Government and proving their ability as a nation. Surely those people are entitled to be free. AH I can conclude is that the Leader of the Opposition is anti-freedom. He is against any freedom for the 14 million people of Taiwan. He is against Tibet. He obviously favours the domination policy of China in crushing Tibet. He is against small nations. Yet he is inconsistent, because he recently travelled to New Guinea and stirred up the rabble there saying that they should have self-government immediately, even before the people themselves wanted it. That shows his inconsistency.

Budgets never meet all of our requirements. I do not suppose that this Budget has met all of my requirements. No budget can meet the multitudinous demands that people put on the Government of the day. The Government has the responsibility to analyse, to assess and to determine our economic programmes and development. We have had satisfactory progress in this country although certain factors have caused inflation. I have heard many reasons advanced in the Parliament for this inflation. I think one that contributed very much to inflation was the excess of demand which was created by too rapid progress in development. I think that the Government’s Budget of 12 months ago was a contributing factor to that excess demand. Looking at the Prime Minister’s programme for this year honourable members will see that the Government has pruned it heavily. Whilst there is an increase in expenditure, that has been caused in the main by the amount that is to be advanced to Qantas Airways Ltd for the purchase of its additional aircraft. However the amount to be advanced to Qantas exceeds the increase in that particular vote. I submit that more advance planning is needed. If the Government could plan 3 or 4 years ahead, when an excess of demand was created the 12 months programme envisaged in a Budget could be extended to, say, 14 months. This would ease the demand. The man who has to pay for the erection of a house finds that there is an excessive demand for building material, a shortage of labour in the industry and that he has to pay overtime rates to get sufficient men to construct his house. These are all added costs and are extremely inflationary. My suggestion could be applied to the Post Office programme. The expenditure on its construction programme is to be increased by several million dollars this year. If it is found that the rate of progress is inflationary would it hurt the nation very much if the expenditure were extended over IS months instead of 12 months? Employees would be retained to undertake the construction tasks and this would ease the pressure of demand. One of the reasons for inflation is the excessive demand created because our progress has been too rapid.

A second reason for inflation I attribute’ to the policy and general approach of industrial leaders. I do not criticise the working population of Australia but I criticise and condemn the policy and general approach of industrial leaders who initiate and prolong industrial and political stoppages. This has been a big factor in Australia’s troubles. I should like the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) or someone else to supply me with an analysis of the costs of industrial stoppages. It may be that the losses that result from stoppages sometimes enforced by industrial leaders represent more than the increased wages awarded by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is where the public is suffering. The working classes agree with me. They have shown this in 2 recent byelections in Queensland. On the Wednesday prior to the by-election there was an enforced strike occasioned by the political intervention of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council Central Executive. Workers throughout Queensland were forced to go on strike. The reaction of the general public was shown by the electors in the Maryborough and Methyr byelections.

In the Maryborough electorate a government candidate previously has not got within 2,500 votes of the Labor candidate but on this occasion the Government candidate won by about 1,600. This was a clear indication of the voters’ reaction to the domination of the Brisbane Trades Hail. The situation was aggravated by the President of the Brisbane Trades Hall who publicly, in effect, said: ‘If anybody does not obey our dictates his name will go in my little black book’. Do we want Jack Egerton and his little black book dominating this country? The people gave the answer to that question in the 2 byelections and they will give the answer in the next State and Federal elections if labor leaders do not learn a lesson from what has occurred. I notice that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Hansen) is in the chamber. He must have got a shock when he saw the Maryborough by-election figures; T got a pleasant surprise.

Mr Hansen:

– But your man did not win

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– Maryborough is a city seat and the Country Party candidate did particularly well. He ran neck and neck with the Liberal Party candidate. The Liberal Party and Country Party candidates used the one advertisement which urged electors: ‘Vote for whichever one you want’.

Mr Hansen:

– No.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– They did. I will show the advertisement in the Courier Mail’ to the honourable member.

Mr Hansen:

– It may have appeared in the ‘Courier Mail’ but it did not appear in the local Press.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– Undoubtedly they would have had their own campaigns in Maryborough, but there were some joint advertisements.

