House of Representatives
11 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 11.45 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3307

PETITIONS

Social Services

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of bis life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives is denied pension transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in bis native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Austraiian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has pa-id taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have- Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey. Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– 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 a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the Stales for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder. situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will. benefit by being able to escape from their usual, environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– 1 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That ‘Lake. Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness areas are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural site. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Ballarat, Victoria, respectfully showeth:

That as a supposedly Christian nation in Asia we feel Australia should be setting the example in the efforts to avert possibly the worst avoidable disaster in human history.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will immediately increase aid for Pakistani refugee relief to at least $10 million. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.
  2. As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide$10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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 respectfully showeth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. that death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.
  2. that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government take steps to offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the persons from Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, 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 respectfully sheweth.

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $1.00 per capita immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2.00 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Eyre Highway

Mr BENNETT:

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, residents in the -State of Western Australia do humbly petition and pray that all levels of Government responsible in Australia will take note of the wishes of we, the citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth co-operate with all authorities to ensure the early sealing of the one East-West road link, the Eyre Highway, and that urgent consideration be given to increasing the maintenance of the road in the intervening period and endeavour to curtail the dreadful road toll, injury and vehicle damage.

That the Commonwealth consider this road as a Defence Measure for the whole of Australia and road link connecting the two coasts of the Continent, and consideration to the sealing from the aspect of the increase in Trade and Tourism within Australia, thus encouraging the retention of the finance in Australia which is now going overseas. Consideration be given - tin the grounds of a better understanding between the people of all of the States of Australia, because of their improved ability to travel and meet one another.

That consideration be given to one of the most heavily taxed groups within the community, the motorist, and be given the opportunity to enjoy some of the tax fee as charged, by being able to travel with reasonable comfort and safety on the major highways of Australia.

That consideration be given to returning specifically for this purpose the increased revenue received from the increase in petrol tax.

We, the petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled would take immediate steps to ensure provision of funds to provide for the all weather sealing of this important highway, the Eyre Highway, linking East and West and your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aborigines: Land Rights

Mr KIRWAN:

– 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 one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to Include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr HAYDEN:

– 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder . National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

page 3312

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House is of opinion that:

it is against the best interests of the people of Australia to close small country post offices.

although a comparatively small amount of money is lost on these offices they carry out a surprising number of public services.

the result of the closing of small country post offices is decentralisation in reverse, results in contraction of villages and reduces the quality of life in Australia by contributing to greater size of our cities, and

a further investigation of post office general finance be made since the 1959 investigation was inconclusive.

page 3312

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS IN SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister told a Press conference in Washington on 2nd November that the Government had made a decision in principle to train Cambodian troops in South Vietnam in co-operation with New Zealanders and United States people. I refer the Minister to a report in the ‘Auckland Star’ of 4th November quoting the New Zealand Minister for Defence, Mr Thomson, as saying that no agreement, even in principle, had been made by New Zealand to train Cambodians inside Vietnam. When asked how Mr McMahon could say that New Zealand had made such an agreement, Mr Thomson is quoted as answering:

You’ll have to ask that in Canberra.*

I ask the Minister: Did the Department of Defence advise the Prime Minister that New Zealand had made this decision in principle to train Cambodian troops in Vietnam? If not, did the Prime Minister commit New Zealand to train Cambodian troops without any authority from the New Zealand Government? Alternatively, has the Prime Minister made yet another grave error of fact and judgment? Finally I ask: Is there any end to the Government’s sorry record of confusing and misleading statements over the training of Cambodian troops?

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

– I think 1 should answer this question. There certainly will be no end to the confusion if the Labor Party keeps nibbling away at Press reports and comments that are made around the world. What I have said in this House is quite clear, and that is that we have made a decision in principle to have discussions and talk with the 4 countries involved about the training of Cambodians in South Vietnam. We have not made a statement that a decision in principle had been reached by the other countries. The decision has been made only by Australia. I do not care what the Press reports to which the honourable gentleman has referred may say. We are not speaking on behalf of any other country. We have not said that the matter has been finalised. Discussions will have to take place and details will need to be worked out. When this is done a statement will be made in this House and a full opportunity given for honourable members to debate it.

page 3313

QUESTION

DIVIDEND STRIPPING

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question addressed to the Treasurer concerns the statement he made on 31st August foreshadowing legislation to deal with dividend stripping. Is he aware of the widespread concern that the wording of his statement has caused, espe cially amongst those responsible for private companies which draw dividends from shares in public companies upon which tax has already been paid but who are not party to dividend stripping deals, yet nevertheless fear that some new impost will be levied upon their companies? Can the Treasurer assure the House that, great care will be taken in drafting the legislation to confine its impact to dividend stripping, to avoid unfortunate unintended side effects and not to breach important long established principles of taxation?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, that is our intention. The Government has announced through me that we will introduce legislation in relation to dividend stripping arrangements and in relation to the tax rebate on dividends received by companies.

I have received very many representations and I am very well aware of the concern which many companies have. The significance of the proposals to companies is underlined by the number of letters which I have received. The form of the legislation has not yet been concluded, but I can assure the honourable member that we are taking into account all the representations that have been made so that we will not overlap into areas which we do not intend to be covered by the legislation.

What we intend to do is make the incidence of taxation fall where it should because if it does not fall where it should it creates an inequity so that the totality of taxpayers have to pay more simply because there is minimisation of tax by those who avoid it. Our major exercise is to curtail the benefits at present available to companies engaged in dividend stripping operations. When the legislation is ready I will present it to the House. When it has been presented to the House it will be available for all companies to examine very closely.

I assure the honourable member that I stand willing to look at all representations that are made after the legislation has been seen, as well, of course, as receiving representations before the legislation is presented.

page 3313

QUESTION

STEEL PRODUCTION

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– Has the Acting Prime Minister noted the’ announcement by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd that steel production will be cut by about 20 per cent?

Does this reflect the depressed state of the economy? Is he aware of the serious increase in the numbers of unemployed in nearly every industry in all States? What plans has the Government to stop this serious curtailment of employment opportunities and to restore full employment? Has any consideration been given to protecting the jobs of Australian workers and saving new arrivals from the personal and economic disadvantages of unemployment by immediately restricting immigration to the spouse, children and parents of migrants already in Australia?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I am aware of the announcement by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd that it is required to curtail some of its production. This is due to 2 factors. One is the difficulty in obtaining export orders, the international market being very depressed at the moment, and the other is the easing of book orders on the Australian market. This state of affairs is due to a number of factors. No doubt one of them would be the Government’s Budget strategy to try to dampen down economic activity in some areas where there is excess demand, but another cause is the rural recession, which has meant that fewer orders are being given for steel materials. Thirdly, this state of affairs is created by a difficulty which many businesses and governments - local, State and Commonwealth - are experiencing in maintaining sufficient funds or profitability to be able to continue to maintain and expand their operation because of the very substantial wage increases taking place in Australia. If these wage pushes continue as we have seen over the last 12 months, I would say the economic circumstances of many businesses and of Government in Australia will continue to worsen. The Commonwealth Government is concerned about the wage push and the resulting inflation that it is causing and it is doing whatever it can to try to bring reason and sense between employers and employees to try to be a little prudent and modest with their demands so that the economy can get back on to a reasonable keel. Likewise, if we can see ways and means of adjusting the economy from a national fiscal point of view and if this is demanded, it will be done. But the Government is watching the situation closely. However, it will require a joint effort not only by the Government but also by industry and labour in this country.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker, 1 take a point of order, the Acting Prime Minister did not answer my question about what the Government is doing to protect the employment of Australian workers by some restriction on immigration.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is entitled to answer a question in the manner in which he thinks fit.

page 3314

QUESTION

TOURISM

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment, in his capacity as Minister in Charge - Tourist Activities. In view of the importance of the tourist industry in relation to our economy, I ask the Minister whether everything possible is being done to encourage tourists to Australia and whether he is receiving the necessary co-operation from the States and from the various organisations concerned.

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

– The Government is doing a great deal in the major task it has in the tourist field, namely, to encourage tourists to come to Australia. At the moment, it is spending over $2.5m this year for that purpose. Over the last 2 or 3 years the increase each year in the number of tourists coming to Australia has been of the order of IS per cent per annum, so that on the major task df bringing tourists to Australia, we feel that already the Australian Tourist Commission is doing a great deal. When the tourists get to this great country, the task is to co-operate with the States to ensure that the tourists see the best parts of Australia and the resorts that we feel are worthy of their seeing. One of things we hope to do, in association with the States, is to promote the organising of package tours both with the State Tourist Bureaus and with private operators. This promotion is going fairly well.

The major task for this year in connection with bringing tourists here was done at the American Society of Travel Agents conference which took place last week in Sydney. As a result of this conference we have already heard that the number of tourists coming to Australia from the United States over the next 12 months will probably increase by at least 20 per cent. What we have learned from that conference is that we should be looking at getting tourists out of the big cities into the countryside and making use of our rural attractions, not only the major attractions like the Great Barrier Reef and the Centre of Australia but also places in the rural areas of the States. The results of the ASTA conference are now being evaluated and I hope that, with my colleague, the Acting Prime Minister, we shall in due time - I trust not before too long - be able to take some new recommendations to the Government part of which will be the result of the lessons we learned last week, because what we have also found is that we need to tie in not only with people who come here but also with people who are doing tours of the South Pacific. The tours which will be promulgated in Australia also will be related to other tours that tourists are making of the South Pacific region as a whole. Some of these lessons, I think, will be very valuable, and I hope that over the next few months my COl.league and I will be able to make great use of this extra information.

page 3315

QUESTION

DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr WALLIS:

– I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United States Deputy Secretary for Defence, Mr David Packard, is to visit United States establishments in Australia, including Pine Gap and Woomera, can the Acting Prime Minister state whether it is possible to arrange for member of this Parliament to visit those establishments?

Mr Anthony:

– The Minister for Defence will answer the question.

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

– So far as Pine Gap and some of the other Australian and United States joint defence establishments in Australia are concerned, the position is that there is a limit to the very small number of people who have a need to know in this area. This applies to people who are responsible-

Mr Bryant:

– I raise a point of order. In the course of his answer, could the Minister explain exactly what it means -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– This applies to those who are responsible for the administration of the defence programme either in Australia or in America, and it is limited to those who are responsible for this administration. There is, as I have said, a small body of people in this area, and those only are entitled to visit this highly classified area.

Mr Armitage:

– You allow United States congressmen.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– There is no difference between United States congressmen and members of the House of Representatives.

page 3315

QUESTION

TEACHING TRAINING

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I address to the Minister for Education and Science, relates to teacher training. Has the Commonwealth entered into any permament commitment to the training of teachers, or is it the sole long term responsibility of the State to carry out this work?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Commonwealth very definitely has a permanent commitment to teacher training, and it is a commitment in a number of forms. Several years ago the Commonwealth began a programme of providing capital funds to the States for the establishment of new or for the expansion of old State teacher training colleges. These funds were not required to be matched in any way by the States. We are towards the end of a total programme of about $54m, which will provide 12,000 places for teacher trainees in the States. That programme needs to be considered against the background that when it began there were only 16,000 teacher trainee places in all the existing teacher colleges. So the Commonwealth programme is adding 12,000 places to the 16,000 places already existing.

In addition to that commitment, the Commonwealth provides capital and recurrent funds to colleges of advanced education for a variety of purposes, including teacher training, and 6 colleges in Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory are now providing teacher training. I hope that colleges in other States will follow this lead. In the 6 colleges concerned, an additional 1,800 teacher trainee places are being provided in this triennial programme at a cost of about $16m. So that brings the programme to about $70m. In addition to this, 40 per cent or more of all teacher trainees are trained in universities, and this is very definitely an additional permanent commitment of the Commonwealth to the training of teachers.

The suggestions that have been made on a number of occasions by the Leader of Opposition, that the Commonwealth has no permanent commitment to teacher training - and they are his words - are completely false. They are suggestions that he has referred to time and time again. I believe that he made this claim, if my recollection is correct, when I was previously Minister for Education and Science, and he made it again in the official handout which was distributed at his Press conference on education earlier this week. He said: ‘At present it is the only form of tertiary education to which the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment’. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition hopes that if he repeats that often enough somebody might believe him, but the facts indicate that the exact opposite is the case.

page 3316

QUESTION

THE JUDICIARY

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to you, Mr Speaker. I understand that in accordance with the procedures and traditions of this House it is improper to criticise adversely judges for any decisions which may be handed down by them. If this is correct, I draw your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Labour and National Service have constantly criticised judges of the Arbitration Commission because of their decision in granting the last 6 per cent increase in wages which the Ministers I have mentioned claim is mainly responsible for the existing state of inflation. Is it a fact that every judge sitting on the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission must consider 2 issues; firstly, the economic consequences of his decision and secondly, the public interest? I might add that practically every judge and Conciliation Commissioner is an appointee of successive Liberal-Country Party governments.

Dr Klugman:

– May I address myself to the same point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The honourable member for Sydney has not taken a point of order. He has asked me a question. As to that part of the honourable member’s question regarding the duties of judges of the Arbitration Commission and Conciliation Commissioners, that is outside my administration as Speaker. As for Ministers or any other person in this House criticising members of the judiciary, after a judgment has been delivered any person in the Commonwealth may criticise that judgment.

page 3316

QUESTION

SABRE AIRCRAFT: TRANSFER TO MALAYSIA

Mr ERWIN:

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether a request was received from the Malaysian Government for Sabre aircraft to be provided in addition to those which were supplied in 1969. Has a joint Royal Australian Air Force and Department of Supply team recently visited Malaysia for the purpose of discussing this request? If so, what further action is proposed in this matter?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– Arrangements have been made to transfer from the Royal Australian Air Force to the Royal Malaysian Air Force an additional 6 Sabre aircraft. The first of these will arrive at Butterworth Air Force Base tonight and the rest will be delivered over the next few weeks. These 6 aircraft are in addition to the 10 which were given to the Royal Malaysian Air Force in 1969 and will bring the total to 16. This will increase the operational efficiency of the Royal Malaysian Air Force very considerably. It will be, of course, a gift and in addition there will be a gift of some spares. This will be over and above the defence assistance vote which is normally given to Malaysia. I believe this has been an extremely good programme. At the moment there is a small RAAF Sabre training unit at Butterworth which has been instructing Malaysians. It has been so successful that it has worked itself out of a job and will soon return to Australia. From that moment on the Malaysians will have a full Sabre squadron which they will be able to operate themselves.

page 3317

QUESTION

DAIRY PRODUCTS: PRICES

Mr DAVIES:

– I ask the Acting Minister for Primary Industry whether he has received submissions from the Australian Dairy Industry Council relative to the 2- price quota system for dairy products. Does this scheme envisage the registration of producers and the control of production? Will the plan be submitted to all dairy farmers in Australia for consideration before acceptance and implementation of the scheme on a national basis?

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

– I have received from the Australian Dairy Industry Council a 2- price quota proposal that I have today sent out to the various State Ministers for Agriculture for their consideration so that there may be a proper discussion of the proposal at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. The honourable member has asked whether this proposal carries with it the registration of producers. There is within the whole stabilisation plan a proposal that present producers in the dairying industry ought to be licensed. That will require State consideration and State legislation.

The last part of the honourable member’s question raises the subject of control of production. The purpose of the 2-price quota plan as proposed by the Australian Dairy Industry Council is that, if circumstances are such that Britain enters the Common Market and restriction is required on production, the industry will have the mechanism to put such a plan into force at that time. The plan does envisage a quota being set after a decision is taken by the industry on what the total market availability is at home and for export. That is the total market opportunity. This will be brought back on a State by State basis to a production level and a quota will come out of it to the farmer. That is all that I can say about the plan at the moment. It will be under consideration by the Australian Agricultural Council at its next meeting in February.

page 3317

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Education and Science information for the House on the results of the policy announced some time ago related to the teaching of the English language to adults and children resident in Australia after emigration from overseas countries where English is not the lingua franca?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Commonwealth has a concern in these matters. My colleague, the Minister for Immigration, has been largely responsible for pushing for programmes of assistance to child migrants. I do not wish to be held to ransom over the figures that I give, but I will advise the House if my recollection is not correct. It is my understanding that more than 200 teachers - I think that the figure is 230 or 240 - are actively engaged at the moment in teaching up to 20,000 children in special classes where there is a problem associated with the English language. This programme has been in operation for a relatively short space of time but I think quite good progress has been made with it. As is normal in any new programme, its operation and its effectiveness obviously are subject to review and examination. These are matters which, I am quite certain, will be watched very closely.

page 3317

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN SERVICEMEN

Mr KEOGH:

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his expressed confidence in the correctness of the Government’s action in agreeing that Australian instructors will be provided to train Cambodian servicemen in South Vietnam, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that he will consult with the Leader of the House so that he will be able to guarantee that if any attempt is made to rearrange business during the remainder of this session, General Business Notice No. 7, appearing on today’s Notice Paper and submitted by the honourable member for Moreton, will be brought on for debate this session.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– This is a matter for consideration by the Leader of the House. He has probably heard the question and will have it in mind when he is arranging the programme.

page 3317

QUESTION

LOCUST PLAGUE

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– Has the Acting Minister for Primary Industry seen reports that recent rains in the Riverina will probably improve the survival rate of young locusts and enable them to swarm and to fly south and east to the eastern Riverina and to Northern Victoria? I remind honourable members opposite who are trying to interject that I am referring to genuine locusts. Has any request been received from the Victorian or New South Wales Governments for possible assistance if the locusts do reach plague proportions?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– It is true that considerable rain fell in the Mumimbidgee area in the past weekend. I understand that 4 inches of rain have fallen there. This has impeded ground activity work to control the locusts. There has been co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Pastures Protection Board. Over the period a great deal has been done to bring the problem under control. There has been no request from either Victoria or New South Wales for Commonwealth assistance at this point.

page 3318

QUESTION

ENTRY OF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs will know that petitions are circulating in New Zealand calling on the government of New Zealand to act against Australian discrimination against New Zealand citizens of non-European and nonMaori racial origin and that yesterday notice was given in the New Zealand Parliament of a question critical of the Australian Government. I ask the Minister: What protests and representations has the Government received from the New Zealand Government regarding the continuing discrimination against New Zealand citizens of non-European and non-Maori racial origin in entry requirements by Australia?

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

-I will refer the honourable member’s question to my colleague the Minister for Immigration. I am not aware of any recent government to government communications coming to my Department.

page 3318

QUESTION

LADY GOWRIE CHILD HEALTH CENTRE

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I addresss my question to the Minister for Education and Science. Can the Minister now say whether the Lady Gowrie child health centres are receiving the additional Government support which has been asked for?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The House will recall that the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about this a day or two ago. I am happy to say that the discussions with the Treasurer are now concluded. The president of the association concerned saw me some time ago and requested an additional $43,000 spread over the 6 Lady Gowrie centres. That will bring the grant for the current year to $195,000. In addition, support for the significant research project at the Melbourne centre will be extended for a further 12 months.

page 3318

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact that there is a continuing flow of hot money into Australia from overseas sources? Did the amount available last week from dealers on the short term money market amount to $88Sm? Is this an increase of $45m from the previous week? What action does the Treasurer intend to take to prevent our tottering economy from being further upset?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– Included in the question was what I might call a misfact - that the economy is tottering. The fact is, the economy has essential strength and very great resilience. But that was not the nature of the question; the question concerned hot money. The honourable gentleman did not in any way attempt to describe to me what he means by hot money. If he means the sort of money which has attacked the currencies of other countries such as sterling, the Deutsche mark and the yen - money coming on to the market in the expectation of a change in the parity value and in order to force it so that large capital gains can be made - there is no evidence at all that the Australian currency is under attack or that there is any hot money of that kind in Australia.

If, on the other hand, the honourable gentleman is referring to a significantly increased inflow of capital into Australia, then that needs to be separated into 2 essential elements. One element is direct capital investment over the long term by companies seeking to capitalise on the opportunities that Australia presents because of its political stability and its resource potentiality, which has been growing over the years. The second element is that there is a very sophisticated, developed, non-banking structure in Australia which has come very much to the fore over recent years. Because of its capacity it is able to mobilise sources of money from outside Australia. Those sources of money from outside Australia are quite willing to come to Australia for relatively short term investment. The fact is, of course, that once the money comes here and is invested it tends to become resident. The inflow of capital into Australia in the 1960s amounted to about $6 billion. The decade of the 1960s will go down in our history as a very significant development period which has brought an increase in the standards of living of Australians which in the 1950s they never contemplated.

page 3319

QUESTION

TOURISM

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is addressed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Has the Minister read a statement by Mr Wally Bauer, the exowner of South Molle Island situated off the beautiful Queensland coast, that he had sold out with a feeling of disappointment and disillusionment about the lack of Government policy on tourism? Is the Minister aware that war torn Ireland and Mexico earn more than $1 billion a year from tourism and Florida $6,000m whilst our own earning rate is on a par only with that of the island of Jamaica? Will the Minister give top priority to devising a means whereby the Commonwealth Government can assist the tourist industry as the Development Bank assists secondary industry? Does the Minister agree that hundreds of millions of dollars of overseas currency are being lost indirectly every year because of

S’ur present policy7 Finally, Mr Speaker - I ad better leave it at that.

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– I presume the rest of the question will come next week. I have noticed some of the criticisms by Mr 6.–. the former owner of South Molle Island. I think most of his criticism has been directed towards the Queensland Government. I think that the only criticism he made of our’ own activities related to (he Bureau of Meteorology and the cyclone warning system which was a matter that I took up with my colleague the Minister for the Interior some time ago.

As I understand it, most of the problems that were raised at that time have been satisfactorily negotiated. If there are still matters outstanding I will be happy to look at them with the honourable member. What I have noted, however, is that the person who has purchased South Molle Island has stated that be is going to spend between $2m and $3m in developing the island and bringing it up to international standards. I am grateful to see that this is taking place as a result of the activities of both the Queensland Tourist Bureau and the Australian Tourist Commission which have produced a report on the Great Barrier Reef, some of the recommendations of which are now being taken up along the lines adopted by the new owner of South Molle Island. This shows that through cooperation with private operators we are getting an increasing number of tourists, particularly on the Barrier Reef, and I am pleased to see it.

page 3319

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Services. Is it a fact that pensioner couples receive basic pension of $61 a fortnight and may receive supplementary income of $34 without reduction of pension? If a superannuitant receives a fortnightly income in excess of $34, is the gross pension reduced accordingly? For example, if a man receives $49 a fortnight in superannuation is the age pension rate then $46 a fortnight, making a total of $95 from both sources? In the former case, does a widow continue to receive $61 for 6 fortnights after the death of her spouse, while in the latter case the widow receives only $46 a fortnight? If this is so, will the Minister say whether this is still another example of how the Government dispenses justice to some pensioners and whether it is similar to the penalties imposed on some people by the Postmaster-General’s Department in its application of fringe benefits?

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

– The honourable member is no doubt quicker than I am at adding up, dividing and subtracting. I would say that in principle what he said is probably correct. If he will let me have the figures I will myself do the addition, subtraction and so on and will let him know the exact answer. I think the answer probably is, yes.

page 3320

QUESTION

POST OFFICE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. Last night he replied to the debate on the PostmasterGeneral’s Department section of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and he will recall saying, regarding the proposed reorganisation of the telecommunications section of his Department, that area managers will be appointed within the next few months and they will make a personal inspection of the areas which concern them and inspect the facilities available. I ask the Minister: Does this mean definitely that before a decision is made as to where the headquarters will be located, the appropriate area manager, when appointed, will visit Mildura in Victoria concerning the proposed telecommunications reorganisation?

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

– I am pleased to say that the answer is, yes.

page 3320

QUESTION

SOUTH EAST ASIA

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. Has his attention been drawn to reports that 5 South East Asian nations now support the call for neutralisation of South East Asia? Is it not in Australia’s interest to support this move which provides for the exclusion of major power interference in our region and for non-intervention in each country’s affairs? Does not the call for neutralisation of our region represent a rational response by these nations to the new situation created by the withdrawal of the United States of America from the region and by the re-emergence of China as an active, major power in world diplomacy? Finally, in the interests of regional co-operation and security, will Australia associate itself with the aspirations of its neighbours and allies in the region?

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

– It is true that there is a meeting scheduled for 25th November at Kuala Lumpur of the 5 nations which constitute ASEAN. Australia is not a member of this group. This meeting was foreshadowed when I was in New York and I had discussions with the foreign ministers of the 5 countries. I am aware of the general proposals. One of the proposals to be discussed would be an initiative of Malaysia for declaring as a neutral area the area of South East Asia. This is a concept which they will discuss and I think it would be premature to make any detailed comment on it before they have had the opportunity to discuss it and arrive at conclusions.

However, I would say that Australia would, of course, support any initiative which might lead to greater security or stability in this area. But I should say also that in any proposal to declare an area a neutral area there are great practical difficulties. When one gets down to specifics as to who is to police the actual neutralisation of the area and guarantee it, this is the point at which these kinds of proposals require very careful consideration. However, in principle,, we support anything directed to the security and stability of the area.

page 3320

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes, I have been misrepresented in a report which appeared in today’s Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’. Honourable members will recall that I answered a question yesterday on the Australian Wool Commission. Today’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ reports me as having said that in its report of 5th November the Commission has said that prices for certain wools were lower. This is incorrect. What I said, of course, is recorded in Hansard. I said:

If anybody likes to have a look at the report of 5th November he will see that the Australian Wool Commission reported that the price of carding wools was up by 4c in that week and was up about 3c and 2c respectively during the 2 weeks before.

page 3320

QUESTION

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I present the following paper:

Taxation - Fiftieth report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 November 1971.

I move:

Honourable members will recall that it is the practice of the House to agree forthwith to the motion to print this paper so that it may be covered by parliamentary privilege. This course has the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). When the motion is agreed to the report will be circulated immediately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3321

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1971.

Supply Bill (No. 3) 1971-72.

page 3321

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

Without amendment:

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1971.

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Without requests:

Income Tax Bill 1971.

page 3321

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by (Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until

Tuesday, 23 November, at 2 p.m.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us exactly what the plans are in relation to sitting times for the weeks to follow. There are rumours around the ridges that the House is to meet on Fridays and that we will do all sort of things. Although planning this, of course, anathema to anything which he has to deal with, will the Leader of the House tell us what his plans are?

Mr Swartz:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is a motion before the Chair at the present time.

Mr Bryant:

– Cannot the Minister speak with leave?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

Mr Charles Jones:

– We will give him leave to make a statement.

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

– by leave - Mr Speaker, honourable members may have noticed that there is a notice of motion on the Daily Programme sheet standing in my name. That motion relates to the hours of sitting for the last 3 weeks of this session and it will be moved tonight. I cannot refer to that matter at this point of time. A discussion has been held with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr

Barnard) as to the hours of sitting for what we hope will be the last 3 weeks of the present sittings. In regard to any additional sitting time, I have mentioned this matter to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is my hope that we will not have late night sittings for the remainder of this sessional period. I hope that we can confirm to sitting times which will allow for reasonable finishing times at night.

Dr Patterson:

– What about Friday sittings?

Mr SWARTZ:

– As far as Friday sittings are concerned, it would be my hope that as we have just made the present arrangements for the existing days of sittings that we would not be required to sit on Fridays. But of course this is qualified and it is completely in the hands ofthe House. But if in the last week of this sitting there remains some business which we should clean up it may be acceptable and agreeable to honourable members to sit on the Friday. The problem is that the programme is geared to complete the sitting on 9th December but of course this again is in the hands of the House. If we are able to complete the business by that time the House will naturally rise. I would hope that we will not have late nights during the remainder of the sittings and we will try to avoid sitting on Fridays. If it is not possible to complete the sittings by 9th December then naturally the House will continue after that date. Again it is completely in the hands of the House, but what I have said indicates our line of thinking, which I have discussed and will continue to discuss with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3321

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– by leave- As a result of the question asked by my colleague, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), and the answer given by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz), I think I should make it perfectly clear that the Leader of the House and I did have some discussion on this matter. The Leader of the House informed me of the sitting arrangements until the end of the session. It should be clearly understood also that

I can be placed in an invidious position unless I inform the members of my own side that the discussion took place at a time after it was possible to inform our own members of the outcome. The Leader of the House will remember that our discussions took place yesterday afternoon and yesterday morning.

The blue sheet shows that the Leader of the House is to move a motion relating to alteration of hours of meeting and I fully expect that when the Leader of the House moves that motion some time this evening we will have the opportunity to discuss fully not only alterations to sitting hours , but also the period that the House will be sitting. The Leader of the House has now explained his thoughts adequately to honourable members on this side of the House. Frankly I concur with what he put to me yesterday - that this Parliament should not sit late at night, that there should be a complete understanding on this matter and that basically the Parliament should not sit on Friday. If it is not possible to get through the business of this Parliament by 9th December, the day on which the Leader of the House indicated to me the House would rise, the alternative - and a sensible alternative - is for the Parliament to sit later in December. I merely wanted to make this explanation because I do not want honourable members to have the misunderstanding that the Leader of the House and I had made certain arrangements without giving the fullest opportunity to members on both sides of the House to discuss whatever arrangements the Minister had in mind. This will be done tonight.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3322

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– At question time this morning I told the House that if my recollection of the figures concerning the number of students and teachers in the programme of assistance to child migrants was not correct I would advise the House. I think I said that there were 230 or 240 teachers; there are in fact more than 500 special teachers from both State and independent schools employed in this programme. I think I said that up to 20.000 migrant children are involved; I am advised that the figure is more than 20,000.

page 3322

SEWERAGE SCHEME, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr Kelly:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Central Zone Sewerage Scheme at Darwin, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3322

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

– As it is now past the time provided for the grievance debate, order of the day No. 1 will not be called on.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker, I take it that that means the item shown on the notice paper is not even open for discussion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

page 3322

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the purposes of amendments to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 announced.

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 10 November (vide page 3292).

Second Schedule.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $89,913,000.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– The Parliament has resumed the debate on the appropriation for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Bill provides for a total expenditure of $89,913,000 in this Department for the year 1971- 72. This is an increase of $8.5m on the expenditure for 1970-71. I would have been happier if more earnest consideration had been given to the distribution of more financial aid to the nations or islands of the South Pacific Commission. On a recent visit to that region by a parliamentary delegation led by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), I was able to study the problems of the countries of the South Pacific region that were visited. I believe it is true to say that countries such as the New Hebrides, Western Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have a deep affection for Australia and the Australian people. Members of the delegation were in a position to observe that these countries are in need of further Australian economic help but due, I suppose, to the mythical propaganda of the threat from regions to our north, we give priority to them.

The islands of Western Samoa and Tonga could be regarded as being overcrowded. Tongans have difficulty in migrating anywhere because they belong to a kingdom. Western Samoans with work permits have immigration privileges to and from New Zealand because Western Samoa formerly was administered by New Zealand. The indigenes of the island of United States Western Samoa have full United States citizenship, but the poor Tongans cannot readily migrate elsewhere because, as I mentioned, Tonga is a kingdom. I think we should examine their problem in this regard. Whilst in Fiji the parliamentary delegation visited the South Pacific University where I spoke to the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Aitken, about appointments of staff to that university. I found that a Tongan with lesser qualifications than a native born Fijian had been appointed to the staff. In my view, the Fijian had much higher qualifications for the position. I refer to Dr James Anthony, who recently qualified with a Ph.D. at the Australian National University and who has degrees from the University of Hawaii and a university in the United States. I believe Dr Anthony was victimised because he took a prominent part in a strike in Fiji about 12 or more years ago and for this reason he was not successful in receiving the appointment for which he applied. In the strike in which he played a prominent part as a young man of about 23 years of age, he was instrumental in having the wages of the Fijian workers raised by about $3 or $4 a week. As I mentioned, Dr Anthony was educated at the Australian National University to a Ph.D. degree and his scholarship cost the Australian taxpayers in the vicinity of $12,000 or more. I understand that the sole purpose of Australian aid in this regard is to equip scholars from our neighbouring countries with higher qualifications so that they can return to their countries and aid their own governments’ educational programmes in their native lands which, unfortunately, are lacking in educational facilities. Dr Anthony has since been appointed to the staff of the University of Hawaii.

It is noticeable in this debate how Government supporters have refrained from mentioning the tragic situation which now exists in East Pakistan - a Commonwealth country. I am deeply grateful for the concern which has been shown by many of my constituents in the Cessnock region who have written to me pointing out the plight of these unfortunates who have had to flee their native land into India. This has placed a crushing economic burden on the Government of India which must almost have reached saturation point. The political party which advocated independence for East Pakistan and which the refugees supported swept the polls at recent elections, capturing 167 seats out of 169. However, the military regime will not allow the wishes of the people to be implemented. Because, in the main, of the maltreatment of the people by the military regime which controls East Pakistan and which will not give them their independence, almost 10 million refugees have fled from East Pakistan to India and the Indian Government has been burdened with a cost of almost $A3m a day to house, feed and provide for these unfortunate people. When one considers that Australia’s aid contribution is a mere $5. 5m, one must regard that as mean, lousy and shabby. We are spending $300m on the Fill aircraft and there are still doubts about its safety.

I now want to say something about the foreign or United States bases in Australia. I want to place on the records of the Parliament some of the facts disclosed in a booklet which was sent to me by an organisation in South Australia. It begins as follows:

Who owns the bases?

Who pays for them?

What arc they for?

Why are they shrouded in secrecy?

Do they make Australia more secure?

Do they make Australia a nuclear target?

Are they related to a sound foreign policy?

Is there an alternative to such bases?

Mr Jess:

– Who sent you the booklet?

Mr JAMES:

– I do not think it would have been the honourable member because he does not believe in truth, frankness or forthrightness. Further on the booklet states:

The most consistently expressed objection to the bases is that they make Australia a nuclear target. Creighton Burns has described Woomera as a potential nuclear target in the event of a nuclear war. Robert Cooksey and Des Ball claim that in a global nuclear war Pine Gap would be a priority target, and that there are other situations falling short of global nuclear war, in which it might be attacked.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– the honourable member for Lalor - has charged that the Government has made Australia a nuclear target by stealth. He has also said that the bases in Australia are totally unprotected. In America similar bases have an efficient and highly costly anti-ballistic missile system around them, but not here. What does this mean? he asks, does it mean that they will not be defended? If they are to be defended, who will pay the cost? Where is the ABM system coming from? Where is the money coming from if Australia has to provide it? Have any discussions been had with the United States about what that country is to do?

I commend the document to honourable members.

Mr MacKellar:

– Where can we get it?

Mr JAMES:

– If the honourable member is sincere in his request and calls at my office at the termination of my speech I will see that he is given a copy immediately. This country is urgently in need of men, and I think that the following poem could be applied to the present situation and leaders of the nation:

God give us men! A time like this demands

Strong wills, clear heads, true hearts, and ready hands;

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions, and a will;

Men who have honour; men who will not lie,

For while the rabble, with their narrow creeds,

Their large professions, and their little deeds,

Wrangle in selfish strife, Lo! Freedom sleeps,

Wrong rules the land, and waiting Justice weeps.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order!

The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise to speak in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and to note, with approval, an increase of approximately $8.5m in the appropriation over last year’s expenditure, making an estimate for this year, 1971-72, of $89,913,000. I refer to the speech made by my friend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and to tell him how impressed I was with the expression in the last part of his speech, that Australia needed leadership from men with strong wills, clear hearts and honour; men not prone to prevarication. As that constitutes a challenge, I think it is about time that this Committee had some truths brought home to it.

Turning to recent events in the United Nations, I refer in particular to the expulsion of the Republic of China from and the introduction of the People’s Republic of China to the General Assembly and the Security Council. During my speech I will refer to the Government of Taiwan or the Government of Taipeh and to the Government of Peking. It may be of interest to the honourable member for Hunter to note that Article 23 of the United Nations Charter, which defines the composition of the Security Council, states:

  1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be nonpermanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.

That is the amended text of Article 23 which came into force on 31st August 1965.

Mr Cope:

– Would the honourable member read that again? I missed the first part of it.

Mr GRAHAM:

– I will have a copy sent to the honourable member. I propose to look at one of the leading members of the Security Council engaged in the maintenance of international peace and to contrast the activities of that government and that country with the words in Article 23 of the United Nations Charter which I have just read to the Committee. In Czechoslovakia in August 1968 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gave a clear indication of its enormous military power and its ability with that military power to control internal policy within Czechoslovakia. No rational person in this chamber would challenge the fact that at that time the Czechoslovakian Government was engaged in internal policies to democratise, as we understand the word, the society in that country. Because the Russian Government took the view that this constituted a threat to the internal as well as to the external security of Russia, it is common knowledge that enormous military forces, backed by the full power of the Warsaw Pact, moved into Czechoslovakia. I need say no more on that as a manifestation of the testimony of the contribution which Russia makes towards international peace.

The activity of Russia in the Middle East, with its penetration with the most advanced technology into a sensitive area in which there have been active violent operations of war in recent years and the introduction of the latest models of aircraft, is designed to threaten peace. The threats against Israel have been constant over a long period of time and they have been supported, to a degree which cannot be challenged in this chamber, and greatly augmented by the power of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In recent days in this chamber we have had many discussions about naval power. Government supporters have been expressing judgments and reflecting upon the ability and capacity of Australians to meet the demands for sophisticated naval power under the control of the Australian Government. In referring to those people, about whom the honourable member for Hunter spoke, with strong wills, clear hearts and a sense of honour, I would say that unless those qualities are found and unless this country is induced to accept the burden, then in my judgment the likelihood of survival will be greatly reduced.

I turn to the recent admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations General Assembly and to the Security Council and refer to actions in Tibet into which the United Nations organisation itself carried out a complete inquiry. That commission of inquiry has reported and established - and this was fully accepted by the General Assembly - that genocide was practised in Tibet at that time. Attacks on Quemoy and Matsu and attacks on Taiwan or Formosa have been constant over a long period of time. Governments of honour and governments of courage must at some stage ask themselves whether they would condone an outright onslaught upon Taiwan so that it could be brought under the complete political control of Peking. I have no doubt that when it does occur some voices will be raised in this place in support of the Oriental potentates of Peking. I notice from the Press that there is likely to be one less in number, a gentleman distinguished by his military background named Lin Piao.

How will Peking behave in the Security Council and the General Assembly? Let it be our fervent hope and prayer that that behaviour will not be characterised by the activities which led to the judgments that have been expressed by Mrs Ghandi and by the Dalai Lama from the refuge he was able to find in India. These are problems of great difficulty; they are problems of great moment for the people of Australia. When honourable members opposite become concerned by the establishment of particular bases of advanced technology in this country which, they say, make this country more likely to be a nuclear target, I feel I must say to them that the old adage of the Returned Services League, “The price of peace is eternal vigilance’, should be taken into their minds and hearts, studied and properly understood. These are the facts of life. Wars occur only when aggressors believe they can win them. Wars do not occur when aggressors - the people who seek war - are not able to assess their chances of victory as favourable. World War II began when the German government was convinced that the British would not fight. If it had been listening to members of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament at that ‘time it would have held the view that if the ALP had been in government the last thing it would have done was fight. That is true and it can be checked in Hansard. The speeches made by members of the Labor Party at that time were definitely speeches that would encourage the aggressor to believe that there would be no fighting from a government of their colour. The truth is that Australia’s defence is part and parcel of an international pattern and is bound up with the United States of America. I repeat my absolute confidence in the statements that have been made by the United States President on behalf of that

Government. I believe that Australia’s future survival in the Pacific will be side by side with our powerful allies.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– My comments in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs will deal mainly with the People’s Republic of China and, of course, its admission to the United Nations and to its rightful place on the Security Council. This year is probably an historic year and we have to use it to move forward and to try to bring some sanity to the world, to try to bring the major nations together so that we can start to talk about some progressive ideas to solve the problems of the family of nations living together on this planet. Honourable members on the Government side need not start preaching morality because there is no more immoral act than this Government’s involvement in the war in Vietnam since 1962. The immoral acts that this Government has carried out in Vietnam in the name of morality are a disgrace to the Government and to the nation. I want to deal with the questions involved in the status of Taiwan and to deal briefly with the position of the United States of America.

The claim by both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China that Taiwan is a province of China is based on the agreement that was made between President Roosevelt and President Chiang Kaishek at the Cairo conference in November 1943 that Formosa should be restored to China. On 1st December 1943 in the Cairo Declaration, the United States, the United Kingdom and China declared that ‘all territory Japan has stolen from China such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China’. On 5th January 1950 President Truman said:

In keeping with these declarations (Cairo and Potsdam), Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and for the past four years, the United States and other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island.

Shortly afterwards in an effort to dispel any doubts on Chinese title to the island, the United States Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, said:

When Formosa was made a province of China nobody raised any lawyers’ doubts about that. That was regarded in accordance with the commitments.

However, with the outbreak of the Korean war in June 1950, the American policy became militarily well denned but legally ambiguous. When President Truman ordered the United States Seventh Fleet into the Formosa Straits he was, according to his earlier statements, intervening in the internal affairs of China. To defend the United States against a Chinese Communist accusation on these lines, in a statement before the Security Council on 25th August 1950 the American representative in the United Nations, Ernest Gross, reversed his country’s policy. He said:

The actual status of the island is that it is territory taken from Japan by the victory of the Allied Forces in the Pacific. Like other territories, its legal status cannot be fixed until there is international action to determine its future. The Chinese Government was asked by the Allies to take the surrender of the Japanese forces on the island. That is the reason the Chinese are there now.

On 8th August 1969 the United States Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, gave a clear indication of the United States shift on the 2 Chinas policy when he said that the United States recognised that ‘the Republic of China on Taiwan and Communist China on the mainland are facts of life’. Two years later on 2nd August 1971 Mr Rogers appeared to endorse that line and said:

We think the realities of the world require that both - the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan - be represented. One represents 700 million to 8G0 million people. In Taiwan there are 14 million or more people, and we think that both should be represented on the United Nations.

At the same Press conference, however, he noted the opposing contentions of the Communists and the Nationalists to be the sole government of China and representative of the people of China and stated that representation in the international organisation need not prejudice the claims or views of either government. 1 stress that point to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) who is now at the table and who so gullibly followed the line of the United States at the United Nations. Mr Rogers went on to say that the participation of both in the United Nations need not require that result.

The current United States position on the status of Taiwan therefore appears to be a combination of the 1950 Ernest Gross definition that the status of Taiwan remains to be determined and an implicit qualification that the United States is not opposed to a solution involving the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland. This new qualification appears to favour Peking, as the chances for reunification under the Nationalist Government are less probable. That was the position of the United States. It was a flexible position and the United States still wants to solve the problem by negotiation. We in the Labor Party have argued on a similar line. We say that the recognition of the true and proper government, the People’s Republic of China on the mainland, is realistic. This was the position of the United States because it realised that it had got itself, under Dulles, into a stupid quagmire of diplomacy and had to get out of it some way.

In the few moments that remain to me I wish to dispel any remaining doubts about the position of China. While the Nationalists and the Communists have been irrevocably antagonistic to each other, they do agree that Taiwan is an integral part of China and that there should never be 2 Chinas. Did the Foreign Minister ever doubt that? In February 1955, President Chiang Kai-shek claimed: . . when Japan surrendered, the Government of the Republic of China repossessed Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (Pescadores) and constituted them as Taiwan Province. Since that time, Taiwan and Penghu have regained their status as an integral unit of the territory of the Republic of China.

Those are the words of Chiang Kai-shek.

On 25th November 1968, Defence Minister Chiang Ching-kuo stated:

People outside China are wrong to distinguish between Chinese and Taiwanese. During World War II we in Nanking were separated from Chunking by mountains; now we arc separated from Peking by sea; but we are still in China. It is impossible to visualise 2 Chinas.

On 26th July 1971 the Nationalist Ambassador to the United States, James Shen said in a television interview that the Nationalist Government was the sole legitimate representative of all China and that Taipei would not give up this claim. That was the position.

We know that the People’s Republic of China has always stated that there is only one China. Yet this Government, which says we are only a small country of 12 million people who have lived for so long in the same region as this great population of China, has determined that there will be 2 Chinas, even though it determined for so long that there was one China only. It was only when the Government was near defeat on this matter that it determined the policy that there should be 2 Chinas. This has been a stupid policy. Our relationship for 20 years with China has been characterised by stupid actions of this Government. The policy of the Government has been against the interests of Australia and against the interests of the area. The stupidity of the action of this Government is demonstrated in our trade relations with China. In 1938-39, 2.2 per cent of our trade was with China. Today it is down to 1.5 per cent. In 1938- 39. our trade wilh the whole of Asia was 11 per cent of our total trade. Today it is over 40 per cent. A great deal of our trade and a great deal of our future rest with China. We should react reasonably, properly, and realistically.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

- Mr Chairman, at the outset let me say that I believe that any reply to the address of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) would give it a status that it does not deserve. There can be little doubt that the situation facing Australia in terms of our foreign relations is probably more uncertain and more challenging than at any previous stage in this country’s development. Not only are the major power relationships with respect to the area of South East Asia and the Indian and Pacific oceans regions in a state of some fluidity, but the position is complicated by the problems of emerging and newly emergent nations in the area. Added to this we have the continuing unrest generated by guerrilla warfare and so called wars of national liberation and the very real possibility of a major confrontation between India and Pakistan. Obviously in the time available I cannot hope to deal with all these situations, but there are a couple of aspects on which I would like to comment.

Firstly, with respect to Australia’s role in the region, I believe that we can play a most important and stabilising one. Because of our geographic situation, our cultural background, our economic strength and our political stability, we have an unequalled opportunity to act as a bridge between East and West. Britain has of course been a major military and economic power in the region for as long as we have existed as a nation. Despite the decision to maintain a small force in the region, there can be little doubt that Britain is primarily interested in affairs closer to home, even though she retains a strong commercial link in the area. Her decision to join the European Economic Community was to my mind almost inevitable, but nevertheless it has far reaching effects not only for Australia but for many countries of the South Pacific community, and to the world. The EEC will command almost 40 per cent of world trade. That is a colossal trading bloc by any terms. I believe that there is a real danger that the Community could become more inward looking, erect even more formidable trade barriers and hence become even more isolationist. I believe that every effort must be made to prevent this occurring, and that Australia should use every endeavour to persuade Britain to exert its influence to ensure that the EEC does not become a closed shop but in fact fulfils a function in keeping world trade active.

The enunciation of the Nixon doctrine, the running down of American military involvement in South East Asia, and the impending visit by President Nixon to China contribute greatly to the need for fresh appraisals of Australia’s position in the area. Australia has, I believe, a highly favourable relationship with the United States and again is in a unique position to put a strong point of view to that country with respect to South East Asia. It has become a popular sport throughout the world to decry the efforts of the Americans at a time when America appears to be bedevilled by self doubt and racked with self criticism, when the leadership of that country is attacked by elements seeking to destroy a system which by its democratic nature, allows such elements to exist, when there is a greater persuasion to retreat to an isolationist role than for many years. In these circumstances it is absolutely essential that America be made aware of the very real successes it has achieved in allowing the small nations of our region at least some hope of continuing as independent and sovereign states. The dangers, not only to Australia, but to all the small states of South East Asia should America retreat within itself are self-evident. Australia should, and I hope will, take a role both in America and in South East Asia in bringing home to the leaders in both areas the worth and essentiality of continued American presence.