Mr Hansen:

– I will have a talk with you.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– The honourable member already has told me what he thought was the background to the by-election. The fact that the Government candidate won by about 1,600 votes instead of losing by about 2,500 indicates the resistance to and the rejection of the domination by the Brisbane Trades Hall, lt seems as though the labour leaders have not learned a lesson because they are still on a witch hunt. When they saw the result of the by-elections the leaders tried to crawl out from under. They blamed the Labor politicians and put 2 right-wingers on the mat. If they keep up with this witch hunt and the division remains in the Labor Party that will suit us nicely for the next elections.

The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) was really interesting when he spoke to the Budget. He said he was biased. I wonder why he should be biased especially if one looks at the financial allocations to the Australian Capital Territory. No part of Australia has been as well treated. I instance Belconnen as an example. No suburb of that area is older than 4 years. I am told that its population is 25,000. Splendid residences have been built in Belconnen. I admit that there is much private enterprise in the area and that not only Government expenditure is involved. But associated with the residential construction are school buildings - high schools and primary schools - hospitals and everything else that caters for the needs of that population. So why would the honourable member be biased? He says that some of the immigrants in Canberra would prefer to go home to their own countries and not retire in Australia. I should imagine that they would return to their homelands for emotional reasons only, not because they would be better off there than in this great country. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory was not very critical and contented himself by saying that he was biased. He was so biased that he did not want to give credit where credit was due.

In the vote for Canberra there is one deficiency. There is no reference to a much-needed new Parliament House. I do not know why we spend $lm or $2m every year on the present building. It is not adequate to accommodate the people who want to come to Parliament House, yet we spend $lm, $2m or $3m every year adding to it, like adding a shanty on to a farmhouse. We still have this building when we ought to be planning now for a new Parliament House. The building will take 10 years to complete. If we start to make financial provision for a new parliament house on an annual basis we will not need such a big outlay to complete it.

How time flies. I suppose that the Opposion will give me an extension of time?

Mr Uren:

– The honourable member has no chance.

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– It is really interesting to see the division within the Australian Labor Party in regard to the attitude of its members to rural industries. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that the present proposals

Mr Uren:

– Is it your nephew you are talking about?

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:

– He is not exactly a nephew; he is my nephew’s son. I am very proud of this fact, as such.

The honourable member for Dawson said:

The present proposal of the Government is a living example of the injustice and inequity of the Liberal-Country Party philosophy, blatantly giving money to the rich and deliberately discriminating against the small fanner or the big farmer who genuinely needs help. “

In other words, so far as the wool scheme that has been so generously provided by this Government is concerned, the honour able member for Dawson and the Labor Party want to provide a means test. I challenge that Party to say that it wants to apply a means test to the sugar industry in which the honourable member is so very interested. I challenge the honourable member to say whether he will apply a means test to the wheat industry; 1 challenge him to say whether he will apply it to the dairy industry. Of course, a price subsidy on production should be paid. The honourable member also criticises the pastoral houses and private banks. Does he not-

Dr Gun:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (The bells having been rung)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! Lock the doors. (A count having been taken)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There being no quorum present, in accordance with standing order 45 the House stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7th September.

House adjourned at 4.53 p.m.

page 793

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Canberra: Accommodation (Question No. 3466)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many single persons in Canberra are at present on the Government accommodation list for one bedroom flats or bed sitter flats.
  2. Over what period have these persons been waiting to be allocated Government fiats.
  3. When does he anticipate that these people will be allocated Government flats.
  4. Is it the intention of the Government to build more flats for single persons; if so, when.
  5. Has the list been checked recently to ascertain the eligibility of those at present on it; if not, why not.
  6. Was a survey carried out recently to ascertain how many married people were occupying flats intended for use by single persons.
  7. Arc single flats ever allocated to married persons (a) transferring to Canberra or (b) in Canberra.
  8. If so, how many have been allocated and under what circumstances.
  9. How many married families are living in single Government accommodation and is it intended to transfer any or all of these persons to Government houses.

  10. If it is intended to transfer these people is it at their request or are they allowed to stay on in Government flats if they so wish.

    1. ls it intended to reopen the Government accommodation list for single persons who are not on the list at present.
  11. On what date was the list closed.
  12. How many eligible single persons have been allocated Government flats in the last (a) 3 months, (b) 6 months, (c) 9 months, (d) 12 months, (e) 18 months and (f) 2 years.
  13. Why did the Government cease building flats for single persons.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. 1,116.
  2. One bedroom flats are currently being allocated to single applicants who registered for accommodation in February 1965 and bed-sitter flats to single applicants who registered in October 1966.
  3. lt is not possible to forecast accurately when allocations will be made as these depend on the rate of vacation by existing tenants and the availability of new accommodation.
  4. Construction of 94 new flats will be commenced in Lyons in the 1971-72 programme.
  5. Each application on the list is checked for eligibility before any offer of accommodation is made. Continuous checks of eligibility before an allocation is due would be an unnecessary administrative cost which would have to be recovered in higher rents.
  6. A survey of occupancy of some flats was conducted in 1970 to check illegal sub-tenancies and to survey availability of possible vacancies for compulsory transferees of the CSIRO.
  7. One bedroom flats were not constructed exclusively for single persons and it has always been the practice to allocate one bedroom flats to married couples without children who prefer this form of accommodation. Bed-sitter flats are normally allocated to single persons; they would be allocated to married couples only in emergency circumstances.
  8. Separate statistics are not maintained.
  9. and (10). Separate statistics are not maintained. Transfers are made on request when suitable alternative accommodation is available. Married couples who wish to remain in one bedroom flats arc not forced to leave.
  10. This is a matter of policy and is yet to be considered,
  11. 11th February 1970.
  12. (a) 27, (b), 52, (c) 90, (d) 110, (e) 122, (0 170.
  13. A programmed construction of government flats was commenced in the late 1940’s to help relieve the housing shortage in Canberra and to provide accommodation for persons who had lived for long periods in hostels.

By the mid-1 960’s the urgent needs were being met and private enterprise was expanding ils participation in Canberra’s development. It was considered in view of other pressing demands on government construction funds, especially for houses to provide family accommodation, that available resources should be directed more towards meeting the pressing needs of families.

Darwin: Development (Question No. 3807}

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. In view of the extremely rapid rate of growth of Darwin in the Northern Territory does the Commonwealth hold any vacant or undeveloped land for the purpose of effecting future subdivisions and future development; if so, what quantity of land is available and where is it located.
  2. Is it expected that Darwin will develop in such a way that the Commonwealth will have to acquire privately owned vacant or undeveloped land for the purposes of facilitating this development.
  3. If so, what is the present value ot any suitable privately owned or undeveloped land, and to whom does it belong.
  4. Can he say whether this land is increasing in value; if so, how long does the Government intend to wait before acquiring it.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth holds areas of vacant or undeveloped land in Darwin acquired under the Darwin Lands Acquisition Act 1945. The area acquired at that time was approximately 90 square miles. It is estimated that sufficient land remains available for future sub-divisions and other development until about 1980.
  2. , (3) and (4) The Commonwealth has engaged a consultant, P.G. Pak Poy and Associates, to prepare a structure plan for the longterm development of Darwin. Any decision on the future direction of the city’s growth and the land to be acquired, if any, will be taken by the Government in the light of the consultant’s recommendations. Freehold land outside the Darwin acquired area is held by a number of owners and Its value has increased in recent years.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 28C8)

Dr Klugman:

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

How many (a) disposable syringes and vials of procaine penicillin, (b) ampoules of neptal and (c) vials of thiomerin were dispensed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in each of the years (i) 1964-65, (ii) 1966-67, (iii) 1968-69 (iv) 1969-70.

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

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

  1. The exact number of disposable syringes, and vials of procaine penicillin, dispensed as pharmaceutical benefits, is not known because records are not maintained of the number of prescriptions which specify other than maximum quantity. However, average costs indicate, that the majority of prescriptions are written for maximum quantity and on this basis, the following figures are provided:
  1. Neptal is not available as a pharmaceutical benefit.
  2. ti is contrary to policy to disclose publicly, information relating to one manufacturer which may be used to advantage by competing firms. The information requested in respect of Thiomerin, which is the product of one manufacturer, falls within this category.