Similarly with respect to Japan and the manner of its future involvement in the region, Australia should play a positive role. It is my belief that Japan should be encouraged to take a more active diplomatic role in the region than has been the case since the Second World War. There is no doubt that many countries of the region have a lingering doubt as to the intentions of Japan, following their unfortunate experiences in the Second World War. There is nothing to be gained by fostering old animosities, or allowing them to continue, should the opportunity occur to break them down. Here again Australia is in a unique position. This country has no ageold disputes with any nation to our north; there is no traditional enmity nurtured over many years. Japan, as the third industrial power in the world, obviously has an interest in conducting firm and continuing relations with the countries of South East Asia, and it is in our best interests, both in terms of trade and as a basis for stability within the region, that the Japanese are not regarded with suspicion as militaristic and economic dominators, but as valued trading partners and trusted neighbours. Again I believe Australia should play a positive role in encouraging the development of this situation.

I mentioned at the beginning of this speech that one of the factors adding to the rapidly changing nature of the region is the position of the newly independent - or about to be independent - states within the region. If one looks at the changes in the status of territories which have occurred since the Second World War, one sees a history of accelerating progression towards independence throughout the region. This progression is continuing, and will do so for some time. Australia’s position as arguably the most economically advanced country in the region is of enormous importance, but I believe this importance is not recognised by the average Australian citizen. I believe that we Australians have not grasped the fact that our immediate neighbours look to us to provide leadership and support in assisting in the development of other countries and contributing to the stability and progress of the region.

Along with the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), I was recently at the meeting of the South Pacific Conference in Noumea, where representatives from all the territories of the South Pacific came together formally to discuss development projects carried out in conjunction with the South Pacific Commission, and to take advantage of the opportunity for informal discussions on a wide range of topics. Viewed from the outside, through the eyes of the representatives of the Pacific peoples, Australia is a huge, resource rich, economic power, which has not taken enough interest in the future development and well being of the countries of the South Pacific. I detected a feeling that Australia was considered to be almost totally concerned with the problems of Papua and New Guinea, with little real interest in any of the other territories of the South Pacific region. Whilst I believe this impression to be over critical, I do believe that we should do much more to contribute to the development of the South Pacific region. For a relatively small expenditure we could enter into bilateral aid arrangements which would have an enormous influence on the wellbeing of the small territories and would have the added advantage of building up a goodwill which I believe is greatly lacking at the moment.

Whether we like it or not, we are regarded as having a position of great consequence in this area of the world. We should do much more to develop trade and communication networks as well as assisting in more developmental projects. I believe we as a nation should recognise and accept the responsibilities which our position, our natural wealth, and our economic development impose upon us. We should provide leadership, assistance, and constructive diplomacy in a region which I regard as the most interesting and challenging in the world.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I was very surprised indeed to hear the remarks of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) in relation to the part that the Opposition played at the outbreak of World War II. I think that these remarks should be answered fully. If one studies the history of Australia’s attitude in World War II one will readily see that the LiberalCountry Party Government was sacked because of its inability to carry on the war effort.

Mr Turnbull:

– It was not sacked.

Mr COPE:

– It was sacked by 2 Independent members for not carrying on its duties. In addition the Government left us with no arms at all. It left us with Wirraway fighting planes which were up against the modern Japanese Zero planes. The young people were butchered in New Guinea and other places. It was John Curtin who brought Australia on to a full war footing after the mismanagement and bad treatment by his predecessor, Sir Arthur Fadden, and before him, Bob Menzies. One can readily see that people are very thankful we had the Labor Party leader, John Curtin, to manage Australia’s affairs. Talking about the way we were armed at the time reminds me of an incident that occurred when there were no rifles in Australia to go around and the soldiers received wooden rifles. A sentry was on duty one night at one of the camps. He had a wooden rifle. When somebody approached in the middle of the night the chap on sentry duty said: Halt! Who goes there?’ He received no reply. He said again: ‘Halt! Who goes there?’ Again he received no reply. So he said: ‘Halt, or I will fill you full of white ants’. This was exactly the position in World War II.

One can readily see that the LiberalCountry Party Government left Australia undefended. The people of Australia looked to John Curtin, and they put him into office in 1943 with a record majority. The honourable member for North Sydney said that the Labor Party was not willing to do its share. His speech can be put aside.

I should like to comment upon a statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) overseas when he was looking for support for India against Pakistan by putting pressure on Pakistan. My personal sympathies are definitely with India, but I think that diplomatically it was the most stupid statement that I have heard from any leader of any country. The Prime Minister should not have entered into this field and should not have taken one side or the other. World leaders such as President Nixon and Mr Heath will not take sides in this dispute and will not make any statements in regard to it. Yet we find our Prime Minister making statements and asking people to take sides and to put pressure on Pakistan. I wish it could be done, but it can be done only through the United Nations Organisation and with the support of every nation. One Prime Minister cannot get up and say that this should be done. We all know that this is a very delicate situation.

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

– What you say is not correct.

Mr COPE:

– It was reported in the Press. Why did you not take it up in the Press if it was not true? You can always make a statement denying it. It was in the Press, as you well know. Why do you not get up and enlighten the Australian people if you say that what was in the Press was not true?

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

– What he has done is express our friendliness to both countries.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)- Order! I ask the honourable member for Sydney to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr COPE:

– In regard to Pakistan, 1 think that the speech made last night by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) was one of the best I have ever heard in the House in regard to an appeal for Pakistan-

Mr Kennedy:

– What about the honourable member for Mallee? He is very good.

Mr COPE:

– He speaks only about dried fruits. I was referring to the speech made by the honourable member for Hawker. I think the Government should take heed of his speech. Everybody is aware of the terrible situation which exists in East Pakistan today, caused by the friction between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. One can sec millions of refugees there. I think that the amount of $54m in aid that Australia has given is too paltry to mention. It should be at least SI Om, as the Opposition has been advocating for some time. I was not listed to speak and I rose in this debate only to answer the remarks on this matter made by the honourable member for North Sydney.

Mr GRAHAM (North Sydney)- Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! Does the honourable member for North Sydney claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRAHAM:

– I do. My friend the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) has misrepresented me. I made it clear that I was referring to Labor’s speeches from September 1938 to June 1941, 5 months before World War II in the Pacific started, and I am perfectly right. One can read Hansard. It is demonstrably true that the Labor Party was opposed to rearmament. Even after Dunkirk, the honourable member said-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member may not debate the matter.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– The estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs have risen this year to $89,913,000, which is a rise of approximately $8.5m. I see that under division 270 (3) (07) - cultural relations overseas - the expenditure has risen to $175,000. Similar support to improve cultural relations appear in Division 270 (4) (05). All such items are beamed towards developing our cultural relations with other countries. It is through an understanding of and sympathy with the culture of these countries that closer ties and greater understanding may be established. There has been an increase in the financing of this type of multilateral aid. The Government should realise the value of this approach to international understanding, with special interest in the direction of our near neighbours - Malaysia. Singapore, the Philippines and India.

Two of these countries are members of the 5-power defence arrangement. The Philippines and Indonesia are not. So we must consider the effect of that arrangement on our near neighbours, the most important of which, to my way of thinking, is Indonesia. As I have pointed out before in this House, Indonesia is close to the north of Australia. This was demonstrated recently by the visit of an Indonesian airliner of sorts which came over to Darwin with a team on board to explore the possibility of commencing some sort of civil air service between our 2 countries. J noticed they had some difficulty in starting the motors, but still they are men of great initiative and no doubt could have overcome this. Our only representation in this area is through our overseas airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, which flies over Indonesia landing at only Denpasar, Djakarta for refuelling. We do have one other airline flying to Indonesia. This is a South Australian air charter firm which has considerable interests in Indonesia and is building up quite a strong business association with that country. It is operating from Darwin. It is doing the Indonesians a service and it no doubt doing fairly well itself. But I welcome the fact that it is tending to build up our interests in this area.

Our aid to Indonesia during the 3-year period 1971-73 will be $54m, which amounts to 40 per cent of our overseas aid, excluding aid to Papua New Guinea. Exports to Indonesia have been growing steadily at between £4m and $5m a year. As well, business enterprise in that country has been steadily increasing. On the other hand imports from Indonesia have declined. In 1968-69 they were valued at $59.9m. They fell the following year by Slim and in 1970-71 they fell to $22.5m. This is because we are producing much of the oil which hitherto we used to import from that country, but if we are considering purchasing our oil requirements overseas I would urge the Government to look towards this area because, after all, if we are interested in building up more friendly relations with these 120 million people to our near north we will have to do this sort of thing. As I have often reminded honourable members, the southern part of Indonesia is only 180 miles from the Wessell Islands, which are a part of Arnhem Land. So they are very close to us. Indonesia stretches some 2,500 miles from our north west right across the top of Australia and covers most of the sea routes which we would hope to use in shipping our ore, agricultural produce and manufactured goods to Japan and the Far East generally. So it is in our interests to foster the friendship and co-operation of these people.

Our armed forces co-operate with the Indonesians. We do not export arms to them, although with the number of men they have under arms they could probably use quite a lot of our small arms, ammunition and military hardware of that description. I think we could build up quite an export trade in those products. We have had Indonesian Army officers training here for the past 4 or 5 years. Some of our Army officers have been to their staff college at Bandung. The number at the moment is very small but I cannot see any reason why we cannot escalate this exchange of Army personnel because, after all, we are on their doorstep. The other countries from which they would get aid and information and deal with in terms of buying arms and so on would be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and Japan, all of which are much further away than we are. So I would urge the Government to make strong efforts to build up this area of trade. I have met several of these men in Indonesia. They are very well disposed towards Australia. They are real soldiers in every sense and they are very well trained. I am certain that our soldiers who are trained in Indonesia could learn a lot from them.

I point out that we have had Singaporeans training here. I have seen them in out Attack-class patrol boats. I would say that the Indonesian Navy should be looking towards building up its strength in patrol boats and other light craft of that description because of the many islands that make up their country. I would also say that Australia’s defence forces should be looking at the same sort of ships to operate in the same sort of waters to our north. I think there would be a lot to commend our coming to a trading agreement with the Indonesians. They do not oppose our 5-power defence arrangements, but, needless to say, are not part of them. I suggest that we can build up our cultural relations-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’3 time has expired.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– It is almost a pity that the honourable member’s time has expired for I found myself in agreement with some of his sentiments.

His geography is accurate and his sentiments about the Indonesians are fair enough. But I simply disagree and say that instead of worrying himself about military co-operation with the Indonesians, if we could teach more Indonesians in Australian schools and assist them in their studies of English and so on it might be a better way to protect the peace of this part of the world. Today is Remembrance Day. This morning this part of the Parliament anyhow - I noticed that the Senate did not - knocked off for an hour and a quarter to allow this House at least to pay some respect to what Remembrance Day means. So I went over to the Australian War Memorial. As far as I am concerned such an exercise is a pilgrimage of peace and I hope that on any future occasions the Parliament will take note of that, and if next year we are still sitting at this time and Remembrance’ Day falls on a sitting day the Parliament pays the same respect to the occasion as it did on this occasion. It is in sharp contrast to the respect we pay to the Melbourne Cup and on this occasion at least I was grateful for this fact.

I wish we could divert people’s attention on both Anzac Day and Remembrance Day to consider what they are about - gratitude for peace on Remembrance Day and on Anzac Day, remembrance of the sacrifice and folly of war and the loyalty that produced the kinds of things that happened. One of the most piquant and touching parts of today’s operation was the laying of wreaths by the representatives of the Commonwealth countries; the Indian representative laying a wreath followed immediately by the representative of Pakistan. Occasionally we can bring these people together if we are prepared to take the initiative, and this is the field in which Australia has the greatest opportunities and in which it shows the least enterprise. I believe that our foreign policy is based upon a number of false assumptions. First of all, there is the suggestion of threats from our north. I think my friend from the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) would now agree that there is no threat from Indonesia. Most of the Government spokesmen, when they are in the public eye or speaking into the public ear, say that there is no threat in the foreseeable future. But at the same time we are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new aircraft, new ships and all the rest of it although honourable members opposite say they believe there is no threat in the foreseeable future, no possible threat to the security of this country in a military sense.

Mr Turnbull:

– Not if you are prepared.

Mr BRYANT:

– I would like to debate this with the honourable member for Mallee on some occasion when we have more time to do so. But there is no possible threat to Australia whether we are prepared or not, and I am not one to write the defence system out. I do not have time to debate arguments across the floor wilh the honourable member in this case but I do not believe that it is possible for anyone who is within 3,000 miles of us to mount a threat within the foreseeable future; and this has nothing to do with whether we have armaments or not. It is one of the facts of life. That does not say that I believe we ought to have none, but I just say that is the case. Nothing that we can do in the form of military exercises can intimidate the Chinese or anyone else.

I do not believe that the people who are to our north are in great turmoil any more than anywhere else. There is no more trouble in most of South East Asia than there is in Belfast. There is certainly no more threat in that part of the world than there is in the Middle East. But constantly we have it tossed into the ring here that we are in an area of great turmoil and trouble. We are told that it is an area of great deprivation and so on, but it is not as seriously deprived as many parts of Turkey, India or Pakistan. I do not believe that the people to our north are hostile. I do not believe that war is inevitable. I believe that the moment the barriers fell between the French and the Germans in Europe it was a great moment in history. If the Europeans can stop fighting each other, then anybody can.

The other assumption which I think is false is that our interests are more closely allied to those of the United States of America than they are to those of India or Indonesia. I do not believe it. There is something inherent in the way we think about these things that the first and most important affinity one has with people is the colour of their skin. I do not believe it. I do not believe there is a difference between people that is based upon skin colour. Therefore, we should be spending a lot of our diplomatic exercise, enterprise and initiative on getting close to people such as Indonesians and Indians in particular.

The other point I want to make in the few moments that one has is the inadequacy of the debates in this Parliament on foreign affairs, lt does not matter, perhaps, if we make a serious error on social services. The country will still survive. People might be deprived or they might even, by some great stroke of good fortune, be paid more than they ought to be. But the world will not stop and the nation will not collapse. However, if we make errors in foreign policy we bring the whole nation into peril. A serious deficiency of the last 5 or 6 “years of the administration has been the inadequacy of debate on foreign affairs in this place. We cannot debate this subject in the few moments given to each of us this afternoon. We cannot debate it in this way. There should be a definitive statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs every time there is a major international issue and there ought to be time allotted for us to debate such a statement. Perhaps these issues should be brought before a House committee of the same sort that was established by the Senate. What is wrong with the place that we do not do it that way? Practically every other parliament treats this subject in this way. Public knowledge here is at a discount.

We have the issue of keeping training teams in Vietnam to train Cambodians. Everyone is trying to hide it, sweep it under the carpet and keep it out of sight. That is point one. Then we have that wonderful demonstration of democracy at its best by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who says that only those people who need to know may visit the foreign bases. So we have 2 areas of ignorance. There is the attempt to keep the country in ignorance, without parliamentary debate, on deliberations in secret on issues like Cambodia and foreign bases in Australia. 1 believe that in Cambodia the task is to establish diplomatic action through the United Nations. As 1 said here in debate last week, one of the interesting facts about China’s entry to the United Nations is the enthusiasm with which the Chinese apparently are accepting that promotion, if that is it; and with China in that body there is a new forum and a new grouping of people to try to find a solution.

I will not be satisfied with the Cambodian situation until somehow we have guaranteed the freedom and neutrality of that country. I deplore the present Government’s behaviour inasmuch as it has abandoned Parliament. It would not be long before this group here would do the same if it could get away with it; but the facts are that the Cambodian people are entitled to live in peace and neutrality. Our task ought to be to protect them as far as we can and the United Nations is our forum in which to do this. The idea of putting more troops into the field is folly in excelsis.

The other great error relates to foreign bases. I know that our friends opposite say: ‘You are treasonable, you are seditious, you are going to hold us in great peril.’ I have said ever since the debate began on the United States Communication Station at North West Cape that I regarded it as an act of treachery to alienate the sovereignty of Australian soil and place us in a position where decisions about our future can be made by others. But we cannot debate that matter this afternoon, either.

What I do want to say briefly is that I believe one of the great issues of international policy these days is not the threat of imperialism but the overwhelming demands of sovereignty. The great modern net ideology is sovereignty - the right of the State over the individual, the power to use the loyalty of the individual, the power to use force, the monopoly of violence. The acquiescence and the sheer force of it all mean that the individual counts for less these days when it comes to conflicts with the community and the State at large than in probably any other place in history. It seems to me that this falls into 5 categories. We ought to be trying to mitigate the power of sovereignty - if that is the correct word - the absolute power of the State over the individual - the kind of thing we see happening around the world now. I refer to the right of a state to prevent secession by force of arms. What if East Pakistan does want to leave? Who would shoot a Tasmanian to keep Tasmania in the federation?

Mr Cope:

– I would.

Mr BRYANT:

– The honourable member would shoot them to keep them in the federation; the Treasurer would probably say he would pay them to go. However, I refer also to the right to unite by force of arms. Of what possible profit is it to the people of North Vietnam, North Korea or South Korea to unite a country’s people by killing millions or for the right to use another’s territory for one’s military purposes? Indeed, the victims of such acts are innumerable around the world. The Cambodians and the people of Laos are some of them. Do we agree with the right to deprive a section of its residents of equality such as in South Africa? What I want to see is the Minister for Foreign Affairs get on to the world stage and stand for some of the morality of human relations. When we can bring to international relations the same sense of humanity and the same morality as we accept or demand between individuals then I believe that the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs will all be well spent and ought to be expanded. But at present the failure to use our initiative and enterprise for the rights of humanity when we cannot do anything by military action is our greatest possible failure.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– About 15 months ago the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), I and four others were in Cambodia. I want to refer to the statement that he made this afternoon, which I found extraordinary and which was the only one I objected to - too violently anyway. I do not think I am misquoting the honourable member when I say he suggested that this Government should not encourage more troops to go into Cambodia. I do not know quite what he meant because Australia does not have troops going into Cambodia and is not likely to have troops going there. I doubt whether anyone here would wish Australia to send troops into Cambodia. It was at that time 15 months ago that the honourable member for Wills with my complete support sent a telegram to the Australian Government and he requested - at the moment he seems to be a bit busy on the other side of the chamber - that we should send armaments to help the people of Cambodia to protect their own nation.

Mr Barnes:

– He has changed his views.

Mr GILES:

– One would hope not, becauseI do not feel that the honourable member for Wills usually changes his views so readily. The point I am trying to make quite clearly is this: It is of no earthly use saying that we should send government armaments to help a country retain its independence against some form of aggression if we are not allowed to give those armaments to the troops of that country itself because, obviously there are no othertroops that can be referred to in this context. SoI cannot understand where the honourable member for Wills really stands on this issue.

AsI said a little while ago in answer to an interjection I referred to him as a reasonably sincere man who would stick to his view. If he was sticking to his view then I misinterpreted his form of logic.

What I want to discuss briefly today is policy - policy on foreign affairs, our policy, the Opposition’s policy, what policy is and what it should not be. There is no question that the foreign affairs policy of the Opposition at present has the people of this nation in an extraordinarily muddled frame of mind. One can quote, for instance, the Labor Party’s spokesman outside this House - a man who had a large following, particularly in the intellectual circles of Australia. I refer to Professor Arndt. What has Professor Arndt had to say recently, following the Labor Party delegation’s visit to China? He said:

I have decided to resign because I regard Mr Whitlam’s behaviour in his interview with Chou En-lai as, in every respect, contrary, to Australia’s national interests.

With a naivety astonishing in someone who hopes to become Australia’s Prime Minister, he gave away in advance every bargaining counter that Australia has in future negotiations with China . . . ‘

I could read on because there is a lot more along that line. I have read that specifically because my idea of Government policy on any matter, but more specifically on foreign affairs, is that it must substantiate not only its sincerity in dealing with other people but also the national interest. Obvious though it may be, our national interests are the national interests of Australia, not those of South Africa, the South West Pacific Islands or Asia. As far as I am concerned, our national interests can be served only by talcing into account the proper treatment, proper health and proper aid for our neighbouring countries. Anything less than this would not be in the national interests of this country.

To that extent I will go along with the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) who mentioned morality. But the honourable member went right off the deep end in seeming to think that this Government, instead of being a government that has had a hand in fashioning SEATO, ANZUS, the Colombo Plan with all its ramifications for help, the Asian Bank, all the United Nations agencies, the Mekong scheme - to pluck one or two out of the air - and all the bilateral aid schemes, is a government that has in some way developed some policy that is wrong in relation to our relations with our next door neighbours. Quite contrary to that, I maintain that this Government has had a foreign affairs policy that has been consistent. No policy should dart from one reaction to another. If we had listened to members on the Opposition side, this is what our policy would now be. But it has been long-sighted enough to bias us a little bit here and there while maintaining its overall direction.

The importance of maintaining its direction is so that we do not let down our friends and so that people will know what we stand, for. Policy cannot be something that can be turned on and off like a clock from one minute to the next. Policy must be consistent. I do not say that the Opposition has not from time to time come forward with good ideas. I do not say for one minute that from time to time back benchers of this Party have not come up with good ideas. I do not say that these good ideas have not been incorporated in Australia’s foreign policy. But you cannot get anywhere nationally with your friends or anybody else by swinging from one policy to another.

In contrast to these principles I advise honourable members to read the extraord inarily hard hitting article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ issue of Wednesday 14th July. I will not read out this article now, but it deals with issue after issue arising from Mr Whitlam’s visit to China. The article is a hard hitting one and it points out that there was no cognisance taken whatsoever of our friends and dealings in Mr Whitlam’s discussions with Chou Enlai. The Leader of the Opposition has given away every bargaining point we wanted. He has given away his own friends, such as Professor Arndt who has been one of the outside spokesmen on Labor Party policy. Let me return to this matter of policy. I maintain that our policy has bent to meet new circumstances, new ideas and new situations but it has retained its consistency. Not once, as far as I can see, has it been inconsistent. Not once has it let down the friends that this Government and the people of Australia must maintain. Seldom could it have been very much improved at any stage by some of the wilder ideas produced by the Opposition.

I return to a point made by the honourable member for Wills a few minutes ago. He said that he believes there is no future threat to this country from the north. One would hope that he is right. On the other hand the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) by way of interjection said there will be no threat from the north so long as we are prepared. The honourable member for Wills, if I remember rightly, denied that principle. He did not think that being prepared was particularly important. I am sure I am not misquoting him. This just gets back to where I started in relation to the defence arm as the servant of foreign affairs and its policy. There is no doubt, and history will prove it over and over again, that no matter how much any one of us abhors war, horror, slaughter, injury, wounding or anything else, the nation which protects its own interests by being prepared has a form of national insurance. I am quite sure that the people of Australia have over the years acknowledged the importance of this form of national insurance. I would think that this is one of the policy differences that have really developed in this country and it is one that we on this side are not ashamed to be quite open about in our dealings with the people of Australia - in contra-distinction to some of the wobbling of Opposition policy at this stage.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) said that consistency was the overriding quality in the Government’s foreign policy. You know, I think he could be right. The Government has been consistently wrong and consistently misinformed. In view of the fact that the honourable member quoted the remarks of a learned gentleman from the Australian National University, let me quote Dr T. B. Millar, Professorial Fellow in International Relations at the Australian National University. He had this to say:

One sometimes wonders whether we have not become the most conformist society in the world, a nation of conservatives condemned to an eternity of conservative governments. Professor Manning Clark in a lecture in Perth recently said we have changed from being a nation of colonials to a nation of provincials; but provincials don’t have foreign policies.

What worries me most is the government’s ultra-cautious and conservative approach and attitude in the field of foreign affairs. Let me briefly look at this attitude as it is exemplified in relation to the People’s Republic of China and the issue of foreign aid. It seems to me that the Government’s claim that China’s willingness to trade with Australia is unaffected by its political considerations is away off beam. According to reports there was a meeting between officers of the Australian Trade Commission in Hong Kong and members of the Japanese Government Trading Corporation in mid-October, just a few weeks ago. Apparently it was clearly stated that unless Australia’s political attitudes change, trade, unless it is considered by China to be an absolute necessity, is a dead letter. Let every member of the Australian Country Party take note of that. Australia must straighten out its attitude. It cannot play ducks and drakes with its foreign policy in a matter of electoral gain and at the same time hope to gain trade with China.

I have heard the view that politics and trade do mix in China. I heard this view confirmed only this week on an Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast in a statement made by Mr J. C. Kibell. I understand Mr Kibell is an Australian businessman who has conducted private business with China. He said that whether we like it or not China does mix politics with trade. So much for the phoney efforts at dialogue supposed to be being conducted in deadly secret by the Government with the Chinese. As always, Australia is dragging its feet behind most other countries in establishing trade and diplomatic relations, and in this case with the largest nation on earth. For narrow political considerations the McMahon Government continues to live in a world of hopeless unreality. It is bad enough that we sacrifice, possibly for years to come, tremendous potential markets. Worse still, though, our ultra-conservative Government forgoes the chance to remove some of the suspicion and misunderstanding that has poisoned relations in South East Asia for more than 2 decades. With such opportunities on offer the best the Prime Minister could say in this Parliament on 23rd July this year was:

For reasons 1 have mentioned there is no need to rush into recognition; there is no need to rush into making concessions.

Even earlier, in July, speaking to a Libera] Party conference in Devonport the Prime Minister said:

Now the question of recognition will arise in due course, but as I said, it may be a long way off and we don’t intend to rush it.

We do not rush. But even in October 1970, 55 nations had already established diplomatic relations with China. Let us note some of those that did recognise China. They include the United Kingdom, as long ago as 1950; Canada, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Pakistan and France. Other important countries such as Italy have since extended recognition. Could the Prime Minister have had any thought for all these nations when he said to the Young Liberals rally in Melbourne on 12th July 1971:

We must nol become pawns to the giant Communist power In our region.

Does the Committee appreciate now what I mean when I talk of this ultraconservative, ultra-cautious Government that rules in Australia? Why should we really expect better from this Liberal-Country Party Government? After all it ls the direct lineal successor of the government which, quite gratuituously and against all world trends, decided as recently as 1966 to recognise the Government of Taiwan as the government of all China. The simple fact for all Australians to realise is that we have an ultra-conservative and an ultracautious Government that prefers to live in the atmosphere of the cold war with all its tensions, suspicions, isolation, and tremendous waste of resources and opportunities forgone for peace and international understanding. Its constant political fodder is fear - fear of the yellow hordes or the Russian reds or whatever other non-white colour that comes into its lexicon.

Can one imagine a McMahon conservative Government making the tremendous breakthrough in international relations made by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada in regard to China, or will one ever forget the stunned shock of the Australian Government when the announcement was made of President Nixon’s proposed visit to Peking? Of course we all recall the Prime Minister’s extravagant denunciation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and his Australian Labor Party delegation for their bold initiative in trying to make a breakthrough with China.

I turn now to the matter of foreign aid. We talk so much about forward defence in this country. How that contrasts starkly with the small, miserable amount of aid that we are extending to the 9) million Pakistani refugees at this time. We are spending $5im and that only after a lot of public pressure. We are spending $54m altogether, whereas the poor country of India is spending over %2im a day. India spends in 2 days or less than 2 days what we spend altogether - and we are a country of affluence, with a high standard of living, and a country that can afford to budget for a $600m surplus in this year. Would the extension of aid do anything to inflate our economy? Of course it would not. If the Prime Minister wants to talk about pillars of peace let him plant a few pillars of peace among the Pakistanis, the refugees who live in such wretched poverty at this time. Likewise there has been our resistance to increase civil aid to South Vietnam. At a Press conference in Washington on the 2nd of this month the Prime Minister was asked:

Is there any suggestion, Mr Prime Minister, that Australia may he called upon to put forward more aid to South Vietnam?

The Prime Minister answered:

There might be but I doubt whether it would be practicable.

We can afford to spend $300m on military efforts in Vietnam, but when it comes to the matter of peaceful reconstruction we are not able to help, it is not practicable. The same goes for aid to Indonesia. Still we give a drop in the ocean - $57m over a. 3-year period. Our programme aid to Indonesia is tied. It is made payable in Australian dollars. I wish we would follow the example of a lot of other countries around the world and untie our aid. Untied aid gives a greater flexibility to the recipient country in expending it on the things that it most needs. We will not miss out. If all countries untie their aid we would get our fair share of the purchases in the long run. A strong suggestion has been made that much of our aid in training could be best carried out in the benefiting country. It would be more relevant to their local needs. I saw in northern Thailand the work of the Snowy Mountains workers. Not only did they provide aid but by their association with the people in their own habitat they did a marvellous job in propagating our way of life.

Seeing that time is running out I want to make only one other suggestion. I would like to see the matter of foreign aid taken away from the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is not original thought; it has been put up by a number of eminent people in the past. As it stands, foreign atd is just one of those other things that I understand a hard working Department of Foreign Affairs has to carry out. We would do a lot better by setting up a statutory authority with an advisory council to spend our aid. I think that a good deal of research needs to be done into this matter. We need some continuity in the people who will be carrying out this task rather than its being the job of some members of the Department of Foreign Affairs for a matter of a short time and then passed over to somebody else. I believe Canada uses this kind of independent device, and it makes probably a more efficient job of using scarce resources than we apparently do in extending aid.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Ham-.left) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– It has been most interesting to listen to the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). One is always inspired when one hears a party in opposition speak about what it would do if it were in government because in opposition it has no responsibility. One cannot accept what the honourable member for Barton says when he refers to the $50m or $60m aid given to Indonesia as a mere spit in the bucket, the inference being that the Labor Party would double it. If one adds that to the cost of the other promises made by the Labor Party over the last 3 years one wonders what the Australian public would be called upon to meet in respect of taxation under a Labor government. A government can do only so much. A party in opposition can promise anything. It has no responsibility. As long as it can fool the people it has a chance of getting into power, but it is when such a party gets in that the people have cause to be concerned about those promises which were never carried out.

The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) referred to Professor Arndt, a distinguished former member of the Labor Party, who had criticised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Labor delegation when they went to China because in his opinion they left Australia without any options in respect of negotiation. The honourable member for Barton then referred to Professor T. B. Millar and quoted him as having said that Australia was condemned to a lifetime of conservatism. I think that is a fair comment. When I listen to the honourable member for Barton and other members of the Labor Party I think that is right. I can understand it and I am sure the Australian people can understand it.

Listening to this foreign affairs debate, in which each speaker has 10 minutes, I noticed an interesting slip that was made by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). When he was making his speech on how we should abandon Taiwan and how Mainland China - Red China, if you wish - is now the mecca of all purity and how we must adopt its ways and carry on its shadow he said: ‘We on this side of the Labor Party . . .’.I have no doubt he meant to say: ‘We on this side of the Parliament’ but what he said was: ‘We on this side of the Labor Party’. When we look at half of what has been said in the debate until this moment we can see that there are still a considerable number of sides to the Labor Parly. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) started off very well indeed speaking about the aid which we should give to the South Pacific island countries. I agree with him emphatically. But after that be got on to the American bases and got on to knocking the United States - the usual policy. Then we heard from the honourable member for Reid. He could not but get a few cracks in against the United States of America.

The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) told us how the Labor Government had done such a magnificent job in the last war. I was around at that time. Recently. I quoted what Mr Curtin said in 1937 about increased expenditure for the defence of New Guinea. He stated that any further expenditure would be a complete waste of time. So, it is all very well to say how magnificently that Labor government behaved. I do not knock it. We were under attack. What did the Labor government do in that situation? Naturally, it called for the aid of the United States of America. However, at this stage of our history, according to Opposition members, it is not a matter of remembering that we called and they came and helped us in our hour of need; it is a matter of knocking them right, left and centre, embarrassing them in every field and, as the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) did in the ‘Australian Left Review’, standing up for national liberation movements throughout the country.

If the speeches which have been made in this debate are analysed, it will be seen that a certain amount has been said about East Pakistan. I am sure there is not a member in this chamber who does not agree that ultimately we must give more aid to East Pakistan. We have an obligation to give aid. However, the calls that are coming from the other side are for the independence of East Pakistan from its present militaristic rule. I am not arguing that one way or the other but is it right that members of the Opposition should be arguing for the independence of East Pakistan when they could not care a hoot in hell about the independence of Cambodia and South Vietnam and when they seemingly have no concern for the independence of Taiwan? Indeed, the honourable member for Reid who is a front bench member of the Labor Party and who is, I presume, a potential Minister - although God help us if Labor ever gets into office - already has stated that Taiwan should be handed back to Mainland China.

During foreign affairs debates we frequently hear criticism of Cambodia by members of the Labor Party. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said that Cambodia has rejected the parliamentary system. The favourite theme of members opposite is that the South Vietnamese elections are rigged, that they are no longer democratic and that they will no longer support them. But can members opposite tell me when the last democratic election took place in Mainland China? According to them. Communist China is pure - it is an example to the rest of the world to whom we must now give allegiance, bow down, give in and make approaches so that we might live in peace with it. Members opposite cannot tell me when a free election took place in North Vietnam. But all the time they knock what is called by some people the free world. Many of those Labor commentators who now write so independently in the Press say that there does not seem to be any free world. But at least my Party has a consistent policy. That policy may have cracks and it may have flaws, but at least the Government has tried to accept some responsibility. It has tried to stand with our allies, to assist those people who are in need and to show them that Australia is prepared to play its part.

But what is the Labor Party policy? It believes the United States is no longer crucial to Australia. It was said that Australia should be wooing India and Indonesia. The Government wants Australia to live in good relations with those coustries and to assist them as far as it possibly can, but should it repudiate the United States in respect of the ANZUS treaty and our other defence agreements? India has a policy of neutrality. I attended a conference in England at which the Indian delegate asked: In the event of an attack on India, what would the Commonwealth do?’ The majority of the representatives of Commonwealth countries thought that they would answer the call and would be prepared to give assistance. I stood and asked: ‘In the event of an attack on Australia, what would the Indian nation do?! The reply that came back to me was: ‘Oh, we have a policy of strict neutrality’.

Let us understand the facts of life. The honourable member for Wills said that there are no direct threats to Australia and I think that is reasonably acceptable at this particular moment. But is the Labor Party and the country forgetful that when Japan entered the Second World War, we were living in security? We woke one morning and heard about the attack on Pearl Harbour on the news. Were we warned of it? Was the United States warned of it? Was John Curtin aware of it? No, he most assuredly was not. Let it be remembered that the Japanese came down through French Indo-China and the South East Asian area to the fringe of Australia within a period of about 2 months. Had it not been for the United States, we may not today be living under conditions which allow us to criticise and knock all our friends and to absolutely adore those countries which have engaged in subversion throughout South East Asia and which have not acted in the best interests of peace in this part of the world. As for the suggestion that the situation in South East Asia is no worse than the situation in Belfast, all I can say is that that is little advertisement for the thinking of the Labor Party at this time. I think the Government has accepted its responsibility. I think it has shown that it is prepared to play a part and I think it should play a greater part The policy of the Labor Party seems to be to repudiate its friends and to crawl in with Mainland China because the sooner we are all Communists the better it will be for the whole world.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) sees things in black and white terms. He said that because members of the Australian Labor Party repudiate the idea that Australia must follow slavishly behind another nation which has been friendly to us in a world war, we are crawling into bed with Communist China. The disease from which he suffers is a very common one in international relations.

Questions were put to a series of adult people in the United States regarding certain kinds of international behaviour in certain abstract situations which are concrete enough when one looks around the world. They were asked to comment on what the significance of this behaviour would be - whether it would indicate a propaganda exercise, whether it would indicate genuine concern for another nation and so on. The score came out 4 to 1 in favour of the United States as compared with Russia in performing exactly the same kinds of acts in the same hypothetical situations. In other words, given certain situations between nations and asked to interpret the acts of those nations, the people condemned Russia 4 times as often as their own country, the United States.

Some children in a United States school were shown a picture of a peaceful lane with rows of trees along the edges and they were asked why those trees were planted. When it was explained to them that the trees were in Russia they produced such reasons as ‘So that people can hide behind them’, ‘So that they cannot be seen’, ‘So that people can escape readily’ and so on. When they were told that the trees were in the United States, the children said that they were there for windbreaks and to keep down the dust. This is the sort of disease we see in the honourable member for La Trobe who has just retreated in a hurry from the chamber.

The image that enemy nations form of each other does, more or less, correspond to reality. If they fail to recognise this, their enemies might be treacherous and warlike and they would not long survive. Nevertheless, the fact remains tha/ this enemy image impedes the resolution of all sorts of conflicts and this is not good enough. The Labor Party says: ‘Yes, we will have defence but we will not have a complete sellout to our great and powerful allies. We do not want them walking into Pine Gap on our territory telling us how to run it, telling us what it is for when it suits them, allowing their members of Parliament to walk in when it suits them, allowing our people to go and take some part only when it suits them and telling us that it is not necessary for defence purposes for us to know what is going on.’

There is no coherence or logic in the attitude which implies that because one puts a sensible and reasonable case for the legal claims of China to the island of Taiwan, Quemoy or Matsu, therefore, one is crawling into bed with somebody. This has nothing to do with the case. It is a sign of a diseased mind which can link 2 actions together, and when this type of disease in the mind is transferred into foreign policy, we get the sort of thing which has led Australia into a disastrous exercise in Vietnam - a hopeless and unwinnable situation where we have taken part in the killing of more than one million people on the grounds that if we had got out and let the Communists have their way a million people would have been killed. We are in Vietnam in support of a regime which has been guilty of all the atrocities and all the police state crimes from which we claim to be saving the people. We have saved the people from such a regime and handed them over to another such regime with the expenditure of their lives and ours and of our treasure and goodwill.

This year is the International Year against Racial Discrimination. It is the second year of the United Nations second development decade in which we are pledged to do such things as constructively to build up the standard of living and the quality of life in those nations less able to do it without our help. Our total expenditure on wars and war preparations is approximately 6 times the amount we spend on that kind of aid, including all our aid to New Guinea, which represents more than one-half of our civil aid. I might say that New Guinea adds substantially to the Australian economy and contributes far more to Australian companies than it takes from us in civil aid. In other words, from a moral and just point of view, our aid to New Guinea is the least we can do for the boost that our economy receives from Australian investment in New Guinea. So if we are going to be honest about the level of our foreign aid we should reduce it by more than 50 per cent, and we should say that we are prepared to spend on wars and on preparations for wars 10 times as much as we spend on foreign aid at a time when there is no immediate military threat to Australia. That is the proper measure of the disease shown by the honourable member for La Trobe and by the policies of this Government.

We are also in the second year of the first disarmament decade. Our moves in this direction have again been halting, hesitant and guided by great and powerful friends. We follow in their footsteps as though they were our infallible fathers. We take no initiatives towards the disarming of the world. With reluctance we sign various conventions against the spread of weapons. There is none of the statesmanship that was shown by the last Foreign Minister of a Labor government, Dr Evatt, when he fought at the United Nations for the interests of small nations and against the veto which most people now agree is one of the things that is hamstringing any possibility of the rule of law in the world. He fought for an ideal upon which this Government turns its back.

Small countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, are moving in favour of the reform of the United Nations Charter next year, to move that body towards what it must become if the world is ever to be ruled by law instead of war. What does this Government do? It does not support moves for the review of the United Nations Charter. After repeated questions and letters that I have sent to succeeding Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers in this Parliament, they have not made any moves towards notifying the Australian people that such a review is on the United Nations agenda for next year. They have not made any moves towards making public what will be an essential change in the United Nations Charter, to make the United Nations a legislative body capable of enforcing laws in those matters which cause disputes between nations and give it democratic elective representation instead of being a diplomats club, as it is at the present time, with no elective power. There have been no moves towards giving the International Court of Justice compulsory jurisdiction in those matters which otherwise lead to war as the only solution left. No moves have been made towards expanding the police force of the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– The Opposition talks of independence in foreign affairs and defence matters, but the Government has been practising it. The Government did not accept the Communist Chinese position on entry to the United Nations, lt did not accept the Nationalist Chinese position on membership of the United Nations. The Government has not been saying precisely the same things about these great matters as has the United States Government. Indeed, our Government was in advance of the United States in making statements to the effect that Communist China should be taken into the Security Council after its admission to the United Nations. On the other hand, the policy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has been to accept Communist China’s position on Formosa, or Taiwan. I ask: Is this independence and is this a uniquely Australian foreign policy? Hardly, when the great majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be ruled from Communist China. Is it independence for the Leader of the Opposition to talk in terms of Communist Chinese solutions to problems when we are talking in terms of our own solutions to these problems?

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has made it quite plain in the United States of America, as has the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), that we are no echo of the United States or indeed; I might add, of anyone else. If we were simply an echo of the United States we would today be training Cambodian troops in Cambodia because we were asked by the United States to take part in that sort of training scheme. The Government has made it quite clear that it is not taking part in that sort of training scheme. So Australia’s power position has to be considered in the light of a changing Australian role in the world. Of course, we do not play a significant role in European affairs. We are not in that sense a significant world power. But we are already a significant power in our region. Our wealth, our resources, our interests and our policies make it quite plain that we are a significant power in our region. But our potential should make it just as plain that some day we will play a role as a great power in our region, and in this we have one abiding advantage which is dictated as much by nature as by our good intentions. Perhaps this is just as well when we consider that good intentions so often pave the way to a place to which we would not necessarily want to go.

This abiding advantage is that we are one nation, one people, one culture on one island. History and geography and the good sense of our forefathers have drawn no contentious national boundaries across the face of our island. So we are saved from one of the most constant irritants which has beggared the best intentions of numerous nations. We lay no claims to any other men’s lands. We seek no extension of our territory through ideological or military means. We go, therefore, with clean hands when we go to the aid of those whose territories have been infringed by others. In the past we have gone to the aid of those who called for our help, and we are proud of it. The Cambodians have called for all possible help and we are giving what assistance we believe we can today. Tomorrow there will be other calls upon us. The crucial point is that we must respond as Australians. Australia’s national interests must be our first and final consideration. Our strategy must be developed on the basis of our unique role and position in the region.

Of course we must work closely with our great friend and ally, the United States of America, and it is again clear, notwithstanding America’s uncertain role with so much of the world, from the Prime Minister’s experience there that we still have an extraordinarily good relationship with the United States. But the policies of the United States must never automatically commend themselves to us for the United States is a great power, but is not a domestic power in our region. Nor will the United States, after the Nixon doctrine, be impressed by an over-indulgence in automatic acceptance and reliance upon it. I welcome recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs which make it quite clear that we understand the full implications of the Nixon doctrine for us and our region. I have said that there will be other calls upon us and this needs to be outlined at this time. Two great events in particular - the withdrawal from Vietnam and the admission of the Chinese Communists to the United Nations - have induced some woolly euphoria and isolationism in Australia. This woolly euphoria and isolationism is bound up in wild expressions such as, ‘Since the United States is withdrawing totally from Asia, we must’, ‘China has joined the United Nations and dropped all its old policies’; ‘Great powers will never again become involved in South East Asia’. This sort of euphoria about the future is based on a fixed, dated and unhistorical understanding of international affairs in our region.

The certainties of the cold war and the relative simplicities of the Asian power struggle may well be succeeded by uncertainties and instabilities which are even more fraught with danger. There is no doubt that our region is now a continuing and central locale of world conflict and not just area conflict. It is worth underlining the fact that while the United States role has contracted, it has far from disappeared in this region. The USSR, as we know, has recently increased its role and I would think it is inevitable that China will ultimately pay still greater attention to its external role. At the very least the activities of Japan alongside China will demand this of China. There is no doubt that the new balance of power is more complex and will induce more problems and uncertainties. There is no inexorable relationship between the loosening of alliances and commitments and the production of peace. The uneasy semi-truce between the 4 major powers will inevitably involve them in misunderstandings of one another; and the smaller powers will not necessarily find the confusion of relationships easy to comprehend at home or comforting abroad. The fact that threats to the region will be harder to pinpoint accurately in no way means that they will disappear. In fact there may be more to fear when the source of fear is less obvious and more complex - where the uncertainties are fraught with such dangers that we may yearn for older and simpler fears which we well understood.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I desire to enter this debate at this late stage, once again being prompted to get to my feet because of certain allegations made on the other side of the House about the attitude generally of the Opposition as a party compared with the policy of the Liberal and Country Parties’ frightful coalition over the past 20-odd years. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) in his contibution to the debate once again praised the great white god, the United States of America, and spoke about the United States being our saviour and how none other than the United States had saved this country during the Second World War. These accusations are that we on this side of the House are somewhat more than subversive because of our actions during the conflict and our attitude now. The adulation by the honourable member for La Trobe of the United States and what it may stand for in world events today and his adulation of what it did in the south west and central Pacific during the last war is such that I must reply by saying that he does not even pay due regard to the efforts of his own countrymen. I remind him that the first time the Japanese were ever defeated, the first time they were ever deprived of a footing anywhere in the south west Pacific, or anywhere in the Pacific for that matter, was at a place called Milne Bay and they were repelled by Australian forces; not one American was near the place. The same could be said about the Owen Stanley Ranges.

So let us get away from living in the past, in the grand days of the Coral Sea battles and from their commemoration and pay due regard to what the forces of this country were able to do. While on that point, I might also add that this great boasting about what America did during the conflict in the south west Pacific area fails to pay regard to the British soldier and to the Chinese who kept millions of Japanese forces employed so that these forces could not be deployed to this region or to the islands to our north during the Second World War. Let us end this adulation of America. And let me say to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) that the manner in which he carried on in the United States a few weeks ago was absolutely sickening. He should have felt absolutely ashamed for having attacked his own country whilst he was in America as though doing so would make him feel 10 feet tall. His actions were nothing less than absolutely shocking and his ducking and shoving in front of television cameras and the media when he came back was just as bad. He could not defend his actions in any shape or form and we do not want the likes of the Minister in this country-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I have reminded the honourable member for Sturt on a number of occasions that he should address the Chair. Also, I would suggest that the honourable member restrain himself.

Mr FOSTER:

– lt is all right for the media to say something; that is acceptable in this place. Questions can be asked as a result of what appears in the media. Mr Chairman, if a member of this side of the Committee stands up and wishes to put his own point of view on the manner in which a member of the Ministry carried on overseas, he is subjected at all times to some form of ruling from the Chair. I say that I have not been unparliamentary. The Minister’s grovelling attitude from a national point of view was somewhat shameful. For a Minister to go overseas and to refer to his own country as being insignificant and to refer to his own colleagues in the manner in which he did is, as I said before, absolutely disgraceful. I can find no other word to describe his behaviour.

Why should I be hypocritical and pad my remarks with some parliamentary phrase or term which would be acceptable to yourself? I do not expect you to accept what I say if what I say in this Committee is unparliamentary. But surely I am not being unparliamentary when I stand here to tell the truth as I see it. I was not the only one who made the observations that I have just made. I am not the only one in this Committee who has done so because similar observations were made by the Minister’s parliamentary colleagues.

Now the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is overseas, and the spectacle has become worse. Wherever he has gone he has brought this country into absolute ridicule in the field of foreign affairs. We have had this same grovelling attitude on his part as though Americans are the only people who populate the earth and if we in Australia do not bow to every whim and wish and if we do not abdicate in favour of the United States all of our national responsibilities which the people elected us to perform, we must be considered to be traitors with respect to the grand and great alliance with the United States. What a lot of absolute rubbish! What brought America into the last World War? It was the bombing of its own territory. Did she give a damn about what happened elsewhere? Somebody said this afternoon that no warning was given of Japan’s intentions. What absolute rubbish! French Indo-China was taken by the Japanese months before-

Mr Duthie:

– John Curtin warned Australia.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes. We were warned in 1938 by John Curtin. The interjector is quite correct. The bombing of its own territory brought America into World War II. The war was brought to America’s doorstep. It did not give a darn about Britain being alone in 1940. America was worried about ils own interests. Its own interests at that time could be protected only by going into the South West Pacific area. Where el;.e. I ask honourable members, could America have gone? So there is no necessity for this grovelling attitude that has been adopted for so many years with respect to America by honourable members opposite.