Civil Aviation: Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2409)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. When was the attention of the Department of Civil Aviation drawn to the Transport Survey of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea which the firm of Sir William Halcrow and Partners submitted to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in October 1969 in pursuance of a contract made in June 1968.
  2. What action has been taken on the firm’s findings that the Department’s control of internal air services in the Territory is inconsistent with other aspects of Commonwealth policy regarding the transfer of executive powers to the Administration, that the economic validity of the twoairline policy is questionable in the Territory and that there should be an examination of the benefits of a single airline with a controlling financial interest by the Administration.
  3. When was the Minister’s attention drawn to the motion passed by the House of Assembly on 3rd September 1970 deeming the establishment of an air link between the Territory and Guam to be vital for the future development of the Territory and requesting the Commonwealth Government to obtain an amendment to the agreement with the United Stales of America which will permit the establishment of an air service between the Territory and Guam at the earliest possible date.
  4. What action has been taken on the motion.
  5. How many indigenes have been trained as pilots by or for the Ansett companies since a former Minister’s answer to me on 12th November 1964 (Hansard, page 2962).
  6. Why have no indigenes been trained as pilots by Trans-Australia Airlines.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Transport Survey of Papua New Guinea compiled by Sir William Halcrow and Partners was received in the Department of Civil Aviation on 19th January 1970.
  2. The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer:

The precise findings as stated in Volume 1 of the consultants’ report Chapter 2 Section D2 under the heading ‘Major Findings’, are:

Para. 3 Control and regulation of international air services in the Territory by the Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation has been responsible for the development of these services to their present high standard. However, this degree of control is inconsistent wilh other aspects of Commonwealth policy regarding the transfer of executive powers to the Administration.

Para. 8 In view of the high cost of the air services in the Territory both to the Government and to private users, the theoretical economic benefit of competition inherent in the two-airline policy is of questionable validity in the circumstances of the Territory. For this reason there is a case for examining the benefits of a single airline, in which the Administration could have a controlling financial interest, taking over the main internal routes and giving more room for the development of local services by local operators.

Regarding paragraph 3, there is in fact no inconsistency; Commonwealth policy is for the’ progressive transfer of powers in consultation with the wishes of the people of Papua New Guinea. The Civil Aviation power is one of a number of functions of Government that are exercised in the Territory by Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities. As I announced on 3rd September 1970 the Government is reviewing the position of those Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities that are performing functions of infernal self-government in Papua New Guinea outside the aegis of the Administration with a view to establishing a programme for the absorption of their Territory activities in appropriate cases into the Papua New Guinea Administration.

Regarding paragraph 8, the November 1970 session of the House of Assembly decided to set up a Select Committee to consider and report on all aspects of the UNDP Transport Survey regarding modes of transport within the Territory and all aspects of transport, outside the Territory insofar as they affect transportation modes within the Territory. This Committee has not yet reported.’

  1. 28th October 1970.
  2. The possibility of an equitable exchange of rights for an Australian carrier to serve Guam for rights for an American carrier to serve Port Moresby was raised with the United States authorities in Washington on 10th November 1970. The United States authorities are examining the request. Investigations have also been undertaken to determine the feasibility of an air service between Papua New Guinea and Guam being commenced by an Australian designated carrier if, and when, the necessary traffic rights become available.
  3. One indigene, N. Onzem, received assistance from Ansett Airlines of Papua New Guinea with his initial flying training prior to being awarded a Commonwealth Flying Scholarship in 1966-67. However, the scholarship was subsequently cancelled due to lack of progress.

No other indigenes have been trained as pilots by or for Ansett companies since November 1964.

However, in this period, 3 Indigenes, M. Peni A. Bou and B. Awui, who also received Commonwealth Frying Scholarships, have qualified as commercial pilots. Of these, Peni and Bou were employed initially by Papuan Airlines Ltd and, since this company was taken over by the Ansett Organisation, have been employed as first officers on DC3 aircraft operated by Ansett Airlines of Papua New Guinea.

  1. The following details have now been ascertained from the management of Trans-Australia Airlines:

The nature of TAA’s flying operations in Papua New Guinea and the standard of airmanship which these operations demand is such that a pilot must have basic qualifications and previous flying experinece in order to assimilate the advanced training which is required prior to qualification as an airline pilot.

Airline operations over a long period of time have shown the desirable minimum in this respect to be Commercial Pilot Licence standard and at least 500 hours of previous aeronautical experience before joining the Airline.

The only exception to this rule of thumb for many years has been the 2 cadet pilot courses which TAA conducted during that time, but these are not regarded as being truly representative because the selection standards for the entrants was abnormally high and not suitable for application in Papua New Guinea.

It should be noted also that a number of pilots acquire significant flying experience in the armed’ services, which provides them with an excellent background on which to build an airline career.

Most pilots, however, acquire training to the level stipulated, through aero clubs, flying schools and general aviation, and TAA believes that such activity is essential to the growth and development of the general aviation sector of the industry. TAA is not equipped, either on the mainland or in Papua New Guinea, to provide elementary and intermediate flight training, because it considers that the development of pilots within general aviation is of mutual benefit to both branches of the aviation industry.

This relationship already exists, in fact, in Papua New Guinea and the general aviation activities in the area do provide a suitable background for potential airline candidates.

In respect, TAA has demonstrated a practical interest by training and employing indigenous flight traffic officers on Twin Otter operations. This position brings the individual into direct contract with the operational and flying environment

As part of its developmental role in Papua New Guinea, TAA has a positive interest in promoting opportunities for young indigenes who are motivated towards a career in aviation and looks forward to the employment in the early future of indigene pilots who have gained the experience and qualifications necessary to enter airline flying.

Civil Aviation: Noise Abatement at Airports (Question No. 3241)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What steps have been taken, since the Minister’s answer to my question No. 1505 (Hansard, 14th October 1970, page 2183), to Implement recommendation No. 16 of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise that. as a noise abatement measure, the glide slope at Australian airports should be standardised at 3 degrees wherever possible.
  2. What further steps are intended to be taken to carry out the recommendation.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (0 The Department of Civil Aviation has adopted the policy that all future instrument landing systems will have the glide slope component adjusted to three degrees.

The Department has decided that all existing systems will be modified so that the glide slope component will conform to a three degree angle. This decision involves a good deal of expense in terms of equipment and labour, and the modification programme will ensure that the adjustments are made when other compatible work is being carried out at the facility or the locality.

The glide slopes of the following systems have been set at three degrees: Alice Springs, Avalon, Canberra, Essendon,Hobart, Launceston, Perth.

  1. As indicated, modifications to other instrument landing systems, which require about 30 days will be effected on a programmed basis and the Following information relates to the programme for Melbourne and Sydney:

Melbourne - 16 runway - towards the end of 1971 27 runway - early 1972

Sydney - 16 Runway- middle 1972 34 runway - towards the end of 1972 07 runway - yet to be determined.

The 16 ILS at Melbourne is out of commission during the current extensions to the 16/34 runway. It will becommissioned at 3 degrees on completion of those works.

Meanwhile the Melbourne 27 ILS must be kept in service. It cannot be modified until after the 3 degrees 16 ILS is available; it is planned to do this modification early in 1972.

If the 16 ILS at Sydney were modified now then it would be out of service for about 30 days, during which period it would be necessary to divert alt aircraft requiring this facility to the 07 ILS. It was therefore decided to defer this modification until the second quarter of 1972 and coincident with some major reconstruction which is planned for the northern end of the north/south runway on completion of the southerly extensions to that runway. This timing will result in least interference to the local noise abatement measures as a whole.

The 34 ILS at Sydney is a new installation which cannot be completed until both the runway extension and the reconstruction of the northern end of the runway is completed. Its initial commissioning will be. at 3 degrees.

The 07 ILS at Sydney, in being raised to 3 degrees, poses some very serious technical problems. The Department hopes that these problems will be resolved by using a Redlich glide slope antenna, recently developed by the Sydney University, which is now In the production stage.

Cirrus Fruit (Question No. 3796)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Are the negotiations which commenced in 1962 for the entry of Australian citrus fruit to Japan any further advanced.
  2. Will he undertake to point out that the only Japanese objection, which relates to possible fruit fly infestation, can be met by the commodity treatments already developed in those eastern States interested in exporting and accepted as adequate to control the fruit fly which occasionally appears in the export areas of those States.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Formal representations seeking the removal of Japanese plant quarantine restrictions against the importation of Australian fruit were submittedto t he Japaneseauthorities in 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1967. In 1965, Japanese Plant Quarantine officials were brought to Australia to observe conditions at first hand, and in 1970 the Chief Fruit Officer of my Department visited Japan for discussions with Japanese officials on the subject. These endeavours have been supplemented by separate discussions in Tokyo and Canberra between Japanese and Australian officials.