Le: me say this: The old concept of foreign affairs based on defence, as it used to be, has gone forever. Asiatics today are making decisions on behalf of Asian countries. In the days in which the Government’s present thinking originated - its thinking has not changed - this never occurred. Britain was doing all the thinking for many of the Asian countries, was it not? Britain is not doing that today. It is time that that simple basic fact was grasped by the Government. It should have grasped that fact years ago. The great American influence with its charitable type of outlook does not exist in China today as it did before the outbreak of the second World War. This type of thinking is not found today, even in Europe, as it used to be found years ago. The Government must realise that today the Asians are able to do their own thinking.

What bold stand has Australia taken in the last few weeks in the field of foreign affairs on the question of India and Pakistan? I am not talking about the great human problem associated with the refugees there. Where has there been a positive stand by the Government whose members say that they believe in the free concept of the western world, if I may describe that belief in that way? What has the Government done? It is making exactly the same mistakes in 1971 as one of its former Prime Ministers made with regard to the Middle East situation some years ago. He went to Egypt on his Suez Canal exercise and was kicked out of the place. The attitude that was adopted with regard to the Aswan Dam project led to Egypt turning to the Eastern bloc countries to which it is allied today. I agree with honourable members that this area is one of the trouble spots of the world.

Yet honourable members opposite and Ministers who sit at the table here have failed to grasp the tremendous problem India faces and the prospect of serious conflict between India and Pakistan at any time. The threat to world peace of conflict between India and Pakistan is like a timebomb which could explode tomorrow. Once again the Government has been inactive. It has been grovelling to America which is supplying arms to one of the countries concerned. Through its inactivity the Government has proved itself incapable of grasping the initiative. It should have sent someone to India to give some advice, but without interfering in the way in which this Government has interfered in the affars of other Asian countries.

The fact that the Australian Government has been inactive in this matter and has not been prepared to do anything means that it will be damn well guilty of driving the Prime Minister of India once again to the Eastern bloc countries. The Government will be crying about this situation in a few months time or in a few years time followng political changes which may occur in India. India may be in the Eastern bloc camp. The Government will moan about that, but it will not accept responsibility for it. Part of the responsiblity for that happenng must rest with the Government. For goodness sake, stop playing petty 18th century type politics with respect to foreign affairs. The Government should get down to a proper basis of what ought to be the appropriate, correct and proper understanding of international relations for the good of mankind, not for the good of the few, or to prop up a government which is not worth propping up as the Government has been doing in the

South East Asian area. That is the line of thought that the Government ought to follow. It ought not to think in gunboat diplomacy terms and say that it is justified in doing what it is doing because a couple of ships are in the Indian Ocean-

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I am glad that my friend from Sturt (Mr Foster) preceded me in this debate and took his part in it. I think that the point that he made was well taken. It is time that we started to think for ourselves. The other point that he made was that we should try to get out of the 18th century, if that is possible, in our thinking. This is one of the reasons why I wish to say a few more words. I refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley). In a way, he is very persuasive. His words flow very effectively - or would if only they had something to do with the subject which is the over-stress of power. I believe that we have still to drag the honourable member from somewhere about the time of the Congress of Vienna and bring him up to the present stage. But, in this instance, he is only voicing, I believe, the beliefs and attitudes of honourable members opposite.

I still believe that a great deal of the thinking on the foreign policy of this country is based upon an attitude derived from the 1930s and in particular from 1942. Generally speaking this attitude is based on the question of the balance of power which, I believe, is now irrelevant. The honourable member for Chisholm referred to the uneasy truce. Surely we are not going to say that what exists between the Russians and the Americans is just a state of truce?

Mr Staley:

– What about the Russians and the Chinese?

Mr BRYANT:

– Now, is that what it is? If we look at the situation from our end of the telescope, is that what it is? Obviously there are great tensions, based on all sorts of things, but is this the kind of truce which is likely to produce war? My optimistic belief - I believe that this is where I part company theoretically from my friends opposite because I take an optimistic view rather than a pessimistic view of the situation - is that it is unlikely that all of these tensions which occur will produce war between them. What we should be doing is surrendering our views about the inevitability of war and the threats of power, and asking ourselves whether these things are valid any more.

One of the problems which the honourable member raised concerned the external role of the United States of America and, I take it, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of China also. Just what influence does a country, simply because it is big, exercise in foreign policy any more? It is true that it is impressive to see the rockets roll past in Red Square on May Day, to see the Phantoms zoom past somewhere or to see the USS ‘Enterprise’ pull into Sydney Harbour. The USS ‘Enterprise’ looks powerful and impressive. But how influential is it really?

Mr Graham:

– Ask Dubcek.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. We can ask Dubcek. Dubcek was operating inside a hostile environment of his own. I take it that the honourable member has visited Prague or he would not be speaking with so much confidence.

Mr Graham:

– No.

Mr BRYANT:

– Of course, the honourable member would understand the situation inside those countries! Trying to change the Communist Party inside Czechoslovakia, Poland or East Germany would be as difficult as St John trying to change the Liberal Party in this place. This seems to me to be irrelevant to the modern situation. I asked the people of Yugoslvaia whether the Russians really were a threat. They said: ‘Well, they were mobilised on our borders for 4 years’ - between late 1948 and early 1953, I think it was - ‘but we made it clear that we would take an awful lot of them with us if they came over the border.’ When the chips were down the Russians could not change the internal policies of Yugoslavia. The United States of America and the USSR are unable to change the intransigence, if that is what it is, of the Israelis or the Arabs. A country’s power or influence does not depend any more upon its battleships. Their influence is minimal. I do not believe that even this Australian Government - miserable as it is, as my friend the honourable member for Sturt pointed out - is likely to be intimidated by a flock of Russian ships sailing around the Indian Ocean.

Really what 1 wanted to do was to expand on the remarks 1 was making about the threat of sovereignty of nations to the individual in the present situation. The Australian Government ought to be trying to change this situation. Our real task in this part of the world is to protect individuals against the eccentricity of state power. State power is based on all sorts of things. You run a series of dotted lines across a map and suddenly you say: ‘You belong to us.’ The people of East Pakistan at this moment are the most sorry victims of such an exercise. The idea is that because you are in power you have an absolute right to control the rights of the citizens. They are not really individuals. They have no rights as citizens. They are just people inside a dotted line. Because somebody put a dotted line across New Guinea last century people on one side belong to the government in Djakarta. This is where we ought to step into the international arena. We ought to be trying to protect individuals, groups of individuals and the small nations by the mobilisation of international authority.

I believe we have a role to play there, that has nothing to do with the fact that we have not yet ordered these multimillion dollar destroyers. I believe that the relationships between human beings are more important than the threat of power rolling on from battleships, aircraft or anything else. This has been our most tragic abdication in the last few years. I appeal to the Minister to try to intervene in the situation in Indo-China through the United Nations. I understand the power game and that politics is what it is no matter what the human beings are made of. We should mobilise enough people at the United Nations to take a good close look and see that the rights of the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are protected and that nobody takes away the rights of the people of North Vietnam or the rights of the people of South Vietnam. But the principle victims, in my view - I have held this view for a number of years and I have been assailed for it - are the people of Cambodia and Laos. There is no doubt about the tragic situation of the people of North and South Vietnam. I was one who was critical of the American bombing from the day it was announced. 1 remain so. I regard the bombing of civilian communities or any community as an act of barbarity that should appal us.

Can we not do something to get the international body politic or the community of nations into this act so that we can entice peacefulness among the people there and at least try to do something to protect the neutrality and the territorial integrity of these 2 countries? That was my particular reason for speaking now. My other reason was to remind the House that honourable members opposite apparently, according to Government sources, think the game is hopeless. According to my friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) American policies now mean that Nixon is campaigning for the Labor Party. According to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), our policies are such that Chou En-lai is campaigning for the Labor Party. So when the Nixon-Chou En-lai ticket takes the field I cannot see how the Liberals can possibly survive.

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

– I rise to refer to the points made by some honourable members in discussing the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) both raised the question of additional overseas representation for Australia, particularly in Africa. Special reference was made to East Africa. I am aware of the situation of our representation and of the case that oan be put for increasing this representation in areas like Africa, but this is always a policy question. In fact, since the last world war we have created an overseas Foreign Affairs service in an extraordinarily short period of time and we now have 68 missions, all of them of a good professional standard. Increased representation is a question which we will keep under review. It is a policy question.

Various other speakers referred particularly to the question of aid to the refugees from East Pakistan. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) particularly spoke on this topic. I would like to point out in response to their remarks that Australia is now one of the substantial contributors to the international relief effort for the Pakistani refugees. As honourable members know, the Government’s contribution to the area now totals S54m and the value of contributions from private citizens and voluntary organisations is about S2m. Australia’s permanent representative to the United Nations. Sir Laurence Mclntyre, notified the Secretary-General on 27tb October of the level of our aid. In a letter dated 1st November 1971 to our permanent representative U Thant said:

I am most grateful for the continued generous response of the Australian Government to my various appeals for humanitarian assistance for the refugees in India. I have also taken note with deep appreciation of the contributions for the same purpose made by Australian private citizens and voluntary organisations, amounting to over SA2 million. I request you to convey to them, through your Government, the expression of my gratitude for their efforts and generosity in providing humanitarian assistance to the displaced people from East Pakistan in India.

In this regard, I am gratified to note that the total Australian public and private contributions now exceed $US8,61 7,000.

Following my announcement to the House on 27th October, Mr Patrick Shaw, the Australian High Commissioner in New Delhi, visited Calcutta and many of the refugee camps late last week and had discussions with the Indian and United Nations authorities. He has reported to my colleagues and me this week, and has had several talks with me, on the situation in the area and the requirements for refugee relief. There has been an immediate approval of provision of 10,000 blankets which are required for the oncoming cold weather, 330 tons of castor sugar to mix with the milk in the children’s diet and 5,000 tons of ordinary sugar which is mixed with the ration for adults. Arrangements are being made for the shipping of the sugar and for the air transportation of the blankets so that they will get there promptly. There will be further aid, on the priorities which Mr Shaw has recommended, including shelter, medicines and other items. These will be supplied as soon as it is practicable.

21368/71 - -R- [H9)

I would like to take the opportunity of mentioning the plight of the people of the State of Orissa in India. As has been mentioned in this House, they were affected by a cyclone which struck the area, and damage was caused by a tidal wave. This damage is probably not as great as was at first feared, but it is substantial and has added a very great burden to the Indian authorities who have to cope with the influx of the East Pakistan refugees as well. The Indian Government has approved emergency allocations of rice and other food grains to the area and is taking measures to cope with the situation. We have been informed that the United States is making a contribution of $US25,000 and the Federal Republic of Germany is making one of about $US 11,000. I understand Britain will shortly be announcing a contribution. I wish to announce as a gesture of support for India’s own efforts to bring relief to the Orissa State area that we have decided to make a cash contribution of $10,000 to the Indian Red Cross foi use in connection with that disaster, that being somewhat less than 50 per cent of the United States contribution.

One other matter I would like to mention is the question of the independence of Australian foreign policy. I point out to honourable members that, at any rate since I have been concerned in decisions of government in the Ministry and in the Cabinet, it has been the practice, on the best advice which we can get on foreign policy matters, as on other matters, to arrive at a decision on any particular question in the best interests of Australia as we see them. This is entirely an independent stand. Of course, from time to time even on foreign policy we find ourselves in difference with the United Kingdom or the United States. We do not make a great play of publicising these occasions where we are in difference. On many other occasions, of course, we find that our policies coincide with those of our friends and allies, and this is to be expected. It is natural. One would only expect that this would be so, and it is not a matter of criticism when it is so.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) made some reference - and I will not take much time over this - to a speech which I had made when 1 was in New

York, and he criticised it. He claimed that it was adulatory of the United States and he criticised one word in it, that word being ‘insignificant’. From his criticism I do not think the honourable member has actually read the speech; otherwise he could not have said what he said about it. It is necessary to read the speech and to get the thing in context. I think that if this is done it will be quite clear that far from being adulatory it was in fact a critical speech. I certainly do not withdraw from anything which I said in it and I think that most Australians, if they read it fairly and honestly and without some political axe to grind, will agree with it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $44,832,000.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– It had been my intention on this occasion to discuss the delivery vehicles for better health services in the community. It is quite clear that if we are merely going to talk about the financial side which allows people to pay for health services but do nothing about maximising the efficiency with which we use resources probably the most expensive sector of public service is involved in its expenditure of the public’s money, then we are neglecting a very important public responsibility. There is a great deal of research work available which shows how, by applying more advanced methods of economic analysis, it is possible to ensure that the dollars of the taxpayers’ money that we spend in public health services provide greater benefits for them, that is, as I have said before in this House, every dollar provides more mileage and gets greater return for the general public.

For instance, in the provision of health services it is quite clear from what is being done in quite interesting work overseas, that operations research has a vital role to play. The use of such tools as inventory analysis, queueing theory, linear programming, replacement theory and scheduling, to mention just a few, can be of benefit. Let me give a more immediate and more easily understood example. If, for instance, we have a situation in which non-acute cases are occupying acute hospital beds then we are imposing an unreasonable strain on limited, scarce public financial resources. Acute hospital beds are probably the most expensive segment in the provision of public hospital services. So if through the proper framework of services, inter-related so that we have a comprehensive health service delivery vehicle, we are able to get the non-acute people out of hospital beds and into some alternative and appropriate system of health service then we are making savings. A case in point is that if, for instance, a geriatric patient is occupying an acute bed and we can move that patient into a nursing home there is a saving of up to 30 per cent in costs. If we can move the patient from a nursing home - because his condition of course justifies this - into a hostel there is a saving of something like 20 per cent in costs, and so on. These are the sorts of approaches I would like to have developed.

I would like to have developed a discussion of the Commonwealth-State relationship in the development of a community public health services and to relate this to concepts of planning and evaluation in the development and maintenance of these services. But I find myself diverted from this purpose because of statements which have been made quite malevolently by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in another place. On 9th November the Minister, in reply lo what we call here a Dorothy Dix question, gave what he claimed to be costing of some aspects of the Government’s health scheme and of the Labor Party’s health scheme. What he put forward was a complete misrepresentation and he would know this only too well.

The Government has a notorious record in the field of health in putting forward completely unreliable costing estimates. Before the last Federal election for this House the then Minister for Health was saying that the Government’s proposed improvements’, as they were called, in the health insurance scheme would cost Si 6m. After the election we were told that they would cost in fact $29m. At the end of the year for which they had been fully effective we found indeed that they cost $31m. So it was not a bad effort on the part of the Minister for Health- nearly 100 per cent out. Earlier, just before the 1968 election, we had costing presented publicly by the Minister for Health which was allegedly of the Labor Party’s proposals on health insurance. We found when we analysed these that the Government had neglected to make any mention of the $50m revenue which would come from third party and workers compensation insurance levies for that year. The Government under-estimated collections by about $22m and it completely neglected to make any allowance at all for a cost factor of between $45m and $50m which is the cost of tax collections forgone through the income tax concession system covering the costs borne by people in their contributions to health insurance schemes. Again, not a bad effort - only Si 17m to $122m out.

I sincerely hope that the misrepresentation comes from the Minister for Health and is not a serious error on the part of those people in the Department of Health responsible for these calculations. On 9th November we had a statement from the Minister in which he referred to the costing of some proposals of the Labor Party on dental health as a programme and specifically in relation to statements made by the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun). There was a clear statement by the Minister that the costing of the honourable member for Kingston was incorrect and that it was unreliable. The following day in answer to a question in the Senate the Minister adjusted his statement with heavy qualifications. He said that it could be unreliable, and from the tenor of his heavily qualified statement he conveyed quite clearly that there was no way in which he could establish whether it was or was not reliable. So the fact is that here was further evidence of the sort of misrepresenation that the Minister was trying to project to the public.

Another point which he raised in relation to Labor Party health proposals concerns our proposal to provide contraceptive means on a doctor’s prescription free of charge. The figure quoted by the Minister was from $26m to $36m. I have gone to a number of sources to make my calculations and I find that this is a grievous misrepresentation of what would be the true costs. First of all I used the Family Planning Association’s submission to the Select Committee of Pharmaceutical Benefits, of which I am a member. This organisation is able to provide to people who go to family planning clinics a month’s supply of contraceptive pills at about $1.10. This leaves a small margin for profit.

The Government charges 27i per cent sales tax on the sale of this contraceptive. Interestingly enough for sales tax purposes, the Government puts this under the heading of a luxury and includes it in the general schedule of an amusement tax. However, if we make allowance for the fact that the Government through the Department of Health is fairly effective in bringing about reductions in costs, I would expect a 10 per cent reduction in cost because the sort of buying power that the Department of Health would represent would not be unreasonable. On that basis I estimate that the pill probably could be obtained for amounts between 57c to 63c. If we allow one-third on that, plus 33c for the chemist establishing the final retail price, we are probably getting them to the public for between $1.10 and $1.20.

I would like to give some more figures. In 1966, some 1.6 million married women were in the childbearing age range. Of these, about 0.6 million were Roman Catholics. Again, I use a work that has been published by Dr Hunt and also another work published by the Population Investigation Committee of the United Kingdom in 1969. Between what has been said by these authorities I feel quite confident in stating that only about 20 per cent of Roman Catholics would be using the pill.

Accordingly, using these figures, I come to the conclusion - and making sufficient allowance for growth in population since the 1966 census - that the cost of this proposal of the Labor Party would be between $17m and $18m - honourable members can make it between $17m and $20m if they like. But that figure shows a substantial overstatement of the true cost of the Labor Party’s proposal - an overstatement of between $9m ad $18m. This is an overestimate based on a 90 per cent usage rate by non-Catholic women. I regard the cost of other eligible contraceptive forms as negligible. Perhaps this costing of the department was made on the assumptions which the Department of Health has been given and upon which it has based its essential movements when it made its costing of this proposal. I do not know. But all we have received are highly questionable aggregate figures. I have written and asked for the provision of a full analysis of how these costs were received.

Finally, we have from a Minister who does not even understand his own Government’s programme the completely fatuous statement that the cost of the Government’s health insurance will be $250m per annum and that the cost of the Labor Party’s proposal will be $420m per annum. In the first case the amount of $250m relates only to Commonwealth expenditures. The total cost will be well over $500m this year if we include contributions, as we must. The figure that the Minister is trying to attach to the Labor Party’s proposal includes both the Commonwealth contribution and contributions from members of the community. In any case, according to my provisional figures which I am still refining, the Minister understates the total figure which would be involved. The cost of our health insurance would be the same as the total cost of the Government’s scheme but, I repeat, we aim at getting more mileage for every $1 we spend of the public’s money. That is not a bad motive by which to be guided.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– Preventive medicine is probably the most important aspect of community health care. The record of the Government in preventive medicine is outstanding. Australia’s health standards are amongst the highest in the world, perhaps the highest. This has been the result of wise and consistent policy in the past. It is a policy which has the overwhelming support of those who are in the best position to know - the medical practitioners. However, I am disturbed about one aspect of preventive care. Smoking is one of the great health hazards in Australia today. It is worth looking at what was done 2 decades ago to combat a comparable scourge - tuberculosis. As a result of a sustained campaign costing $230m, tuberculosis deaths have dropped from nearly 3,000 in 1950 to less than 250 a year now.

Compare this with our attitude to smoking. The deaths from just one smoking-related disease - lung cancer - are now higher than the tuberculosis deaths were when the anti-tuberculosis campaign began. Yet we are doing very little to prevent cigarette promotion, although cigarettes are a known health hazard, and it is not only lung cancer. It has been reliably estimated by the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Britain that approximately 10 per cent of all deaths in the community are due to smoking-associated diseases. The major ones are lung cancer, heart disease, bronchitis and emphysema. Other less frequent diseases which are associated with smoking are cancer of the lip, tongue, larynx and bladder, as well as certain diseases of the blood vessels. These findings in Britain are corroborated by parallel studies conducted by the United States Department of Health.

There is no longer any serious doubt that smoking is a substantial health hazard. The question is what we should do about it. The difficulty is that tobacco is a drug of addiction or perhaps habituation - medical opinion differs whether it is addiction or habituation, but this is really a distinction without a difference. All hardened smokers know how difficult it is to give up smoking. I do not think that whatever we do we will have much effect on the hardened smokers. The community as a whole has been widely informed, through education programmes on the perils of smoking. Yet despite this, Australian consumption of tobacco per head of population is steadily rising. I think that education on the perils of smoking is valuable, but on its own it is far from sufficient to combat this serious health hazard. What we must aim to do is to prevent young people taking up smoking.

We must look at cigarette promotion. The cigarette purveyors claim that promotion is only intended to switch established smokers from one brand to another, and has no effect on inducing young people to take up smoking. These claims are either dishonest or disingenuous and I am sure the cigarette manufacturers know them to be so. In fact, they have admitted it by arranging the so-called voluntary code on cigarette advertising on television. This code prohibits cigarette advertisements before 7.30 p.m. so as to prevent young people being exposed to cigarette promotion, but this voluntary code is an insult to the intelligence of the community. A recent survey shows that 37 per cent of the 13-year-olds are still watching television at 9.30 p.m. - 2 hours after the ban on cigarette advertisements is lifted. All that cigarette manufacturers have sacrificed by the voluntary code is the kindergarten market. 1 am sure we must, on health grounds, impose a complete ban on television advertising of cigarettes. But this alone will not be enough. There are many ways round such a ban. Increased newspaper advertising and road hoardings, and even on television where large advertisements placed at sporting events where the television cameras cannot fail to pick them up. I put it to the Minister that we must have a total ban on cigarette promotion, as is being done in Canada.

In the past it has been thought that Commonwealth powers were limited to television and radio, but the concrete pipes decision by the High Court makes is possible that the Commonwealth could control all forms of promotion by cigarette corporations. If the Commonwealth has this power, surely it should use it. It has been argued that commercial television stations would, be crippled by the loss of cigarette advertising revenue. This has not been the experience in America, Canada and Britain, where such a ban has been imposed. But if this would be the effect in Australia, I urge the Minister to consider the proposal for lc levy on each packet of cigarettes to be used on anti-smoking promotion on television. This would give the television stations the same revenue as they get at present from cigarette commercials.

It is not reasonable to expect cigarette companies voluntarily to do anything effective. The more Australians who become addicted to cigarette smoking, the greater the individual consumption, the better it is for the cigarette manufacturers. After all, they are in business to make profits. But the Government has an over-riding responsibility for community health. We have taken action to ban other addictive drugs in the interests of community health. If we are to refer credibility in these fields, and in the interests of community health, we must ban all promotion of cigarettes as contining a drug of addiction which is a known health hazard.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– In debating the estimates for the Department of Health I would like to make one point in passing. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) earlier criticised the Government’s method of costing propositions put forward by members of the Australian Labor Party. It is quite clear that many figures which the Government produces are completely fictitious. For example, the honourable member for Oxley dealt with the question of contraceptives, lt is only an assumption as to what tYPe of contraceptive a woman would use if contraceptives were placed on the pharmaceutical benefits list. To use intra-uterine devices the cost would be something of the order of a few cents a year for each woman. The Government has apparently costed this proposal on the basis of women not using the plastic intra-ulterine device but the old fashioned gold stem intra-uterine device. The Government seems to think that under a Labor Government women would be able to afford this.

I suggest to the Government that this is not the way to cost this proposition. Nor can you cost medicine and medical services, or argue about them in the way the Australian Medical Association is at the present time. On 4th November 1971, as a supplement to the Australian Medical Association Gazette’, the Association produced a booklet entitled ‘I Am a Fact Book’ containing facts and arguments supporting the Association’s position on fees. The Association made the point that the booklet was produced as a guide to doctors when speaking to newspaper reporters and others. This was the reason the booklet was distributed. It is interesting to note that the great authority quoted by the Association as having carried out the research for this booklet - and it has taken the Association a long time to produce it - is the Health Economics Service which is a division of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. It is ridiculous for the AMA to use as its source figures from a division of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. In many ways it is even unethical.

If honourable members look at the contents of this booklet they will find some fantastic figures. The booklet contains the medical cost for a patient on the per-day basis. Why not per-hour? It would sound even less. The cost has been worked out per person per day, but even then the figure has been underestimated by 58 per cent. The conclusion reached is 4c a day but actual cost is 6.3c a day, which is 58 per cent higher. At least the booklet sets out how the cost is arrived at. This is done by taking the total amount that is spent by the Commonwealth on patients who are insured, dividing that amount by 365 days and then dividing that figure by the total Australian population - ignoring the fact that not everyone in the total Australian population belongs to medical and hospital insurance funds. In fact by a more realistic calculation you arrive at a cost of 6.3c a day, as I have already pointed out. To that amount has to be added amounts for the patients who come within the provisions of the pensioner medical service and for the repatriation patients and the amounts paid by those patients who are not insured because they are unable to pay for the insurance. There is a significant number of people in the community who are unable to pay for health insurance.

Insurance costs have gone up at a fantastic rate. Taking the original figures for 1955 when the scheme was first introduced, and taking the cost at the lowest scale of medical benefits and the lowest scale of hospital insurance, as a proportion of the basic wage in New South Wales at that time the amount required for health insurance was 1.03 per cent. In other words, a family on the basic wage at that time was required to pay 1.03 per cent of its income for medical and hospital insurance. That amount has increased to 3.52 per cent today, which is 3i times, as a proportion of the present Commonwealth basic wage paid in Sydney. For a person wishing to be insured for intermediate ward cover, the increase has been from 1.44 per cent to 4.5 per cent today. This means that 4.5 per cent of the minimum Commonwealth basic wage is now required just to pay for medical and hospital insurance. This is a fantastically high proportion of the income that is received by a family which is something close to the minimum wage.

I have only a few minutes left to me in this debate and there is so much to attack as far as the health scheme is concerned. It is deplorable that the Government, having found out during its first year in office after the 1969 elections, that the then Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, a member of this House, was unable to cope with the sort of propositions put to him and the sort of questions asked of him because we had on the Opposition side a number of people who were able to understand the health scheme, transferred the portfolio of Health to the Senate and it has remained hidden in that chamber. I strongly deplore this action because health is an important subject not only to this Government but also to the people of Australia. It is so important that the responsibility of this portfolio should be retained in this chamber.

I have previously raised the matter of psychiatric patients in regard to health benefits. In reply to a question I asked of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) the Minister is reported in yesterday’s Hansard as saying that a large number of people are still losing their pensions each year - each day for that matter - because they have been admitted to psychiatric hospitals. It is deplorable that a person who has been in receipt of the age pension or the invalid pension is no longer eligible to receive the pension when he or she has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital. This is bad enough but on top of this we have complete neglect by this Government of hospital and medical responsibility for persons who are in psychiatric hospitals.

These are people who think that they are insured for a likely or possible hospital charge which may hit them or their families but what happens is that should they be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for a psychiatric illness they will be unable to claim on any fund in New South Wales. In Sydney the charge is over $10 a day, for every day that a person remains in a psychiatric hospital. The Commonwealth Government contributes nothing towards the expense. The fact that a person may belong to a hospital fund does not entitle him to any refund. At the rate of $70 a week a person’s debt to a psychiatric hospital accumulates to a very large amount in a short time. The State Government is being reasonable in regard to the collection of these debts but in the end they have to be collected and they are taken out of a person’s estate.

Those people who are admitted to a psychiatric hospital have their estates taken over at the rate of over $3,600 a year, which in most cases diminishes the assets very quickly. I consider this to be a deplorable situation. It is gross discrimination which would not be possible in any other country. We have just heard the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) say that Australia has produced the greatest medical scheme and that it has produced the greatest kind of medicines. I am sure that there is no other country in the world that would discriminate in the way in which this Government does against people who suffer from psychiatric illnesses.

In the short time left to me in this debate I would like to make one point. The Government has repeatedly claimed that the medical scheme is workable and that most doctors charge common fees. I have previously pointed out that there is not one single local medical association in the metropolitan area of Sydney which does not recommend a charge higher than the common fee. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any doctor in Sydney does in fact charge less than the common fee. Recently the Manchester Unity medical fund claimed that in Mackay only 6 per cent of doctors charged the common fee and m 70.5 per cent above it. At Townsville 15.4 per cent were charging the common fee and 72 per cent above it. At Cairns the figures were 7.33 per cent and 81 per cent, and at Southport 24.3 per cent and 60.7 per cent. How can the Government possibly argue that this scheme is workable?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– I have been looking over some of the records. I think the statement which I am about to make cannot be denied. This Government’s record on health services is one of its most outstanding achievements in the whole of its career. When it took office in 1949, shortly after the Australian Labor Party had been in office, the expenditure on hospital benefits was $ 12.6m, pharmaceutical benefits $600,000, tuberculosis benefits $800,000 and other items $200,000, making a total in that year of $14.2m. At that time there were no medical benefits, pensioner medical services, nursing home contributions and none of the other benefits which are now given. Compare that expenditure of $ 14.2m a year with the total expenditure on health by this Government last year of $476,313,000. (Quorum formed)

I am sorry for that delay because it means that I will not be able to quote some of the figures I would have liked. It is of great interest to me discussing these Health estimates to see the difference of approach between the Government and the Labor Party to health services. The Labor policy is one of compulsion and of centralised control. The show that the Labor Party’s present attitude has not changed I would like to quote a statement made by the Labor Minister for Health, Senator J. M. Fraser, in 1945. This is Labor policy. He said:

It is intended, although this stage has not yet been reached, that every person shall have the right to receive medical advice from a doctor whenever he is ill and without any cost to himself. This will apply in the case of every Australian citizen, including women and children, and will not be limited by any consideration of tha financial status of a patient.

Compare that with the Government’s policy, which is one of voluntary insurance and government subsidy. I think it is appropriate that I quote the words of the founder of the Government’s health policy. Sir Earle Page in 1953 made this statement:

The great danger in any government-aided health scheme is the tendency to develop a psychology of dependence and diminished personal and community responsibility. The fundamental aim of any social security scheme should be to raise the individual to a level at which he can help himself. Any such scheme should contain elements that encourage self-reliance and a sense of personal responsibility. Also it should stress the obligation of the individual to make at least a part of his contribution directly to the functioning and cost of the scheme. The Government is doing this by a unique device of stimulating voluntary insurance by government aid which tremendously increases the value of the premium in medical security.

I think that this fully expresses the attitude that this Government takes and the difference between this Government and the Labor Party in relation to health services. We stand for a voluntary system. The voluntary system has been extremely beneficial throughout the period that this Government’s policy has operated. We have had a lot of publicity all over Australia about the Labor Party’s policy on health as we have had about its policy on education and other things. It is just fantastic that it should think it can get away with the type of policy it advocates. It does not help in the slightest degree. It is impossible to implement. The Labor Party policy is that all health services be free and compulsory. The people are to be taxed to pay for the extraordinary cost of Labor’s scheme which, as the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) mentioned the other day, would no doubt involve about S240m in excess of the cost of our scheme. We would be getting towards a health expenditure of SI, 000m.

The Labor Party talks about costing its scheme. Its members have no idea what their scheme would cost, but they would scrap the voluntary bodies that are doing a great job of work. A great amount of the cost in connection with these voluntary bodies is borne by voluntary effort by directors who do not charge for their services. All this will be wiped out and we will have one huge government commission centralised in Canberra, with an enormous build-up of public servants to control it. This is the idea. I often ask myself: Has the Labor Party gone crazy? I think it has. lt will provide free medical treatment for everyone. How it will get doctors to cooperate in this scheme I do not know. Everybody will be going to a doctor even if he has only a sore toe. How it will get enough doctors to carry out this scheme I do not know. This scheme is just impossible to implement.

Obviously the policy of the Labor Party presupposes the nationalisation of medicine. Its scheme cannot be operated in any other way. Honourable members opposite deny that they will nationalise medicine but they are going to legalise abortions, have free abortions, provide free contraceptives on every street corner, limit parents to 2 children and legalise homosexuality. In the name of goodness, has the Labor Party gone crazy? This is all I ask, because members opposite cannot support with logic what they propose to do in the field of health services in this country. Do they suppose that the people are mad enough to take any notice of what they are saying? It is impossible to implement their policy and, indeed, it would be destructive of all the standards in this country for which we fought.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! Before I call the next speaker I ask honourable members to cooperate and cease interjecting. Interjections are entirely against the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Lang.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) spent all of his time attacking the proposed health scheme of the Australian Labor Party. One would have thought, because of the many constituents he represents and the number of complaints that he must receive from them about his Government’s health scheme, that he would have spent a little time suggesting improvements to the present scheme which is in operation in Australia. I should like to discuss 2 aspects of the present health scheme. One is the non-recognition of physiotherapists for Commonwealth benefits and the other is the common fee that is supposed to be charged for operations by doctors so that no operation should cost a member of a fund more than $5. Both of these matters are highlighted in the case of the daughter of one of my constituents who suffered an extensive injury to her right hand. All the muscles, sinews and the main nerve controlling the spanning of the hand and the feeling in the thumb and small finger was severed. A 3-hour operation was necessary and it was performed at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. After the operation, daily physiotherapy was ordered by the specialist and an account for over $ 1 50 was incurred.

The medical fund to which my constituent belongs allows a maximum benefit of 60c a treatment for a maximum of 30 physiotherapy treatments - a total benefit of $18 - yet the man received a bill for over $150 for physiotherapy which was declared to be essential by the specialist who had performed the operation. I represented the case to the Minister for Health and asked that he make a special benefit available in this case. I also requested that the National Health Act be amended to allow for the payment of a Commonwealth benefit for physiotherapy when it is certified by a specialist medical practitioner as an essential treatment for an injury. In bis reply, the Minister stated:

Commonwealth medical benefits are available only in respect of those professional services listed in the First Schedule to the National Health Act. Physiotherapy is not included in this Schedule.

The question of the provision of Commonwealth medical benefits for physiotherapy can only be considered in conjunction with the claims of other services such as optometry and home nursing for similar benefits. From time to time, consideration has been given by the Government to extending the National Health Scheme to include the payment of benefits for such services. However, up to the present time it has not been found practicable to do so.

The Minister’s letter continues:

The decision as to whether health insurance organisations pay benefits for ancillary, services, such as physiotherapy, is a matter for the management committee of the particular organisation to determine. However, each organisation is limited to a relatively small proportion of the total benefit payments made in respect of all ancillary services. Accordingly, the level of ancillary benefits provided by organisations is inclined to be low in relation to the cost of such services.

So, not only does the Government fail to recognise physiotherapy for Commonwealth benefits but also it apparently limits the amount of benefit that can be made available by the funds to a member of the organisation.

I suggest that the approach of the Government towards physiotherapists and also towards the funds in limiting them to only a certain proportion of benefit is ridiculous. Physiotherapists are well trained; they are university trained. It is a recognised profession. Most doctors refer patients to physiotherapists for treatment. The doctors have absolute trust in the physiotherapists. They are employed in hospitals and very often, in hospitals and in other areas, they do as much to restore the patient to health as does the doctor who performed the operation or who commenced the treatment. I think that physiotherapists should be recognised under the National Health Act, even if this recognition is limited to the degree that I suggested, namely, that the physiotherapy treatment must be certified as being essential by a specialist medical practitioner or, if the Government wishes to widen the range, by a general medical practitioner. Once physiotherapy is certified as essential, it should attract a Commonwealth benefit as well as a fund benefit.

Let me come back to the point that I made about physiotherapy treatment costing my constituent $150 while he received only $18 from the medical fund for that treatment. I ask the Minister at the table to suggest to the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that if he will not recognise physiotherapists, special provisions should be made in cases like this for ex gratia payments. This man is only a normal working man who is perhaps in the middle income bracket, but he had to find over $130 for the physiotherapy treatment for his daughter. However, that is not the worst part of this case. He also had to find another $191 for the specialist’s fee of $261 and the anaesthetist’s fee of $66.50. His full fund and Commonwealth benefit for the operation and for the anaesthetist’s fee amounted to only $135.75. The injury to his daughter’s hand has cost this man over $320, yet the honourable member for Bennelong neglected to make any criticism at all of the national health scheme that be and his Government have fostered.

A definite promise was made that no operation should cost a patient any more than $5. Yet, in this case, a severe injury to the right hand of a 10-year-old girl who was a promising pianist has cost the father no less than $320. To me, that is absolutely and utterly wrong and something should bc done immediately to rectify it. It is no good the Minister, when replying to representations that I made to him, saying that the patient has the right to discuss fees with the doctor. This case involved a girl with a cut hand. She was taken to the casualty section of a hospital. Is any parent going to sit down when the specialist comes in and say to him: ‘Look doctor, how much are you going to charge? If you are not going to charge the common fee I will have to go and see what Dr X will do the job for’? In the meantime, the daughter would have almost bled to death. The Government has a duty in this direction. If a doctor is not charging the common fee and if it is brought to the Minister’s notice, he should issue a reprimand to the doctor through the Australian Medical Association.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) provided us with some figures earlier which indicated that too many doctors are not observing the common fee and this Government is allowing them to get away with it. Let me give honourable members an example of this situation. In the case to which I referred, the specialist charged a fee of $261 - $11 for the first consultation and $250 for the cost of the operation. It was an extensive operation. The anaesthetist charged $66.50. He was certainly working for 3 hours. Under the present health scheme, where multiple operations are involved, there is a reduction in the amount of common fee that can be charged by the doctor. The normal anaesthetist’s charge for this type of operation is $38.50, and for a multiple operation it is still $38.50. So m this instance the anaesthetist charged well and truly above the common fee. Four operations were carried out on. this girl’s hand. For the first operation the common fee was $45 for a single operation and $45 for a multiple operation. For the second operation the common fee was $45 for a single operation and $22.50 for a multitple operation. For the third operation the common fee was $33 for a single operation and $8.25 for a multiple operation. For the fourth operation the common fee was $40 for a single operation and $10 for a multiple operation. The common fee charge for the anaesthetist and the specialist should have been only $218, but the actual charge was $327.50.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– Animal quarantine is a responsibility of the Department of Health, and it is this part of the Department’s work to which I wish to address my remarks. Recent developments in animal quarantine in several overseas countries are enabling these countries to leave Australia far behind in animal breeding improvement techniques. The Australian cattle, sheep and goat industries need infusions of new genetic material, and a quarantine station which will allow these breeds and strains to be imported is the only effective way to achieve this. We urgently require such a maximum security quarantine station and diagnostic laboratory established on an off-shore island. The diagnostic laboratory section is as necessary as the quarantine facility. The Australian livestock industries arc the backbone of our agriculture and our exports.

Although Australia is one of the most important livestock countries, it possesses fewer disease testing facilities than other advanced agricultural countries. For example, any transmission testing for blue tongue has to be conducted in South Africa. Already unnecessarily large profits are being reaped by the United Kingdom and New Zealand interests because of our policy. With the exception of New Zealand for the last 2 years, no bovine3 have been allowed into Australia since 1958. Since 1969 the importation of cattle semen has been permitted from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Improved testing and quarantine procedures developed since the 1950s have been reflected in the quarantine stations now established or about to be established in several countries, and in our own rapidly changing semen import regulations.

From a position of no semen imports from the United Kingdom we have moved to one where we allow imports after 2 years quarantine of the semen after certain health tests on the donor bull before semen is taken from him, and, since September of this year, imports are allowed after 12 months quarantine following health tests. Approximately 150,000 doses of semen valued at about $1.5m have entered Australia from the United Kingdom in 2 years, and the flood of expensive semen from this source has just begun. Charolais has been the major breed, but after May of next year simmental will probably surpass it. New Zealand semen from imported United Kingdom bulls was subject to 12 months quarantine before its entry was allowed into Australia, but as of last Friday this period has been reduced to the bull’s 6 months residence at an artificial insemination station after a satisfactory blue tongue test. This blue tongue test is to be conducted at Somes Island, which is the new quarantine station in Wellington Harbour. In other words. New Zealand can do it but we cannot.

In September we also altered our import regulations for live animals from New Zealand, so that New Zealand can now import cattle from France without jeopardising her booming trade of exporting to Australia the progeny of imported United Kingdom bulls. This trade is only beginning, but already over 1,000 charolaiscross cattle have been sold at exorbitant prices to Australians. Thousands of doses of unnecessarily expensive charolais semen also are being sold to Australia by New Zealand. Before long simmental and limousin-cross cattle will also be exported to Australia. I understand that the Animal Production Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture is investigating this question of exotic breeds of sheep, cattle and goats which would be of value to Australia. A quarantine station would be required to allow their entry into Australia. I have been encouraged by the report in the Queensland ‘Country Life’ of 28th October last of a speech by Mr R. W. Gee, the Assistant Director-General (Animal Quarantine) of the Department of Health, which he made to the University of Queensland Veterinary Students Association. He said:

If Australia is to maintain a leading position in the production of meat and animal fibres, we must retain access to all genetic material available in the world, so long as our country is not exposed to the risk of importing exotic diseases.

Techniques have now been developed that will permit the importation into Australia of exotic animals from most countries of the world, provided facilities are available that will allow the close segregation of such animals in a high security quarantine station, the testing of them for exotic diseases in the country of origin first and again through a high security laboratory in this country after their arrival.

Dr Helen Newton Turner of the Division of Animal Genetics of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and possibly the leading sheep geneticist in Australia, is another distinguished and enthusiastic supporter of the need for importing exotic sheep breeds into Australia. She mentioned several of these heat tolerant carpet wool types and wool-less sheep breeds in an article entitled ‘Exotic Sheep Breeds of Value in North Australia’, which was published .n the July issue of Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding’. If we had some of these carpet wool types of sheep in Australia at the present time we might not be hearing the argument which we hear in this chamber about the imports of wool from New Zealand.

I am not opposed to the use of semen for the introduction of new breeds and new genetic material. I am a director of the Victorian Artificial Breeders Cooperative Bull Farm Bacchus Marsh Ltd, the largest artificial breeding establishment in Australia. It produces about half of the cattle semen produced in Australia. So I hope that I am a constructive supporter of artificial insemination in cattle. But sheep semen techniques are not very reliable, and very few countries from which we would want to obtain sheep would have the technical capability to produce viable, diseasefree semen. The latter is also true of cattle and goats. Furthermore, the development of a new breed by artificial insemination by crossing with an existing breed takes about 20 years, and even then the genetic pool available for the breed is too limited. A total of 240 santa gertrudis cattle were imported from the United States in the early 1950s, and the successful and rapid establishment of this breed indicates that about 200 head of a breed are required. One of the desirable heat tolerant beef breeds, the afrikander, is having difficulty in being successfully established here because less than 10 were imported.

The type of quarantine station at Some Island in New Zealand or Gross Isle in Canada, while suitable for receiving cattle from advanced temperate countries, would not be sufficient for Australia’s needs. Because of the midges and other insect carriers in our climate, a station would have to be located on an island about 50 miles off-shore and be capable of holding 200 to 300 animals at a time. It would have to provide security for animals from countries in Africa and the Middle East, with their diseases, as well as to safeguard against the introduction of the foot and mouth problems of northern Europe. I am told that this is technically possible, and Mr Gee’s statement, which I quoted, confirms this. I was pleased to read in the annual report of the Department of Health that a veterinarian from New South Wales visited Gross Isle in Canada last year. But such a quarantine station would be expensive to maintain, and people importing animals would have to pay the cost of the quarantine. Canada is importing hundreds of cattle a year, and 1 believe that the cost of the service to the importer is about $2,000 per head. There is no doubt that our demand would be as great. Briefly, some of the types of livestock that would be of value to us are heat and tick tolerant beef cattle varieties and also beef and dual purpose cattle breeds from Europe. In sheep there are the heat tolerant carpet wool varieties, heat tolerant woolless vanties, temperate carpet wool types and temperate woolless mutton types. In goats there are the improved mohair types. In addition to the saving to Australia from the United Kingdom and New Zealand profiteers - this saving would be very considerable - such an island would be of immense value to Australia and its livestock industries in the future.

Dr CASS (Maribyrnong) (5.36>- With the increase in technological changes in medical practice the costs inevitably are soaring and this holds for any country whether it has our particular brand of national health scheme or the American variety, which is supposedly wedded to the fee for service private enterprise system or the system in the United Kingdom and other European countries which has a tendency towards salaried service. But when the Australian Labor Party proposes, in order to cope with our problems here, that we might achieve greater efficiency in the hospital service and at the same time employ the specialists in the hospitals on a salary, that we might reduce the cost of medical care if for no other reason than that we might eliminate some unnecessary surgical procedures, there are usually loud laughs from those who disagree with that policy and suggestions that it is all nonsense. They suggest that we all know that if people get something for nothing they will over-use the system. The suggestion implied in this is if one can get an operation for nothing one is more likely to have it; surely an idiotic suggestion because I do not think anyone would suggest that having an operation is fun. People only have them because they need them. ( would like to quote some facts and figures to confirm the suggestion that we are making that a salaried service, far from increasing the rate of usage of medical services, would tend to reduce it and would certainly reduce the cost to the community. Firstly I would like to quote from what was said by the late Professor John Read when discussing this problem of a fee for service. He said: a decision, conscientiously made, not to operate on a patient, may bring the doctor a fee of $5-20.

This depends on whether he is a general practitioner or a specialist. He continued:

A decision, equally conscientiously made, to operate on the same patient, may bring the doctor an additional fee of $20-$250. Provided the fee concerned in each case is ‘the most common fee’ on the Commonwealth list, and the patient is insured against medical costs, the direct cost to the patient will be $5 or less.

In other words, the patient has no financial incentive to have or not to have the operation. It still costs him $5 because the bulk of the fee is met from benefit funds and the Commonwealth. So the doctor weighing the issue up is faced with the prospect of using his judgment to decide whether to operate on a patient with a painful tummy. It might be an appendix but he might wait till the morning to see whether it settles down. With some anxiety and after waiting through the night to ensure that nothing goes wrong with the patient, he will get the glorious fee, if he is a specialist, of $20. On the other hand, if he decides to take out what might be a lily white appendix the problem is solved in an hour and he can go home to bed and rest content with the thought that nothing is likely to go wrong and collects a fee of $200. I am not sure what the fee for an appendicectomy is. The point is that he collects the fee and the patient has had an operation which may well have been unnecessary. This is often the case for when the specimen removed on operation is sent to the pathologist the pathologist’s report comes back with the remark ‘normal tissue’. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

To try to give another example of the influence of fees on the way doctors treat patients, quite by accident I came across an article which purports to show the results of changing from what is in essence a salaried service - a capitation fee where a doctor does not get a fee for every service he provides but a set rate no matter how often he sees the patient - to one where the doctor is paid a fee for every service, amongst patients who pay nothing anyway. This was in Baltimore and service was being provided to indigent patients who did not pay. The interesting finding is that in a group of people, although one would expect getting a service for nothing that these patients would use the opportunities to the maximum - I do not necessarily agree with that view but it is the commonly held view - it was found in 1961 and 1962 when the physicians were paid on a salary basis that the visits per person per year were 2.7 and 2.6 respectively. After changing to a fee for service system straight away the figures shot up to 3 and 3.2. Prescriptions per patient before the change when the doctors were only treating them on a salary basis numbered 5.5 in 1961 and 5.1 in 1962. But when they changed to the system where the doctor got a fee for prescribing, the number of prescriptions per patient jumped to 6.2 and 6.5. In percentage terms there was a 17 per cent increase in the utilisation of physicians’ services when they changed from a salaried system to a fee for service system. So let us not be fooled by this claim that if people get something for nothing they will over-use the service.

The next point I would like to raise refers to the hospital situation. I have suggested before that by employing specialists on salaries we would increase efficiency and overcome many of the objections people now have to the large public hospital system. One knows that one has to go along and join long queues. One gets an appointment to see the specialist at one o’clock but turns up at 12 o’clock to get at the head of the queue. However, so does everybody else and one finishes up waiting till 3 or 4 o’clock anyway because the specialist is not there. This is not because he is playing truant but because he is quite legitimately busy treating a private patient somewhere. After all, he has to earn his living and he has a right to look after his private patients. So with the pressures on him and the need to earn a living he is busy treating a private patient and turns up late for his clinic. One hospital in Australia recently experimented with a change from the fee for service system or, as it is known in the large public hospitals, the honorary system - the system whereby specialists provide their services for nothing. The Perth Hospital in 1968 changed to a sessional payment system. The surgeons and physicians are paid a sessional payment for being at the hospital on time to look after their clinic and it is interesting to note what happened at the Perth Hospital.

Before the changeover the monthly admissions to the hospital were 1,600 patients. After the change, in a couple of years it had risen to 2,200 patients a month but at the same time the average bed stay fell by 2 days. In other words, the average admission period for patients fell by 2 days. This can save a lot of money if the average was somewhere about 12 days before the change-over and it then dropped to 10 days. This is quite a considerable saving. Professor Joske gives these figures and he calculated what they were equivalent to in terms of the number of beds required. This was a 600-bed hospital and there wa an increase of 225 beds at that hospital but this was achieved without increasing the number of beds by one. In capital expenditure terms it represented a saving of over $5±m, which is the cost of erecting a 225 bed hospital. In other words, over a year they were able to treat 7,000 more patients without increasing their resident staff or the nursing staff. No increase at all occurred in the number of doctors. The cost in terms of salary for the visting physicians was a mere $50,000 a year.

Let us stop talking nonsense about the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship depending on a fee for service. That implies that the surgeon or the physician sums up a patient on the basis of whether the patient can or cannot pay for the service before the surgeon or physician treats the patient. That, in my mind, is an insult to the medical profession. Whether a patient can or cannot pay is irrelevant. Members of the medical profession treat patients irrespective of this fact. We must accept the fact that doctors conscientiously want to treat patients. We would get far more efficient service if the doctors were paid a salary instead of a fee for their service. Then we would eliminate this incentive to overtreatment on the part of doctors. It is not a conscious incentive. It is an unconscious one but it is still inevitably there.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I wish to speak on the estimates for the Department of Health. Of all our possessions, good health is our most precious or most valued, or it should be. However, like most things that we possess, we do not appreciate it until we lose it. Despite our affluent society, more people are seeking the assistance of the medical profession and people are taking more drugs than ever before in the history of man. It would appear that we in Australia are more doctor-prone that at any stage of our existence, despite a wonderful climate and the facilities and amenities to keep our minds and bodies in good condition. It is in regard to the aged that I wish to speak.

Much of the loneliness that retired age pensioners endure brings about a psychological state in which they seek refuge in hostels, aged persons’ homes, nursing homes and like institutions. However, despite the number of aged people in the various institutions of which I have spoken, some 80 per cent of people in this category still live in their own homes or with their relatives. This is good. Every endeavour should be made to assist them to remain there. It is surprising to learn that up to 50 per cent of aged persons in nursing homes would be better placed in their own homes and that a percentage of the remainder could be returned to their own homes if domiciliary care was available, in some cases for only half a day a week. The remaining section of these persons would require care for 2 half days a week and so on. The problem is that, because all the beds in nursing homes are being occupied by persons falling into the categories that I have just described, people in distress and in need of nursing home care and attention cannot be admitted.

The problem is a growing one. One of the ways in which we can correct the situation is to subsidise home nursing and domiciliary care, physiotherapy and speech and occupational therapy services. There are so many able and capable people, ex-sisters and others trained in the various relevant fields, who would be pleased to devote some of their time in assisting to rehabilitate these aged people. It is a matter of the organisation of people to devote some of their time and effort. Senior citizens associations are organisations of the type that I have in mind.

I am disappointed that the offer made by this Government last year to subsidise the erection of senior citizen centres has not been availed of more quickly. I think that a senior citizens centre in each suburb and country town is essential. Professional people could utilise the facilities of such buildings by attending at specific times to provide treatment. Voluntary organisations could arrange for aged people to be taken to such centres for treatment by chiripodists and therapists. This would save the time of the professional person who would be able to attend and assist more people.

These are the views that I have in mind in regard to this matter. I would like more attention to be given to these matters. The position is most unsatisfactory when a number of aged people cannot get into nursing homes because beds are occupied by people who would be better off in their own homes and who do not require nursing home care. I agree with the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) that therapists should be brought under the national health scheme. This should happen because the services that they provide are part of a patient’s treatment. I do not know why this is not done and why these services are not included. I hope that they will be in the future.

I wish to refer to a sad case which came to my attention. I think that I have mentioned it previously. I do not know how a person can enter a hospital other than by being signed in by a medical practitioner. The woman concerned in this matter returned to hospital after having been discharged following the birth of her baby. The doctor concerned signed not only this woman patient but also her baby - not for feeding purposes but because it had some gastric trouble - into the hospital. The account for the 8 days stay in hospital was $120, I think. When it went to the hospital fund to which the family concerned contributed, an entitlement for the baby was refused.

How such a situation could come about is beyond my comprehension. Whether the doctor was right or wrong, he signed the child into the hospital. The benefit fund to which the family subscribed referred the matter to its legal advisers who adjudged that the child was not entitled to the payment of a benefit. I referred the matter twice to the Minister for Health. I was astonished that he upheld the decision on both occasions. I say that this is wrong. The child was signed in by a medical practitioner. Even if it did not require treatment, the mere fact that it was signed in should have meant that it was encumbent upon the health insurance organisation, whichever one it was, to pay the benefit. I think that it should have been forced to pay. I did not receive any assistance from the Department of Health which upheld the fund’s contention.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I wish to spend my few minutes speaking about the proposals of the Australian Labor Party to establish a dental health care scheme. I wish to speak on this subject because the Government in its 22 years of office has committed many sins of omission and commission, but I can think of no greater sin of omission, certainly on the domestic front, than its total failure to do anything to try to improve the dental health of the Australian community. At the moment there could hardly be a greater need amongst Australian people and particularly Australian children than in the field of dental care. Many people - perhaps one could say the majority of people - do not get adequate dental treatment. Some do not get treatment at all because they simply cannot afford it. Some of them do manage to find the money to have dental treatment but for those it is a very great hardship indeed.

Apart from financial limitation, a further problem exists. This is that some people simply lack the motivation to seek adequate dental care. A study was done on this matter in South Australia at the Queen Victoria Hospital. The study concerned the dental health of women attending the antenatal clinic there. It was found that fewer than one-third of the women were receiving regular dental care, but of those, one-half not receiving regular care had on interest in the state of their teeth. Ninety-two per cent of all patients needed treatment for gingival inflammation and 96 per cent had decayed teeth.

So apart from the financial problems, a great problem is the lack of concern that some people have for the state of their dental health. There is no doubt that because of this the people who are affected more than any other group are the poor. They are the ones who miss out on economic grounds. Unfortunately it seems to be from that group that the people who lack the motivation to seek proper dental treatment come. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the difference between the different socioeconomic groups in the standard of dental health.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Dr GUN:

– The criterion adopted was based on the occupational status of the fathers of the children at different schools in South Australia. There is quite a significant difference in the dental health of children at the schools in the high socioeconomic group - that is, in the affluent suburbs - compared with those in the poor suburbs. What is the answer to this very great social problem? I suppose it is tempting to talk about voluntary dental insurance, but I think this is something that must be firmly resisted. I am not denouncing completely the proposals recently espoused by the Australian Dental Association. If employers want to insure people’s dental health I have no objection. There have been examples of this in Australia already where it has worked quite well. One example is at Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd at Port Pirie. They have a scheme which provides dental health insurance, to which each employee contributes a small amount each week. This is a good idea. But I do not think that this should be regarded as the basis for a scheme for dental health care in the community because, if the Government decides to come in and say: ‘We will back this system of voluntary dental insurance’ I think we will have the same terrible difficulties we have had with this Government’s voluntary health insurance scheme.

It was remarkable to hear the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) eulogising the voluntary health insurance scheme. I hope that no-one will be tempted to try to do the same thing in the sphere of dental health. A voluntary dental insurance scheme would mean the same spiralling costs as are involved in the health insurance scheme. The so-called improvements to the health scheme in 1970 have been described as a golden handshake lo the doctors. We do not want the same thing to happen in dental health. A voluntary scheme would be inequitable in that it would place an undue burden on people earning low incomes. The dental health of the community would not improve as a result of it. The people who will be left out are the poor and the apathetic - very often that means the poor as well.

So the answer to this problem does not lie in having a system of voluntary dental health insurance. The answer lies, as it does in every sphere of health, in preventive medicine. In dental health this means we must reduce the incidence and prevalence of dental disease. This is why the Australian Labor Party’s proposals for dental health are based on preventive dental health and dental education particularly for school children. Of course, it is to be hoped that all State governments will fluoridate the water but this is up to those State governments. The Australian Labor Party proposes to establish school dental services throughout Australia and to provide grants to the State governments so that a comprehensive system of school dental services can be established in all schools throughout Australia. A scheme was begun in South Australia by the Walsh Labor Government some 3 or 4 years ago. It is similar to, but not identical to the scheme operating in the Australian Capital Territory. We would like to see this extended to all children throughout Australia. The system consists basically of school dental therapists-

Sifting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Dr GUN:

– The philosophy behind the use of dental therapists is threefold. Firstly, Australia lacks sufficient dentists. Secondly, most children’s dental requirements are of a limited nature and a fully qualified dentist is not required; in fact, using dentists alone would be a wasteful employment of highly skilled manpower. Thirdly, the dental therapists, after an examination and diagnosis by a dentist, can provide a first class standard of restorative and preventive treatment. The dentist’s wider knowledge and skills are thereby extended to a far greater number of children when he directs therapists to perform routine clinical procedures. The Australian Labor Party hopes to establish dental therapists in school dental clinics in every school in Australia. Their function would be to carry out the control of dental disease by treatment and secondly, but more importantly, they would be directed towards prevention by education and motivation of children to patterns of behaviour that are favourable to good dental health. Then, of course, education in good diet and hygiene is of first importance in the work of these dental therapists.

As the scheme progressed we would expect the standard of dental health in the children’s community throughout Australia to improve considerably. As a result of that we would be able to extend it to cover secondary school children and, perhaps even more importantly, pre-school children as well. I need hardly add that the benefits of such a scheme would be even more greatly advanced in those communities which chose to fluoridate their water supplies. The other important part of the proposal of the Labor Party is that we would provide dental treatment for pensioners, for bedridden people who cannot go and see a dentist and certain other socially and physically disadvantaged groups.

The cost of these proposals is not great. The preliminary costing that I carried out when presenting this proposal to the conference of the Australian Labor Party at Launceston earlier this year showed that the annual running costs would be $45m with a non-recurring capital cost of something like $85m. As I stated in the paper, the figures are not really said to be utterly infallible. It is only a rough estimate. It could even be that the figures are somewhat lower than I previously anticipated. But at any rate this figure is certainly modest when we compare it with what Australians spend already on dental care. We spend $100m a year on public and private dental services and these reach only a small proportion of the population. It is not really doing anything to improve the community standard of health unlike the policy which will be implemented by the Australian Labor Party after the next Federal election. Our policy is to do something to really improve the community standard of dental health. The Government has done nothing for community dental health over the past 22 years, and for that reason deserves to be roundly condemned.

Consideration interrupted.

page 3363

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I was misrepresented by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at question time and I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr Chairman, I could not make a personal explanation after question time because of absence on a family matter which I have mentioned to you. In answer to a question in which 1 was neither named nor quoted, the Minister obtruded remarks about me. He said that I had made false statements about teacher education. He said that on Monday I had stated that teacher education is the only form of tertiary education towards which the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment. On other occasions I have stated that the Commonwealth has not undertaken the same comprehensive and continuing commitment for teacher education that it has made for all other forms of tertiary education. The Minister stated that such statements are false. They are not, as is made plain by his Department’s submissionlast July to the Senate Standing Committee inquiring into what should be the Commonwealth’s role in teacher education throughout Australia.

The Martin Committee on the future of tertiary education in Australia, which was established in August 1961, recommended in August 1964 that the Commonwealth should make the same provisions for buildings, equipment and staff in teachers colleges as in universities. It recommended Commonwealth teaching training scholarships. In March 1965 Sir Robert Menzies and Senator Gorton in tabling the report rejected most of its recommendations. The Commonwealth still makes no provision for recurrent expenditure or, except in Canberra, for scholarships in teachers colleges.

Mr Chipp:

– I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is not canvassing the question rather than making a personal explanation. He has intruded into the debate on the estimates for the Department of Health and we allowed that without objection. But I do suggest that he is going a little beyond the indulgence the House showed him in canvassing the question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Mr Chairman, what I was hoping to say is not as long as the Minister took in his reply.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– In regard to the point of order raised by the Minister for Customs and Excise, the special circumstances have been accepted by the Chair, and the reason for the personal explanation at this time. I appreciate that to explain his particular point of view and to substantiate his explanation of what he had said the Leader of the Opposition finds it necessary to quote from the report. I have been listening very carefully to the explanation of the Leader of the Opposition and I feel that at this time he is perhaps getting a little into the field of debating the question rather than making a personal explanation. I hope that he will be able to conclude his remarks in a very short time.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I appreciate your indulgence in this matter, Sir. The Minister said I had made false statements and I do not believe it is sufficient for me just to say I had not. I should explain why I believe my statements were correct. But I am already two-thirds of the way through what I wish to say. The Commonwealth has twice made triennial capital grants for teachers colleges but it has still not established a statutory body to implement a continuing commitment to teachers colleges as the Australian Universities Commission implements a continuing commitment to universities and as the Australian Commission of Advanced Education will now do for colleges of advanced education. If a trainee teacher is attending a university, he benefits from the Commonwealth commitment to universities; if he attends one of the few teachers colleges which have been classified as colleges of advanced education, he benefits from the Commonwealth commitment to colleges. The Commonwealth, however, has made no permanent commitment to teachers colleges and it has never made a commitment for the incomes of staff and students at teachers colleges. Therefore, I assert that the present Government still makes the same basic discrimination between teachers colleges and all other forms of tertiary education as Sir Robert Menzies and Senator Gorton made in March 1965.

page 3364

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– Prior to the personal explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) we listened to the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) tell us about the proposed dental plan of the Australian Labor Party. To interpose, we have just heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about the free Labor galaxy in relation to education. Listening to the honourable member for Kingston and, indeed, to all Labor speakers, not only in respect of health but also repatriation, social services, pay for the Services, assistance to the States, assistance to local government and assistance to State governments - in respect of just about everything - we hear what the Labor Party is going to give the public of Australia. I object to any political party in opposition saying: ‘When we become the government we will give you this free’. A headline in a newspaper yesterday or the day before referred to the Labor Party’s free dental plan. I think this is just a confidence trick. I am not blaming the Opposition for this, but this is the way it was presented in the newspaper. All of us in this place know, without any doubt at all, that no government gives anyone anything for nothing. There is only one source from which money to pay for such a dental scheme or health scheme etc. can be obtained. Indeed, there is only one source from which money for any of the many promises can be obtained, and that is from the taxpayers of Australia. Therefore, let it be clearly understood, when we heard all these glowing promises from the various members of the Labor Party, that the money to finance these promises must come ultimately from the people. The cost must be added to their taxes. Everyone will be paying to provide all these gifts which are to be given by the Labor Party.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is wrong with that?

Mr JESS:

– What is wrong with it? The only thing wrong with it is that the Labor Party has never been able at any time, nor would it be able to do so at this particular time, to cover collectively all its promises. It has never been able to tell the people of Australia what the financing of these promises will take from their pay packets should the Labor Party ever get into government.

Mr Foster:

– What about the cost of the Vietnam war?

Mr JESS:

– It is all very well to raise the red herring of the Vietnam war. I am not discussing that. If the honourable and distinguished member for the waterfront would just be quiet for a while, he may learn a few points. All I am trying to say, and the honourable member may deny this, is that the Labor Party, if it were in office, would not set up a printing press and churn paper money out through the front door of Parliament House. A Labor government would get the money from the working man, the wage earner, in this country. Someone interjected during the debate today about the great health scheme of the United Kingdom. New Zealand also has a great, free health scheme. But look at the economy of New Zealand; look at the economy of the United Kingdom at this time. This was one of the reasons why the Labour Government in the United Kingdom was thrown out of office.

The Opposition is expecting to fool the people. It hopes to convince them that it can introduce these measures without economic strain and without affecting their pay packets. Apparently this money is to come from some mythical source. In my opinion the source is non-existent in this country. Australia has a population of about 14 million. The Labor Party has not proposed just one scheme, such as the one that it conveniently put up as a midelection promise in a particular city. It would be interesting to add up the number of promises that have been made over the last 3 years in this House during the consideration of a Bill and a departmental estimate. The Labor Party has moved amendments to Bills and estimates to the effect that in the event of its becoming the government, it will do certain things. But it has never added the cost of each promise to show the Australian people the total cost.

I wish to speak on 3 matters in relation to the health estimates. I did not speak duing the Budget debate so I shall raise them now.

Mr Foster:

– Where you sick?

Mr JESS:

– No, I was not sick. But every time I am around the honourable member I have a tendency to be so. However, let me say this: Firstly, there is the prescription fee which has now risen from 50c to Si. I have written to the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and have raised this matter which concerns people who have a permanent malady. The treatment given to such people seems to me to be very unfair. It is reasonable, perhaps, to levy this increased charge on someone who has an attack of flu or a passing indisposition. Such a person goes to a doctor, who prescribes a medicine, pill or whatever it may be. Because of the increased charge the patient pays a $1 fee. Perhaps this is a reasonable charge in view of the increasing health costs which are being borne, not by the Government, but by the people of Australia. After all, it is the people who are bearing these increased costs. Governments do not give anybody anything free.

But I believe that a different case exists for people who have a permanent malady. I refer to epileptics and diabetics and other people who have no hope of being cured. Under the present Act such persons are compelled every 2 months or so to obtain a doctor’s prescription for which they have to pay a prescribing fee to the chemist. In my opinion this is quite ridiculous. I speak from first hand knowledge as a diabetic. I know that I am not going to be cured, that there is no cure in sight. I have it for life. I have been a diabetic for a considerable period now. But why do I have to go to a doctor so often to get a prescription? For every 36 bottles of insulin which I am now allowed on one prescription under the Act, I have to pay $1 whereas previously I paid 50c. I do not mind paying the increased amount but many diabetics are elderly people who do not have sufficient money to pay the increased fee. They have other expenses. They have to buy syringes and needles. In addition they might have added expenses because of ill health caused by other maladies to which they are susceptible.

I have requested the Minister for Health to ask the Medical Review Committee to see whether it is possible to allow the number of bottles of insulin obtainable on the present prescription to the doubled - that is, from 36 to 72. In this way people who have permanent maladies will pay the same prescribing fee as before. I hope that the Minister will accept this request. If he does not accept it, I assure him that if someone likes to move an appropriate amendment at some future date I will certainly be voting for it.

The second matter 1 want to mention was raised earlier by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and it concerns physiotherapists. I agree emphatically with everything he said. I think the arguments advanced by the Government as to why it does not include payments for services by physiotherapists in its list of benefits is quite farcical. I had a condition in which certain bones in my feet seemed to be going out of conformity. I went to a specialist who was an orthopaedic surgeon. I was told that I should go to a physiotherapist. That is to say, I was sent by a specialist to a physiotherapist. However, I am not entitled to receive a Commonwealth benefit for fees paid to the physiotherapist. As I said, I think that the argument put forward by the Government is ridiculous. It is time the Government got up to date and accepted the fact that most patients are referred to physiotherapists by doctors and that they are referred for very good reasons.

The third matter I wish to- raise in this respect of post-operative visits. I understand that if a woman has a baby in hospital and then has post-operative visits to the doctor, the fees paid for those visits are not refundable. The excuse given by the hospital benefits associations is that these costs should be included in the operation fee. I know of a man’s wife who went into hospital to have an eye operation. She had to go back after a month and again after 2 months, but she was not entitled to a refund of fees because the organisation said that these expenses should have been included in the operation fee. This situation is farcical. I have not known anyone have an operation and not have to return to the doctor for further treatment. This applies whether or not the operation was successful. Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that because people have to go back for a review of their condition, they should not be eligible for hospital benefits. I suggest that the Government should check the legislation in these 3 respects. Otherwise it may find that it will have a few troops missing on this side of the House.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I find myself in agreement with many of the points made by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). I have often wondered whether he has had one too many needles. He seems to have, quite justifiably in my view, a very sensitive concern about the afflictions which have affected him. But he also seems to over-minimise the afflictions which affect other people and which, in my view, are not the subject of the consideration they ought to be under the health scheme operating in Australia. The honourable member has criticised the honourable member for Kingston who advocated a national dental scheme. I think it is important to draw the parallel that whatever we incur, whatever we enjoy in the way of dental care is paid for by somebody in this country but the regrettable and unfortunate fact is that it is often paid for in an inequitable way, that is to say that families which have a need of dental care cannot afford it. It is terribly important to remember that we should set out to ensure that the public sector of this economy is expanded to the point where the cost of these things is met in a more equitable way. Whether it is in regard to the dental care of people, the diabetic complaints of people or anything of the kind to which the honourable member referred, this is the fundamental and underlying characteristic of the Labor Party’s policy.

We take the view that in many areas you can satisfy yourself and placate your anxieties, that people do not want to be sick just for the sake of being sick. I think it can be fairly contended that people will not undergo operations or surgery unless it is needed. Indeed almost invariably there is the safeguard of doctors being present to conduct the operations because they are required. The Labor Party says one fundamental thing about this and that is that there ought not be economic barriers to treating people with sickness. That is the very basis of our objectivity in this area. We set out to ensure the fulfilment of that aspiration and if there is any tendency on the part of the honourable member to indict the Labor Party for that objectivity I think he will be found wanting in public opinion.

I would like to talk about the Labor Party programme for a national health scheme. I have only a very short time in this debate. I want to say a few words about handicapped children. The 1959 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of a Child lays down a criterion in this regard. An extract from that declaration reads:

The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition.

It always seems to me that there is something wrong with any society which treats as lavishly as we treat - though insufficiently in my view - the educational needs of ordinary, healthy, wholesome Australian children and then puts right at the end of the queue the child who has a need for special care, the mentally and physically handicapped child. This, like so many other matters, is the subject of a bad approach to priorities on the part of this Government. That is to say, we relegate to charity, to a very considerable degree, the care of the physically and mentally handicapped people in this country: We have a long way to go to measure up to the criteria expressed in, for example, the Australian Public Instruction Act, the effect of which is to make the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) responsible for the provision of education services for all children on a free and compulsory basis. But when it comes to the handicapped child we abandon this principle.

When I say ‘we’, to whom do I refer? Who has to accept the responsibility in this matter? There have been precedents in other parts of the world about the application of decent scales of values. The precedents have been brought to the attention of this Government on countless occasions, not just by way of debate but by way of amendments to legislation, yet the Government has deliberately flouted the international requirement, and this is being done in a country which Government supporters like to describe as being among the most privileged and affluent in the world.

In many parts of Australia there are scores of children with an IQ of less than 30. These children are not eligible to participate in our free and compulsory education system. What happens to these children and their parents? The fact is that the children are often denied and the parents are often required to devote substantial parts of their lives to fulfilling the requirements whichare the product of Government neglect and the denial of these basic principles. Is there any honourable member listening in this chamber who would purposefully set cut to declare that that is the way he would like to see things in this area? Of course not. In other words, it is the subject of indifference.

I would like to see a blueprint in Australia on the care of the nation’s handicapped children. That blueprint should programme the acceptance by the Commonwealth of the total financial burden in the same way as we accept the financial burden for healthy children. It should plan for the provision of centres on a regional basis in every State. It should undertake the training of a specialised professional teaching force and other personnel and facilitate the payment of adequate salaries to these people. In other words this is a blot on the Australian landscape. The running costs of the establishments which care for the handicapped children, these establishments which fill a public vacuum, a governmental vacuum, are not sufficiently met by the Government. These, of course, include staff wages and the capital, running and maintenance costs of vehicles. There is much more I would like to say about this because I am especially concerned with the problems of the New South Wales Handicapped Children’s Centre and its Rainbow Lodge. I would like to have presented a case tonight about this organisation’s financial needs but I can see 1 will have to do it by way of correspondence to the Minister.

There is one matter I would like to raise in this area. It concerns the special pharmaceutical needs of handicapped children. Recently the parents of children who were accommodated by the New South Wales Handicapped Children’s Centre, which is located in my electorate at Kirrawee, circulated questionnaires. I was astounded to find the high cost of pharmaceuticals. The costs run as high as $1,100 for a 2-year period for a handicapped child. I have made a submission to the Minister.I hope he regards it importantly and seriously. I believe there is a case for special consideration to be given these people. Maybe it could be done along the lines of the pensioner medical service. Maybe the Minister could arrange for prescriptions issued in respect to a handicapped child to be paid for by the Commonwealth in the same way as the pensioner medical service meets the needs of pensioners.

Finally I would like to make one plea in regard to the cost of artificial limbs, especially for children. Out of the private purse 4,750 artificial limbs are supplied at a cost of $829,000 annually. A parent of a child needing artificial limbs often has to meet the bill on many occasions during the life of that child. As the child grows up he or she will need more artificial legs or arms. I have personal knowledge of the enormous burden which is placed on the families of these children. Here again I have made submissions to the Government but without avail. In the very limited time available in this debate I can only plead that more consideration be given to this very important topic.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– The honourable member’s time has expired.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Consideration interrupted.

page 3367

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Mr Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. A little earlier this evening the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) read a prepared statement as a result of a question I answered this morning and he claims that the Commonwealth has no permanent commitment to teacher education. This was a statement made in a Press handout which was a prelude to his conference concerning Labour’s approach to education. It was a statement by the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party on 8th November, a few days ago. In that statement there was a part to which I earlier referred. It states:

The nucleus and basis of any education system is its teachers. Teacher education must become a fully recognised branch of tertiary education. At present it is the only form of education to which the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment.

That was the statement which I said was false, and I gave the reasons for that and indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had made the same kind of claim on earlier occasions. I pointed out that capital funds totalling about $54m have been provided by the Commonwealth to State teachers colleges, which is a permanent commitment in buildings and in structures to increase greatly the number of places in teachers colleges. But then under decisions made in more recent times the Commonwealth has a permanent commitment to the training of teachers in universities and colleges of advanced education. The commitment for colleges of advanced education totals about $16m in the current triennium. There are already 6 of these colleges in 3 States and in the Australian Capital Territory providing teacher education, and I would expect the number to continue to increase. The Commonwealth has a permanent commitment for the training of teachers in both universities and colleges of advanced education and in addition has made very substantial unmatched contributions to the extension of State teachers colleges.

The Leader of the Opposition in a statement tonight tried to suggest that this was not so, and he did this in a fairly skilful manner. He repeated the claim that teacher education is the only form of tertiary education towards which the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment. He went on later in the statement released tonight to say that the Commonwealth however has made no permanent commitment to teachers colleges. It is true that the Commonwealth’s commitment is a capital commitment to teachers colleges, and there is a permanent, continuing commitment to colleges of advanced education and to universities in which large numbers of teachers are trained. But the Leader of the Opposition shifted his ground quite skilfully in the statement tonight, in the one part saying that the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment to teacher education and in the other part saying that the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment to teachers colleges. These ,statements are quite different. The ground is shifted, but the fact remains that the Commonwealth has a permanent commitment to the training of teachers in universities and colleges of advanced education. This is a rapidly expanding commitment.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation on the same matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. Earlier tonight I took the first opportunity to make a personal explanation in the light of a misrepresentation which the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made during question time this morning. He stated that I had made false statements. I am at least gratified that he has not reiterated those strong but false words. I made it quite plain in my statement tonight that the Commonwealth has a commitment to anybody who is a student at university, even if he is a teacher trainee, and that it has a commitment to students at teachers colleges if they are among the half dozen teachers colleges which are classified as colleges of advanced education. I said that tonight.

The Minister has not in fact corrected any misrepresentation if he repeats what I had said. But what I said and what I have said for years, ever since Sir Robert Menzies and Senator Gorton, as he then was, rejected the Martin committee’s recommendations about teachers colleges in 1965, is that the Commonwealth treats teachers colleges differently from all other forms of tertiary education. It is not false for me to say that, as the Minister said it was during question time today. What I said is true. The Commonwealth does make - it made throughout the 1960s - a commitment for universities. There is an Australian Universities Commission. It is a statutory body. Nobody has suggested that it be repealed. As long as it is there it makes reports, which to a great extent the Parliament adopts. There is no such permanent commitment towards teachers colleges.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! This personal explanation is developing into a debate on the subject matter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the Minister reiterates something surely I am entitled to have the same latitude. He said it was false for me to say there was no permanent commitment. There is a difference as to duration between the commitment to teachers colleges and the commitment to universities. The universities are under a permanent statutory body. The teachers colleges have on 2 occasions had a capital grant for a 3 year period. Secondly, the universities commitment is not only to capital grants but to current expenses and scholarships. There never has been a commitment to teachers colleges for current expenses, and except for students at the Canberra Teachers College there is no provision for teachers scholarships by the Commonwealth. What the Minister said this morning was false. He said I had made false statements. I took the first opportunity to correct what he said. At least he should have the grace to say that he had misrepresented me this morning.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to debate the matter.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (WannonMinister for Education and Science) - Mr Chairman-

Mr Crean:

– I raise a point of order. As I understand it, the business before the Committee is the estimates of the Department of Health. As we all know there is a limited time in which to debate these estimates, and I think it is quite wrong that the time should be taken up debating what has been raised.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Your Leader started it.

Mr Crean:

– I do not care who started it. I take the point that the business before the Committee is the estimates of the Department of Health and that what we have heard is entirely irrelevant.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Committee has already passed the estimates of the Department of Health and at this moment there are no estimates before the Committee. I have explained why the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to make a personal explanation. In the circumstances, I think that the Minister for Education and Science was entitled to reply. The difficulty is that the Leader of the Opposition has now again given a personal explanation on what he considered was a misrepresentation by the Minister in his reply. As the Minister has risen to his feet, it is my intention to allow him to make a further personal explanation. I ask the Minister to be as brief as possible and to stick to the point. When the Minister has finished I will not permit further discussion of this matter.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

- Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling and I will be brief. The claim which I indicated was not correct this morning and which the Leader of the Opposition has defended was contained in the statement issued from the Leader of the Opposition’s own office. It states:

Teacher education must become a fully recognised branch of tertiary education. At present it is the only form of tertiary education to which the Commonwealth makes no permanent commitment.

That statement is false, because teacher education is undertaken in colleges of advanced education and in universities and the Commonwealth Government has a permanent commitment to those institutions in addition to providing unmatched capital grants to teachers colleges of tens of millions of dollars. For the Leader of the Opposition to persist in this fantasy and myth is something I cannot understand.

page 3369

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1)

1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Progress reported.

page 3369

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES 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:

The purpose of this Bill is to rectify a situation under the Matrimonial Causes Act disclosed by two recent decisions of the High Court of Australia. For many years it has been the practice in several States for some judicial powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act to be exercised by officers of the supreme courts such as registrars in divorce and masters, instead of by judges. These officers have made orders with respect to such matters as maintenance payments, property rights and access to children. However, last December the High Court held, in the case of Kotsis v. Kotsis, that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not part of that court but was merely an officer of it. He had not, therefore, been invested with Federal jurisdiction by the Matrimonial Causes Act, and any order of a judicial nature made by him in the purported exercise of Federal jurisdiction was a nullity.

The decision in Kotsis v. Kotsis was followed in May of this year by a further decision of the High Court in the case of Knight v. Knight, which related to the position of the Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The High Court held that the position of the Master of that court was indistinguishable from that of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and that, accordingly, the Master lacked jurisdiction to make orders of the kind he had for some time been making. The High Court’s decision in Knight v. Knight also cast doubt on a South Australian practice in accordance with which persons appointed as commissioners of the supreme court - usually retired judges - have purported to exercise the jurisdiction of the court in granting divorce decrees and making related order.

The two decisions I have mentioned have made it clear that many other similar orders are of questionable validity, and it is most desirable that the doubts that at present exist in relation to the rights of persons affected by such orders be removed. These rights are of vital importance to the individuals affected. They include, for example, the right of a wife to receive weekly payments of maintenance moneys, the right of a father to visit his children in the custody of their mother, and the right of a wife to a portion of the property held by her husband. The enfor ceability of such important rights as these plainly cannot be left in doubt. The present Bill will remove the doubts that have arisen by providing that the rights of such persons aTe to be the same as they would have been if the orders had been validly made - that is, made by a judge of the supreme court.

The detailed operation of the Bill appears in an explanatory memorandum that I have circulated to honourable members. However, I shall outline the main features of the Bill. The main provision of the Bill is to be found in sub-clause (3) of clause 5. The effect of this provision will be that, in the case of an order that an officer of the court has purported to make in accordance with the long established practice to which I have referred, the rights, liabilities, obligations and status of all persons will, by force of the Act, be the same as if the purported order had been made by a judge. While it is by no means clear that orders made by Commissioners of the Supreme Court of South Australia would be held to be invalid, the opportunity has been taken to put the position of these orders beyond doubt. The Bill accordingly deals with these orders in the same way as it deals with orders made by officers of the courts.

Where a purported order has already been the subject of a further order of a judge, by which it has been set aside or varied, the Act recognises that the subsequent order of the judge will be fully effective. In this connection I mention that the order which was held invalid in Kotsis v. Kotsis was subsequently replaced by an order made by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In the case of Knight v. Knight no order was actually made by a court officer, the matter having been raised for the High Court’s consideration by way of a case stated by a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

In the result, the present Bill will in no way deprive any litigant of the fruits of his litigation. However, in the many cases to which the Bill will apply, it will provide for the rights of persons to be as it was intended that they should be when the purported orders were made, and will place the persons affected in the same position as they believed themselves to be in before the High Court decisions which I have mentioned. The absence of such provision would lead to an avoidance of responsibility and consequent hardship. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Leave granted for debate to proceed forthwith.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The Opposition supports the Bill. I will not detain the House for long. In fact, the Bill would have been through several minutes ago if the time of the Committee had not been taken up in your absence, Mr Speaker, by making amends for some of those gratuitous reflections which are made by Ministers in answers to questions purporting to be without notice, such as this morning when a Minister spent 8 times as long in answering a question as it took to ask it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think this is a matter which occurred in the Committee tonight. It shall not be debated now.

Mr WHITLAM:

– But. Mr Speaker, if Ministers would only co-operate with you. as I am about to do. this Bill would have been through. This is a machinery Bill. It would come as a surprise to many honourable members that the Parliament should be making laws to validate divorce decrees or orders in matrimonial proceedings. The fact is that under the Constitution this Par- liament could itself make a divorce decree. It could dissolve or nullify any marriage. It is acting pursuant to that power in passing this Bill. The only other comment I should like to make is that it is becoming very expensive and tedious for parties seeking matrimonial relief to have to resort constantly to judges instead of being able to resort to supreme court officers, district court officers or magistrates as they were able to do when the divorce jurisdiction was exercised by the States. Obviously, I believe it should be exercised under Commonwealth laws. Nevertheless, we should not overlook the fact that there is expense and delay involved in the Commonwealth’s laws as they stand. The Opposition supports the Bill as far as it goes and will give it instant passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3371

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1971.

Pyrites Bounty Bill 1971.

Western Australia (South-West Region Water Supplies) Agreement Bill 1971.

page 3371

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1)

1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed (vide page 3369).

Second schedule.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $24,254,000.

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

– I wish to address my remarks on these estimates to the question of making more effective use of the knowledge gained by the Attorney-General and those people elected to Parliament in the course of looking atthe laws of the Parliament, and perhaps to the many deficiencies in those laws which we do not realise exist until a High Court decision is made. I know that committees have been established in another place, and I commend the fact that they seem to be functioning very efficiently - some of them, anyway. It is to be noted that as a result of the work of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange a fair wealth of information has been given to the Australian people.I think this is one effective way in which the Parliament can work. I was a little disappointed to read that the New South Wales Bar Council believed that witnesses before the Securities and Exchange Committee were not being given proper treatment. I should have thought that they were adequately catered for. The Bar Council seems to think that there is some danger that a witness might incriminate himself. I have not noticed that happening. All I have noticed happening is witnesses being forced to tell the truth, and there is nothing wrong with that. Admittedly, the old adage that the truth often hurts is very appropriate to some of the facts that have been elicited.

I was disappointed to note that th: New South Wales Bar Council went further and deplored this sort of inquiry on the basis that members of the Securities and Exchange Committee could well b2 subjected to party dictation. That is no. so. It has never happened and it is never likely to happen. I am amazed to think that a responsible body of learned professional men - apparently motivated by their own political narrowness - should think that members of any parliament would be dictated to in that sense by their political affiliations. It ha3 become apparent, has it not, from looking at the information elicited by the Securities and Exchange Committee that there has been a bit o.” trading going on of which perhaps t’.ie Australian public does not approve? I think that the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) is to be commended for being able to substantiate, to an extent, th: work of the Committee. But, nevertheless. I found it deplorable that the AttorneyGeneral, in my view, did not come out strongly enough and say that there had been no party dictation as to how tha. Committee would carry out its functions and, let us place it on record, that there never will be any party dictation in tha: sense.

This leads me to the point: How remiss we are in not establishing committees to deal with similar matters. I know that this question was the subject of some consideration earlier this year, but it has now gone into limbo. I understand the former Deputy Prime Minister believed that because the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) was agitating for the setting up of committees in this place, and because there was some personal conflict between the two of them, it was decided that these committees should not be established. I think it is most regrettable that this chamber could not establish such committees because of a conflict of personality. There is every reason why this House of Representatives should have some committees of inquiry. I suggest to the Government that we should establish a citizens rights committee. I know that there has already been submitted a report suggesting that we ought to have some sort of administrative review tribunal, and I am not against that; in fact I am all in favour of it. But there is no better review tribunal than the members of this Parliament, if we want to put it on the basis of making representations for constituents.

After all, we are the same people who pass the laws. I can see nothing wrong with establishing a standing committee of this Parliament to protect the rights of citizens in cases where they might believe that an injustice has been done, and particularly where the local member himself believes that his constituent has suffered an injustice. Why should not that local member be in a position to put before a standing committee of this Parliament a case on behalf of that constituent? Why should not that committee bring down a report? We do this in respect of the question of privileges and other matters. Why cannot we do it for a constituent and say: ‘In this case this person or this corporation has suffered an injustice’, and bring it to the notice of the Minister? A report could be presented and the matter could be given the searchlight of public inquiry. Let the member of Parliament put up a case.

At the present time we are limited to writing a letter, that is as about as far as we can go. If we receive a reply quickly we are lucky. If we receive a successful answer we are even more fortunate. But the position is that we usually receive an answer dictated by policy or by somebody down the line who writes the same letter that he wrote 5 years before when a similar submission was made. This is ridiculous. In the few submissions in which I have been successful I have had to go to the extreme length virtually of saying: ‘I will bring the searchlight of public opinion or of the Press on it unless you give the sort of decision that this person wants’. This happened to me with an immigration matter. A youngster was virtually made to stay at a school because of some interpretation of the policy of the Department of Immigration - a ridiculous situation. The Department gave in only when the headmaster stated: ‘Look, this youngster is at the new school, he is staying at the new school, so you do what you like’. I think that if we were to put up these sorts of propositions a lot of worthwhile decisions could be made.

Mr Duthie:

– You would be overworked.

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

-I may be overworked, but it is not a bad thing to be overworked if one is working for constituents. It is pretty disastrous to be sitting here night after night during the adjournment debate listening to other submissions being made. Looking at the matter from the point of view of this Parliament, let us consider the Constitution - this book of rules by which we have got to abide, which was brought down in 1900. It was formulated in the environment of the 1890s when we had no such thing as radio, television or nuclear energy, or any interest in ecology or conservation. Is it any wonder that we have a set of laws which we are trying to fit into that old set of rules? How ridiculous it is. When we look at these rules we see that they make no express provision, nor can they, for those matters which I have mentioned, because in the 1890s and 1900 these matters were not within the knowledge of man. Yet here we are working on these same, old rules.

The High Court has got itself into a mental gymnastic situation because in the first, say, 10 or 20 years - certainly until the engineers case - it believed that all the rights were with the States. It then got around to saying that there were other rights as well, and that change of thinking arose because of an industrial dispute. We get a complete reversal of the interpretation of this old Constitution depending upon which Commonwealth law report we read. If one looks at Commonwealth law reports in the first 20 years one finds decisions all going one way. If one looks at them at another period one finds decisions all going another way simply because the human element, we might say, of the High Court has had to change; the High Court has had to look at modern conditions.

We now find that in what has become known as the concrete pipes case a good decision has been made on the basis that surely this parliament should have power to legislate in respect of corporations and restrictive trade practices. I should think that even our ancestors thought that this Parliament should have those powers because they in fact made some mention of them in section 51, placitum (XX). But in 1910 it was decided that that section did not really mean what it said. So we have left it on that basis. I even found an article in an Australian law journal of 1934 by the present Mr Justice Holmes, in which he said that there were certainly good powers still left for the Commonwealth, despite the decision in Moorehead’s case. But nobody did anything about the matter from 1934 until this recent decision was made, and now we are trying to make the Restrictive Trade Practices Act work.

Of course, there has been a similar Act in the United States for years. The United States has a Constitution, and that Act has been able to work. There is a similar Act in Canada. Canada has a Constitution, and that Act has been able to work. But in Australia we are still stumbling along. Most of our assets are owned by foreigners and we are not able really to legislate in this field. If we did we might well find some bright lawyer getting up and saying that it is an infringement of section 92 of the Constitution because our forefathers decided under section 92 that trade and commerce between the States should be free. Of course, they were mainly talking about customs and excise duties. But the lawyers have decided that the section covers everything else, including the fact that we are not able to nationalise banks. We do not want to nationalise banks any more. We can deal with them in another way. But we have this archaic set of rules, and my point is: Let us make a few submissions back to the Australian people, certainly every time on which there is a Senate election, because they are not so contentious. We should say to the people: Why not give us a few more powers?’ For example, the Constitution could contain powers to deal with foreign investment. There should be powers to deal with nuclear energy or anything that might be doubtful. Why can we not do this by making submissions to the Australian people instead of waiting for years, as we did in the concrete pipes case when we were 30 odd years too late? Why can we not do it frequently? Even if we do not get the support that we should get. the Australian political climate and public opinion is changing rapidly and I would like to think that the Attorney-General and his Department activated the people to look at these problems that come before this Parliament and investigate where the deficiencies are and seek the co-operation of the States because surely they would want to see this nation preserved and not have it fail on some legal decision based on a set of rules made in the 1890s. Many of our laws should be abandoned because they no longer apply. The Constitution itself should be re-written and brought up to date and again submitted to the Australian people for their approval. There should be a brand new Constitution in the light of the present problems facing the Australian nation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 speak tonight on a subject on which I have spoken a number of times over the last 4 and a bit years. In fact, I have asked 9 questions and made 5 speeches in this chamber on the subject and this is the sixth speech so the genuineness and sincerity of my concern should not be questioned. 1 deal principally with the question of the invasion of privacy by various means, such as the use of listening devices, the tapping of telephones and the taping of telephone conversations which in recent times have become more and more acceptable in courts of law as evidence. I would like honourable members to reflect upon the thought that a man without privacy is a man without dignity. I hold very closely to that point of view. The scientific prospects for the next decade indicate a continuing increase in the range and versatility of listening devices. Man today is becoming swamped by the proliferation of the very technology he has created. The question is: What are we doing? I suggest that we are marking time; in fact, we are taking 2 steps forwards and 3 backwards.

On 24th August 1971 in the Senate in reply to a question asked by Senator Carrick, the newly arrived senator from New South Wales, the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) said: all my endeavours are designed to ensure that the privacy and the rights of individuals, subject to law, are protected and preserved as far as possible.

That was indeed a Churchillian statement, but what Churchill said he would do he did. I am still waiting to see action from the Attorney-General. In recent years under the Act we have seen the Pentridge case in North Queensland where the Government sat by while somebody who had taped alleged conversations was allowed to present that evidence in court and as a result a man was convicted. We had a case in Brisbane a couple of years ago where a person wrote to the editor of the Brisbane Telegraph’ claiming that he had recorded certain telephone conversations. I drew this to the attention of the Attorney-General and the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) and the answer I received from them was that there was not sufficient evidence.

Then we had the big abortion inquiry in Victoria. Mrs Margaret Berman who had carefully recorded many conversations - not that I am condoning the actions of certain people in Victoria - had in fact broken the law. When the Attorney-General was asked in this House why the Government was not taking action he informed the House that Mrs Berman was suffering from an incurable disease. On 29th September I asked a question in this House after Mrs Berman had appeared on a television programme and, I am happy to say. looked remarkably well. I asked whether it had been established that she had got over her disease and whether prosecution could now proceed. I asked the question on 29th September and it is now November. I suppose by the middle of next year we might have had an opportunity to make an assessment of her health.

What is the latest case where this type of thing has been done? The latest one is the case of the New South Wales Police Force taping conversations which were used as evidence in court. It was reported in a Sydney newspaper that the State police prosecutor in the Central Court of Petty Sessions on 16th March 1971 had brought forward evidence to assist the police in prosecution. So being a diligent and awake member I wrote to the AttorneyGeneral some months later after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) had noted this point. I asked him whether he would tell me why we continue to ignore these obvious blatant breaches of the law of the country. His answer is a classic and I would like to read certain paragraphs so that it can in part be recorded in Hansard. First of all he refers to my letter regarding the tapping of telephone conversations by members of the New

South Wales Police Force and advises me that he will give certain consideration to it. He said:

The Government, at the time of introducing the legislation, decided that interception should be permitted for security purposes only: there should be no authorised interception for police or customs purposes. It will be necessary for me to consider, in the light of experience with the operation of the Act, the experience of similar legislation in other countries, and current crime patterns, whether or not it is desirable that the Act should be amended to permit police interception in certain areas of crime. lt is appropriate to note here that the Queensland Government under the guidance of the recently retired State AttorneyGeneral, Dr Delamoth - I wish him well in his future career and commend him for his efforts while in office - brought in an Act which provided that listening to conversations by use of listening devices could be done only on the authorisation of a Supreme Court judge. I recognise that crime in the 1970s is a lot different to crime in the 1940s and that we must move to keep up with modern methods of crime. I believe the former Attorney-General in Queensland did the right thing in placing the authorisation to use these devices on the highest possible level. Continuing with the letter I received, the Attorney-General said:

Areas I have in mind are extortion (witness the recent Qantas bomb hoax) -

What a joke this is. I cannot imagine that no effort was made to record the voice of the elusive Mr Brown. I would imagine that it was - kidnapping and attempts to prevent the course of justice.

I seek leave of the House to incorporate this letter in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Is leave granted?

Dr Patterson:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The letter continued:

I turn now to the question of prosecuting the policemen referred to in your question. A problem arises at the threshold because of the terms of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960. Section 5 of that Act provides that (except in the circumstances set out in the section) a person shall not intercept a communication passing over the telephone system’. Section 4 of the Act provides, so far as is material, that an interception of a communication passing over the telephone system consists of listening to or recording, by any means, such a communication in its passage over the telephone system’ without the knowledge of the person making the communication.

It would appear, therefore, that if the communication has already passed over the telephone system, the recording of the conversation is not prohibited by the Act. In brief, what the Attorney-General is saying is that if you get to the end of the line you can hook on a tape recorder and go your hardest and record conversations. I notice that my time is nearly up and that I am the only speaker listed on this side of the House on these estimates. So I will do as the Leader of the Opposition did tonight; I will sit down and continue my speech after the next Opposition speaker has concluded.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I wish to deal tonight with an attack made on me, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Australian Labor Party yesterday by a member of the Queensland Parliament. This whole matter touches on the so-called law of privileges as it applies. From my point of view as a layman, I understand that no actual laws in relation to privileges as they apply to the Commonwealth Parliament have been enacted. Although attempts have been made or appeals have been made to codify such privileges, we rely on section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution for our guidance in this matter. Section 49 says:

The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

What it seems to boil down to is this: If a person in Australia attacks this Parliament or a member of the Parliament and reflects on the integrity of this Parliament or a member of the Parliament acting in his capacity as a member, any member of this Parliament may raise the matter here by proposing a motion. If the motion is agreed to the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee which then sits and makes recommendations to the House. Action, if necessary, can then be taken. It is not clear whether the laws of privilege as they apply to this House govern all persons including, for instance, judges or the

Governor-General. Under our Standing Orders no member of this Parliament can reflect on the integrity of another member of this Parliament in his capacity as a member of Parliament. If he does, certain action is taken.

What 1 am concerned about is this loophole: It seems to me that a person in a State Parliament, or in the Commonwealth Parliament I suppose, can say what he or she likes about another member of another parliament. Deliberate lies, deliberate falsifications and anything that a member likes to say can be stated. The member at whom the remarks are directed has no recourse at all either in his Parliament or in the Parliament in which the remarks originated. I refer specifically to the attack made on me yesterday by Mr Aikens. a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. His remarks were endorsed - this makes the matter very serious - by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industies, Mr Row. Mr Aikens said that the mid-election campaign of the Federal Australian Labor Party was financed by Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd. The report in the Brisbane ‘Courier Mail* of today’s date, setting out Mr Aikens’ remarks, states:

Mr Aikens said people wanted to know why the Federal Opposition Leader (Mr Whitlam) had not taken Dr Patterson (Labor spokesman on primary industries) with him into dairying areas in his propaganda campaign.

My information is Mr Whitlam and the ALP campaign were being financed by the Marrickville Margarine people’, he said.

This statement was endorsed by the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mr J. A. Row. The allegation made in the Queensland Parliament that the Federal ALP mid-election campaign was financed by Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd is a deliberate and a malicious lie. The seriousness of this scurrilous accusation which was made under parliamentary privilege by Mr Aikens M.L.A., is revealed by the endorsement of it by the Queensland Country Party Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Row. I believe that any Cabinet minister in this Parliament or in a State Parliament who deliberately resorts to the telling of lies in his Parliament is not fit to be a minister of the Crown.

This allegation was first brought to my attention some months ago in Canberra. It is understood that it was circulated here by Country Party members. If they can get away with it, good on them. But no member rose in this Parliament and made the allegation here. As soon as the allegation came to my notice, I made immediate inquiries. I found that it was a complete fabrication. Could Mr Aikens or Mr Row seriously believe that I would have remained silent for a couple of months if this allegation were true? I believe that the Australian public is thoroughly sick of politicians hiding behind parliamentary privilege and deliberately mounting untruths. If Mr Aikens or Mr Row was given this information by someone, let both of them repeat the allegation outside the Parliament and take the obvious consequences.

The whole purpose of this attack is to try to embarrass the Australian Labor Party. But tactics of this type will not work. Dairy farmers, in common with most primary producers throughout Australia, are fed up with the complacency and broken promises of this Government. The claim by Mr Aikens that I would not accompany the Leader of the Opposition into dairying areas because Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd was financing the Australian Labor Party’s mid-election campaign is the height of absurdity and is a lie. The Leader of the Opposition, as every member of this Parliament knows, did not at any stage go into dairying areas in his mid-election campaign. On the contrary, I have been in 7 major dairying areas in Australia in the last 2 months. This is quite the opposite of what Mr Aikens is saying.

This same gentleman who seems to specialise in attacks of this type - he is well known to a number of Queenslanders - made very serious allegations against me in the State Parliament on the first occasion when I sought election to this Parliament as an Australian Labor Party candidate. He referred to my student days at the University of Queensland. He is reported in the ‘Hansard’ of the Queensland Parliament as saying:

Let us look back a little. I will not go too far back to tell honourable members of Dr Patterson’s student days and the peculiar political philosophy that he had then, because many students have a lot of peculiar political philosophies. . . .

Mr Aikens went on to say:

If the honourable member for Bundaberg cares to make some investigations into Dr Patterson’s political background, he will see that he was the very antithesis of a Liberal.

Me again told deliberate lies and rubbished me in that speech in the Queensland Parliament. Only one person in this Parliament knew me in my student days. That is the right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann). He would be the first person to rise in this Committee, if necessary, to brand what Mr Aikens said as a deliberate lie. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my past as far as my politics went when I was at the University of Queensland. I was not interested in politics then; I was interested in one thing only, passing examinations.

But that is beside the point. The issue is the right of a member of a State Parliament or of this Parliament to tell deliberate and malicious lies about a member of another Parliament, and the absence of any law of privilege which permits the member about whom the remarks have been passed to seek to bring the person making the remarks before any court, or the Parliament itself. I think that this Parliament should look at this matter quite seriously. We cannot make such statements in this Parliament about other members here. Mr Aikens could not do this in his own Parliament with respect to another member of that House. I say to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bowen), who represents the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), that apparently there is nothing to stop me telling deliberate lies in this Parliament about a member of another Parliament and getting away with that action. This to me is quite wrong. I think that the laws of the land should be changed to stop this type of malpractice. T can say this: Not one member in this Committee in my opinion engages in this type of behaviour. That remark applies to members on both sides of the Committee. I think that it is quite wrong that members of State parliaments - I do not know whether any member other than this person would do this - can engage in persistent and deliberate lies about members in another parliament when he himself knows that they are lies.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I did not intend to enter this debate but what we have heard from the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) really forces me to speak. First of all, I agree with him very thoroughly-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. What has this to do with the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am just replying to what has been said by the honourable member-

Dr Patterson:

– A point of order, Mr Chairman. There was an agreement between both sides of the House on the number of speakers. I assume that a Labor member is not going to be chopped out because the honourable member for Mallee wishes to speak. I take it that this is correct.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not within the province of the Chair.

Mr TURNBULL:

– It seems that the honourable member for Dawson wants to stop me from speaking. If he would only listen for a moment he would find that I agree with him on certain things that he said. I believe it is very bad indeed for members of this Parliament or any other parliament to make statements that are untrue. As the honourable member said, they are making the statements under privilege of the Parliament to which they belong. I rose just for a few minutes to say that it has happened now as far as the honourable member for Dawson is concerned. It has been attributed to the honourable member for Dawson and to the Labor Party that they are getting certain funds from a certain source. I will not even mention the name of the source. It has been mentioned. Some new members may not know this, but I know it and can prove it up to the hilt that when-

Mr Keogh:

– Tell us where the Country Parry gets its funds from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Bowman.

Mr TURNBULL:

– In a roundabout way the honourable member for Bowman is trying to say that the Country Party gets its funds from some place where it should not get them. When this is said about the Opposition, immediately the honourable member for Dawson gets up and says that the Mother of parliaments and all the parliaments should be changed to suit him. I ask: How often have we heard in this House members of the Opposition say that certain funds; - large sums of money - come to the Country Party from certain sources?

Mr Keogh:

– That is right.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member for Bowman has proved this up to the hilt by his interjection. That is right, he said.

Mr Armitage:

– Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I do not want to interfere with what the honourable member is saying, and he can say it at some other time, but what he is speaking about now has no relationship whatsoever to the estimates before the Committee. I think he should make sure that he speaks on these issues at other times when it is more appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I point out to the honourable member for Chifiley that if he had been listening when the honourable member for Dawson was speaking he would know that the subject matter which is being covered by the honourable member for Mallee was also covered by the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr TURNBULL:

– What has just been said proves my point. When the honourable member for Dawson brought this up in his speech not one member of the Opposition took a point of order against him, saying that it has nothing to do with the estimates. But the moment I get up, agreeing with the honourable member for Dawson to a certain extent, straight away there are interjections and points of order saying that I should not be allowed to explain my Party’s position in this matter. The honourable member for Dawson has made certain statements. I repeat, because I want it to sink in, that I agree with him that if people in this Parliament or any other parliament tell malicious lies about other members, that is entirely wrong. In this chamber I have always said that I stand for policies, not personalities. But we must remember that the Opposition has often attributed certain funds as coming to the Country Party from all sorts of sources, and that has not been true either. The moment such a statement is made about the Opposition the honourable mem ber for Dawson gets up and makes a speech. Then he tries to stop me from speaking. We get points of order about the matter not having anything to do with the estimates before us - which is quite right, I suppose - and honourable members opposite try to prevent me from putting my case. I would like to say just one or two more sentences.

Mr Birrell:

– Where do you get your money?

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member asks where we get our money from. He is trying to impress on this Parliament that we get our money from some place where we should not get it.

Mr Birrell:

– Where?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am prepared to answer the question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest to the honourable member for Mallee that the matter of where the funds for the Australian Country Party come from is not to be developed into a debate. It was mentioned in passing and the honourable member for Mallee has also mentioned it, and has covered the subject in answer to what was said previously. I do not want the debate to develop into a general debate on where funds for political parties come from.

Mr TURNBULL:

– No. Will you allow me to answer the question, Mr Chairman? The Country Party gets its funds from subscriptions from members of the Country Party. That is where the money comes from. Just give me time for half a dozen sentences. I want to say-

Mr Uren:

– 1 raise a point of order. I would like the honourable member for Mallee to clarify where the funds for McEwen House came from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I have been here a long time and I can wait until the crowds stop interjecting. Finally I want to impress on honourable members the point that it apparently makes a difference when someone says something against the Labor Opposition, but it does not matter if the Labor Opposition says the same kind of thing against the Country Party. I said at the start that I agree with what has been said by the honourable member for Dawson about certain kinds of statement made under parliamentary privilege, and that the law should be changed. But I have also said that even the Mother of parliaments has this law of privilege, and therefore it is a very difficult thing to overcome. 1 regret it.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has already raised some questions tonight relating to telephone tapping by private individuals and State bodies. My purpose in entering the debate on these estimates at this point is to put to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) who represents the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) in this place some additional questions concerning telephone tapping, this time by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - that is, by a body operating under the authority of the Commonwealth. To clear the decks, let me make it clear at the outset that I am not one of those who believe that an organisation such as ASIO has no place at all in the Australian context. I tend to believe it has. Nor do I share the view expressed by some that there are absolutely no circumstances which can justify the serious intrusion into individual privacy which telephone tapping constitutes. I believe there are.

In summary ] put it to the Minister, and I expect him to accept, that the matter I am about to raise is not advanced with any view to obstructing or harrassing ASIO but only to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between the duties and functions of the organisation on the one hand and individual rights on the other. To maintain such a balance is in fact the purpose, as I understand it, of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act of 1960. It is worth our while to spend a moment to recall just what the provisions of this Act are. Essentially the legislation establishes that ASIO may tap telephone conversations only upon a warrant of authority from the Attorney-General himself and that the Attorney-General must previously have been satisfied by the Director-General of Security that the issue of such a warrant was justified on the grounds of national security.

There can hardly be a doubt that political control in this sphere as provided by the Act is the only form of control which is tolerable. Moreover, at the risk of accusations of being naive, I would add my own belief that the 3 Ministers whom 1 have seen acting as Attorney-General - and indeed any other member of the Parliament who might occupy this position - would act properly and conscientiously in accordance with the obvious intentions of the Act. Having said that by way of preamble, the obvious remaining question is: What is left to worry about? It is this: While the theory and philosophy of the legislation may be unexceptionable the Act is worth nothing if its provisions cannot be properly and adequately supervised, and 1 am concerned that such supervision may not now be possible due to the mechanics of the tapping system which ASIO recently adopted.

There are 2 methods available for monitoring telephone subscriber calls and conversations. The first method, which would be familiar to anyone who watches a television detective series, involves a telephone technician identifying the line of the subscriber in question and then physically connecting that line to an observation facility. Monitoring can then continue by any authorised person. This system, as you will appreciate, Mr Chairman, involves at least 2 people, and in practice more often more than 2 people knowing that interception is taking place. But at this most basic level at least some check is possible on abuse that might be occurring. The second method of interception, however, eliminates this. The alternative system can be explained by reference to a very common set of circumstances. No doubt, Mr Chairman, you will have shared my own experience from time to time of attempting to ring a number which seems to be continually engaged. One telephones complaints and says that such and such a number seems to be continually engaged and asks for a check to be made to see whether it is in order. The telephonist says: ‘Hold the line a moment and I will check.’ Sure enough, just a moment later she is back to say that the telephone is out of order and she will report it, or, alternatively, the line is not out of order but is in fact engaged.

The reason that this information is available so quickly and accurately is that the Post Office has a centralised observation facility whereby any subscriber in the metropolitan area can be monitored undetected simply by dialling that subscriber’s number. Access can be gained to all metropolitan subscribers without restriction; there is no record other than that which may be kept by the person dialling the number to be observed, and once the original connection of this facility has been completed no third party need be involved in particular telephone tappings. The possibility of a check at the point of the tapping operation itself accordingly disappears. It is this latter method of tapping which recently has been installed by ASIO in Western Australia, and given the likelihood of uniformity in the Department it would appear reasonable to assume that a similar system has been adopted as well in all other States. The threat of this system to legitimate individual privacy on the one hand and ministerial authority on the other must be obvious.

Frankly, it is regrettable that even the Post Office itself should be able to dial into our private conversations at will. That, however, is probably part of the price we have to pay for a telephone system that works, but at least the Post Office employee does not have the same vested interest in random sampling of selected persons’ conversations which an over-zealous or over-officious member of the Security Organisation might have. The temptations are not of the same order and neither are the potential consequences of abuse. It is no use trying to delude ourselves that abuse will not occur where the way is open to it. One has only to refer to the 126th report of the Public Accounts Committee with its expressed concern at possible Public Service abuse of the subscriber trunk dialling telephone service to know that the reverse is true.

In any event, Parliament itself has declared that telephone tapping must not be left to this discretion or responsibility of the Public Service but should be under the direct control of the Attorney-General himself. It is surely important to the confidence of the public in the

Attorney-General and in the Post Office and, indeed, in the Security Organisation itself, that we should have not merely an assurance but an absolute guarantee from the Attorney-General that the new mechanics of telephone tapping adopted by ASIO will not operate to subvert the authority reposed in him by the Telephonic Communications (Interceptions) Act. I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: What internal checks and safeguards have been established by him to ensure that his authority in this area is absolutely maintained?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 must say that I find it rather strange listening to the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson), even though I am not questioning his sincerity, because he is a member of the Australian Labor Party and it is a Party based on a philosophy of socialism. We all know that socialism involves an enforced agreement in everything and that the architects of socialism - Sombart, Plenge, Marx and Trotsky - all believed in enforced agreement. I think it was Sombart who said that the state is a unity in which the individual has no rights but only duties. It is rather strange to hear members of the Opposition who belong to a party which attempts at all times to push on the individual the views that that particular party holds-

Mr Cohen:

– What about-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I hear the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) interjecting over there. I remember him well from recent times during the Springbok tour leading those rowdy mobs through the streets of Sydney, the same people who would go to the matches and throw tennis balls filled with nails and glass onto the field in order to stop the game. All right, I know you are about to say you have been misrepresented. You had a lot to do with them and you built them all up.

Mr Cohen:

– I rise to order. Is it in order for the honourable member for Griffith to tell deliberate lies about other members?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Robertson has been in the House long enough to know that the phrase that he used is unparliamentary.

Mr Cohen:

– I am sorry, let us say deliberate untruths.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Griffith might restrain himself. In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Robertson, the Chair is not in a position to tell whether what th3 honourable member for Griffith said is correct or not.

Dr Jenkins:

– On a further point of ord:r, is it proper that the honourable member should address his speech directly to the honourable member for Robertson instead of to you, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– 1 point out that it has become more and more a practice in thi Committee for members making their speeches to make reference directly to members or Ministers as individuals in the Parliament. This is contrary to the Standing Orders and I suggest that honourable members now observe the Standing Orders. I suggest to the honourable member for Griffith that he remember the point of order which he himself took earlier.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 always obey your rulings, Mr Chairman, but honourable members opposite display strange schizophrenic tendencies abou! this matter. They wish to pose as champions of democracy but at the same time they are committed to socialism which means the very destruction of civil liberties. In my speech a few moments ago I was referring to a letter from the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in another place about the recording by the police of certain telephone conversations which ultimately were used as evidence in court proceedings. What 1 wish to refer to is the daddy of all sentences. I would remind the House that this letter was written on 24th September, a month after my letter of inquiry. It states:

It is noi clear precisely how the tape recordings concerned were made, and therefore no decision as to a prosecution can be made at this stage.

The actual incident took place prior to 16th March and well over 6 months later the Minister is not in a position to inform this Parliament how the tape recording was made. I wonder whether the Depart ment takes any notice of these cases which are reported in the newspapers or whether it has been a long held view that anyone can tape a telephone conversation and use it as evidence in court proceedings or, in fact, as they may choose to use it. I suggest that Sir Garfield Barwick in his chambers in Sydney must shudder every time he reads of the Federal Government allowing another instance of what could be regarded as a blatant breach of the Act which he had so much pride in introducing into this Parliament. When honourable members study what I read into Hansard earlier, they will realise that what the Minister says is that anyone, as long as he does not intercept a telephone conversation, can plug in at the hearing end and record the conversation.

I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who is the Attorney-General’s representative in this chamber and a very cautious and clever man, is in the chamber and obviously will answer this point later. However, I ask the representative of the Attorney-General: Is it correct that in 1971 anyone can tape record a conversation through the receiving end of a telephone and be excused from having committed any breaches of the original Act? This is how I interpret and understand the significance of the words written by the Attorney-General.

If honourable members have grown a tittle tired of the honourable member for Griffith raising this subject some 16 times over the last 4 years, 1 can assure them that I too am tired. All I am asking is that we do something about it. The years are going by and still nothing is done. I recall back in 1968 asking the then AttorneyGeneral whether he would put on the agenda of the Attorneys-General conference the question of the introduction of legislation to protect people against the use of listening devices. I suppose there is some consolation in the fact that now the 3 east coast States have at last introduced legislation to fulfil this need in our community. But I hope that the Commonwealth, the body which at times appears to be so progressive, does not lag behind and wait until the 6 States have done something. The Minister suggested in his letter that he is reviewing the whole situation. But how long does it take to come to a conclusion?

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

- Mr Chairman, I would like to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes. During the course of his speech, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) accused me of a number of things. One accusation was that I led demonstrations in Sydney against the Springbok tour. I did not lead any demonstrations in Sydney. That is quite false. The honourable member linked my name with those who threw tennis balls filled with nails onto a football field. This is quite false. About the most violent thing I did during the Springbok tour was to blow a horn outside the South African Embassy. I condemned violent demonstrations a number of times in this House and I vehemently denounced, at a number of public meetings I attended, those who did violence during the Springbok tour.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I am glad the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) has set the record straight on that matter. I think that most honourable members of this House, as indeed most members of the community, would abhor the personal attacks and personal abuse which is a characteristic of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) as well as other honourable members. I intend to stick to the estimates of the Attorney-General’s Department which include appropriations for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Legal Service Bureaux and the Office of the Commissioner of Trade Practices as well as for the High Court of Australia and 10 other divisions. I want to touch on each one of the headings I have mentioned by description.

First of all I refer to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. May I make it absolutely clear that I do not consider that enough has been done to clear up the bottleneck that is caused in this Office. Improvements may have been brought about by the setting up of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, but certainly we are far from perfection. Some of the old bottlenecks are well documented by a report of the Public Accounts Committee on financial regulations, tabled in this Parliament in November 1968. But has the position improved to any great extent? I doubt whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who is at the table, can feel very happy about the situation, nor can the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in the Senate. Only last week there was a public hearing by the Public Accounts Committee at which an officer of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel had to admit that unless matters were extremely urgent a period of 6 months was likely to elapse before his office could tackle the matter of drawing up some new regulations. This is no reflection, as far as I can ascertain, on any employees of that Department. It is a reflection on those who are responsible for the Department.

This country is being badly governed for a number of reasons. One of those reasons clearly is the delay in adequate legislation, Bills, Ordinances and what-have-you coming before this House. That delay must be overcome. The witness for the office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee at the public meeting I mentioned earlier, divulged that the Office was 2 principal legal officers below establishment. But that, clearly, is not the whole reason for the problem. After my probing, I have come to the conclusion that the reason is timidity and red tape. Everything has to be checked and double checked by officers at the top. For goodness sake let us have a new, fresh approach. Let some younger people down the line have the responsibility for final decisions so that there are not hold-ups causing this country to be worse governed than it is.

The second heading I mentioned was the Legal Service Bureaux. Of necessity I shall have to be brief on this subject. This service gives free legal advice to exservicemen. What a crying shame it is that such a service is not available to all citizens of this country. Does anybody think that justice is being dispensed fairly in this country at present? Is there anyone in Australia who thinks that a poor man in our country can get justice in the same way as a rich man? Of course that does not apply. The legal profession and some State governments make a valiant attempt. In my own State of South Australia we have a number of officers of the law society paid by the legal profession who are employed full time on interrogating citizens, subjecting them of necessity to a means test which almost unclothes them. These officers then virtually make the decision whether a poor person should be allocated to a lawyer who will then charge only a nominal amount based on the citizen’s capacity to pay. No-one expects the lawyers doing these quasi-charity jobs to have the same heart in their jobs as they do in those jobs for which they are receiving full payment. 1 can only say that 1 am thoroughly looking forward to the Australian Labor Party taking over the government of this country so that we shall have a government which will see that recourse to justice is meted out fairly. The Legal Service Bureaux for ex-servicemen was a great start. It was, of course, set up by a previous Labor government. Over 20 years later, perhaps we shall have an extension of this service so that other citizens of this community can have recourse to a law service.

The third heading 1 mentioned under the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department was the Office of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. I am watching the clock and 1 realise that I cannot allocate enough time to comment on the most enlightening reports of Mr Bannerman, the Commissioner of Trade Practices. Suffice it for me to say that the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill 1971 was considered by the Senate on Tuesday and was passed by it yesterday. I am looking forward to this legislation coming into this House, probably the week after next. We shall see then just how sincere are our political opponents in this Liberal-Country Party Government in this matter of restrictive trade practices. Let me say that the performance of the Attorney-General in the Senate during the course of the debate does not fill me with confidence that he has much sincerity in this matter. Let us hope that there is a different attitude in this House.

Lastly I mention the High Court. This is merely an excuse, I must confess, to raise the whole question of the inadequate Constitution of this country. This is a matter I raised in my maiden speech in this Parliament over 18 months ago. It is a matter which I shall go on raising just as often as I find the opportunity to do so. I do not know who stated it, but it was truly said that we are in the jet age attempting to exist with a horse and buggy Constitution. Wherever we turn we are being inefficiently governed because of our out of date Constitution. Our road traffic laws are different from State to State. Anyone who has anything to do with the 6 Companies Acts of this country and the ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and of the Northern Territory in this field of company law is beside himself trying to keep up with just how un-uniform these allegedly uniform Acts and ordinances are. I opened up a New South Wales newspaper only yesterday to learn that in that State exempt proprietary companies will not be obliged to have audits after all. This was something agreed upon after blood, sweat and tears had been expended by Committees of Attorneys-General and their officers. So much for the uniform laws under this Constitution and under this laissez-faireism that we have suffered in this country over the past 20 years and more.

Let me remind this chamber, and anyone who is interested in this subject, that we on this side are not just asking for anything other than what has been agreeed upon by a joint committee comprising members from both sides of this chamber and established during Sir Robert Menzies’s period of prime ministership of this country. J am referring to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Review. The report of that Committee was presented to this Parliament by command on 26th November 1959. That Committee comprised 10 members of this Parliament, 5 from the Government side and 5 from the Opposition. The late Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan was the Chairman. Members included Mr A. R. Downer, as he then was, now Sir Alec Downer, the High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom; Mr Drummond, a member of the Country Party; Mr Hamilton, another Government Party member; Percy Joske now Mr Justice Joske, and also Senator Wright who is still a member of the Government. They are the people who agreed to the signing of the report of that Committee. Only a very few minority reports were appended to the report. The matters which were agreed upon are as important today as they were then. They are as important today for the good government of this country as they ever were. Until this Government realises that we are living under a Constitution which is totally inadequate for the proper governing of this country we will not have proper laws for the governing of Australia.

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

– As the representative of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in this place I want to say that I have listened carefully to the speeches which have so far been made on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. I would like to express appreciation to those honourable members who have put forward constructive ideas. I will ensure that they are brought to the attention of the Attorney-General.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– In this debate I want to refer to a case that is reported in volume 45 of the ‘Australian Law Journal’ of July 1971 at page 337. It reads:

Prison for Non-Payment ot Fines

At 45 A.L.J. 167 we mentioned the problem of prison before trial. A somewhat similar problem exists in cases where, upon conviction for a comparatively minor offence a fine is imposed on a defendant, or an order is made for the payment by an unsuccessful informant or defendant of the costs of proceedings, in either case with the alternative of imprisonment in default of payment, and the person concerned (though able to pay) declines to do so, either because he claims there is a principle involved, or because he seeks to make political capital from his subjection to imprisonment. While one can understand the motives of such people in the circumstances, a wider community interest is involved. In the first place, the recalcitrant individual is taken away from his usual avocation and therefore ceases to be productive; secondly, the cost of his sustenance, lodging and being guarded has to be borne by the community. There is no reason why either of these burdens should be thrust upon the taxpayer.

There is, of course, a recent precedent in this country. I refer to the case when I took before the court Constable 3136 of the New South Wales Police Force. After a hearing lasting 3 days the magistrate found that there was no case for the constable to answer. The court ruled that I would have to pay the costs. I called the costs a type of fine. I refused to pay the fine because of the belief that I held. I expressed this belief in this Parliament on 17th February this year when I said, in part:

I will not pay the fine. A law which threatens people with punishment if they dare to take their grievances to court is an unjust law. It intimidates people into not making criticism of public officials. The money awarded is called costs but in reality it is a fine. It is not paid to the defendant policeman; it is paid into Consolidated Revenue. The law in this respect reeks of inequality. In our courts of petty sessions, which handle police work, there is no genuine equality. Policemen have more equality than citizens. They have far greater rights than any citizen. If the defendant police officer in my case had charged me with assault and had failed to prove his case he would not have been required to pay my costs; he would not be threatened wilh a gaol sentence. My case was commenced in the public interest. My refusal to pay fine is in the public interest. To threaten a man wilh gaol when he has broken no law is a stupid law, and the sentence of 40 days hard labour for failure to pay a $80 fine is a stupid law.

And it was a stupid law, so much so that the New South Wales Cabinet and Government changed that law the day after I was released from gaol. Instead of one day’s imprisonment for every $2 the law was changed to provide one day for every $5. This meant that one-third of the prisoners in New South Wales who were imprisoned for the non-payment of fines had their sentences reduced by 60 per cent. That decision has saved the taxpayers of New South Wales tens of thousands of dollars.

I again want to bring to the notice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who represents the AttorneyGeneral - and I reminded him of this matter previously when he was the AttorneyGeneral - the law which exists in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory. In reply to a question I asked of him the Minister said at page 495 of Hansard of 20th August 1971 that in the Australian Capital Territory a person spends one day in gaol for each $2 owing, or part thereof, with a maximum of 12 months imprisonment. In the Northern Territory it is one day for each $2. It is about time that the law in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory reached at least the position of the law which now exists in New South Wales. The report I earlier referred to and which is set out in the Law Journal questions whether a man should be sent to gaol at all for failure to pay a fine. The report went on to state what the British law is. 1 ask the Government to examine this matter. It is long overdue for consideration. Recently the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party determined that the policy of our Party will be that no man will be sent to gaol unless he breaks a law or commits a crime. We will not send a man to gaol when he has broken no law or committed no crime. All I did in my own case was to charge a policeman who had assaulted me. Even though he perjured himself the magistrate said that there was not sufficient evidence although he admitted it was a strange case. This occurred despite the fact that I was able to select the policeman out of 5 or 6 plainclothes policemen in the court. The New South Wales Police Department would not identify the policeman, but I was able to identify him when he was wearing plain clothes. I had charged constable No. 3136. He claimed he had never seen me in his life. Apparently through some magic on my part I was able to pick out this man - who had never seen me before in his life - from five or six others in the court. I was able to choose him. I could go on and talk about the corruption and stupidity of the New South Wales Police Force, some of the senior members of which, if they do not perjure themselves, stretch the truth.

Be that as it may, this is a law that the lawyers themselves are questioning. They are saying that we should alter this law. In this day and age we want to try to keep people out of gaols, not put them into gaols. This report, which I draw to the attention of the eminent lawyer at the table, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, asks why the taxpayers of this country should have to pay to keep people in gaol. We want to minimise the number of people going to gaol. The time is long overdue for this Commonwealth Parliament to involve itself in prison reform. We know that there are no votes in improving prison conditions. But the conditions under which prisoners live and the food they eat are appalling.

Even though I disagree with the attitude of the Minister for Justice in New South Wales, Mr Maddison, on the Bathurst gaol bashings - I think he made a foolish mistake in this case - I believe that he is probably one of the best Ministers for Justice we have had in New South Wales tor many years and probably better than many Labor Ministers. I do not criticise the State where I live because there is much work to be done. The only way to bring about prison reform is for the Federal Parliament to work in co-operation with the States to solve the problem of prisons in this country. Unless we face this responsibility the States have no chance of solving this problem. I am aware that there are no votes in prison reform. We know that the States are starved of funds, and no programme is more starved of funds than is the Department of Corrective Institutions. At this stage of our civilisation we should begin at least to look a little more enlightened than we are. This Commonwealth Parliament should do something about working in co-operation with the States. I hope that the Attorney-General does something about prison reform and locking people up in gaol for one day in lieu of every $2 unpaid fine imposed by courts in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Civil Aviation

Proposed expenditure, $88,830,000.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– In rising to speak to these estimates there are 3 matters to which I would like briefly to refer. One deals with general aviation and a recent NOTAM HO 19/1971 which was announced by the Department of Civil Aviation dealing with flight notification and movement reporting. This is a NOTAM which has brought about a considerable amount of discontent and dissatisfaction in general aviation circles today. This is a NOTAM which requires pilots planning a flight in excess of 50 miles to lodge a flight plan and regularly report. As a result of this there has been quite a deal of dissatisfaction, and it has probably caused more trouble and more discontent in general aviation circles than has any other NOTAM that has been brought down by the Department for some considerable time.

I know that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) is fully conversant with Civil Aviation affairs, and when he replies to this debate 1 would like him to advise the Parliament whether the Department of Civil Aviation conferred with all the associations concerned regarding this NOTAM. Did the Department at any time give any indication that it would confer with the associations? If it did, why was a conference not held? In lieu of a NOTAM such as this one dealing with flight notification and movement reporting has the Department at any time given consideration to the compulsory fitting of crash beacons to all aircraft, because primarily the reason for this NOTAM is to assist the Department in carrying out search and rescue operations when an accident occurs? If the regulation I suggest was introduced it may have the same effect.

The other matter to which I would like to refer is the Air Safety Investigation Branch’s report on the DC8-727 accident that occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport on the night of 29th January, 1971. the Opposition is completely dissatisfied with the set-up of the Air Safety Investigation Branch. This is a branch of the Department of Civil Aviation which has the responsibility of investigating all air acccidents throughout Australia. We believe that this branch of the Department of Civil Aviation should not be responsible to the Department of Civil Aviation because so very often it has to investigate accidents involving the Department. Therefore it gives the impression of Caesar appealing to Caesar or Caesar investigating Caesar. We strongly urge the Government to have the Air Safety Investigation Branch transferred from the Department of Civil Aviation to the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, someone completely dissociated from its investigations and who would be in a position to accept its reports and present them to this Parliament as required. There is sufficient full time work for an Air Safety Investigation Branch because in Australia during 1970-71 there were 277 aircraft accidents in which 65 people were killed. The Branch should be brought under some separate authority rather than being left under the control of the Department of Civil Aviation. I want very quickly to deal with this report. I ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard the conclusons on page 36 of the report.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

3 - CONCLUSIONS

The flight crews of both aircraft involved in this accident and the air traffic controllers on duty in Sydney Tower were all appropriately licensed for the duties they were undertaking. The pilot-in-command of the DC8-63 aircraft, CF-

CPQ, however, had not satisfied all of the applicable route and airport familiarisation requirements prior to commencing this flight.

There is no evidence of any defect in either aircraft which could have contributed to this accident.

Both aircraft were loaded within the safe limits applicable to each.

A taxying clearance ‘ . . . take taxiway right - call on 121.7’ issued by the aerodrome controller to CF-CPQ as it neared the end of ils landing roll was not given adequate attention by the flight crew, who misread it as ‘. . . backtrack if you like - change to 121.7’. The aircraft was then turned through 180 degrees to backtrack on the runway, instead of entering an immediately, available taxiway as was intended by the aerodrome controller.

The aerodrome controller did not recognise the difficulties of visual perception in the circumstances that prevailed and this, in conjunction with the slow manoeuvre of the aircraft on the runway as well as its direction of movement and position in relation to the taxiway entrance, led him to believe that CF-CPQ had taxied off the runway in accordance with the instructions issued.

The aerodrome controller issued, to VH-TJA a clearance for take-off when the runway was still obstructed by CF-CPQ

The flight crew of VH-TJA state that, at the commencement of their take-off, they did not observe CF-CPQ on the runway as an obstruction. Nevertheless CF-CPQ was observed at a time when the take-off could have been abandoned with safety. The pilot-in-command of VH-TJA elected to continue the take-off and attempted to overfly the obstructing aircraft.

Although the obstructing aircraft could have been cleared quite safely, by the adoption of a steeper initial climb angle, the pilot-in-command of VH-TJA adhered to the normal take-off technique and the underside of his aircraft came into collision with the tail fin of CF-CPQ. Although substantially damaged, VH-TJA continued in flight, and after dumping fuel, landed at Sydney Airport again without further damage.

CAUSE: The cause of this accident was that the taxying clearance given after landing was misread by the flight crew of CF-CPQ and this error was not detected by the aerodrome controller, who cleared VH-TJA for take-off. The flight crew of VH-TJA, on detecting the obstructing aircraft, did not then adopt the most effective means of avoiding a collision.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I am concerned at what I have been advised are numerous irregularities in the report. First and foremost the captain of the DC8 should never have been in command of that aircraft. It was a breach of Australian Air Navigation regulations. The regulations are quite clear and are contained in the report. The report discloses also that this experienced flight crew which had logged hundreds of hours flying DC8 aircraft could not distinguish which switch to throw to shut off the flight recorder recording the conversation between the tower and flight deck of the aircraft. They threw the wrong switch and the tape recording went on and on. It goes on for an hour. When the investigators moved in to find out what the conversation had been I believe all they got was a conversation between the cleaners cleaning out the aircraft. To me that was a fix.

What also concerns me is that while another aircraft was still obstructing the runway the control tower gave clearance to the 727 aircraft to take off. I cannot understand how the control tower lost sight of the aircraft and did not know where it was. I cannot understand why, when given instructions to turn off into the next taxi-way, the tower did not follow the aircraft. To me there has been a hellish falling down in responsibility in this case. Under the heading ‘Cause’ in the conclusions, the report states:

The flight crew of VH-TJA, on detecting the obstructing aircraft, did not then adopt the most effective means of avoiding a collision.

I now want to quote from a book, Handling the Big Jets’, by D. P. Davies. In aviation circles this is regarded as a text book for men learning and operating 727 aircraft. On pages 182 and 183 the following appears:

Take-off distance can be greatly influenced by the rotation speed, the rotation rate and attitude and it is important to understand immediately that varying Vp cannot possibly effect an improvement in take-off distance without reducing the overall safety of the manoeuvre.

This means that the recommendations and findings of the committee which investigated this accident are all baloney because the committee said that the pilot should have adopted other procedures. Recently members of the Parliamentary Labor Party Transport Committee were shown a film prepared by the Boeing company about Boeing 727 aircraft. This film disclosed clearly that if the pilot of an aircraft starting from the correct roll position attempted to lift off before the correct time he would pass a certain point at a height lower than if he folowed the procedure laid down in the directions as to how these aircraft should be flown.

As far as this accident inquiry is concerned, I believe it is a home town decision that has been brought down by the investigating committee to cover up mistakes that occurred not only in the tower but also in the handling on the runway on that particular night. The Government should order a fresh inquiry by an independent authority so that the facts can be brought out and so that persons interested in this matter can present evidence clearly under oath. By this means we can get the facts. This is an important matter. The report did not disclose what happened to the East-West Airlines Ltd Fokker Friendship which was lined up behind the 727. The facts of the matter are that the Fokker took off without the knowledge of- the control tower. The control had cleared it and the Fokker Friendship took off.

I want now quickly to outline the position on the runway at the relevant time and 1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the paragraph in the report headed ‘Wreckage Distribution’ because it outlines clearly that as a result of this collision the southern portion of the runway was strewn with aircraft fragments.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Wreckage Distribution.

As a result of this collision the southern portion of Runway 16 was strewn with many hundreds of small aircraft fragments together with some larger components. The larger elements of the wreckage were moved off the runway by the emergency crews shortly after the accident in order to allow VH-TJA to land on the longest into-wind runway and so, in the investigation phase, it was not possible to reconstruct a precise and useful pattern of wreckage distribution. An examination of the scene on the following morning, however, showed that the most northerly items of wreckage were just off the edge of the runway at a point corresponding very closely with the southern edge of the General Holmes Drive underpass (i.e. 6,286 feet from the northern end of the runway). From this point further southward, the runway and the immediately adjacent grassed areas were liberally strewn with aircraft fragments. The intensity of distribution was greatest in the vicinity of the runway entrance to Taxiway T and then it progressively decreased towards the southern end of the runway.

Two items of wreckage fell from VH-TJA into suburbs north of the airport, apparently during the aircraft’s final approach for landing after the accident. These items were identified as sections of the starboard main undercarriage doors.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– That aircraft took off when the main runway of the Sydney Airport was littered with fragments of the smash.

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– The estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation have great importance for a large area of the Commonwealth if not for the large proportion of the Australian population because civil aviation affects almost the whole of the Commonwealth. It is interesting to note that Trans-Australia Airlines has increased its operating profit from $1,367,000 to 30th June 1970 to $1,827,000 to 30th June 1971. Although, this increased profit has been brought about by increases in charges, nevertheless it is a good result from an organisation which provides a fine service throughout much of Australia. It has made this profit despite the fact that it has operated services which have not shown profits. 1 refer, of course, to services to outlying areas. In my own area Trans-Australia Airlines has, in the main, maintained services which have been provided for many years although in some places there has been some slight reduction in the frequency of services. Some odd places have been deprived of air services but, generally speaking, the outlying areas have been well catered for.

The air service formerly operated by Ansett Airlines of Australia to Cunnamulla from Brisbane is an important service and the Ansett organisation has come to an agreement under which Nationwide Air Services Pty Ltd will provide this service. Up to the present stage a reasonably good passenger service has been supplied but since the aircraft operating on that route have been changed from Fokker Friendships to twin-engined Cessnas there is not sufficient room for the freight that is required to becarried. For instance, it is difficult to carry motor windscreens in Cessna aircraft, yet windscreens are often needed urgently in outlying areas. However, I appreciate that the Department of Civil Aviation, in conjunction with Ansett Airlines, has arranged the substitution of Nationwide Air Services on this route.

I am pleased to note that in the Goondiwindi area the service which was reduced to twice a week has been increased to 3 times a week. St George, which is a refuel ling station, was getting 7 services a week but now it get 6 services. This is a frequency which would be the envy of many country towns. Adverting to the taking over of the Cunnamulla service by Nationwide Air Services, I should mention that it was understood that Ansett Airlines would be prepared to provide Friendship aircraft when the need arose, particularly during school holidays, but I have been informed that people who have children at schools away from Cunnamulla have not been able to make such an arrangement. I should hope that Ansett Airlines would give this matter serious consideration and perhaps would seek the co-operation of secondary schools which might combine in arranging for vacations to commence over 2 days to enable Friendship aircraft to be an economic proposition. I do not know whether it is because of seat occupancy or because Friendship aircraft are not readily available that arrangements have not been made, but I hope that the Ansett organisation will confer with Nationwide Air Services and provide a Friendship service to cater for the deserving need of bringing children and .students to and from schools.

I make no apology for talking about these areas, and they may be typical of other areas. The town of Bollon, which is situated almost midway between St George and Cunnamulla, was serviced by Ansett Airlines, but it now has no air service. I would suggest that Nationwide Air Services should examine the possibility of restoring a service to Bollon because it would be economic for the small planes that are now servicing Cunnamulla to land in a small town like Bollon. The cost of operating a Friendship to that town would be far more than the cost of using a Cessna. I hope that for the sake of the residents of Bollon and district and the student? who have to travel between St George and Cunnamulla such a service will be provided. However I am grateful that services have been maintained in this general area, f know that services have been discontinued in other areas, and my colleague, the honourable member for Kennedy ‘Mr Katter), will refer to this matter when he speaks during this debate. He is extremely concerned because some areas in his electorate have been deprived of air services. I think this is something that we have to watch.

As we have a 2-airline system, I believe that we should look to the major airlines to provide, even at some cost to themselves, services in outlying areas. I would like to know just how much a third airline would be prepared to pay to enter the transport field between the major capital cities of the Commonwealth. The airline business is reasonably profitable. I congratulate TransAustralia Airlines on making a profit, but in a country where we need to decentralise and where we need to utilise our natural resources - and we will not utilise them if we continue to cut back on the services and amenities provided in outlying areas - the question arises as to who should bear the cost of carrying out these proposals. I suggest that as we give an advantage to the 2 airline operators and as air transport in Australia is confined to the 2-airline system, the airlines should recompense the Australian people for the protection which is afforded to them by providing services which may not be as profitable as the services on the major routes.

I think that the Department of Civil Aviation is to be commended for our safety record, and I also commend the Department and the airline operators for the splendid standard of services which are provided throughout Australia, which is a country of great distances and sparsely settled population. I believe that if we can provide essential services to people in outlying areas to carry them over a time of great trial we will be able to retain people in the outback and mid-outback areas of Australia. There is a tremendous drift of population from these areas, for a number of reasons. One of the reasons which contributes to this drift is the lack of satisfactory air services. I mentioned earlier - and I emphasise it again - the great advantage of air services for children and students. They are able to travel backwards and forwards on planes when there is no other suitable public transport. While commending the airline operators generally in Australia, I hope that they will continue to provide services which the people who live in the areas I have mentioned are justly entitled to receive.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– It is frustrating to have only 10 minutes in which to deal with a subject like civil aviation which in my particular St George - not the town of St George in Queensland but the electorate of St George in Sydney - presents a very pressing problem. Aircraft noise is more than a damn nuisance. In my electorate it is a social menace, and the Government’s procrastination over making a decision on the siting of Sydney’s second airport means that there will be an intensification of traffic at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and (his intensification of traffic will bring about an upsurge in aircraft noise. My views on the aircraft noise problem are well known, and I can only commend, once again, to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is sitting at the table, and through him to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in another place, the proposals which I have put forward so often and so consistently.

Tonight I want to raise a number of issues of concern. The first is what I regard as the star chamber tactics of the Department of Civil Aviation - the bureaucratic dictatorship - regarding operations at Sydney Airport. What is happening is that there are 2 committees associated wilh Sydney Airport. One is the Sydney Airport Development Committee, which is charged with the development at Mascot, and (he other is the new airport committee which is investigating the siting of Sydney’s second airport. From answers I have received to questions on notice, it is very obvious that the last thing the Department of Civil Aviation wants is to have popularly elected representatives appearing on any of its committees. There are no popularly elected representatives from the councils that are vitally affected around Sydney airport on the Sydney Airport Development Committee and there are no popularly elected representatives on the airport committee that is examining the siting of Sydney’s second airport. What sort of democracy do we have when people who represent people vitally affected by what is happening at Kingsford-Smith Airport are not provided with an opportunity to put forward views on behalf of the people whom they represent?

The second point I want to make - and the Minister for National Development will be very aware of it because the Minister for Civil Aviation has already declared his attitude towards it - is that Ansett Airlines of Australia is sending 3 Electra aircraft to the United States for conversion to cargo carriers. This conversion will cost

Ansett Airlines $500,000 for each aircraft. The purpose is clear. The existing curfew regulations at Sydney Airport apply only to jet engined aircraft, not to turbo-prop aircraft such as Electras. This means that Sir Reginald Ansett will be able to fly his Electras 24 hours a day and, more importantly, all through the night. But what this Committee should realise is that Electra aircraft - and this was proved in the investigation which was carried out by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise - can make as much noise as DO aircraft.

The problem that will face my people in St George is this constant buzzing by confounded Electras running for the net profitability of Ansett. I do not give a hang what Sir Reginald Ansett gets, out of this, but I am insisting that the people whom 1 represent and the people in the adjoining electorates of Grayndler, Kingsford-Smith and Barton should be provided with some peace at night-time. Ansett admittedly is keeping to the letter of the law, but the Department of Civil Aviation is allowing him to defeat the spirit of the law. and the people living in the environs of Sydney airport will be the sufferers. I suppose it is far too much to expect that this Government will ever clamp down on Sir Reginald Ansett.

The third point I want to make is to express very grave concern about the dilatory manner in which the airline companies - both Ansett and Trans-Australia Airlines - are responding to the fitting of reduced smoke combustion chambers to aircraft engines. These reduced smoke combustion chambers are designed to prevent the emission of pollutants from aircraft engines. According to information I have received in reply to a question on notice I had addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, he maintains that some 20 engines out of what he describes as 53 Pratt and Whitney JT8Ds have been modified. I live very close to KingsfordSmith Airport, and I can see every plane that takes off and lands. I must confess that I have a personal reservation as to whether 20 per cent of aircraft engines of this type have been modified.

These modifications began some 18 months ago, and they were due to be completed by 1972, but the Minister for

Civil Aviation has advised me that the modification programme will not be achieved until mid- 1973. This is not good enough. Planes are spewing out trails of particles and rubbish all over St George. Housewives in St George have to wait for a lull before they can put out their washing. Kiddies wading pools are covered with murk every morning, and people in the area adjacent to the airport cannot leave their cars parked in the streets because they get smeared with fall-out. The Department of Civil Aviation is falling down on its job of ensuring that the airlines get on with the modifications. I do not think it is too much lo ask of the Department of Civil Aviation thai it should prod the domestic airlines to complete the modifications within a year. If the airline companies do not co-operate, then I think that the Department of Civil Aviation should cancel their licences. The Department should also introduce regulations covering overseas planes which can be fitted with this modification. Certain engines cannot be fitted with it. Certainly the Pratt and Whitney engine can be fitted with it, and I think that the Department of Civil Aviation should insist that every aircraft that can be modified should be modified for operations into Australia. If they cannot be modified they should not be allowed to come into Australia.

Lastly I want to express my concern over the financing of the maintenance base facilities at Tullamarine airport. What has happened there is that the grand, generous Commonwealth has built maintenance repair facilities for both airlines. But the point about which I am particularly concerned is the way in which the financial arrangement is working in relation to the Ansett company. The Government has built at a cost of about $5m the maintenance bases for Ansett and has provided lease back arrangements over 40 years at 7$ per cent. I know dozens and dozens of young folk who are looking forward to building a house and who would be delighted to get a loan not of $5m but of $5,000 over 40 years at 7i per cent. But Ansett, having got a 7i per cent loan from the Commonwealth, then makes debenture issues at 8 per cent to 81 per cent for 5 to 12 years. The Australian Government as recently as July 1971 negotiated a loan for 15 million European units of account which carry interest at 8 per cent over 10 years. So while the Government is borrowing money at 8 per cent over 10 years it is providing $Sm to Ansett Airlines under the lease back arrangements over 40 years at 7i per cent. It is no wonder that Sir Reginald Ansett is such an active supporter of this Government. No doubt the Government will say that the same sort of arrangements are made with TransAustralia Airlines. This is not the point. TAA is a Government enterprise and to my mind should be able to derive its financing on an accountable business basis from the Government. This surely must be the only country where private enterprise receives financial and legislative encouragement to compete not against private enterprise but against government enterprise. I will be watching this very carefully to see that the precedent that has been established by this loan will not be carried on into the future. The Standing Committee on Public Works said in its report in 1968: lt is not thought that the Government will finance by this or a similar method further stages of development of the maintenance bases or other works properly attributable to the airline operators at Tullamarine or, indeed, at any other airport in Australia.

We on this side will be watching that and will be most concerned if this unfortunate precedent is carried on in the future.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– First of all I would like again to pay tribute to the splendid manner in which the Department of Civil Aviation carries out its job and its responsibilities throughout Australia. The $88m that has been appropriated for this department will, as usual, be well spent. I would also like to say that Trans-Australia Airlines does a splendid job as far as its service, courtesy and efficiency and the operations of its offices are concerned. My comments tonight will be associated with a policy that has apparently been adopted by both the major airlines to abandon as far as humanly possible many country airports, particularly in Queensland and, more particularly, in my electorate. In view of certain developments that have occurred over the last week or so 1 have reached the point where 1 am not prepared to accept this policy any longer. Within the next few days I intend to call a protest meeting in the central west which will be heard from one end of this nation to the other because I am fed up to the teeth with the way country airports and air services have completely deteriorated.

There are a number of very important centres in the electorate of Kennedy which, at the moment, have no air service at all. These centres are Charters Towers, Blackwater, Moura, Alpha and Barcaldine. It is Barcaldine I am particularly concerned with, lt is an important central western town, lt is a very important centre from many points of view. I learned only tonight that TAA has advised that it is not able to service this airport. It was not originally the responsibility of TAA at all; it was the responsibility of Ansett-ANA to service this airport. There has been a sequence in the deterioration of the service from Fokker Friendships to Twin Otters and then subsequently to 6 seater aircraft or feeder services. The deterioration has reached a climax in this particular case and there is now no air service being provided at all for Barcaldine. I heard the other day that TAA has offered some sort of excuse. However, I would have thought it would have been a perfectly simple thing for TAA to bring Barcaldine into one of its route services. Only 40 miles from Barcaldine it puts down at Aramac, while 60- odd miles west of Barcaldine it puts down at Longreach. Nobody can convince me despite all the talk about pilots’ hours and so forth (hat it would not very quickly find a solution if some provincial city or one of the metropolitan services was involved, lt would find a solution without hesitation. By heck, they had better find a solution to this problem. In the not far distant future the Government will have to look at the protection these 2 airlines are given and I believe that the profitability of the airlines is guaranteed by the protection they get. It takes two to tango and they have a responsibility to underwrite many of these country air services. I do not say that they should underwrite them to an absolutely ridiculous degree; nobody would insist on this at all.

In regard to air feeder services, there is not a member in this House representing a rural electorate who has not had the experience of very enthusiastic men coming forward and putting themselves in hock to get hold of an aircraft and gradually build up what they think will be a contribution to people in country areas. They start one of these feeder services, but how long do they last? Not very long at all, and this is so for 2 reasons. The first is that they do not have sufficient financial backing. I was surprised to learn the other day that the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia could not help a man finance a feeder service. What is the Development Bank for? It is for development. My goodness, if the provision of an air service to a country centre is not part of the general mosaic of development then what is? Many of these things have to be looked at. The second reason why these small companies attempting to nil the gap cannot get off the ground or continue is that they do not have the facilities. They do not have public relations officers who can advertise their air services and make the public aware of them. They have many such disadvantages.

I think it is high time that the Government looked at its guarantee of profitability of our major airlines. This involves good money which has been contributed by the Government. I know we have the Australian Airlines Commission with which the Government does not interfere, but I think it might be high time we did do a bit of interfering and got a guarantee that the airlines will underwrite these country air services.. I at least am not prepared to stand by and see the abandonment of these communities. The airlines say they do not get the bookings out of the towns I am referring to but there is a vicious circle here. These towns have never had the advantage of economy class fares. Buses have come on the road but people will not travel in buses if they can get a comparable air service. How ridiculous it would be to suggest otherwise. If there was any real regard for providing air services to these centres in which aviation was born it is high time that it was shown. These centres have been abandoned and I am not prepared to stand by and see it happen any further. There is an extreme responsibility on the airlines to fill these gaps.

The Department of Civil Aviation in almost every regard does a really splendid job. It is a pleasure to deal with its officers. They will try to help out in every possible way, and I would pay a particular tribute to Mr Mike Seymour, the Department’s deputy director in Queensland. Wherever situations arise, he will do all possible to assist. But, in the final analysis, each matter is referred back to the airlines which have to make the decisions. It is a great shame to see an airline like TransAustralia Airlines, which gives such impeccable service and whose safety record is so high, being obliged, because of some major policy decision, to refer a matter to someone in Melbourne or somewhere else, a thousand miles away from the area of operations, and having to follow a decision made there which affects the people whom I represent. Let me say here and now: I serve notice that, within the next week, I propose to call a meeting at Barcaldine, with the co-operation of the local people. I hope that the message will be heard from one end of this nation to the other. The principle of the abandonment of rural areas is involved. I am not prepared to stand by and to see that happen.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– On the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation, I wish to speak specifically on the question of the proposed second international 24-hour airport for the. Sydney region. I impress upon the Committee that this will be a 24-hour airport without any curfew. I refer also to a joint statement dated 5th November 1971 issued by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) and the New South Wales Minister for Local Government and Highways, Mr Morton. In this joint statement the Ministers say that the first meeting of the joint Commonwealth-State committee to investigate the matter of the location of this second airport will be within the next couple of weeks.

An interesting point is that the Ministers refer to only 4 of the sites mentioned in the statement made by the Minister for Civil Aviation last September on Sydney Airport proposals. Those 4 sites are Wattamolla, Richmond, Somersby and Duffy’s Forest. The Ministers point out that the Commonwealth recommends specifically Somersby and Richmond. No reference is made to the other sites which were mentioned in the statement made by the Minister last September.

No reference is made in this joint statement to the fact that, in his statement last September, the Minister for Civil Aviation said that the Committee would also be empowered to inquire into any other sites. This is something which has been left out of the joint statement. It is rather extraordinary. It is something which must be clarified. One cannot help wondering whether this may be an attempt by the 2 Ministers concerned, Mr Morton and Senator Cotton, to stampede the committee into a decision on this issue and to achieve that decision before the natural opposition which is now arising in these areas - particularly in the areas of Somersby and Richmond - gathers force.

On 19th October a meeting of representatives of 5 councils involved’ in these proposals took place. These are the municipalities of Windsor, Penrith, Blacktown, Blue Mountains and Colo Shire. Those councils resolved unanimously that a deputation should wait on the Minister for Civil Aviation and the State Planning Authority and requested that local government representatives be placed upon this CommonwealthState committee of inquiry. On 28th October I sent a telegram to the Minister - a covering letter was forwarded on 2nd November - asking that arrangements to meet this deputation be made and pointing out that the deputation was prepared to meet the Minister a at any place, no matter where. It was prepared to come here, to meet him in Sydney or anywhere else. The councils will meet the cost of the deputation because they realise how urgent it is that deputation should get to the Minister as quickly as it possibly can.

For this reason, one cannot help feeling that this is an attempt to cut the number of sites to be considered to two, although 4 have been mentioned, forgetting the fact that the Committee was supposed to be empowered to inquire into other sites additional to those mentioned, and that this therefore is an attempt to stampede the Committee into a decision before the deputation can meet the Minister and before it has an opportunity to mount the campaign of opposition which surely will come.

I think that this Committee should give very careful consideration to the various sites proposed, including the original 11 mentioned, which covered such areas as

Warnervale and Duffy’s Forest. We still do not know what were the technical reasons why Duffy’s Forest was rejected as a site for this second international airport. The Minister said in a letter answering a question from me that it was rejected because it was not suitable for international traffic. Three years ago, an inter-departmental committee was set up to inquire into and report upon sites suitable for a second international airport in Sydney. If Duffy’s Forest is unsuitable as a site for an international airport, why did that interdepartmental committee recommend it for that purpose? It is obvious that members such as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is asleep over there-

Mr Wentworth:

– No, he is not asleep at all.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am sorry. The Minister realised that this was within his electorate and he very strongly opposed, as did other Liberal members who have electorates in the Duffy’s Forest area, the second international airport being sited anywhere near Duffy’s Forest. They made sure that, for political and not technical reasons, this site was struck from the list.

This Committee must look most closely at all other proposals including developments overseas. It should particularly consider also a sea airport. Having read some articles on this, and being aware of the fact that it was the subject of a careful investigation in the United States of America, I made an approach to the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, asking what were the latest developments with respect to offshore airports. I received a reply to my inquiry only the day before yesterday. I wish to quote some sections from it. Reference is made to my interest in offshore airport centre planning. The letter states:

The Administrator has referred your inquiry to this office for reply.

The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States Department of Transportation has published a two-volume report on offshore airport planning and construction methods. These volumes, which discuss concepts and advantages and disadvantages of offshore airport development, are intended as guides to airport authorities and planners concerned wilh developing and evaluating proposals for building airports on offshore sites. A copy has been ordered and will be forwarded by separate letter.

If the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is at the table, wants a copy of this report, 1 will let him have one. The letter continues:

At this writing, the FAA also has a contract with the New York firm of Saphier, Lerner, Schindler . . . Environmetics, a division of

Litton Industries for a proposed two-phase study of a close-in, offshore jetport to serve metropolitan New York City.

The first phase, expected to be completed on 25th November 1971, will focus on the technical, social and economic feasibility of an offshore jetport in either Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean, south of Long Island. If the feasibility of building such an airport is not established during the first phase, the study will be discontinued.

A second phase, if required, would involve the selection of the preferred site and development of a functional design for an offshore airport. Cost estimates and evaluations will be included in the final report. It is expected the entire study will take 12 to 15 months to complete.

We believe it premature to judge the feasibility of the New York Offshore Jetport Study, pending the consulting engineers’ first phase study findings. This study may, however, succinctly identify the key problems and give directions for future work on this subject. Accordingly, we will be most pleased to provide you with a copy of the study as soon as it is available to the FAA.

I will be happy to let the Minister have this information if he has not caught up with these developments. The letter continues:

There are also a number of other sites in the United States and Canada where offshore airports are being explored. Although specific proposals or technology for such sites have not yet been furnished to this office, there is considerable local civic interest in such airports at Cleveland, Ohio (Lake Erie); Chicago, Illinois (Lake Michigan); San Diego, California; and Toronto, Canada.

I think that these proposals should be considered carefully by the joint CommonwealthState committee which has been established.

We should realise that a natural development will occur in the land triangle formed by Parramatta, Richmond and Camden. This is flat land available for development, lt is the best for housing, industrial and commercial purposes. It is obvious that a future satellite city will be established in that area. I find it incomprehensible that the mistakes so evident at Mascot will be repeated by placing an international 24-hour airport in this housing development area ignoring the noise and other environmental problems involved.

I warn the Government that there will be strong opposition - I give no details at this point - to any proposals for the siting of the second international 24-hour airport in the western suburbs of Sydney. No attempts to stampede a decision on the issue will avoid that opposition or its consequences, nor will evasion and refusal to answer any specific questions such as those that I have directed to the Minister assist the situation. The Minister has refused to answer questions as to the actual site of the airport, the plans of the airport, if it is to be at Richmond, what flight paths will be adopted and so on. Any attempt to avoid those issues will not stop the opposition which is going to grow. I believe that the Richmond proposal will be very detrimental to all the householders in the far western suburbs of Sydney. For this reason I ask the Government to see that it is opposed and that a more suitable site is found away from the built up areas.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– In speaking on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation I want to refer particularly to the site for the second airport for New South Wales - not for Sydney. There appears to be a fetish that Sydney must not only have the premier airport of Australia but that the second airport must be within the confines of the Greater Sydney area, lt is about time that we dropped our narrow, foolish, parochial, state-mindedness. A wonderful international airport has been established at Tullamarine near Melbourne. I understand that there are very few international flights into Tullamarine. It has been represented to me that as few as 4 international flights a week are made into that airport. However, if a second international airport has to be established in New South Wales a team of experts should be empanelled to go into all aspects of it. Although it will be between 1981 and 1985 before it will become operational, we must have forward thinking and planning. World experts, if not on the advisory committee, must be engaged and co-opted.

First of all, the advisory committee must be cleared of any bias or prejudice. We must enter the exploration for the second airport with clean hands. The airports of the future will be sea dromes. Eminent engineers in England, Canada and America forecast that by the end of this century they will be the established custom and wilt be the best form ot airport terminals. Mr A. J. Harris, the brilliant English engineer, states thai Botany Bay into Towra Point is ideal for the establishment of an airport and would improve the outer extremity of Botany Bay as a harbour. The establishment of an airport in such a position would conserve land, be less costly, more convenient and more accessible and would be of much less hindrance and nuisance. Towra Point must be considered and world experts must be called in. There is no doubt in ny mind as to where the second airport will be established - at Botany Bay into Towra Point.

The next in line is Warnervale, where there is cheap land, as flat as a billiard table, bounded by the Pacific Ocean and the Tuggerah Lakes. By the mid-1980s unfortunately 80 per cent of the population of New South Wales will reside between Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Such an airport would be conveniently placed for serving a huge population between Gosford and Maitland. There is an abundance of cheap land available. A huge airport could be established, with expressways and a northern railway near at hand. Commuter air services could be provided to other country towns and interstate travellers could be flown to their destinations, as they are from Mascot at the present time. I warn the Government that to select any other site without considering Botany Bay into Towra Point, and Warnervale, in the scheme of things will create suspicion of wrongdoing, prejudice and bias. I understand now that the committee is to consider Wattamolla. Duffy’s Forest, Somersby, Richmond and other areas. So it is quite within my rights to demand that world experts be brought in. We must not plan the second airport only in line with knowledge of (he past. We must consider the future. There is not the slightest doubt that both America and Canada agree with Mr Harris in this regard I understand that Lake Ontario is being considered by the Canadians to be used for this purpose. I trust that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) will take heed of what I have advised in regard to this matter and will bring in a team of experts so that the airport will meet the future requirements and be of less hindrance to the population who live in its vicinity.

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

– The Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport is the one that everybody talks about. It happens to be within my electorate. Let me place it on record that I have a mandate from my electors that the airport should not be expanded any further. Honourable members will notice that in the course of this debate everybody has talked about the problems of the airport. This is the feeling of the people in the area. They live within the surrounds of the airport and they are in the front line nf any problems that might occur al that airport. In recent months we have had too many incidents to think that there is not something radically wrong. The real issue is that last year in Melbourne the air traffic controllers warned us that there was no guarantee of future air safety because of the traffic saturation. Statistics show that there will be a 4 per cent increase in air traffic in the next 10 years, and this Government has no proposal as to where that increase is going to go, other than putting in parallel runways at KingsfordSmith Airport.

We are opposed to parallel runways at Kingsford-Smith Airport for the very good reason that the traffic controllers have said that they cannot effectively control so many planes either in the air or on the ground. The airport contains 1,500 acres. Good planning for an airport means that you should not use more than 10 per cent for your runways and other facilities. That 10 per cent has already been utilised at Mascot. On 29th June last on one runway a Canadian Pacific Airlines flight came in, turned round and went down the runway. It collided with a Trans-Australia Airlines jet taking off. The pilot is to be commended for what he did. It was a brilliant bit of work. He should not be castigated at all. There was another plane about to land behind him and another one ready to take off in between. Is it any wonder that we have this problem? It seems that there is going to be litigation and the Government will not talk about the matter because it says it does not know where the problem lies. The problem is in faulty planning - nothing more, nothing less.

Let us look at it. An international terminal has been put right across the 2 strips, so most planes have to intersect when they are taxiing, taking off or making their landings. That is a ridiculous situation from the planning point of view. It was thought that the logical thing to do was to place the international terminal between the appropriate runways, but somebody said: ‘You cannot do that because the foundations are not good enough’. But when they built where they are now the foundations were not good enough either. We have put a lot of money into a terminal that is located on the wrong spot from the point of view of air traffic safety. Let me make this position clear. We have heard tonight that there are some good experts overseas. There is a very good one in the University of New South Wales, a fellow called Peter Oppenheim, who is interested in the architectural problems of international airports. He has some proposals but he cannot get anybody to listen to him. He has had designs for off the coast airports for about 12 months or 2 years, and nobody will look at his plans or proposals because they are not interested.

Sir Reginald Ansett is running civil aviation. Whatever he wants, happens. If he wants everything in Melbourne it goes to Melbourne. He wanted Tullamarine; he got Tullamarine. If he wants all-night flights into Kingsford-Smith he will get them by any back door method. This is not the way to run a taxpayers’ department. The amount of money paid by the taxpayer to subsidise flights entitles him to say that a responsible government should be doing what other governments throughout the world are doing - having a look at where the nights originate. That is the first principle to learn before planning an airport. The nights that originate within the Sydney environs are sufficient at this stage for the KingsfordSmith Airport. It cannot take any further suggested increases.

The Minister says that there will still be parallel runways. We will fight the next election on that issue and the Government will not win one seat in the KingsfordSmith Airport approach area, because people have their investments, their homes, their schools, their hospitals and their other amenities there. They are not going to be saturated with the noise that must result from this continual increase in air traffic at Mascot. I know the Government has nowhere else for the aeroplanes to go, but that is an indictment of the Government and should not be a penalty on the people. This committee that has been set up should have representatives on it from this Parliament and the New South Wales Parliament because they represent the people. We should be able to indicate quickly where the future increase in traffic will come and from where the present flights are originating. That would help in the location of a suitable second airport. Perhaps the most suitable airport would be one off the coast. It would be important to discuss these matters with the people at the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales who are vitally interested in these problems and have some definite proposals to put up.

Mr Armitage:

– What about the Americans?

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

-I know the Americans say that they have a proposal but Oppenheim’s proposal is probably in advance of theirs. The big issue is one of cost. Mr Oppenheim should be encouraged to look at this problem because we either have to use a large land mass or go off the coast to an ocean base, the cost of which has not yet been ascertained. But in the interests of the people of Kingsford-Smith I will continue to protest loudly and say that I support my colleague from St George. We are the ones who have to put up with all these flights which are mainly for the benefit of Sir Reginald Ansett and others.

The Government has given the people no consideration at all. It deserves to lose the seats of Phillip and Cook and the fight for these seats will be fought on these issues: That the Government has failed to listen to their pleas, that it has failed from the point of view of safety and it has failed even in the planning of its airports. There has not been one credible result from the point of view of airport planning in the Sydney area. This has been going on for some years and is another indictment of this Government. The fact that the Government was able to establish Tullamarine goes back to a decision made in 1958, and if in 1958 the Government was able to decide that Sir Reginald Ansett ought to get another facility in Melbourne it should have been able to do likewise for Sydney. The Government is indicted on these issues and they will be the ones we will use to penalise Government sitting members and candidates for Sydney electorates at the next election.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise to support the proposed expenditure for the Department of Civil Aviation and to answer some of the criticisms that have been mentioned in relation to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It has long been recognised that the Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport is the only primary airport site which is readily accessible to the heart of Sydney, and that as a result it should be developed to the maximum degree compatible with land use in nearby areas, including residential areas, and the plans of the New South Wales Government to develop a seaport within Botany Bay. It follows that Sydney Airport has been progressively developed into this jet era with proper regard to internationally approved air safety criteria. It so happens that only the north south runway and not the east west runway can be extended, but this has permitted the increasing use of the north south runway for noise abatement purposes in recent years.

Having said this, I wish to reaffirm that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) is most conscious of the problems that do exist in the flight paths that are within the electorates of St George and Kingsford-Smith. But I would recommend to the Committee that a study be made of those plans that the local government authorities which are complaining enormously about these flight paths have made in relation to development within their own local government areas. I repeat: Notwithstanding the impact of aircraft noise upon those suburban municipal areas the fact is that the local government authorities have approved many and extensive local area development plans. I believe this to be significant. I feel that it may also be worth while to re-emphasise that it is the absolute prerogative of a pilot in command to nominate his runway, to plan his take-off or landing weights within the prescribed standards for that runway and with proper regard for runway length and strength, the prevailing or expected weather and the operational supporting facilities which are available. This comment is necessary because of the remarks that were made earlier tonight which cast a reflection upon the control capacity of the Department and, if I may say so, the integrity of the captains so involved.

The pavement lengths now available are 8,300 feet east west and 9,100 feet north south. These runway lengths meet all but the very long range requirements of the Boeing 707s, DC8s and Boeing 747s flying international routes. Very long Boeing 707 flights were very much the exception when the north South runway was last extended at about the middle of the last decade. The north south runway as then designed met all applicable Australian and international safety requirements for the prevailing pattern of operations. Whilst criticisms are understandable in this place, and while we are all very conscious of the enormous personal pressures placed upon members in relation to aircraft noise, I feel that it is vital that this House record some of the essential factors in relation to civil aviation today. In the debate on the measure to provide a loan to Qantas to purchase Boeing 747s I referred to the problems that face Australia and I feel that I should refer tonight to the marginal state of the aviation industry.

References have been made tonight to the private enterprise airline and to the Australian civil aviation duopoly, the double pattern of our domestic interstate operations. Those references have made it clear that in the view of honourable members opposite the Government has been supporting the private enterprise airline conducted by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I remind honourable members of the marginal position of airlines all over the world at present. I wish to cite some figures from ‘Aviation News Digest’ published by Esso on 17th September last. They may be of interest to honourable members. British European Airways lost $1.9m in the past fiscal year compaired with a profit of $26.4m in the previous year. In the previous fiscal year the whole BEA group showed a profit of $15.6m. That carrier’s loss in the past fiscal year is the first it has shown since 1953-54. In the United States Allegheny Airlines, which is by no means a leading airline, lost $375,000 in July compared with a profit of $26,000 in July last year. Total revenue for the year was $ 14.99m, an increase of 12 per cent over the previous year.

National Airlines, a well known local airline in the United States, showed a loss of $3.89m for the year ended 30th June 1971, in spite of a profit of $2.84m in the fourth quarter. I could go on to cite many figures to illustrate the problem faced by companies using aeroplanes in search of a commercial profit.

In spite of complaints made by my colleagues on both sides of the chamber I can assure them from my own personal experience that airline operations are very difficult. So many of the small airlines, particularly those referred to as the third level airlines, have found it impossible to borrow the money needed to purchase aircraft, to service loans, and to maintain their services at a reasonable standard of profit in order to pay a dividend. The result is that they face financial difficulties of a very stringent nature. 1 turn now to the problem of deciding on a site for a second airport for Sydney. 1 support my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who has been faced with many problems as a result of the proposal of the Government to ignore what is in fact the best proposal; that is in respect of the lower or southern section of the Royal National Park, with an approach over the Pacific Ocean. I realise that this will not be a very popular suggestion in the eyes of conservationists. I refer to an area which can be described only as bleak, unattractive and without any of the qualities which would make this part of the national park one which would attract tourist activities or which would be visited by many people. It is the Wattamolla area which is in the far south of the Royal National Park. Although my friend the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) may argue that the choice of the Wattamolla site would bring an international airport close to his own area and cause some problems for him, I believe the facts indicate that with an approach across the water the Wattamolla site, with a vast area with no human habitation close to it at present, is the best site for such an airport. Knowing the area as I do. I hold the view that it is in the best interests of the country that Sydney should have its second airport built not in the electorate of Mitchell but in the Wattamolla area.

Mr BIRRELL:
Port Adelaide

– I desire to speak very briefly to the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation. Unlike other speakers in this debate who have confined their remarks to troubles associated with the siting of Sydney’s second airport, I want to address myself to the troubles associated with the Adelaide Airport and in particular to the possible extension of the southern runway across Tapley Hill Road into the area at present occupied by the West Beach Recreation Reserve Trust. In order to inform the House of my concern on this issue I feel that I should briefly explain the history of the West Beach Recreation Reserve Trust. In 1954 the South Australian Government passed the West Beach Recreation Reserve Act which handed over 400 acres of polluted waste land between the western boundary of the Adelaide Airport and the sea to a trust consisting of 3 members each from the West Torrens and Glenelg city councils. These trustees were given the right to appoint an independent chairman. The legislation required the trustees to develop a recreation reserve on this waste land, and I feel sure that most people will agree that the trustees’ efforts have been outstandingly successful. Eight ovals have been constructed, planted and irrigated on which football, rugby, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis and cricket are played.

A conservative estimate of the number of persons who play and enjoy these facilities is in the region of 2,000 each week while a further 8,000 to 10,000 spectators enjoy the sports and the environment of this great sporting complex. A pony riding club and a marching girls club also are provided with grounds. Also there is a modern caravan park equipped with 500 power points, planted with lawns, trees and shrubs. This park, which is completely irrigated, has a capacity for 550 caravans, two golf courses have been established, one of championship dimensions and the other a par 3 pitch and putt course. Land also has been leased to a marineland, the Holdfast Bay Yacht Club, the South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron, the Glenelg Baseball Club, the South Australian Catholic Lawn Tennis Association and the Westward Ho Golf Club.

On 18th May this year, at the request of the trustees, I made representations to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) requesting his Department not to proceed with the suggested proposal to extend the airport runway into the reserve area as this action would completely destroy the only modern sporting reserve of this type in the Adelaide metropolitan area. The Minister’s private secretary replied to me on 24th May advising that the Minister was having the matter examined and would be in touch with me as soon as possible. On 2nd June the Minister forwarded to me a copy of his reply to the Chairman of the Reserve Trust in which he stated that his Department was only examining the possibility of extending the runway towards the southwest. However at the very time, whilst his exchange of correspondence was proceeding, the Minister’s Department was trying to coerce the West Torrens City Council to rezone its mainly industrial suburbs of Hilton, Mile End, Torrensville. Thebarton and Cowandilla to industrial and commercial areas. In other words, the Department of Civil Aviation was endeavouring to use the Council to make a decision contrary to the wishes of its rate-payers, a decision which would be of great assistance to the Department if and when it wished to proceed with the extension of the runway.

There is no question in my mind, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the Department of Civil Aviation tried to use the Council for its own ends, and consequently at this stage I am delighted to be able to report to the Committee that the Council unanimously rejected the Department’s proposals. I point out that these residential suburbs referred to were completely built up long before the airport was conceived and they contain many thousands of homes. Whilst I fully realise that this matter is one that concerns mainly the Department of Civil Aviation it is also one that is, or should be, of the utmost importance to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson). The Committee will recall that the Prime Minister, soon after taking over his high office, appointed a Minister for the Environment in accordance with the election promise of his predecessor. I believe that was the first such appointment in the history of the Federal Parliament. Honourable members are well aware that during the Senate election campaign the then Prime

Minister made the Government’s intentions on this issue very clear when he announced:

We have taken the decision to set up a Commonwealth Office of the Environment which will be responsible for advising the Commonwealth and recommending to us action that should be taken to prevent or reduce pollution arising out of the activities of any Commonwealth Department or Authority.

I repeat the concluding words: . . to prevent or reduce pollution arising out of the activities of any Commonwealth Department or Authority.

Having regard to this clear charter given to the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts I confidently expected that during the recent debate on the Estimates for his Department the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts would have grasped the opportunity further to restate his charter, particularly that section that directs him to intervene when the activities of any other Commonwealth department will cause added pollution. I expected him to warn other Ministers that if their departments infringed in this area he would act on the authority given to him. Of course it is now history that he failed to do so.

It is my understanding, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the latest estimates available reveal that only approximately 13 per cent of the Australian population ever travel by air. Yet the Department of Civil Aviation, in order to cater for this small section and also to accede to the demands of the airline companies, is not only prepared but appears eager to continue increasingly to harass and annoy residents living in the built up areas adjacent to our city airports by extending runways to cater for new and larger planes. No thought appears to be given to the added noise and air pollution, and in this particular case even expensive, health giving, pollutionfree sporting fields are no exception. This is remarkable to me. When all is said and done, the taxpayers being harassed by this noise and air pollution in this area comprise part of the people who heavily subsidise the airlines and keep them going, not the 13 per cent of the population which travels in aeroplanes.

In conclusion I call on the Minister for Civil Aviation to accede to the almost unanimous request of the people of Adelaide and to make an early announcement that the proposal to extend this runway will not be pursued. At the same time I challenge the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts to stand up to his responsibilities and report this matter to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet immediately.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will endeavour to curtail my remarks because I know that the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) and several other honourable members whose electorates are in the vicinity of the Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport are anxious to say a few words about this subject. I also know that there is a timetable regarding this debate. It is now 3 years since the Government decided to appoint an interdepartmental committee to investigate the establishment of a second airport for Sydney. It has had 3 years to look over the plans which are readily available in town planning offices in New South Wales and to come up with some proposal about an alternative site. It must have been apparent for years and years that an alternative site was necessary. The extent to which there is a dilemma affecting the lives of people, affecting the homes of people and the value of those homes is a very real indictment on this Government.

All over the world there has been a need to engage in this anticipation. It is fantastic to see the extent to which other countries have made long term plans. Why is it that we have had this vacillation. Who is the Minister who will apologise to this country at large? I have been astounded at the remarks of 2 members of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham). They advocated strongly the siting of a second international airport in an area that will affect thousands of people. I am wondering when the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) will come into the chamber to speak for his constituents who not very long ago rose in their thousands to attend the biggest public meeting ever held in the history of the Sutherland-St George district.

There may have been 3,000 or 4,000 people in the great underground parking area at the Miranda Fair protesting against the proposal to establish the airport at Towra Point. Regardless of where they want it the honourable member for Cook acquiesced - reluctantly acquiesced, in the long run. We now have Government supporters saying that this is the place to put an airport. We have heard speakers on behalf of the community, spokesmen for local government authorities and others contending that thousands of people would be denied their right to watch their television, to listen to their radio or to receive a phone call in reasonable circumstances. We have heard how schools would have to close down, how hospitals would be affected, how many businesses would not be able to operate and that in general there would be a substantial disruption to the lives of thousands of people.

There are 150,000 people in the Sutherland shire and the prediction is that the population will rise to 25,000. Yet here we have 2 Liberal members not even caring about the election prospects of the honourable member for Cook when they say that that is the place where an airport ought to go. I do not know where the honourable member for Cook is but I feel that he ought to be invited into the chamber tonight to speak. I would like his help because I am fighting for the people in the Sutherland shire. What is worse still is that we now have 2 Liberal members standing up in this chamber and saying in a most unambiguous, unequivocal and forthright way that 1 thought only bureaucrats or people in remote and abstract parts and places were capable of saying, that the second airport for Sydney should go in the Royal National Park. This is going to cause the greatest furore.

When I rose to speak on this matter in the adjournment debate last night I had noted that the New South Wales Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) had indicated that there was now a short list of alternative sites which included Somersby, north-west of Gosford; Duffy’s Forest, north-west of Hurstville; Richmond, near Windsor; and Wattamolla in the Royal National Park. I thought I had better indicate that the idea that it should go in the Royal National Park is by no means an acceptable proposition. But I never for one moment thought that in these times of sensitivity about the environment a member of this chamber would stand up and seriously contend that an airport ought to go in the Royal National Park. I have some regard for the following comments in a Press release of the 2 Ministers 1 have mentioned:

After considering possible locations the interdepartmental committee eliminated all sites other than Duffy’s Forest, Richmond, Somersby and Wattamolla.

The Commonwealth Government decided that 2 of these sites, Richmond and Somerby, should be considered in preference to Duffy’s Forest and Wattamolla.

There is some consideration on the part of some of the hierarchy in the Commonwealth Government, although there are members of the chamber who would want to put it in the Royal National Park. I told Mr Brian White of 2GB on a radio talk-back session today that 1 was prepared to give an assurance that there will be no airport in the Royal National Park. No big public meeting that has been held in Sydney before would compare with what would hapapen if the Commonwealth Government tried to take the Royal National Park away from the people. It is a recreational outlet for the people in the great metropolis of Sydney, lt is sandwiched between Sydney and the bulging city of Wollongong. Millions of people are finding sanctuary in the Royal National Park from the great concrete jungles and the polluted environment of these cities.

The Royal National Park is an area to which the Queen has lent Royal patronage and over which custodial care is now exercised by no less a person than Prince Philip, who has taken on the great responsibility ‘ of being President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. I have no doubt that Prince Philip’s predecessor in that role. Sir Garfield Barwick, will join me in the crusade I am about to launch on behalf of the people to protect the Royal National Park. I will certainly have the support of Mr St John, who is standing for the protection of the environment, as is indicated by his objection to the Clutha proposals. What a great day it will be when the Royal Flight aeroplane comes into Sydney with Prince Philip, here to speak on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation, on board. I intend to invite him to come here. I will send a telegram to him or write to him tomorrow and ‘ tell him about the challenge of his life that he has on his hands. People around the world would be aghast to think that a government would be intent on taking away from a city like Sydney some of the very inadequate recreational resources it now enjoys. Surveys have been conducted in relation to this matter. The recommendations and the contentions of the experts are that we should be busily engaged in adding to Sydney’s recreational space.

Mr Daly:

– Think of the wildlife.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My colleague from the Sydney electorate of Grayndler mentions the wildlife. Can honourable members imagine what would happen to the Royal National Park if an airport complex were to be developed there? I am not talking about just a runway, but also about the hangars, fuel depots and all the trappings as well as the road system on which cars would be tearing up and down. It would be the end of the wallaby, it would be the end of the kangaroo and it would be the end of the bird life in that area. Of course, it would also be the end of the opportunity for thousands of families to go to that lovely park and picnic. It just should not happen, I am concerned that, in particular, the honourable member for Mitchell had the audacity to contend that it should happen. I predict that he will lose his seat at the next election because of his advocacy of the destruction of the Royal National Park. Moreover, I believe that the people of Mitchell will be highly agitated and concerned about the fact that he does not care about his own electorate either. The proposal to put an airport at Richmond is a matter about which one would think the honourable member for Mitchell would be speaking, but he was quite negligent in that respect He is intent on ruining the Royal National Park. I seriously hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this matter.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Anybody who listened to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) must have been moved by that stirring and very sincere address. There is no question that the solution to the problem of where to build Sydney’s second airport is simply not to build a second airport. As far as 1 am concerned - I hope that the honourable member for Hughes will support me - north Queensland could do with an international airport. I think that all members of this Parliament should vote to ban a second airport in Sydney and to establish an international airport in north Queensland. That is the solution to the problem. There is also plenty of wildlife in north Queensland. I am certain that there will bc serious damage to wildlife if an airport is built in the Royal National Park.

I want to talk about the serious problem in north Queensland with respect to the Mackay Airport. Honourable members who were on the Public Works Committee some years ago made a trenchant criticism of the condition of the terminal building at the Mackay Airport. It was my understanding that a new terminal building would be constructed very early in the 1970s. It is most difficult to find out anything about what has happened to the mysterious building that is to be erected there. As the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) well knows, the Mackay Airport is the fourth busiest airport in Australia outside the capital cities. It is the gateway to one of Australia’s greatest tourist attractions, the Great Barrier Reef. I think I am right in saying that the number of international tourists who pass through the Mackay and Proserpine airports is larger, as a percentage of total traffic, than is the case for any other major airport in Australia.

Anybody who travels to Mackay Airport knows that when two or three jets are at the Mackay airport at the same time it is impossible to get into one of the terminal buildings. One has to line up out on the street with one’s luggage waiting his turn to get into the building. Only recently Sir Reginald Ansett was in Mackay and we were talking about this matter. I showed him the conditions at the Ansett terminal, and I am pleased to say that Ansett Airlines of Australia is to do something about extending its terminal facilities because it is completely frustrated at having to wait for the Department of Civil Aviation to make up its mind on when this area will get a decent airport.

All of us here travel a lot in aeroplanes. It is high time that a little more consideration was given to increasing efficiency in baggage collection, baggage disposal and the transfer of baggage between aircraft, particularly the baggage of those who are travelling interstate with one. two, three or four connections before they get to their destination. Anybody who travels from Queensland to Canberra - I am certain that the Minister has had this experience - frequently finds when he gets here that he has no baggage. Somewhere, usually in Sydney, there just has not been time to transfer the luggage from one aircraft to another. It becomes embarrassing sometimes if one is going out and needs a change of clothing or if one has books and documents in his luggage. This happens frequently. It happened to me 4 times in a row. To be fair I will not name the company concerned. It was explained to me that the problem arose because of a tight schedule connection in Sydney. I think that all of these things can be looked at.

It is becoming obvious to the people in north Queensland, in particular, that now we are served by jet aircraft - we are very thankful that we have the jets - the standard of service in terms of frequency has deteriorated greatly. In fact, as one person pointed out to me, there were more services to some areas in the days of the DC3 than there are now in the days of the jets. To get from Mackay which is the centre of my electorate to north Queensland often involves a 2-day journey there and back. I do not think it is possible to fly from Mackay to Cairns and get back to Mackay in one day. lt is a 2-day trip. On a Friday there are on aircraft at all from Mackay to north Queensland. To service my electorate on Friday and Saturday the only recourse for me is to drive a motor car. In one day last weekend I drove 560 miles. The weekend before that I had to drive from Mackay to Townsville and back because over the weekend there are no aircraft services from Mackay to Townsville that are suitable.

Mr James:

– No bush pilots?

Dr PATTERSON:

– No, not in that area. The bush pilots are in Cairns. I think these matters should be looked at. The other point I want to make is in relation to Qantas Airways Ltd. In recent weeks a lot has been said in this Parliament about the efficiency of Qantas, Australia’s airline. I shall make a little point. Recently I had occasion to go from Sydney to Hong Kong on the way to China. I travelled by Qantas. When 1 boarded the plane in Sydney, travelling tourist class, a steward came around, immaculately clothed, and said in a very cultured voice: ‘Would you like a drink, Sir?’. I said: ‘Yes. I would like a rum - an Australian rum, preferably Bundaberg’. He said: ‘My good Sir, we never stock Australian rums. It is only Bacardi on Qantas.’ This was said in front of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the entire Australian Labor Party delegation. Australian rum is not stocked on an Australian aircraft.

When we left Manila we had some cheese. It was French cheese. I said: Where are the Australian cheeses?’. The same gentleman in a very cultured voice said: ‘From Manila to Hong Kong we serve only French cheese’ - on Qantas! The same thing occurred coming back from Hong Kong to Sydney. 1 again asked for a rum. A different gentleman but the same cultured, nice voice said: ‘We do not stock Australian rum’. He was very snooty about it too. I do not know what these people think about this product but it is a fine Australian product. It is just as good as any international product. In fact, it is better than most. I suggest to the Minister that he take up this matter with Qantas. It is only a small point but it took me 3 years to get Trans-Australia Airlines to carry Australian rum on TAA aircraft. I have not persuaded Ansett Airlines of Australia to carry Australian rum yet but I am trying. They would not have it because some air hostesses think that it is a devil’s drink. I assure honourable members that it is a very fine drink and it is made from sugar, an excellent product. As one who drinks rum only in moderation - one or two occasionally - 1 believe that an Australian is entitled to have an Australian drink on an Australian aircraft and not have to put up with a list which includes imported rums - quite a large choice of them-

Mr Grassby:

– Imported brandies.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes, imported brandies and then to be told: ‘No, Sir, we never carry Australian rum on this Australian aircraft’. Those are a few points I wish to make. T again repeat that there is a serious problem in the Mackay area with regard to the standard of its airport buildings. I think the Minister knows that it is time something was done. If we are going to attract international tourists to a world famous resort like the Great Barrier Reef surely they are entitled at least to a chair to sit on at peak periods. People frequently have to wait an hour or 2 hours for transshipment on feeder aircraft. They have to roam around the place without even a decent chair to sit on. This is something which has to be rectified. When there is congesion at this airport is an absolute disgrace in terms of selling Australia to international tourists.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– The Committee is considering the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation with many questions of importance to Western Australia unanswered or not answered satisfactorily. 1 refer particularly to the residents of Newburn whose land is to be resumed for the Perth Airport. In reply to a question I asked about whether an estimate had been made of the cost of re-establishing these Newburn residents on similar properties of similar acreage with equal amenities a similar distance from Perth the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) representing the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), indicated that no such estimate has been made. He stated that properties would be purchased in due course by negotiation and on the basis of fair market values. I ask: But what market? The market was killed by the Commonwealth Government’s announcement of an intention to resume land and by its blocking of plans by the Belmont Shire for development of the area.

In answer to a question I asked, the Minister indicated that the Department of Civil Aviation had been aware of applications by the Belmont Shire to zone the area for other than rural purposes, yet the Government expects honourable members to be naive enough to believe that the Department of Civil Aviation did not influence the refusal of these plans by the then Liberal Minister in the State government who had the responsibility for such decision. If the Department did not have any influence on the decision, why was the Department consulted at all? The Government should not expect the public to be so naive, particularly when subsequent aircraft noise zones were proposed by the Department of Civil Aviation and were adopted by the same State Minister - the town planning authority - without alteration or argument. The situation is farcical. An application in 1962 by the Belmont Shire to zone land for residential purposes was refused because of. the airport. An application to zone it as industrial land in 1969 was refused because of the airport. It is nonsense to use any other reason for a refusal because every shire has the right to zone land within its boundaries and to develop areas in a proper manner. Without question the Commonwealth Government has influenced decisions of the State authorities to the disadvantage of the people they purport to represent.

Land which cannot be bought for industrial purposes for less than $17,000 an acre - in many cases industrial land adjacent to this area is valued at $30,000 an acre - is being bought or, to more aptly describe it, is virtually being stolen by the Commonwealth Government for $3,000 an acre. The only customer for this land is the Commonwealth Government No-one else will buy or bid for the land because of the Commonwealth Government’s interest in it. It is even difficult to obtain a true assessment of the value of the area because of the artificial restrictions imposed by the Commonwealth Government. Ls it any wonder that the owners of the property say: ‘You cannot beat the Department’? Land which has been acquired for the purpose clearly defined on airport plans as a freight terminal is being treated as rural land at rural prices. However, the biggest confidence trick in the whole of the machinations of this disgraceful action, has been the situation where residents have been persuaded to write to the Department of Civil Aviation pleading to have their land acquired on the grounds of hardship - a hardship that has been created by the very department to which they are forced to write. What hypocrisy! Is it to avoid any payment for compulsory acquisition? ls it to ensure that the unfortunate people who have been reduced to near bankruptcy by the Department or worried into ill health are the first to accept a ridiculous price for something which they cannot hope to replace in size or amenity or at a similar value? These people have been discomforted and displaced from their homes after having pioneered the district. What a reward for people who were prepared to suffer hardships initially in establishing a future for themselves and their families in the area.

Even now it is not too late for the Government to recant and start treating these people more favourably. It is far past the time when some firm arrangement was made with the Belmont Shire as to the actual payment in lieu of rates lost, bearing in mind that the Shire had planned the total development of its area on its ratable return, including Newburn as an industrial and residential complex. Here again the action of the Commonwealth Government will force up rates in the remainder of the shire because of the loss of revenue from Newburn to the Belmont Shire. No wonder the Belmont Shire continues to campaign to shift the airport. It does so not only on these grounds but also on the ground of the extreme discomfort being suffered by the residents of Belmont’s adjacent areas because of the aircraft noise, which is evidenced by the many petitions presented to this Parliament supporting the removal of the airport. In fact, I have to hand a petition containing some 1,532 signatures also calling for the removal of the airport on these grounds. But we should not forget the thousands of people who have petitioned the Parliament in the past. It is long past the time for these estimates to make provision for a second site for Perth airport, as in other Australian capital cities and, for that matter, in capital cities around the world. What makes the Minister decide that Perth is so different from other cities?

Mr Calder:

– Perth has a most outstanding airport.

Mr BENNETT:

– Apparently the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) wishes Perth to suffer the pollution of aircraft 24 hours a day. With the expansion of the airport we will suffer further from night flights of international aircraft and from interstate and intrastate freighters. Let us look at what one of the sufferers had to say about it:

Having lived alongside the London Airport in England up to the year 1963 one of my reasons for leaving England to come to Australia was because of aircraft noise. It involved the 4-engine jets. They built a sound barrier at London Airport but it had no effect whatsoever on the noise level in the area. Consequently the properties in adjacent council areas had the effect of reducing the rateable value of properties, which was natural enough. Because no-one wanted to live in these particular areas it brought property values down.

At that stage he left the country. Now he lives on the border of Victoria Bank and South Perth and now finds a similar problem developing.

According to the Department’s own noise exposure forecasts, he has little hope of relief. Here again for some strange reason the Department of Civil Aviation feels that workers in industry can be exposed to aircraft noise without retaliation. The Department has persuaded the Town Planning Authority to adopt zoning proposals which allow for heavy to light industry in varying degrees within the noise exposure zones but prohibit high density living, schools, hospitals, etc. Apart from interference with the overall zoning and planning of shires and cities, I wonder what will happen when unions of workers in these areas commence pressing claims for disability allowances and the provision of protective equipment in order to protect those people who will be affected.

No doubt that situation will arise because the hazard has been clearly mapped and defined by no better authority than the Department of Civil Aviation. To date the Minister has refused to provide sound proofing compensation for these residents who are affected, even though this is done in other countries. Does the Minister think that Australians will tolerate more than will the people of other countries? We have a problem which is increasing. It is no use attempting to sweep it under the political carpet. It must be faced now. Every delay makes the solution more complex and more costly. It is a problem of modern days requiring modern answers.

The argument has been proposed that we would need to go too far from the city to establish an airport. I do not accept this argument. However, if many miles were involved there are fast modern systems of transport available which could be utilised as city to airport links. One of the latest means of transport to be evolved is the British 300 miles per hour hovertrain which has undergone its first successful tests. A 35-ton 100-seat hovertrain could be in service in 2i years, but it is estima ted that it will be 5 to 7 years before a fully proved vehicle is in service. However, the principle is sound and is capable of being developed to produce speeds of over 700 miles per hour. Distance and time will present no problems in the near future in relation to the placement of airports. Money which can be saved in purchasing outlying land could be expended in providing a suitable transport system to the city. No matter where we put an airport near the city it soon becomes a congested traffic area, creating a traffic problem for the State government and the local authorities. This places a further burden on the local community. No doubt Govermment speakers will say that no matter where the airport is situated the population will follow. But if the Government is farsighted enough, sound protection green belts will be preserved around the area of airports and suitable trees planted to protect the area. The reason we have problems today is the lack of Government planning.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– As Somersby, which is a possible site for Sydney’s second international airport, is in my electorate I would like to say a few words on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation. On Monday of this week I held a meeting in my office, at which a number of very prominent members of the community were present, to discuss the calling of a public meeting so that the people of the Central Coast could express a collective view about the possible siting of the airport at Somersby. Personally, I am opposed to the siting of the airport in this area, but 1 felt it was important that the people in the community should be able to express their views on the proposal. I have no ideological view on this question. If the community wants the airport in this area, then I shall support the proposal. When I have been asked to express a personal view on this question I have stated quite clearly that I oppose the proposal. However, I have to be guided by what people tell me in letters and what they say to me. So far 1 have gained the impression that the overwhelming majority of people on the Central Coast are opposed to the siting of this airport at Somersby.

I do not want to go into the details. I have been to meetings at which I have said that personally I am opposed to the proposal to site this airport at Somersby, and the people have stood and clapped - not for me but for my view on this matter. At the meeting which 1 called on Monday of this week the Central Coast citrus growers were represented by their secretary, Mr Fred Walpole. Also at the meeting were Mr Eric Hatley, the President of the Central Coast Trades and Labour Council; Mr Bill Hecker, the President of the Gosford Chamber of Commerce; Mr Keeble, the Secretary of the Gosford Shire Assembly, representing 24 progress associations which unanimously oppose the proposal; and Mr Peter Pickover, the tourist officer for the district. Mr Walpole made some very interesting comments. He represents a very viable industry on Mangrove Mountain - right where the possible site of the airport is. He said that already property sales have been affected. He knows already of 2 proposed sales of properties on Mangrove Mountain which have fallen through.

The citrus industry and the tourist industry on the Central Coast are the largest 2 industries in the area. A large number of people depend upon them for their income. It has been estimated that at least 2,000 employees are engaged in these industries. At a rough estimate, the siting of an airport in this area could cut production in the citrus industry by 23 per cent. At the present time this area produces I2i per cent of Australia’s citrus and 35 per cent of Australia’s lemons. If production in this industry is cut by 25 per cent it will affect the throughput of the processing factories, the throughput of the packing houses and all the other allied industries which are involved with the citrus industry. It could be the beginning of the end of the citrus industry in this area. If Jusfrute Ltd, or one of the other companies, found that production had to be cut by 25 per cent, it might not pay the company to continue to produce in that area. I hope that the people who are making the decision on the siting of this new international airport will keep in mind not just the noise and pollution factors associated with an airport but also the very real effect which it could have on the citrus industry.

At the meeting which I called last Monday I asked each person representing a large body of people to express their view.

I, together with Mr Keith O’Connell, the State MLA for Gosford, have called a public meeting for 5th December, and notices of the meeting are already going out. I have here a copy of the Central Coast ‘Express’. The newspaper has kindly given a great deal of publicity to the meeting to be held on 5th December. I am just expressing the views of the other people who were represented at the meeting which I called last Monday; these are not my views. Mr Eric Hatley, the President of the Central Coast Traders and Labour Council, who represents some 22,000 trade unionists on the Central Coast, said that they are very concerned about this matter. A few problems are being experienced in the rutile mining industry on the Central Coast. A number of people engaged in this industry may be put off work, and they will be anxious to obtain other work in the area. 1 mentioned in a previous speech that an industrial complex had been planned in the Somersby area at Kariong. We now find that this plan will be suspended by the State Planning Authority which will not release this land from its rural land classification and classify it as industrial land until the matter is cleared up. It could be that the industrial complex has gone forever. The last time I spoke on this matter I read to the House 3 letters I had received, one from Hesdols and Co. Pty Ltd, one from Ronson Pty Ltd and one from H. J. Ashton Co. Pty Ltd, a bookbinding company, all of which would have been functioning with factories in this complex and employing 300 to 500 people right now. There are many other industries which would have come to the area but which will not do so because the land is tied up. Three hundred or 400 jobs would be immediately affected. It is all right saying: ‘Yes, it will bring you employment’, but it is highly unlikely that we will have any extra employment for at least 5 to 7 years and possibly longer. People in my area do not want work in 5 or 7 years time; they want it within the next 12 months. How much satisfaction will it give them to tell them than in 5 to 6 years time they may be able to get some extra work?

I wrote to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) and asked a series of questions. I said that I wanted to know what the location of the airport would be, what the flight paths were likely to be, what the noise levels were likely to be, how properties would be affected and what compensation will be paid for properties affected. For instance, how will a man who finds himself right on the site be compensated? Is he to be compensated now or in 10 years time when his property is taken over? He will not be able to sell it. What assistance will be given to local government to provide water, roads and all the other facilities required by an airport? What is the possible pollution level?

The Minister replied that he could not tell me any of these things. It was a nice polite letter. He was kind enough, when I went to see him, to offer to show me the map and where the site was providing I would keep the information confidential. 1 said that in the circumstances I would not look at the map; I did not want any information that I could not pass on to my constituents. I will not enter into a conspiracy of silence. I will not get up at a public meeting and say: ‘I know because the Minister has told me but I am afraid I cannot pass it on to you’. A Government member may be prepared to do that but I certainly am not. I understand some of the problems associated with the release of this information. I am not unsympathetic to the problems of announcing it, including the possible property speculation which could result, but I think the way in which people’s lives will be affected warrants a quick disclosure of these facts.

Although he suggested it would not be likely that officers from his Department would come to such a meeting to give information, I sent a letter today to the Minister in which I re-issued the invitation. He did say to me that we would see that Mr James Harper, head of the CommonwealthState committee which is investigating the site of the new airport, kept me fully informed about this matter but so far 1 have not had any information at all. The meeting will go ahead. There are critics, including my opponent at the next election, who say we should not have a public meeting until we have more information. This is the 3 card trick. We will get the full information when the decision has been made, and we would then have to hold a public meeting. I am asking people to come along and to express their views on the very scanty information that is available, The Minister can forget any suggestion that we will wait until we get all this information if that information becomes available only when the decision has been made. People who were at the meeting the other day were almost 100 per cent in opposition to the proposal.

Consideration should be given to the great discomfort which this airport would bring to the many thousands of people who come to this area for their retirement. They come there to get away from pollution and noise, with a desire to live in that magnificent area in peace and quiet. The introduction of an airport into that area will have a deleterious effect on the community.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Friday, 12 November 1971

Department of Works

Proposed expenditure, $76,530,000.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Works I should like first to commend the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) and his planners and engineers. I commend also members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on public Works for their fair and unbiassed approach to their overall job throughout Australia, but especially, during the last 3 or 4 years, in the Northern Territory. During the last 18 months the Committee has made 18 or 20 decisions concerning the Northern Territory. If I may accept as correct the information supplied to me by the Parliamentary Library, almost half the Committee’s deliberations have concerned proposed works in the Northern Territory. Members of the Public Works Committee, under their very able chairman, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who has now left the chamber, have done a tremendous job in a fair and unbiassed way for the Northern Territory and for Australia.

Officers of the Department of Works in the Northern Territory, who plan and carry out the work which the Committee has recommended, also have done a first class job. They have planned and built schools, including high schools, bridges, office blocks, hospitals, hostels, sewerage schemes, water reticulation schemes and even a television studio for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Darwin. Under its Director in the Northern Territory the Department of Works has put in a year of very solid and good work, both in quantity and quality. In the Estimates for this year we see, under division 925.4.01, that it is proposed that the Department of Works in the Northern Territory shall control expenditure of $6,220,000 on behalf of the Department of Education and Science: under division 925.4.02 an amount of $7,610,000 on behalf of the Department of Health; and under division 925.4.03, $27,250,000 on behalf of the Department of the Interior. The Department will control an expenditure of $2. 085m on beef roads on behalf of the Department of the Interior. I am glad to see that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) is in the chamber and to know that he realises that we appreciate the amount that is being spent in the Territory. As a result largely of the Minister’s efforts, there will be an expenditure of $1.5m on stock routes, other roads and water supplies in the Territory.

The total expenditure on works in the Territory will be approximately $44m. 1 remind honourable members that this is expenditure in an area which only last week a member of the Australian Labor Party described as a neglected area. What sort of nonsense was the honourable member talking when he said that? He was referring to an area in which the Government proposes to spend $44m this year. Does he claim that this is neglect? In the electorate of only one honourable member in this Committee has more money been spent. That money has been spent on the Opera House which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope). That project represents a one-eyed approach because it does not really benefit a whole area as does the programme of the Department of Works for the Northern Territory. This Department has shown a most responsible attitude towards its job this year. I congratulate the Department, its Minister (Senator Wright), its planners and the men who work for it both inside the Northern Territory and in other areas on their performance in the last year and on the fact that their plans envisage the spending of this increased amount of money in the Northern Territory.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– I note that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in the report presented on his Department mentions that the amount of $308m spent by the Department last financial year was a record. The appropriation for this financial year for this Department exceeds that amount. I commend the Department for its encouragement and acceptance of an increased number of cadets who undertake university and technical studies at the expense of the Department. An overall increase of 91 occurs in the various categories. Cadets undergoing civil engineering training increased from 103 last year to 109 this year. The number for mechanical engineering training increased from 32 to 49 while in the electrical engineering field the increase is from 44 to 50. The number of cadet architects rises from 153 to 206 and the number of quantity surveyors increases from 32 to 41. The total number of cadets this year is 455 as against 364 last year. It is apparent that in this sector involving the training of young men, and women perhaps, the Department of Works has not suffered the cut backs that are apparent in other branches of the Public Service.

However, a drop occurs in the number of apprentices being trained. The reduction is quite a considerable one. I find that 104 fewer apprentices will be trained. These apprentices would have become Australia’s tradesman in the future. At the completion of apprenticeship, these people are needed for the work of the Department throughout Australia and in its Territories. In the Works Review’ section of the report the point is made that a considerable amount of work was done not only in Australia but also in Papua New Guinea by the Department.

Last year the Department of Works expended $39m on capital works for the Department of Civil Aviation together with a further S2,638m on repairs and maintenance for that Department.

A number of honourable members have spoken already on the subject of airports. I wish to comment on present and future airports. I acknowledge the need for airport improvements following the introduction of new aircraft onto overseas and Australian internal routes. In the time that 1 have been a member of this Parliament I have noticed the reduction in flying time resulting from the use of the faster aircraft which have been introduced into service by Australia’s domestic airlines. This has led to a growing demand for improved facilities at air terminals. In no way do I begrudge the people of Victoria the millions spent on developing Tullamarine Airport; nor do I begrudge the people of New South Wales and the others who use the Mascot airport complex the millions spent on the airport itself and in extending one runway into Botany Bay through the dredging and reclamation work that is going on. Apparently this work displeases some people living in the surrounding area.

On my way to and from meetings of this Parliament I land twice at Brisbane Airport. I travel through Sydney Airport. When I behold the old quonset huts which make up the terminals at Brisbane Airport, I see that no amount of tizzying up can conceal the fact that, despite the good job of work done on them, the terminal buildings were constructed from these huts. The land on which they stand was taken over from the Brisbane Amateur Turf Club at Doomben. Part of the track on which a famous Queensland race - the Straight Six, or the Newmarket - used to be run was taken over at Doomben as land for these buildings. When we realise that the terminals were built over 26 years ago, I think it is past time for an international terminal improvement in keeping with the terminals at other Australian cities, particularly capital cities. The terminals are not even in keeping with the standard of terminals at airports in non-capital cities. 1 recall that not long after I entered this Parliament I was one of a deputation of Queensland members - very ecumenical - which was invited to speak to the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, when he was Minister for Civil Aviation, about the improvements that should be made at the Brisbane Airport. We were promised that after the international terminal had been built at Perth and after the improvements had been carried out there Queensland was in line for consideration. That is almost 8 years ago. Perhaps in some respects TransAustralia Airlines was fortunate that there was a fire in its terminal at Brisbane. Now something will have to be done. Going further afield and travelling further north, the facilities at the airports at Maryborough and Bundaberg - the latter airport being called the Hinkler Airport - are the same as those that existed when Dragon Rapides and DC3s were servicing the area. It is true that both airports are serviced only by Fokker Friendships now. Nevertheless, these aircraft carry more passengers than did the DC3s. When there are 2 aircraft on the tarmac at the same time the facilities at both airports are sorely stretched. I suppose that in some ways we can be thankful that both places have a salubrious climate so that people can stand outside, although in the middle of the day it can become quite hot. There are no cold winds from which to shelter. Perhaps this and the demand at other places for improved facilities is the reason why improvements at these airports have been put off.

Another matter which I wish to raise is that of landing facilities, particularly night landing facilities. For quite a time I have been stressing the need for better landing facilities at Maryborough. The power, which is supplied from the local regional electricity board, has failed on occasions. The non-directional landing beacons were not operating and the aircraft had to carry on to the next airport which, in most cases, unless the aircraft were redirected to Brisbane, would be Bundaberg another 72 miles further north. That would mean that the passengers would have a journey of I£ hours to 2 hours by car to return to Maryborough. The Department of Civil Aviation installed transistorised non-directional beacons as an alternative. Once when there was a power failure there was the farcical situation of an aircraft coming in on its approach when the power cut off. The non-directional beacons were operating quite effectively on the transistorised batteries but the lights along the strip were out. The Department assured me that it took 15 minutes to light flares and place them along the strip. Apparently the pilot had more experience of the vagaries of the operation than I did. He decided that it was better to carry on to the next airport - at Bundaberg. Those passengers who were not proceeding north were faced with a car trip of 72 miles from Bundaberg - another trip of l½ to 2 hours, depending upon how heavy the foot of the driver was.

The position is that there is no alternative power supply. All that is needed is the installation of a power plant that would take over immediately the town supply cut out. 1 do not think that this would involve a great deal of expenditure. Again I urge the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to give consideration to the installation of an alternative or emergency power plant at these airports.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I ask leave of the Committee to move together the amendments circulated in my name.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The amendments refer to clauses 3 and 4 and to the First Schedule which read:

Clause 3.

The Treasurer may issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and apply for the services specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, in respect of the year ending on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-two, the sum of One thousand, seven hundred and fourteen million, seven hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars.

Clause 4.

The sums authorized by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1971-72 and by the last preceding section to be issued out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, amounting, as appears by the First Schedule to this Act, in the aggregate to the sum of Two thousand, nine hundred and thirty-four million, five hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars, are appropriated, and shall be deemed to have been appropriated, as from the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-one, for the services expressed in the Second Schedule to this Act in respect of the financial year that commenced on that date.

First Schedule.

I move:

In clause 3, omit “ One thousand, seven hundred and fourteen million, seven hundred and sixty-nine thousand “, insert “ One thousand, five hundred and seventy-six million, five hundred and fifty-four thousand “.

In clause 4, after “ 1971-72 “, insert “ , by the Supply Act (No. 3) 1971-72 “.

In the First Schedule, omit the Schedule, insert the following Schedule: -

Section 4.

My friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and his Party co-operated in putting through the Supply Bill (No. 3) on Tuesday of this week. As I pointed out at the time, it will not add to the amount of money in the appropriation. It is necessary, therefore, to make the consequential amendments which these amendments will make to the Appropriation Bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3410

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2)

1971-72

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 August (vide page 133) on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3411

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971

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

page 3411

STATES GRANTS BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the revisions to the financial assistance grants arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States agreed upon at the Premiers Conference on 16th June last. It provides for adjustments to the financial assistance grants in 1971-72 and in subsequent years which result from the transfer of payroll tax from the Commonwealth to the States. It thus complements the Payroll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Act 1971 which recently was passed by the Parliament. It provides also for the payment to the States of additional nonrecurring revenue assistance of $40m in 1971-72. This legislation, if enacted, will replace the States Grants Act 1970-71.

As honourable members are aware, new revenue assistance arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, to apply over the 5 years 1970-71 to 1974-75, were settled at the June 1970 Premiers Conference. Under these arrangements, Commonwealth revenue assistance to the States has increased, and will continue to increase, at a considerably faster rate than would have been the case had the previous arrangements continued unchanged. However, particularly following the High Court decision invalidating State receipts duties as they applied to certain types of transaction, it was clear that, notwithstanding these large increases in Commonwealth revenue assistance, it would be desirable for the States to have access to a new source of taxation to give them greater freedom and independence in revenue raising. At the June 1970 Premiers Conference the Commonwealth therefore offered to examine with the States any proposals made by them for a new growth tax. No proposals were put forward by the States, but at the Premiers Conference in April of this year the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced that the Commonwealth Government was examining alternative means by which the States might be given access to a new field of taxation.

That examination was made in considerable detail and with the utmost care. It may be helpful if I outline to the House, very briefly, the main considerations we had in mind in coming to the decision to offer to transfer payroll tax to the States. As a starting point, of course, there is the fact that the Constitution clearly debars the States from imposing any of the usual forms of sales tax and other widely based indirect taxes. At the same time, we satisfied ourselves, after full and thorough consideration, that we should not depart from the Commonwealth’s long-held view that it should retain sole access to income taxation. The reasons for that latter view have been stated on a number of occasions and I shall outline them only very briefly here. Income tax is by far the most important of the tax sources available to the Commonwealth, constituting over 60 per cent of Commonwealth tax collections, and over 50 per cent of all public authority taxation collections. Because of its all pervading nature, income tax is the most important economic policy weapon available to the Commonwealth and it is also a very important instrument in redistributing income and in implementing other social policies.

We also found, after a careful review of various possibilities, that the other taxes available would not meet the general aim, from the viewpoint of this exercise, that any new State tax should be widely based and should provide scope for the States to vary the rate of the tax should they wish to do so. In the light of these considerations, therefore, we saw payroll tax as the only practical possibility. While we realise that it was not an ideal tax for the purposes we were seeking to achieve, we believed also that many of the arguments commonly brought against it were not well founded. In particular, the argument that it adds to costs can, broadly speaking, be applied to all taxes. On the credit side, payroll tax is broadly based, its yield grows almost directly in line with the economy, and it is relatively simple to administer.

At the Premiers Conference the States reaffirmed their previously expressed views that they needed access to a new area of growth taxation to assist them in financing improvements in the services which they provide. While some of them indicated that they would have preferred to be given access to income tax, all said that they would accept payroll tax on the basis that it would constitute a useful addition to their resources for revenue raising purposes. In withdrawing from the field of payroll tax, the Commonwealth could not, of course, contemplate accepting the very large loss of revenue that would be involved in the absence of any offset to its existing payments to the States, and it was therefore agreed that offsetting reductions would be made to the financial assistance grants. It was agreed also, however, that these reductions would be less than the loss to the Commonwealth - and the gain to the States - resulting from the transfer of payroll tax at the then existing rate, by virtue of 4 separate factors.

First, the reduction in the grants will be smaller than the loss to Commonwealth revenue by an amount equal to the payroll tax payable- at the rate of 2.5 per centin respect of non-business activities of local government authorities. By this means the Commonwealth will, in effect, be bearing the cost, which would otherwise be incurred by State governments, of exempting non-business activities of local authorities from payment of payroll tax as from the date of transfer of the tax to the States. The relief thereby provided to local authorities is estimated at about $6m in 1971-72 and $8m in a full year. This prospective relief has been most warmly welcomed by local authorities throughout Australia.

Secondly, the Commonwealth will, in effect, compensate the States for the extra costs they will incur in administering their new payroll taxes. These costs will not be large, the estimate for all 6 States for 1971-72 being only about $600,000. By this means, however, the Commonwealth will ensure that the States are relieved of any additional expenses which would otherwise have reduced the benefit accruing to them from the transfer.

The third factor is a once-for-all adjustment to take account of the probability that revenue from payroll tax - at constant rates - will grow at a slightly slower rate than the financial assistance grants that the States will be losing would have done. I make the point there that because of the betterment factor it grows at a greater rate. For this purpose, the deduction from the ‘base’ grants for 1971-72, on which the calculation of the financial assistance grants for 1972-73 and subsequent years will depend, will be reduced by a further $3m and the States will benefit accordingly.

Fourthly, the Commonwealth agreed to make the reduction in the States’ grants in 1971-72 smaller than the loss to Commonwealth revenue resulting from the transfer of the tax by a further amount now estimated at approximately $22.4m. This amount is calculated by first distributing $20m between the States in proportion to their estimated payroll tax collections in 1971-72 at the rate of 2.5 per cent. However, because distribution on that basis could be held to favour the 2 most populous States, there will be added to the amounts so calculated for the 4 less populous States such amounts as are necessary to bring their allocations up to what they would have been had the distribution of the $20m been in proportion to the States’ financial assistance grants. These additional amounts for the 4 less populous States are presently estimated at approximately $2. 4m, thus giving a total amount for all States of about $22.4m. This last provision, of course, is equivalent to granting additional revenue assistance to the States. Moreover, because the estimated amount of $22.4m by which the reduction in the financial assistance grants will be less than the amount of payroll tax collections transferred will also apply to the base used to determine the formula grants for 1972-73 and subsequent years, this additional assistance to the States will continue and escalate under the formula in future years.

This additional assistance, together with the special non-recurring revenue assistance of $40m to be paid to the States in 1971- 72 to which I have already referred, is being provided by the Commonwealth in recognition of arguments put forward by the States at the Premiers Conference. The Premiers argued that, even after taking into account additional revenue they might be able to raise from their existing taxes and charges, and from payroll tax, they would find it very difficult to finance the large and unavoidable increases in expenditure they had in prospect, particularly in the current financial year. These increases were the result mainly of the continuing effect of the abnormally large increases in wage and salary awards granted by various wage fixing bodies in 1970-71. As honourable members will recall, special assistance of $43m had to be provided in 1970-71 for the same reason, notwithstanding the significant efforts made by all States, following the February 1971 Premiers Conference, to improve their budgetary positions.

After agreement had been reached to transfer the payroll tax to the States, the States decided among themselves that they would increase the rate of tax by 1 per cent upon its transfer to them. Lest there be any doubt on the matter, I should say that this decision was made by the Premiers themselves in the light of their own judgments of their likely expenditure commitments and their revenue needs. The Commonwealth played no part in the decision. I understand that it is estimated that the total net gain to the States’ budgets as a result of this increase will be about $90m in 1971-72 and, of course, appreciably more than that in a full year.

The form of the Bill closely follows that of the States Grants Act 1970-71, which it is replacing, with 3 exceptions. First, it provides, in sub-clause 3 of clause 7 and in clause 13, for the deductions to be made to the grants under the payroll tax transfer arrangements. The Payroll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Act 1971 recently passed by the Parliament was proclaimed to commence as from 1st September and, under the provisions of that Act, Commonwealth Payroll Tax is no longer being levied in the States. It is, of course, essential that the appropriate offsetting reductions now be made to the general revenue grants to the States. Honourable members will note that under clause 14 of the Bill the Treasurer will be required to determine the amounts to be deducted, in accordance with the principles governing such deductions which are set out in the Bill. This procedure is necessary because it will not be possible to make accurate estimates of some of the elements involved in the calculation of the deductions until close to the end of 1971-72. In particular, it will not be possible to estimate accurately the States’ payroll tax collections, calculated from the date of transfer and at the then existing rate of 2.5 per cent, until that time. Some other estimates, relating to the amounts to be deducted from the ‘base’ on which the calculations of the grants will be made for 1972-73 and subsequent years, will in fact not be made until early in 1972-73. These and the other estimates involved - for example, administrative costs to the States - will, of course, be made in close consultation with each of the States.

The second point on which this legislation differs from the Act which it is replacing is that it no longer specifies precisely how the Commonwealth Statistician should calculate average wages for purposes of the formula laid down in the Act. Previously, the Statistician was required to make the calculations by reference solely to figures shown on payroll tax returns. However, with the transfer of the tax to the States it is no longer practicable to specify in the Commonwealth legislation the method to be used to calculate average wages and subclause 2 of clause IS of the Bill therefore provides that the method to be employed by the Statistician is to be determined by the Treasurer after consultation with the State Treasurers. The method proposed to be used in the future has, in fact, already been agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. It will give results virtually identical with those derived from the method laid down in the present legislation. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard for the information of honourable members the text setting out the method that has been agreed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

page 3413

SPECIFICATION OF PROPOSED METHOD FOR CALCULATING AVERAGE WAGES FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATES GRANTS ACT

The total amount of wages shall be the sum of the following:

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The third respect in which this legislation differs from the States Grants Act 1970-71 is that the provisions in that Act permitting the Treasurer to make deductions from the grants payable to a State which does not pay payroll tax to the Commonwealth have, for obvious reasons, been dropped. Under clause 10 of the Bill the special non-recurring revenue assistance of $40m to be paid to the States in 1971-72 is to be distributed between them in proportion to the other grants payable to them under the Act this year, but before making the deductions to the grants which result from the transfer of payroll tax. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the present estimates of each State’s share of this $40m special assistance, and also of the estimated net gain to each State under the payroll tax transfer arrangements.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The cost to the Commonwealth will, of course, be greater than the amounts shown in this table because it is meeting the cost of relieving local authorities from the payment of pay-roll tax in respect of their non-business activities. The figures given in the table refer, in other words, only to the net gains to the State governments themselves.

To conclude, the States have benefited in 2 ways from the changes in CommonwealthState financial relations that have taken place in the last year or so. In the first place, the level and rate of growth of Commonwealth revenue assistance have increased markedly. In 1971-72, the States will receive an estimated additional $274m in Commonwealth general revenue assistance, over and above what they would have received had the arrangements which existed before 1970-71 continued unaltered. This is a remarkable increase even if one regards as separate the estimated amount of S100.6m representing receipts duty compensation grants, included in the figure I have quoted, and which could be regarded as replacing revenue which the States had hoped to gain from their own receipts duties. The Government feels that it can fairly claim that the Commonwealth has been fully sensitive to the States’ financial needs. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table setting out details of the components making up the increase to which I have referred.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document reads as follows)

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The second way in which the States have benefited from these recent decisions is, of course, that they now have access to a new field of taxation which adds significantly to their independent revenue raising powers. We believe that these decisions reflect a real spirit of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the State governments. We see no reason why that spirit should not continue to the benefit of the country as a whole. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3415

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Railway Agreement (Tasmania) Bill 1971.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1971.

page 3415

HOURS OF MEETING

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

– 1 move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, commencing on Tuesday, 23rd November and continuing for the remainder of the year, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on each Tuesday and Wednesday at 2 o’clock p.m., and on each Thursday at 10 o’clock a.m.

  1. will not elaborate a great deal on this. Earlier I explained the position to honourable members. This motion has the support of the Government parties and it has been discussed with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). The House agreed to an earlier motion that we should sit at 2 o’clock next Tuesday week. I commend this motion to the House as it will expedite the handling of the business for the remainder of this sessional period.
Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I have done some research on the effects of long and abnormal hours of work as discussed in the journal ‘Aerospace Medicine’. Work and sleep patterns had not excited the interest of research people until the age of space medicine arrived. ‘Aerospace Medicine’ for May 1970 summarised the medical experience of the Apollo flights numbers 7 to 11 inclusive. Some of the interesting points raised are as follows:

The Apollo astronauts have faced the same sleep difficulties as their predecessors. Unfortunately medical knowledge and expertise can provide little assistance in resolving this problem area, for Apollo mission plans must be highly inflexible and constraining. The austronaut must then be integrated into the fixed mission plan as best he can.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question now before the House relates to an alteration to the times of meeting of the House. So far I have seen no relevance in the honourable member’s remarks.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

- Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that we have been asked to extend the sitting hours in an unreasonable manner which will produce inefficiency, ill health and perhaps accelerate the deaths of members of Parliament. 1 have tried to get evidence of this. The medical service now available in Australia turned up 187 references which were further culled. It appears that this work goes as near as any other work that can be located to proving the inefficiency and ill health that can be experienced and the risks that can be run by people who work irregular hours. This is the only field in which this matter has become absolutely vital. It involves great amounts of money. I think we could argue that this applies also to the work of people who run countries and also handle very large amounts of money.

The Apollo 7 crew had little sleep for the first 3 days and one member took a pep pill after falling asleep on watch. On Apollo 8 they had sedatives and sleep schedules but those schedules were broken. Fatigue led to minor errors and forced real time changes in the flight plan, especially in the later critical stages. On Apollo 9 all the crew slept at one time. This was a great step forward because it was found that others would disturb the one who was asleep. The quantity and quality of crew sleep was definitely improved by this routine and the lack of postflight fatigue was evident during the medical examination of the crews on the recovery day.

On Apollo 10 the sleep patterns approached normal. On Apollo 11 the work-sleep cycles were quite ideal prior to the lunar orbit insertion and the amount of sleep was adequate to get the approval of the medical advisers for earlier extra vehicular activity on the lunar surface than was originally planned. This would not have been possible if great care had not been taken to adjust those sleep schedules. The medical people would not have recommended this great speed-up in the programme and the extra time that was thereby available on the surface of the moon unless this sleep pattern had been greatly improved. But I point out that that pattern was for athletes, men in top line medical condition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is very interesting but the honourable member should relate it a little more to the motion before the House.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I am about to conclude. The amount of sleep was adequate for the authorities to approve earlier extra vehicular activity. But due to minor noise and temperature disturbance the conclusion made after all these flights was that efforts must be continued with flight planners to maintain the work day during flight at about 12 hours, allowing 8 hours for sleep and 4 hours for leisure. Unless this can be carried out in this Parliament you are asking for minor slips which could become major slips in the decisions made in this place, not only among Ministers and their assistants but all the other people who have anything to do with this Parliament. 1 protest at the whole idea that we should have to do anything that deprives us of a regular 8 hours sleep. There is nothing urgent to bc dealt with. No great catastrophe is about to befall the nation which warrants our sitting after midnight. It is high time that this Parliament decided on a regular schedule. We would get far more efficiency, we would do a better job, and I am sure that we would be considered a lot more sane by everybody in the world.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3416

SALARIES BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for specification of annual salaries and fees and for- prescription of certain fees not paid on an annual basis for a number of statutory office holders appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Australian Wool Commission Act, the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act and the Criminology Research Act. This Bill is necessary because of the particular legislative provisions existing for these statutory office holders. The existing provisions, which have been included in the parent Acts over the last 2 years, have the effect that for the present the remuneration for the statutory office holders involved is prescribed in regulations but that from the beginning of 1972 it is to be determined by the Parliament

The annual salaries for the statutory office holders concerned are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, and accord with those now prescribed by regulation with the exception that regulations under the Criminology Research Act, which is not yet in operation, have not been made. It will be noted that provision is being made for prescription by regulation of remuneration for deputies of members of the Australian Wool Commission. The regulations which will be made pursuant to that provision will provide that a deputy member is to be paid $35 for attendance at a meeting of not less than 3 hours duration or $20 where a meeting is less than 3 hours. These are standard daily sitting fees paid to a large number of members of Commonwealth bodies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate fa>» motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3417

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL 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.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924- 1966 to clarify the existing investment provisions to ensure that the Australian Dairy Produce Board is provided with investment powers related to its present day needs and circumstances. The amendment relates to the initiative taken by the Board in the early 1960s with the approval of the Government, in establishing milk recombining plants in the South East Asian area. The Board entered into this activity as a commercial venture in association with local capital with the aim of diversifying export markets for Australian dairy products when Britain was making its first bid for membership of the European Economic Community. The Board’s efforts in this direction have proved to be far sighted and are particularly significant in the light of the recent developments in Europe which could result in the loss of the United Kingdom market for our dairy products in the not far distant future.

The Board has established milk plants in conjunction with local interests in Singapore, Manila, Bangkok, Djakarta and Phnom Penh. While the Board has disposed of its capital equity in the Singapore plant it is continuing to supply raw materials to the plant. Since 1963 the Board has shipped butter oil and skim milk powder to the plants valued at $3 6m. The Board estimates that in 1971-72 about 10,000 tons of butter in the form of butter oil and 30,000 tons of skim milk powder worth some $15m will be shipped. Apart from providing a significant outlet for Australian dairy products the Board’s plants are playing an important role in the development of food technology in the South East Asian region and in providing nutritious dairy products for the people of the area. The joint plant ventures have also done much to foster goodwill between Australia and the countries concerned.

The finance for the Board’s participation in these ventures has mainly been drawn from the Dairy Industry Stabilisation Fund which consists of industry funds that were built up under the post-war contracts with the United Kingdom. The Fund is dealt with by the Dairying Industry Act which provides that monies in the Fund mav be applied by the Board in such manner as it thinks fit for any purpose approved by the Minister. To date the Board has invested a total of $5,918,000 in the plants- $2,400,000 in the form of share capital and $3,518,000 as loans for equipment, working capital and raw materials. These investments have included profits from the plant operations, which have been used progressively to develop the existing plants and to establish new plants. However, the point has been reached where the Board may not be able to depend on the Dairy Industry Stabilisation Fund to finance fully its plant activities.

The Dairy Product Export Control Act under which the Australian Dairy Produce Board is constituted provides that the Board may, with the approval of the Minister, take action to expand existing markets or to secure new markets for dairy products. The Act also provides in general terms that the Board may use moneys in its accounts for this purpose. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify these general provisions to provide the Board with the specific power to participate in commercial ventures as a means of expanding existing markets or securing new markets. For this purpose the Board will be enabled to use moneys in its accounts other than moneys borrowed from the Reserve Bank of Australia to acquire equity capital and make loans. It is important that there be no barrier in the way of the Board developing Asian outlets for dairy produce in the light of the EEC developments. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 3418

WAR SERVICES HOMES BILL 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.

The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposal which was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech to increase the maximum loan under the war service homes scheme from $8,000 to $9,000. The war service homes scheme is the Commonwealth’s own housing scheme. The scheme is part of a comprehensive range of repatriation benefits for Australian ex-service men and women and their dependants. Its aim is to assist eligible persons to secure homes of their own by providing them with low interest, long term housing loans. I need hardly remind honourable members that a war service homes loan is a very valuable repatriation benefit. Loans, which are available without any waiting period, carry interest at only 3i per cent per annum and are repayable over terms up to 45 years, or 50 years in the case of certain eligible widows. The present maximum loan of $8,000 came into operation in November 1968. The increase in the maximum loan to S9,000 is designed to assist eligible persons to meet increases since 1968 in the costs of acquiring a home. It will directly benefit eligible persons by reducing the amount they would otherwise have to provide from their own funds or from supplementary borrowings. Indirectly, it will benefit the whole community by enabling more persons to obtain a home of their own.

The primary purpose of increasing the maximum loan is to give eligible persons who have not previously received assistance under the scheme a more favourable opportunity to obtain a home. However, when the legislation is assented to, applications will be accepted in conformity with existing policy and within the new loan limit from existing purchasers and borrowers for additional loans to provide essential extra accommodation and certain approved utility services, such as sewerage. The Bill also provides for a widening of the definition of holding’ in the War Service Homes Act, which wilt enable certain interests in land, not presently provided for in the Act, to be accepted as a security for a war service homes loan. The definition of ‘holding’ in general covers only freehold land, perpetual leases, leases for 99 years from the Commonwealth and certain leases from the Commonwealth or a State under which the applicant, upon fulfilment of the terms, conditions and covenants of the lease, is entitled to a grant in fee simple of the land. The Bill makes provision for an extension of the definition of ‘holding’ to include a lease for a term of not less than 99 years from a. State or from a local governing body, a conditional purchase under the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 of the State of New South Wales and a unit defined in a units plan registered in accordance with a law of the Australian Capital Territory relating to unit titles, being a unit of which the applicant or borrower is a lessee under a lease from the Commonwealth. These interests in land represent new tenures or tenures which until recently were not in common use and which are now generally accepted as marketable interests in land and which would provide a satisfactory security for a war service homes loan.

The Bill also includes a number of other amendments which are designed to facilitate the administration of the Act. Clause 3 amends the definitions of ‘purchaser’ and borrower’ for the purposes of sections 30a, 31 and 36 of the Act. Section 30a, 31 and 36 of the Act empower the Director to exercise certain remedies should a purchaser or borrower fail to comply with the terms and conditions of his contract of sale or mortgage. The Act defines a ‘purchaser’ to mean a person who has purchased from the Director a dwelling-house and land; and a ‘borrower’ as a person who has received an advance, or executed a mortgage or other security to the Director. These definitions do not specifically include the transferees of the original purchaser or borrower or other persons deriving title through the original purchaser or borrower. For the effective administration of this Act, it is necessary that the Director should be empowered to exercise the remedies under sections 30a, 31 and 36, against all successors in title to the original purchaser or borrower to the same extent that he may have exercised those powers against that purchaser or borrower. The proposed amendments to the definitions of ‘purchaser* and ‘borrower’ provide accordingly.

Clause 7 provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act (section 30b), which will empower the Director, when he enters into possession of a property in pursuance of a warrant issued under section 30a of the Principal Act, to remove goods found in the dwelling house and store them in a safe place and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods upon the expiration of a period of 3 months after a notice of the removal of the goods has been published.

Clause 10 provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act (Section 48d), which will empower the Director to advance money on mortgage to an ineligible person for the purpose of effecting a sale when exercising the powers of sale conferred by section 36, section 48 and section 48c of the Act. While the usual practice of the Director is to sell properties under the powers conferred in these sections to eligible persons, it is sometimes necessary to effect a sale to an ineligible person, where, for example, the property is no longer suitable for sale to an eligible person, or where an eligible person is not available to purchase the property. Under the existing provisions of the Act, the Director’s power to lend on mortgage is generally limited to eligible persons. The fact that the Director does not have power, where it is necessary to effect a sale to an ineligible person, to receive part of the purchase price in cash and leave part out on mortage has created some very real administrative difficulties and sometimes results in a loss of moneys to the Commonwealth. Honourable members will appreciate, from the brief summary I have given, that this Bill embraces a wide range of matters, the majority of which are of a beneficial nature, effecting a number of desirable improvements in the War Service Homes Scheme. Since this Scheme commenced in 1919, approximately 322,000 eligible persons have been assisted to become home owners and, at the present time, there are approximately 188,000 homes throughout the Commonwealth subject to loans under the Scheme. This is approximately equivalent to the total number of homes in the Perth metropolitan area. From these facts and figures there can be no doubt that the War Service Homes Scheme, since it commenced in 1919, has played a significant role in the development of our nation. The improvements provided for in this Bill will enable the Scheme to continue making an important contribution to the national welfare by assisting eligible persons and their families in all parts of the Commonwealth to obtain homes and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3419

CUSTOMS BULL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act to strengthen its provisions relating to the prosecution of offences involving drugs of dependence. At the outset I would like to pay tribute to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) and his staff and indeed to the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) for the assistance they have given me and my Department in drafting this Bill.

Briefly the proposed, amendments include separate penalties for the offence of simple possession as distinct from the offence of possession of a trafficable quantity of drugs. A new provision for the possession of drugs reasonably suspected of having been illicitly imported is also included. I am sure that all honourable members share my concern regarding the dangers that drug abuse already poses for the Australian community. But the present problem, serious though it is, will seem quite insignificant if we, by neglect, permit a drug explosion similar to that which exists in some other countries, to occur in Australia. This Bill is yet another step being undertaken by the Government in an endeavour to prevent Australian citizens being exposed to this dreadful traffic.

No one can exactly measure the extent of drug abuse in Australia. Certainly much drug abuse must go undetected; possibly even unsuspected except by close relatives and friends, However, the tremendous increase in seizures, prosecutions and robberies involving drugs is significant enough. The danger signs have certainly been alarming enough to engender this Government’s support of whatever prophylactic measures can be taken to afford the Australian community the maximum protection from those unscrupulous people who are prepared to sponsor drug abuse for their own personal gain. The Commonwealth has sponsored a number of measures which are designed to achieve the maximum national effort in the prevention of drug abuse. I have in mind the creation of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. This Committee, comprising Commonwealth and State health and enforcement officials, is responsible to Ministers for the coordination of all agencies engaged in combatting drug abuse. Moreover the Commonwealth has made available to date a total of Sim for drug education.

My responsibility as Minister for Customs and Excise is in relation to the international drug traffic particularly the importation and exportation of drugs. Here again a great deal has been achieved on this Government’s initiative. I should mention in this context that the creation of the Narcotics Bureau, the training of officers by overseas agencies, the development of international liaison particularly with South East Asian countries, and the convening of a seminar and a conference to further foster international operational co-operation are steps that have already been taken. Despite these measures imported drugs continue to supply a substantial proportion of the illicit market in Australia. Aside from the Narcotics Bureau almost 1,000 officers are engaged daily in prevention and detection activities. Yet it is believed that not more than 15 per cent of drugs smuggled into Australia are detected. At a recent meeting of the United Nations Narcotics Commission it was the consensus that not more than 10 per cent of drugs involved in the world illicit traffic are being seized.

There are clear signs that the drug traffic in Australia is being organised on a highly professional basis. Imports in commercial cargo, involvement by professional criminals, the use of highly sophisticated and expensive smuggling techniques, and the employment of outwardly respectable people as drug couriers, all point to the intervention of professional groups. The involvement of these groups is not surprising when one examines the financial rewards they can achieve. For instance one LSD tablet costing, as low as 20c overseas can sell for $8 to $12 on the illicit market in Australia. One pound of marihuana, costing approximately $10 overseas, will sell, by the time it reaches the user in Australia for almost $1,000. For hashish, the resin from the marihuana plant, you can double this amount. Furthermore, a pound of heroin purchased overseas for $3,000 will sell, by the time it is cut and sold to Australian addicts, for almost $100,000.

Obviously if the drug traffic in Australia is to be countered firm measures are required by both the Commonwealth and the States. The proposed provisions are primarily intended to strengthen the hands of those engaged in the fight against people involved in drug smuggling and to give a clear indication to all, including the courts, of the gravity the Commonwealth attaches to offences involving drug trafficking. I have previously expressed my disappointment at the kind of penalties being awarded by the courts. In the past 2 years, of 157 cases involving significant quantities of drugs, 69 were merely fined and 61 received jail sentences, the average jail sentence being 17 months. I give this information to honourable members to indicate the lack of seriousness with which some courts are apparently treating this problem.

In detail clause 2 of the Bill includes a number of definitions which are necessary for the purposes of the amendments incorporated in the clauses that follow. The more significant of these definitions relate to narcotic substance, narcotic goods being preparations and the like which contain a narcotic substance and trafficable quantity, the unauthorised possession of which exposes the offender to the maximum penalty for drug offences under the Customs Act. Clauses 3, 4 and 6 are consequential for the introduction of a new definition, namely narcotic goods.

Clause 5 of the Bill limits section “>33 of the Act to offences involving prohibited imports to goods o’.her than drugs of dependence. Because of the separate and higher penalties that apply to drugs of dependence some virtue is seen in their being the subject of a separate section, that is, section 233b. Clause 7, sub-paragraphs

  1. , (c) and (d), merely make it clear that section 233b applies to exportation as well as importation. Clause 7, sub-paragraph
  2. , creates a new offence for. possession of drugs of dependence where there are reasonable grounds (or believing that those drugs were illicitly imported.

A major legal difficulty encountered by officers of the Narcotics Bureau in bringing drug traffickers to justice is the necessity to produce direct evidence that drugs seized have been imported into Australia. This problem occurs despite the fact that in many instances the drugs concerned exhibit foreign markings or words and obviously have been manufactured in an overseas country. Courts have recently dismissed 4 cases because direct evidence of importation was not available. In one of these cases an admission by the defendant that the drugs had been illegally imported by another person was ruled inadmissable as evidence of importation.

As a result of these decisions a further 13 cases have been withdrawn on legal advice. Since March 1971, investigations involving” more than 50 major cases where direct evidence of importation was not available have been referred to State police authorities with the request that prosecution be launched under State legislation. This has resulted io unnecessary duplication in investigation; wasteful use of resources; divided jurisdiction in some prosecutions; surrender of Commonwealth participation necessary to pursue investigations where international trafficking is involved; and denial to the Commonwealth of the right of appeal when inadequate penalties have been imposed under State legislation. This amendment will enable Narcotics Bureau agents to proceed with both investigations and prosecutions where the courts can be convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the drugs concerned were, in fact, illicitly imported.

Clause 7, sub-paragraph (e) and 1(c), include defence provisions which should reasonably be available to a defendant charged with an offence under this section. Clause 7 (2) merely limits the application of the section to drugs of dependence. Clause 8 of the Bill introduces separate offences for the possession of trafficable quantities of drugs and for simple possession where lesser quantities are involved. The penalties are: For offences involving trafficable quantities of drugs - a fine not exceeding $4,000, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both; and for offences involving less than trafficable quantities of drugs - a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

The National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence recommended that penalty provisions of this kind should be introduced throughout the Commonwealth. Most States have, in fact, introduced these penalty provisions. Clause 8, sub-paragraph (b), ensures that cases must be taken to the higher courts where the prosecution considers that a serious offence has been committed. Under clause 8, subparagraph (d), the defendant is afforded the opportunity to satisfy the court that he is not engaged in the trafficking of drugs. Moreover, in keeping with existing provisions, the defendant can always elect to be tried in the higher court, that is, by judge and jury.

I believe honourable members will readily see the purpose of this Bill. It is clearly intended to ensure that the drug trafficker, as distinct from the drug user, is exposed to the higher penalty. Nevertheless, in the drafting of these provisions care has been taken to ensure that proper safeguards exist for the rights of the defendant. The Government sees this Bill as a necessary measure to step up the war against those enemies of society who are prepared to seek wealth through the misery and degradation of their fellow men. Law enforcement must play an important role in the control of drug abuse, but it is not in itself a solution to the problem. No matter how active the Government is, how efficient our law enforcement agencies, how effective our education programmes, the answer to the problems of drug abuse lies with the community itself. It is at the grass roots level of our society - in families, in particular with parents-7-that the responsibility lies, and where ultimately the possible solution to this problem will be found. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3422

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the validation until 31st May 1972 of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff proposals introduced into this House in the Budget Session. Honourable members will be aware a tariff debate involving Customs Tariff Bills Nos 2 and 3 will take place before this session concludes. I therefore thought it appropriate to hold over these proposals and hence full discussion of the Tariff Board reports on which they are based until the next session. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 3422

ROAD TO EAST ALLIGATOR RIVER AREA, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investi gation and report: Construction of a road to the East Alligator River area, Northern Territory.

The proposal involves the construction of a 20 ft sealed road between Mount Bundey and Yourmill Waterhole near Mudginbarry turnoff, including erection of a bridge over the South Alligator River, and the widening of the road between Middlepoint turnoff and Mount Bundey to 20 ft seal. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $4.4m. I table a plan showing the location of the proposed work.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– 1 speak in support of this motion only briefly because of the lateness of the hour. In commending the Government on this very thoughtful proposal, I may point out that the proposed work is in an area which has been referred to by the Australian Labor Party as a neglected area. Once again it is quite obvious that this area is not neglected. This road which will be of approximately 80 miles in length will service some very good pastoral country hitherto virtually inaccessable. The road encompasses a very interesting tourist area in the Arnhem Land escarpment and also of course the mining areas close to East Arnhem Land. With the construction of this road there will be a total of approximately 160 miles of sealed road beading to the east towards Gove which is only 260 miles further on. I commend the Government for the thought which it has put into the planning of this road, because not only will it eventually serve the $300m-odd project at Gove but it will also pass by such important coming townships as Oenpelli and Maningrida, now missions and settlements. It will serve also as a road connection to some of the island missions which are off the Northern Terrtiory coast. I refer to Goulburn Islands, Milingimbi and possibly Elcho Island. This road is virtually the start of a tremendous highway which heads towards the gigantic alumina complex being built at Gove. I commend the Government for undertaking this work and I will be very anxious to see the work completed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3422

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– I present the 13th report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 3423

ADJOURNMENT

Civil Liberties - Education

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I am sorry to detain the House at such a late hour. I was desirous of speaking this afternoon on the estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, but due to the restriction on the number of speakers I willingly stood down - I had no other alternative - and I decided that I would make my submission during the adjournment debate tonight. Before directing my principal remarks to the Law Society of Australia, I want to make a brief comment about what was said this afternoon by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). He is not in the chamber at the moment, but I think he was aware that I would probably say something about the comments which he made this afternoon regarding the New South Wales Police Force. I understood the honourable member to be directing his remarks at the whole of the New South Wales Police Force. After serving 24½ years in the New South Wales Police Force, I was very proud of the fact that 90 per cent of its members were honourable citizens and were trying to do efficiently a distasteful job for society in general.

I submit that the enthusiasm of the honourable member for Reid is no greater than my own in the condemnation of the Government’s legislation regarding demonstrations. Unfortunately, members of the police force are the meat in the sandwich between that section of society which is objecting to our involvement in the Vietnam war and the Government’s legislation. The police have to carry out a distasteful duty. I have been critical of them when they have used unnecessary force in controlling demonstrators. But without doing any probing, I understand that the incident in which the honourable member for Reid was involved occurred because a senior officer had directed a number of young constables to move a lot of demonstrators onto the footpath. The young constable who came into conflict with my colleague, the honourable member for Reid, was carrying out his superior’s instruction to push people back onto the footpath, and I believe that the honourable member for Reid was one to whom this treatment was meted out.

The honourable member for Reid summonsed by number a young constable who had not been long out of his probation. He was about 22 years of age and had 2 or 3 children. I do not know who were the legal advisers of the honourable member for Reid, but with my knowledge of police law I would not have advised him to summons a number. From my knowledge in police courts, it is practically unprecedented to summons a policeman by number. However, the honourable member for Reid received legal advice and that is what he did, but the charge failed. I regret that he became inolved in this matter at all, and I regret that he used the strong words that he did use. But I do not think that he really intended that they should apply to the whole of the New South Wales police force.

I now refer the House to the inconsistent attitude adopted by the New South Wales Law Society. I say at this point that I have the greatest respect for a great number of the legal advocates in this nation with whom I have had very close association. On many occasions they appear for persons without seeking a fee. On the other hand, I know that in many cases they charge exorbitant fees. I wanted to make these remarks this afternoon during the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department becauseI believed that the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) is in a position to show a greater degree of pride in his profession. I understand from a reliable source that Professor Wootten, who investigated the living standards of Aborigines in Australia some time ago, made adverse comment on the fact that public defender facilities for Aborigines were practically non-existent. But the Law Society of Australia never uttered one word in connection with this inadequacy. In the New South Wales Parliament the Summary Offences Act, which was bitterly criticised by many sections of society, was passed after one week’s notice. Not a word of objection was heard from the New South Wales Law Society.

In Papua New Guinea in 1970 the controversial Public Order Ordinance was passed by the House of Assembly. This was at a time when the International

Commission of Jurists was in Papua New Guinea. This information came to the knowledge of the International Commission of Jurists which, I understand, was critical of the legislation which was passed by the House of Assembly because it put the onus of proof on to the defendant. This legislation was repulsive - the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) assures me that this is correct - to decent, thinking Australians. The Faculty of Law in Papua New. Guinea became aware of this legislation and criticised it after its provisions had been leaked to the Faculty. Again there was not a word from the Law Society of Australia. Forty-six legal academics signed a letter of criticism of the legislation and expressed their concern. In 1969 the New South Wales Listening Devices Act was passed. There was not a word of objection from the Law Society to this obnoxious legislation. Again there was not a word of objection from the New South Wales Law Society to the gaoling of the Anglican Bishop in South Africa recently. The Law Society of Australia raised no objection to the law relating to exposure to moral danger, which has been criticised by many sections of society, particularly by die civil liberties organisations in New South Wales, as being a very unfair law.

Time will not permit me to make reference to the very bitter and justified criticism by 2 academics from the Australian National University, namely, Mr P. N. Troy - I presume that that is Paddy Troy, a lecturer at the University - and Professor N. G. Butlin. They pointed out the exorbitant legal costs in third party actions. Their criticism was given wide publicity in the ‘National Times’ of 25th- 30th October and in the ‘Canberra Times’ in an article by Professor Geoffrey Sawer, Professor of Law at the Australian National University. He said:

Australian law school teachers will greet with enthusiasm the Troy-Butlin book on the cost of collisions just published by Cheshire, even though a considerable pari of the legal profession would go into deep mourning if they thought that the book was likely to have the slightest immediate impact on the behaviour of governments.

Again there was not one word from the Law Society of Australia. The problems have been exposed in these articles that I have before me. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who is a lawer. is smiling: but I think he has enough decency to agree with the facts I am giving to the Parliament. Almost onethird of the costs of legal actions goes to the legal profession. I think it is time for a complete change, as was suggested by Troy and Butlin in their book, which is not available in the Parliamentary Library because there is such a demand for it by honourable members. This gives me great joy. I believe that if honourable members read the submissions in the book to which I have referred there would soon be a change in the third party law. Many members of the legal profession - not the decent ones - have made too much of a feast for too long of the present third party provisions.

The time is long overdue for legislation to change the third party law. I suggest that the Law Society should act consistently with regard to all obnoxious laws, in which I include the restrictive trade practices legislation which the AttorneyGeneral of the time, the present Chief Justice, put on the slate in this place for 18 months because, he said, he wanted to hear comment from society on it. A similar situation applies in respect of the Companies Act. It is always necessary to have comments from the Law Society before changes are made to an Act of that kind.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

I propose to refer briefly to the teaching cf physical education in Victoria, in particular to the status of the Department of Physical Education at the University of Melbourne. This Department has faced continuing uncertainty since 1966. Those who administer the Department have virtually had the gun at their heads for 5 years because of uncertainty surrounding their future. I shall refer briefly to the importance of physical education and mention how it is provided in Victoria at present. Physical education is not merely the training of students for sport and, in particular, competitive sport, about which I have many reservations; it is not merely the provision of physical training. It must be seen as part of a total outlook on physical health. I believe that physical education is most important for young Australians.

The state of health of Australians was revealed recently when we were informed that about 49 per cent of those who registered for national service in Australia were rejected because they could not pass the medical tests. This must be regarded as being a very serious situation.

It is clear that within the schools physical education is not regarded as being an essential part of education. Clearly it does not share an equal status with academic subjects. I believe that it should do so. I propose to refer to a report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in South Australia in 1969-70 entitled ‘Education in South Australia’. The Chairman of that committee of inquiry, Professor Karmel, is also the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission, to which I shall refer later. At pages 234 and 235 the Committee, when referring to physical education in South Australia, said:

The purpose ot physical education in the schools is seen as extending beyond the development and maintenance of physical fitness in pupils to building attitudes and providing experience in a range of activities which will have continuing relevance throughout life and which are especially important in industrial societies.

A little later the report states:

In general, physical education in primary schools is taken by class teachers, and its frequency and quality depend on their resourcefulness, knowledge and enthusiasm.

It goes on to state:

We endorse the acceptance of physical education as an essential part of the curriculum with a status in no way different from that of the academic subjects … If physical education is a subject of equal status with other subjects, the provision of interior gymnasia and of the necessary equipment will have to be given higher priority.

The Committee was saying that physical education should be regarded as being i subject of high status and that appropriate facilities should be provided for it and, in particular, that sufficient staff should be provided. I understand that in Victoria the State secondary school system alone could absorb 800 physical education teachers tomorrow, if we were able to train them overnight. We would be able to use as many as that, so great is the shortage of physical education teachers in the State secondary education system alone. That figure does not take into account the primary schools where the shortage of physical education teachers is even greater.

At the present moment, Melbourne University is in reality the only institution providing for the training of physical education teachers. There is the Monash Teachers College which was established only this year. The Physical Education Department of Melbourne University has a total enrolment this year of 160 to 170 teachers. It takes on 75 new teachers each year. But this is only approximately 10 per cent of the 700 applicants who have applied for positions in this course over the last few years. So we can see the demand for positions. A large number of people who are trying to get into a physical education course are being rejected.

This department at Melbourne University also has very extensive facilities. Indeed, no institution in Victoria can compete with the facilities that the Physical Education Department at Melbourne University has. To provide these facilities in some other institution would cost Sim or more. However, the cost of training between 160 and 170 physical education trainees at Melbourne University is only approximately $100,000. So, what we are talking about is a small amount of money by comparison with the millions of dollars that it costs to run the entire Melbourne University complex. The problem facing the Physical Education Department is the general shortage of tertiary funds which . is affecting the whole field of tertiary education in Victoria. In particular it is related to the recommendations of the Australian Universities Commission.

The recommendations of the Commission in 1966 have placed a continuing threat over the Physical Education Department for, in that year, the Commission recommended that sub-degree courses in universities throughout Australia should be transferred to other institutions. It suggested also that funds would cease to be provided by the Commission after the 1967-69 triennium for such sub-degree courses. Accordingly, a great deal of debate has taken place in Melbourne University and a number of people - I suppose that we could call them traditional academics - have argued that there is no place in the Melbourne University for the Physical Education Department and that its continued existence is a drain on the financial resources of that university.

However, moves to abolish the Diploma of Physical Education course at Melbourne University have been frustrated for the time being. In September 1970, following moves to abolish that diploma course, it was decided, under pressure, that the diploma course should continue into the 1970-72 triennium. People were then led to believe that if the diploma course were abolished a physical education degree course would be instituted. Unfortunately, the uncertainty still continues. It is clear now that 1972 will be the last year of the 2 year Diploma of Education course. What causes most concern is that a committee set up to plan an alternative course has been given also in its terms of reference the task of considering the desirability of an alternative. Not only is it considering what the alternative should be but also whether there should be an alternative. This might mean not only the elimination of the diploma course in Physical Education at this Department but also the elimination of any physical education training whatever at this institution.

I believe that the basic problem is finance and the uncertainty of finance in particular. It is for these reasons that the Aus tralian Universities Commission should make a clear statement to Melbourne University indicating that it recognises the need for physical education, that it recognises that Melbourne University already has substantial physical education facilities that would be costly to duplicate elsewhere, that it recognises that even if this course were transferred to a college of advanced education the same source - that is the Commonwealth and State governments - would be financing it, and that it recognises that there is a shortage of teachers and that there is a demand for teachers. It should accordingly make a clear statement that it appreciates the value of the course being provided and that if a degree course in physical education were provided at Melbourne University the Australian Universities Commission would be prepared to make finance available for that course. I can see no point in closing this course at the Melbourne University. I suggest that, in the interests of physical education in Victoria, the Australian Universities Commission clarify the situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 1.36 a.m. (Friday)

page 3427

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Television Programmes: Station TCN 9 (Question No. 3578)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether Consolidated Press Ltd, on behalf of Television Corporation Ltd (TCN 9 Sydney), in its original application for a television licence estimated that SO per cent of programme material would be live productions.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to live production on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Consolidated Press Ltd, on behalf of Television Corporation Ltd, in its original application for a commercial television station licence indicated that it planned to provide approximately SO per cent of live programmes.
  2. At the start of transmission on15th September 1956, approximately 12 per cent of the 14½ hours transmission time per week was occupied by Australian programmes. This figure rose to approximately 20 per cent of 24 hours per week of transmission time after six weeks operation. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board estimated that at 30th June 1957, when the station operated for 39¼ hours per week, 45 per cent of programmes consisted of Australian programmes.
  3. Station TCN is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for approximately 56 per cent of transmission time of 122 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by TCN consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station HSV 7 (Question No. 3579)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, now Herald-Sun T.V. Pty Ltd (HSV 7 Melbourne), in its original application for a television licence estimated that 72 per cent of programme material would be live productions.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to live production on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd indicated that ‘Seventy-five per cent of the programme material envisaged would be initiated by us with the assistance of Australian artists, musicians, technicians and contributors, both professional and amateur’. The figure was based on an initial transmission, schedule of 35 hours weekly.
  2. At the start of transmission on 4th November 1956, approximately 21 per cent of the 28½ hours transmission time per week was occupied by Australian programmes. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board estimated that at 30th June 1957, when the station operated for 414 hours per week, 45 per cent of’ programmes consisted of Australian programmes.
  3. Station HSV is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for approximately 56 per. cent of transmission time of 125¼ hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by HSV consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Station ATN 7 (Question No. 3580)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (ATN 7 Sydney) in its original application for a television licence estimated that 67 per cent of programme material would be live productions.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to live production on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence Amalgamated Television Services Ply Ltd (licensee of station ATN Sydney) indicated that it planned to provide 67 per cent live programming each week, based on a weekly transmission schedule of 25 hours.
  2. At the start of transmission on 2nd December, 1956, approximately 44 per cent of the 37¼ hours transmission time per week was occupied by Australian programmes. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board estimated that at 30th June, 1937, when the station operated for 47 hours per week, 66 per cent of programmes consisted of Australian programmes.
  3. Station ATN is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for approximately 33 per cent of transmission time of about 120 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by ATN consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station GTV 9 (Question No. 3581)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (GTV 9 Melbourne) in its original application for a television licence estimated that, after 3 years’ operation, 62.8 per cent of programme material would be live production.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to live production on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television licence, General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (licensee of station GTV Melbourne) indicated that after 3 years of transmission it proposed to televise five programmes amounting to 62.8 per cent of transmission time based on an estimated weekly transmission time of 271 hours.
  2. Station GTV Melbourne commenced transmission on 19th January 1957. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board estimated that at 30th June 1960, when the station operated for 681 hours weekly, GTV was providing approximately 36.7 per cent Australian programmes.
  3. Station’ GTV is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 56 per cent of transmission time of 1264 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by Station GTV consist of drama, light entertainment, sport, news, children’s, family activities, current affairs, religious matter and education.

Television Programmes: Station QTQ 9 (Question No. 3746)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Queensland Televisin Ltd (QTQ 91, in its original application for a television licence, estimated that at the end of the first year of operation 43 per cent of the programme time would be devoted to live entertaintment.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin of this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Queensland Television Ltd (licensee of station QTQ Brisbane) indicated that after 1 year’s transmission it proposed to televise live programmes for 43 per cent of transmission time of 36 hours weekly.
  2. QTQ completed its first year of transmission on 16th August 1960. At June 1960, 29.4 per cent of the weeky 60i hours transmission of QTQ was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in 1960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed 3 years operation and because QTQ had not completed 3 years of transmission in I960, the station was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station QTQ is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for S3 per cent of transmission time of about 98 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station QTQ consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station BTQ 7 (Question No. 3747)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Bribane TV Ltd (BTQ 7), in its original application for a television licence, estimated that the total Australian content of programmes would amount to 50 per cent of transmission time.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station. <4) What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Brisbane TV Limited (licensee of station BTQ Brisbane) indicated that initially it proposed to televise live programmes for 50 per cent of transmission time of 31 hours weekly.
  2. BTQ commenced service on 1st November 1959. At June 1970, 21.1 per cent of the weekly 56 hours transmission on BTQ was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in I960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed 3 years operation, and because BTQ had nol completed 3 years of transmission in 1960, the station was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station BTQ is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 44 per cent of transmission time of about 98 hours weekly. The matter is being pursued with the station.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station BTQ consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station NWS 9 (Question No. 3748)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Southern Television Corporation Ltd (NWS 9), in its original application for a television licence, estimated that programmes would comprise 45 per cent live material and would be increased as the station developed.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence Southern Television Corporation Ltd (licensee of station NWS Adelaide) indicated that initially it proposed to televise live programmes for 45- per cent of transmission time of 37 hours weekly, and it was hoped to increase this percentage as the station developed.
  2. NWS commenced service on 5th September 1959. At June 1960 27.8 per cent of the weekly 54) hours transmission of NWS was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in 1960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation and because NWS had not completed three years of transmission in 1960, the station was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station NWS is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 53 per cent of transmission time of about 99 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station NWS consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station ADS 7 (Question No. 3749)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that Television Broadcasters Ltd (ADS 7), in its original application for a television licence, estimated that 40 per cent of programmes would be designed to give opportunities to local artists and to those of other States through recordings.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up thi« percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Television Broadcasters Ltd (licensee of station ADS Adelaide) stated that initially it proposed to televise either live or recorded Australian programmes for 40 per cent of transmission time of 36 hours weekly.
  2. ADS commenced service on 20th October 1959. At June 1960 25.2 per cent of the weekly 58 hours transmission of ADS was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in I960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation and because ADS had not completed three years of transmission in 1960, that station was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station ADS is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 60 per cent of transmission time of about 100 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by Station ADS consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family, Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station A TV 0 (Question No. 3751)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Austarama Television Pty Ltd (ATV 0), in ils original application for a television licence, proposed that programmes of Australian origin would occupy 58 per cent of the total programme time in the first year and would gradually be increased in the . second and third years.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Austarama Television Pty Ltd (licensee of station ATV Melbourne) stated that it proposed to televise Australian programmes for 58 per cent of transmission time of 42 hours weekly in the first year. The proposals of the company were stated to be dependent to some extent on the establishment of a system of programe exchange on a network basis with stations to be established in other capital cities.
  2. ATV commenced service on 1st August, 1964. At 1st August, 1965, ATV televised Australian programmes for 25.5 per cent of total transmission time, lt should be noted that in 1965 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 50 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation and because station ATV had not completed three years of transmission in 1965, it was not obliged to meet this requirement. After three years operation ATV met the requirement of 50 per cent Australian programmes.
  3. Station ATV is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 59 per cent of transmission time of about 116 hours weekly.
  4. Austraiian programmes at present televised by station ATV consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station TEN 10 (Question No. 3753)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (TEN 10), in its original application for a television licence, estimated that for the third year of operation, 37.5 per cent of programme time would be occupied “by station originated live material.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What, percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (licensee of station TEN Sydney) stated it proposed that during the third year of operation Australian programmes would amount to 37.5 per cent of transmission time of 79) hours weekly
  2. In May, 1968, following the completion of three years operation, 46.3 per cent of the weekly 100 hour transmission of TEN was occupied by Australian programmes.
  3. Station TEN is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 52 per cent of transmission time of about 122 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station TEN consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programames: Station SAS 10 (Question No. 3814)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that South Australian Telecasters Ltd (SAS 10), in its original application for a television licence, proposed that at least 50 per cent of programme time in the second and third years of operation would be devoted to programmes of Australian origin.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, South Australian Telecasters Ltd (licensee of station SAS Adelaide) stated it proposed that during its -second and third years of operation, Australian programmes would occupy 53 per cent and 50 per cent respectively of . transmission schedules of 49 and 72 hours weekly.
  2. In July 1967, following- the completion ot two years operation, 48.0. per cent of the weekly 117 hours transmission of SAS was occupied by Australian programmes. In July, 1968, when the station operated for 119) Hours weekly, SAS was providing 52.1 per cent Australian programmes
  3. Station SAS is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 50 per cent of transmission time of about 100 hours weekly. .
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station SAS consist of Drama, Light Entertain? ment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station TVT 6 (Question No. 3815)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Tasmanian Television Ltd (TVT 6), in its original, application for a television licence, proposed that 40 per cent of programmes would comprise live entertainment.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Tasmanian Television Ltd (licensee of station TVT Hobart) indicated that it proposed to televise live programmes for 40 per cent of transmission time of 31 hours weekly.
  2. TVT commenced service on 23rd May 1960. At June 1961, 25.3 per cent of the weekly 39) hours transmission of TVT was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in 1960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation, and because TVT had not completed three years of transmission in 1961, the station was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station TVT is at present credited with televising Austraiian programmes for 63 per cent of transmission time of about 70 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station TVT consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Programmes: Station STW 9 (Question No. 3816)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Swan Television Ltd (STW 9), in its original application for a television licence, proposed that 48.8 per cent of transmission time would be devoted to Australian programmes.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make . up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Swan Television Ltd (licensee of station STW Perth) indicated that it proposed to televise live programmes for 48.8 per cent of transmission time of 43 hours weekly.
  2. STW Perth commenced service on 12th June 1965. During the year ended 30tb June 1966, an average of 34.7 per cent of the average of 58 hours weekly transmission of STW was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted thai in 1965 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 50 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation and because station STW had not completed three years of transmission in 1966, it was not obliged to meet this requirement.
  3. Station STW is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 59 per cent of transmission time of about 94 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station STW consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Cheese Imports (Question No. 4350)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has the Tariff Board completed its inquiry into admitting cheese other than cheddar to the Australian market.
  2. If so, has he received the report from the Board.
  3. If he has received the report, does it include a finding on the question of long term antidumping action.
  4. If not, will he seek the completed report at the earliest opportunity and have the recommendations examined for a decision as a matter of urgency in view of the import of more than 8,000 tons of non-cheddar cheese in the last 2 years.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. I understand the Tariff Board has completed its public inquiries.
  2. No.
  3. See 2.
  4. Anti-dumping cash securities are presently being collected by the Department of Customs and Excise. Should the Board find that antidumping action is not justified the honourable member can rest assured that the earliest possible action will be taken to process the report so that the cash security action can be discontinued and refunds of deposits on past shipments made. Alternatively should the Board find dumping has occurred causing not insubstantial injury to Australian producers release of the report would not be made until printed reports were available. Honourable members will recognise my reluctance to seek to have this report expedited at the expense of other reports equally important to other interested parties.

Television Programmes: Station TVW 7 (Question No. 3817)

Mr Stewart:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that TVW Ltd (TVW 7), m its original application for a television licence, stated that during the first year of operation the programmes would comprise 41 per cent live productions.
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, TVW Limited (licensee of station TVW Perth) indicated that it proposed to televise live programmes for 41 per cent of transmission time.
  2. TVW Perth commenced service on 16th October 1959. At June 1960, 28.1 per cent of the weekly 444 hours transmission of TVW was occupied by Australian programmes. It should be noted that in I960 the Minister laid down a minimum requirement of 40 per cent Australian programmes for stations which had completed three years operation, and because TVW had not completed three years of transmission in 1960, the station was not obliged to meet this requirement. In 1962 TVW provided 42.8 per cent which met the requirement.
  3. Station TVW is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 52 per cent of transmission time of about 94 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station TVW consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Television Station GTV 9 (Question No. 4469)

Mr Morrison:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Which company leases the coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne.
  2. What are the terms of the lease including the cost.
  3. Under what arrangements including cost does the Australian Broadcasting Commission have access to the coaxial cable.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (GTV 9), Melbourne and Herald-Sun T.V. Pty Ltd (HSV 7), Melbourne lease separate television relay facilities between Sydney and Melbourne under agreements with the Post Office.
  2. The terms of the agreement between General Television Pty Ltd and the Post Office provide for en average usage of the facilities of 70 hours weekly in each direction whilst the agreement between Herald-Sun T.V. Pty Ltd and the Post Office provides for an average usage of 35 hours weekly in each direction. The rates for the leases of these facilities are matters for private negotiation between the Post Office and the parties concerned and it would not be proper for me to release publicly in the House the information sought by the honourable member.
  3. General Television Corporation Pty Ltd is authorised to make arrangements with Television Corporation Limited (TCN9), Sydney and the Australian Broadcasting Commission for joint-use of. the facilities leased by General Television Corporation Pty Ltd, such arrangements to be mutually agreed upon by General Television Corporation Pty Ltd, Television Corporation Limited and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. However, the charge in this respect is a matter of private negotiation between the parties.

Control of Firearms (Question No. 4515)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Where and when did the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for firearms control meet to consider a draft set of revised standards for safety testing of imported firearms?
  2. What was the outcome of the meeting?
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for firearms control have not met to discuss a set of revised standards for safety testing of imported firearms.

In an answer I gave to the honourable member on 30th September 1971 I mentioned that I had instigated a formal meeting to consider a draft set of revised standards. This was to be a meeting of representatives of the firearms trade, shooting organisations and officers of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Department of Customs and Excise.

The meeting was held in Canberra on 30th September 1971 and the standards considered were, in fact, revised tests for the purpose of safety testing of imported firearms to determine whether or not their importation is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.

Agreement was reached on the majority of the revised tests. Matters which were not resolved are being re-examined by the Commonwealth Police and the Department of Customs and Excise.

Australian Embassy: Saigon (Question No. 4587)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What was the cost of the building recently purchased in Saigon for use as an Australian Embassy.
  2. What is the estimated cost of completion and furnishing.
  3. What area of floor space is contained in the building.
  4. How many staff members are expected to require accommodation in it.
  5. What was the cost of the Australian Embassies or High Commissions in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia.
  6. What is the (a) area of floor space and (b) number of staff accommodated in each of these buildings.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The purchase price for the building site recently purchased in Saigon was $674,000. The site contains the partly finished (to first floor level) frame work for an hotel. This can be incorporated into the Chancery building.
  2. Plans and specifications for the proposed Chancery have yet to be drawn up and approved, and, consequently, estimates have not yet been determined. With the recent conclusion of the purchase of the site the necessary action is being put in train.
  3. Subject to (2) above, tentatively the gross floor area is expected to be of the order of 25,000 sq ft.
  4. Australia-based staff- 33.

Locally-engaged staff - 45. (5)Costisasfollows:

  1. (a) Gross area of floor space is as follows:
  1. Number of stall accommodated is as follows:

Housing: Uniform Building Code (Question No. 3692)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What has been the (a) date, and (b) outcome of meetings of the Interstate Standing Committee on Uniform Building Regulations since March 1971.
  2. On what date waseach series of the Model Uniform Building Code sentto the local govern ment administrations and what was the (a) date and (b) nature of the response by each administration.
  3. Since his answer on5th May 1971 (Hansard, page 2638) have any further banks, building societies or insurance offices made comments on the Tentative Uniform Home Building Code which his Department produced in April 1970.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) The Interstate Standing Committee met on 28th-29th July 1971.

  2. At this meetinghe Committee concluded its work on Series 6 of the Australian Model Uniform Building Code dealing with Fire Protection in Assembly and Institutional Buildings, Special Requirements for Certain Buildings and Components, and General Services and Equipment

    1. (a) The date on which each Series of the AMUBC was sent to local government administrations is as follows:

  1. The ISCUBR is a committee set up by the State Ministers for Local Government with the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station acting as secretariat. The issue of documents by ISCUBR to its constituent administrations does not call for specific response other than acknowledgment of receipt of the documents.

    1. No. The Tentative Uniform Home Building Code published by the Department of Housing in 1970 was made available to the Interstate Standing Committee late last year, with comments sought and received from lending institutions and a wide cross-section of the housing industry. It is for the Interstate Standing Committee to decide the standards for home building that will be incorporated in its Australian Model Uniform Building Code.

Housing Loans: Interest Rates (Question No. 3856)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What is the present rate of interest charged to borrowers by permanent building societes in

    1. New South Wales
    2. Queensland; and
    3. Western Australia

  2. What was the

    1. average loan provided by the permanent building societies, and
    2. monthly repayment rate on an average loan in each of those States in 1970-71.

  3. What is the required income of a wage earner to acquire an average loan In each of those States.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The rate of interest charged to borrowers by permanent building societies varies from society to society. Most societies in New South Wales charge from 7½ per cent to 8 per cent, the latter being the most common rate. In Queensland, the Building Societies Act limits interest rates charged by the societies to 8 per cent, and more than two-thirds of the societies charge this rate. In Western Australia, most societies charge from 8¼ per cent to 9 per cent, with 8¼ per cent being the most common.
  2. (a) and (b) The only data available on lending by the permanent building societies are statistics published by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. It is impracticable to calculate average loans from these statistics because the figures include the value, but not the number, of loans on second mortgage.
  3. For the reason given in (2) above and because decisions whether to grant a loan depend upon the policy of each lender and its assessment of the circumstances of individual cases, it is not possible to provide the information sought.

Television (Question No. 4428)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Who produced the programme The Nuclear Game which was shown on Tuesday, 28th September 1971 on Australian Broadcasting Commission television.

    1. Who approved the programme before it was televised.
    2. Were the producers of the programme qualified to evaluate the highly technical material presented.
    3. Did the Australian Broadcasting Commis-sion consult any authorities on the subject other than the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
    4. Was this programme, in effect, a promotion of nuclear power at a time when the Government had decided not to take any action in the matter.
    5. What was the cost of producing the programme.
    6. What was the cost of the programme to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
    7. Was it coincidence that the programme was shown on the date of tabling of the annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The Television Features Department of the ABC.
  2. The ABCs Director of Television Features.
  3. Yes. The producers also sought and included in the programme the comments of the following distinguished members of the Australian Scientic community:

Sir Phillip Baxter, Chairman, Austalian

Atomic Energy Commission

Prof. R. May, Physics Department, Sydney

University

Dr J. T. Andrews, Head of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital

Dr Uli Englebert, Head of Radio Isotope Production, Lucas Heights

Mr R. Boyd, Radio Isotope Production Manager

Prof. C. M. Watson-Munro, Physics Department, Sydney University

  1. Yes. The following authorities were consulted:

    1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital;
    2. Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital;
    3. Australian Mineral Development Laboratories, Adelaide;
    4. Department of Physics, Sydney University;
    5. Department of Bio-chemistry and Nutri tion, University of New England;
    6. Qantas Engineering Division;
    7. Australian Iron and Steel Ltd, Port Kembla;
    8. Officers of the ABCs Science Unit.
  2. No.
  3. $4,730.30.
  4. Nil.
  5. Yes.

Death Penalty Abolition (Question No. 3864)

Mr Hughes:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When may a decision be expected on the question whether the death penalty should be abolished for offences against Commonwealth law, other than the offence of treason.

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

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1970 introduced in the Senate was, on 13th October 1971, referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. Further consideration will be given to the matter as soon as that Committee has made its report.

Mr Dick Gregory (Question No. 4547)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did the Attorney-General in a speech on 11th September 1971 state that admission of Dick Gregory to Australia’s free society would risk security or be contrary to the public interest more than the admission of racially restricted sporting teams whose admission has been proscribed by forums of world public opinion and world security organisations as inimical to security and to the public interest.
  2. If so, was he expressing the attitude of the Government.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. See answer to question (1).

Commonwealth-State Legal Committees (Question No. 3618)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

On what joint Commonwealth-State committees, such as that convened to consider the implications of Moore v. Doyle (Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2868) do officers of his Department serve.

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

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Besides the committee to consider the implications of Moore v. Doyle, officers of my Department serve on a joint Commonwealth and New South Wales Committee on the new combined Commonwealth-State law courts building at present under construction in Sydney. In addition to being represented on these ad hoc committees, officers of my Department participate in the work of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Report on Abortion and Homosexuality (Question No. 2975)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) date and (b) outcome of the report which he asked a First Assistant Secretary of his Department, with the assistance of a principal legal officer, to make on the law relating to (i) abortion and (ii) homosexuality between consenting males (Hansard, 14th May 1969, page 1778, and 11th September 1969, page 1145).
  2. Has the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral considered the law on these matters.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) 16th December 1969. (b) Decisions have not yet been made with regard to these matters. They are being further examined in the light of representations that have been received and of decisions of the Courts since the abovementioned date.
  2. No.

Criminal Code: Commonwealth Territories (Question No. 4475)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the First Assistant Secretary referred to in the statement of the Attorney-General on 14th May 1969, as having been detached from his normal duties so that he could prepare a statement setting out the present position of the law in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and what changes are involved if recommendations made by the Law Council of Australia on the enactment of a Criminal Code for the Commonwealth Territories are adopted, yet commenced his work on the statement. (2)If the statement hag been prepared, when was it completed and will the Attorney-General make it available to Members. (3)If it has not been prepared, when is completion expected and will it then be made available to Members.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (l), (2) and (3) A submission was made to the. then Attorney-General on 16th December 1969. It is not the practice to make documents of this nature available to members. As to the present position, see my answer to Question No. 2975.

Tariff Reductions (Question No. 2773)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Upon what items or commodities in general have there been tariff reductions in the past 12 months.
  2. What reduction in price, employment and capital employed has taken place in the produc tion of these commodities.
  3. Have any representations been received from, or on behalf of, any person or persons engaged in the production of these commodities that the reduction in tariffs has caused, or is likely to cause, any problems or difficulties.
  4. What are the quantities of imports of each of the commodities on which tariffs have been reduced which have entered Australia during the past12 months.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. From January, 1970 to August 1971, there were eight occasions where reports by the Tariff Board recommended a general reduction of duties on the major products covered by the references and the recommendations were adopted by the Government. These reductions relate to:

    1. Breathing Appliances
    1. Cherries
    2. Footwear with Non-Leather Uppers
    3. Gelatin:
    4. Man-made Fibres
    5. Nitrogeneous Fertilisers (Ammonium Chloride)
    6. Relays
    7. Vinyl Acetate.

In addition there have been other reports by the Tariff Board which have recommended reductions in some of the items under reference and the Government has accepted these recommendations; for example, weighing machines and weights, pins, and hairpins, centrifuges. The reductions made following the Nitrogeneous Fertilisers Report applied only to imports of ammonium chloride, but these were already admitted at reduced rates under Customs By-Laws. In addition, urea and sulphate of ammonia had received assistance against import . competition by means of a bounty but, following the Tariff Board report, this assistance was discontinued as from 18th November 1970.

  1. Cherries- In bis report of 25th May 1971, the Special Advisory, Authority reported that evidence submitted on behalf of the Australian manufacturers of drained cherries claimed that with the removal of duties following the Government’s acceptance of the Tariff Board’s recommendations, local users could obtain imported drained cherries delivered into store at prices ranging from 31 to 33 cents per lb compared with the Australian price of about 54 cents per lb. It was also claimed that imported brined cherries sold at about 8 cents per lb cheaper than the Australian price. The principal Australian manufacturers of drained cherries ceased production and the further purchase of brined cherries.

Gelatine - I understand that there has been no reduction in the standard price, and no significant change in employment and capital employed.

Vinyl Acetate - I understand that prices have been reduced by an amount equivalent to the reduction in tariffs, and that no significant changes have occurred in employment or capital employed.

Relevant details for the remaining items are not available.

  1. Cherries - Following representations from the local industry, the matter was referred to the Special Advisory Authority on 22nd April 1971, and temporary duties were imposed on brined and drained cherries on 25th May 1971.

Footwear with Non-Leather Uppers - Representations have been received regarding possible future difficulties following the implementation of the Tariff Board’s recommendations, but no formal requests for action have been made.

Man-made Fibres - I refer the honourable member to my reply, to Question on Notice No. 2772.

  1. Relevant details of Australian import clearances are shown in the table below:

Telephones (Question No. 4071)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for telephone installations are at present outstanding in the subdivisions of (a) Dundas, (b) Greenough, (c) Mer- redin (and (d) Yilgarn in the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie.
  2. How many applications have remained unsatisfied in each of these subdivisions for (a)5 years or more, (b) 4 years, (c) 3 years, (d) 2 years, (e) 1 year and (f) less than 1 year.
  3. How many outstanding applications in each subdivision are within a l5-mile radius of (a) an existing exchange and (b) a proposed exchange.
  4. How many of those applications in each subdivision which have remained outstanding for (a) 5 years or more, (b) 4 years, (c) 3 years, (d) 2 years and (e) 1 year are expected to be satisfied in (i) 1971-72 and (ii) 1972-73.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The following are the details of outstanding applications for telephone services in the subdivisions of Dundas, Greenough, Merredin and Yilgarn in the ElectoralDivision of Kalgoorlie:
  1. Outstanding applications have been waiting for the undermentioned period of time in each subdivision: -
Many of the applicants who have been waiting for three years or more were unable to proceed with their applications under the conditions in operation before the introduction, in August 1970, of the more liberal policy in the provision of subscribers' line plant. Under the conditions applying formerly, many of these applicants would have been involved in substantial line construction costs. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The number of outstanding applications in each subdivision within 15 miles radius of {: type="a" start="a"} 0. an existing exchange; and 1. a proposed exchange is shown hereunder: - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The number of outstanding applications expected to be satisfied in either 1971-72 or 1972-73 and the period for which the have already been waiting is shown below. The remainder will be satisfied progressively after 1972-73 as resources can be made available. {:#subdebate-52-13} #### Papua New Guinea: Clubs (Question No. 4128) {: #subdebate-52-13-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he bring Dp lo date the information on the names and tenure of clubs in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and the guarantees to them which his predecessor provided on 17th April 1963 (Hansard, page 693). 1. Which of these clubs (a) are precluded by their rules from admitting, or (b) have not yet admitted indigenes as members or guests. {: #subdebate-52-13-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The matters referred to fall within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands, Surveys and Mines in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands, Surveys and Mines has provided the following information: > >The Papua New Guinea Administration has given no financial assistance to clubs. It has guaranteed 5 amounts totalling $130,000 as follows: > >1959- Kone Club $63,000 > >1967- Port Moresby Tennis Club $5,000 > >1969- -Kone Tigers Football Club $6,000 > >1969- Port Moresby Amateur Basketball Association $14,000 > >1969- South Pacific Aero Club $40,000. Of the total amount guaranteed only $55,000 remains under guarantee. > >The majority, of sporting and social dubs hold special purpose leases under the various land ordinances. A few clubs are situated on freehold land including the Badili Club (Port Moresby), the Ralum Club (Kokopo), and the Kokopo Golf Club. The Aviat, Paga, and Papuan Aero Clubs (all in Port Moresby) are situated within Defence Reserves. The Port Moresby RSL and Bowling Clubs are situated within a recreation reserve. Other clubs, either having leases or in the process of acquiring leases, are: Ad works Rabaul Club, Aitape Sports Club, Angoram Club, Angoram Native Ex-Servicemen's Club, Balimo Sports Club, Bamguina Club, Banz Pony and Track Club, Bereina Club, Boroko RSL Club, Bougainville ExServicemen's Association, m,ke Passage Golf Club, Bulolo Bowling Club, Bulolo Golf Club, Bulolo Small Bore Club, Buin Country Club, Cameron Club, Cathay Club, Chimbu Sports and Social Club, Comworks Sporting and Social Club, Country Club, Daru Tennis Club, Farmers and Settlers Banz Club, Finschhafen Golf Club, Four Mile Club, Garamut Club, Gormania Club, Goroka Bowling Club, Goroka Farmers and Settlers Club, Goroka Golf Club, Goroka Sports Club, Goroka Tennis Club, Hagen Bowling Club, Hagen Country Club, Hagen Golf Club, Hagen Tennis Club, Hiri Club, Kainantu Country Club, Kambiu Club, Kamosa Sporting Club, Kameng Golf Club, Kar Kar Club, Kavieng Club, Kavieng Native Ex-Servicemen's Club, Kerowagi Sports and Social Club, Kerema Club, Kieta Club, Kimbe Bay Sports and Social Club, King Chow Club, Koitaki Club, Kokopo Sports Club, Kone Club, Kowloon Club, Kone Tigers Football Club, Kuomintang Club, Kundiawa Social Club, Lae Aero Club, Lac Bowling Club, Lae Chinese Social and Sports Club, Lae Club, Lae Native ExServicemen's Club, Lae Golf Club, Lae Power Boat and Yacht Club, Lae Pistol Club, Lae Rugby League Club, Lae Rugby Football League Club, Lae RSL Club, Lumi Sports Club, Madang Club, Madang Golf Club, Madang Ruby, League Club, Madang Small Bore Rifle and Pistol Club, Manus Sports Club, Mendi Valley Club, Namatana Sports Club, Native Settlement Society Club, New Britain Women's Club, New Guinea Ambonese Club, New Guinea Club, North Coast Sports Club, Northern District Workers' Association Club, Numa Numa Water Ski Club; Pagini Club, Papua Club, Papua Turf Club, Papuan Yacht Club, Pioneer Club, Pomio Sportsmen's Club, Popondetta Club, Popondetta Ex-Servicemen's Association Club, Popondetta Golf Club, Port Moresby Basketball Association Club, Port Moresby Gun Club, Port Moresby Rifle Club, Port Moresby Tennis Club, Public Service Sports Club, Rabaul Golf Club, Rabaul Native ExServicemen's Club, Rabaul RSL Club, Rabaul Swimming and Life Saving Club, Rabaul Yacht Club, Rigo Country Club, Samarai Papua and New Guinea Recreation Club, Samarai RSL Club, Samarai Sports Club, Seagull Women's Club. Sepik Club, Sigobum Settlers Club, Social Club, Sohano Club, South Pacific Aero Club, South Pacific Sports Club, Steamships Sports and Social Club, TAA Lae Club, Talasea Club, Vanimo Club, Wabag Social Club. Wahgi Valley Club, Waigani Club, Watkins Social Moresby Club, Wau Club, Wau Golf Club, Western District Club, Wewak Country Club, Wewak Sports Club, Yule Island Social Club. > >(a) and (b) A detailed check of the constitutions of all of the above clubs would be necessary to accurately state which clubs, if any, exclude Papuans and New Guineans as members or guests. Since 1960 leases have not been granted to any club which contained discriminatory clauses in its constitution. There are some clubs built on freehold land and their constitutions have not been checked. As far as is known membership of all clubs is dependent on nomination and acceptance and the payment of the required membership fees. It is not possible without contacting every club in Papua New Guinea to state which clubs have not admitted Papuans and New Guineans as members, though it is known that many clubs do not have them as members. Many clubs actively seek Papuans and New Guineans as members wilh varying success because they do not show any great inclination to become members on socio-economic grounds. It is thought most clubs admit Papuans and New Guineans as guests but again it is impossible to be precise about this without examining the visitors books at every, club. As close a watch as is possible is kept on clubs to ensure that no violations of the Discriminatory Practices Ordinance 1963-69 occur. In at least one case the grant of a lease to a club was withheld until a guarantee was given that membership of the club would be open to all persons wishing to join it. It should also be mentioned that not all of the clubs listed in part (1) of the question have club buildings. Many of them merely have an area of land for their sporting activities and hold their social functions in hired premises or private homes. {:#subdebate-52-14} #### Telephone Meters (Question No. 4432) {: #subdebate-52-14-s0 .speaker-JPJ} ##### Mr Birrell: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What progress has been made by his Department in the provision of home telephone meters to record the number of calls made from a particular telephone so as to ensure that subscribers are not overcharged. 1. Did his Department in. recent years experiment with imported meters; if so, with what result. {: #subdebate-52-14-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Private telephone meters for use on certain telephone services have been available since February 1971. In the home situation, they are suitable for use by most subscribers who have access to S.T.D. 1. Several different types of meters were tested. The type selected was imported from Britain. {:#subdebate-52-15} #### Rural Poverty (Question No. 4098) {: #subdebate-52-15-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the unanimous findings of the United States' Commission on Rural Poverty (The People Left Behind, 1967). 1. If so, has he evidence that the findings do not apply substantially to Australia. 2. Does the report conclude that (a) economic but not moral resources are adequate to eliminate tragic, and intolerably costly, rural poverty in a prosperous country, (b) relief plans must be a joint local, State and Federal government responsibility, (c) public enterprise must be used where necessary to give equal employment opportunities and check the drift to cities, (d) the poor must be actively involved in regional economic planning encompassing rural and urban area's using Federal grants, loans and development subsidies and State and local tax reform, (e) the impact on individuals of schemes for rural amalgamation, submarginal land retirement and moratoriums on new farm land development until demand warrants increased production, must be investigated, (f) food supplements should be available to the hungry, (g) community health centres should be provided to overcome the shortage of rural medical care and (h) pre-school, school, drop-out adult and teacher education facilities should be of the best national standards. 3. What has the Government (a) planned and (b) done to (i) assess and (ii) meet these problems in Australia. {: #subdebate-52-15-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- As Acting Minister for Primary Industry, I supply the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Evidence such as unemployment, social services and vital statistics indicates that there are considerable differences between, the rural situation in Australia and that in the United States of America. The Commission's enquiry was a detailed investigation of United States conditions and its findings could not be expected to be applicable to Australia. 2. This would appear to be a reasonable summary of some of the findings and recommendations of the Commission. 3. The aim of the Government's overall policy for agriculture has been to ensure the economic welfare of the rural industries and those associated . with them in country centres. Within the powers of. the Commonwealth under the Constitution a wide range of measures and concessions has been implemented over the years with this aim in view. By means of continuing industry surveys and other methods the Government keeps itself fully informed on the economic situation in the various rural industries. The rural sector is being assisted to adapt to changing circumstances through such measures as the Marginal Dairy Farm Reconstruction Scheme and the Rural Reconstruction Scheme which have been brought into operation in conjunction with the State authorities concerned. Active steps have been taken to give support to the wool industry in its present critical situation through the operation of the Australian Wool Commission and the introduction of a deficiency payments scheme for the 1971-72 wool clip. The wheat, dairy, dried fruit and apple and pear industries are or will be assisted under stabilisation schemes. The Government will continue to give consideration to further measures to assist primary producers through the present difficult period. At the same time, however, the limitations imposed by the heavy overall demands on available resources and the national economic problem of inflationary pressures must be kept in mind. Education: Servicemen's Children at Secondary Schools (Question No. 3631) {: #subdebate-52-15-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: >Is it possible to estimate how many servicemen with children at secondary schools are posted from one State to another in the course of any one year. {: #subdebate-52-15-s3 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Details are not maintained of the numbers of school children who actually attend secondary school. However, during 1970-71, 140 RAN and 495 RAAF personnel with children between the ages of 12 and 18 years were posted between the States, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory. Similar information is not readily available for the Army, where the conversion of personnel records to EDP is not as advanced as in the other Services. {:#subdebate-52-16} #### Cigarettes and Tobacco: Pre-Budget Excise Payments (Question No. 4478) {: #subdebate-52-16-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that $31. 9m more than average was paid in excise by cigarette and tobacco firms immediately prior to the Budget (Hansard, 7th October 1971, page 2113). 1. If so, what estimates have been made of the sum saved by these companies. {: #subdebate-52-16-s1 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Cigarette and tobacco companies paid, in the 5 working days prior to the Budget, $3 1.9m Excise duty in excess of the average weekly excise payments on tobacco products during the previous 3 months. 1. If the companies had paid duty on the quantities represented by this$3 1.9m after the Budget, additional duty payable would have been $3 . 4m. {:#subdebate-52-17} #### Excise: Pre-Budget Payments (Question No. 4479) {: #subdebate-52-17-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What sum was outlaid more than average by (a) oil companies; (b) cigarette and tobacco companies and (c) liquor companies during the immediate pre-budget period in payment of excise during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. 1. Have estimates been made by his Department of savings on excise made by these companies; if so, what were the estimates. {: #subdebate-52-17-s1 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The figures immediately below show the excise duty paid on petroleum products, tobacco products and potable spirits, in the five working days prior to the