So far as citrus is concerned, the Japanese authorities continue to refuse to permit the entry of Australian fruit unless it has been subjectedto a commodity treatment approved by them as being fully effective in controlling Australian strains of both Mediterranean and Queensland fruit fly. They have consistently rejected proposals that Japan accept Australian citrus originating in areas declared to be free from findings of any species of fruit fly, and have rejected alternative proposals for the acceptance of citrus from Eastern States which has been subject to a commodity treatment as fully effective in the control of Queensland fruit fly.

Experimental data confirming the effectiveness of ethylene dibromide (EDB) fumigation in the control of Queensland fruit fly are available in Australia and parallel data are available from American sources confirming the effectiveness of EDB fumigation against Mediterranean fruit fly. The Japanese authorities have refused to accept this evidence and have insisted that trials be conducted in Australia using Australian strains of both flies to demonstrate the effectiveness of a common fumigation treatment under Australian conditions.

The Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Committee, a group consisting of Commonwealth and State technical officers, has already arranged for trials to be undertaken and work will continue in Western Australia and New South Wales where particularly suitable facilities are available. It is expected that two years will be required for the completion of the work.

An appreciation of what is involved in the trials may be gained from some aspects of the conditions set by the Japanese for the experimental work. It is required, for instance, that tests should demonstrate a 100 per cent kill of insects in 3 separate batches, each of not less than 10,00 insects. Any test that resulted in less than a 100 per cent kill would be unacceptable. The tests are to be carried out only on the most resistant stage of the life cycle of the insects. The physical task of breeding huge batches of test insects and implanting insect eggs in fruit is itself a substantial project.

Aboriginals (Question No. 3326)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a decision of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia asking for State and Federal legislation to provide for corporate Aboriginal ownership of known tribal land utilised by people with a recognisable tribal identity.
  2. If so, is the Government prepared to introduce the necessary legislation for these land rights in the Northern Territory.
  3. Did the Government promise the representatives of the Church to educate and train the Aboriginal people for employment in industries centred upon the Weipa bauxite deposits; if so, has any programme yet been prepared.
  4. Has this educational and training programme been discussed with the Government of Queensland.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Legislation in the Northern Territory provides for the grant of leases to corporate Aboriginal groups or to individuals and a number of applications by groups of Aborigines for leases or substantial areas of Aboriginal reserves are now awaiting consideration by a special Land Board.

On 6th May the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a Ministerial Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Full details of its function, especially as regards land in the Northern Territory are contained in the Press Release of that date. Aspects pertaining to land in the Northern Territory which will be considered, arc:

  1. protection of lands reserved for the use and benefit of Aborigines and within such lands:

    1. ensuring continuing groups of Aborigines the use of land for ceremonial, religious or recreational purposes
    2. making available on appropriate tenure to individual Aborigines and groups of Aborigines land necessary for the conduct of commercial enterprises
  2. setting up an Aboriginal Land Fund to acquire land coming on the market in the Northern Territory which can be made available on appropriate tenure to Aboriginal groups for commercial enterprises and other purposes

  3. ensuring that subject to the requirements of national development Aborigines on lands reserved for their use and benefit will be given

    1. reasonable preference in mineral prospecting and exploration and
    2. the opportunity to participate effectively in mining and related developments.

  4. supporting commercial enterprises which have reasonable prospects of success on land held by Aboriginal communities (particularly where they are isolated and without alternative opportunities) by grants from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account as well as by loans from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.

    1. and (4) The Commonwealth Government has not promised the Presbyterian Church that it would educate and train the Aboriginal people for employment in industries at Weipa, but is cooperating with the State Government which, of course, has the primary responsibility in these fields. Discussions have been taking place with the representatives of the Aboriginal community at Weipa, the mining company and the Queensland Government on the development of programs to improve the situation of the Aborigines at Weipa and to ensure that the Aboriginal community derives increasing benefit from the development of the mining enterprises.

Public Enterprises (Question No. 3479)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will he supply in tabular form (a) a list of all public enterprises which are under the control of the Commonwealth Government, (b). the total number of employees in each enterprise and (c) a summary of the objectives which each enterprise is required to meet.
  2. Are any of these public enterprises required to earn a specified return on capital.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– As the question now stands I am reluctant to authorise the time and expense which would be involved in obtaining and collating the information the honourable member has requested. However if he has a specific public enterprise in mind I will examine the matter to see what information can be provided.

Pensioners (Question No. 3497)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

How many pensioners receiving (a) age and (b) invalid pensions were born in countries other than Australia, New Zealand and (he United Kingdom.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Statistics relating to the birthplace of age and invalid pensioners are not maintained.

Student Allowance (Question No. 3498)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

What is the total effect on payments received from his Department when the only child or eldest child turns 16 and becomes eligible for a student allowance, rather than child endowment, in the case of a family with (a) 1 child, (b) 2 children, (c) 3 children, (d) 4 children, (e) 5 children, (f) 6 children, (g) 7 children and (h) 8 children.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The change in the total weekly amount payable when a child attains the age of 16 years, and endowment continues to be payable in respect of him as a student, is set out in the table below.

It should be kept in mind that, if this Government had not introduced student endowment (which it did in 1964) payments received would have decreased by $1.50 per week per endowed student.

Questions Upon Notice (Question No. 3608)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which of my questions to him does he expect to be able to answer before the debate on the estimates for his Department.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

As many as possible. However the honourable member will appreciate that the resources of Ministers and departments are not unlimited and, notwithstanding the importance of providing the Parliament with the information it seeks, there are competing demands. Other essential work of Ministers and departments must continue.

In the case of many of the questions the honourable member has put to me the information requested has to be sought from other departments and authorities. Where information can be made available before the estimates debate commences then this will be done.

Departmental Annual Reports (Question No. 3609)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. On what date and for what year was the annual report of each department and authority last tabled.
  2. In which cases is it expected that the report for the last year will be tabled before the debate on the estimates for the department or authority concerned.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The information is available in the record] of the House.
  2. Departments and authorities have already been requested to have any annual reports or other information papers which are to be tabled, presented where possible before the relevant debate on the estimates commences.

Parliaments: Sittings (Question No. 3610)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Can he state the number of days on which the House of Representatives in Australia, the United States and New Zealand and the House of Commons in Britain and Canada sat in each of the last 25 years.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The honourable member should consult published sources in respect of the information he has requested; or in the case of the Commonwealth Parliament, the records of the House.

Pensions (Question No. 3739)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Social

Services upon notice:

  1. Is it the view of the Government that pensioners resident in the north of Australia should receive no higher base pension than those resident in the south and that any additional payment to offset the higher cost of living in the north should be provided by the State Government concerned.
  2. Does the Commonwealth pay any additional amount or provide any additional benefits to the pensioners resident in the Northern Territory.
  3. If so, what is that payment or benefit and how is it applied.
  4. If no such additional payment or benefit is made, will he make immediate recommendations to the Government along these lines; if not, why not.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Since 1909 when age pensions were introduced it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments that the rates and conditions of eligibility, for pensions and other social service benefits should be uniform throughout Australia. It is not proposed to depart from this established policy.
  2. and (3) Under the Social Welfare Ordinance 1964-1971, the Director of Social Welfare hat authority to provide assistance to persons, including pensioners, who are in need of it. The Ordinance is administered by the Department of the Interior.
  3. See answer to (1).

Pensions (Question No. 3754)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of (i) age and (ii) invalid pensioners who did not receive the last rise in pension.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Some 165,500 persons, representing 20.6 per cent of all age pensioners and 18,400 persons or 13.9 per cent of all invalid pensioners did not benefit under the legislation which increased the rates of pension as from April 1971.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 3758)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. How many units of accommodation for elderly people have been subsidised by the Com monwealth Government under the Aged Persons Homes Actin the Municipalities of (a) Melbourne City Council, (b) South Melbourne, (c) Port Melbourne, (d) Fitzroy, (e) Collingwood, (f) Brunswick and (g) Flemington.

    1. How many units subsidised by Aged Persons Homes Grants in these areas were (a) flats or cottages for active aged, (b) hostel or personal care type units and (c) nursing homes.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following table contains the requested information:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710826_reps_27_hor73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant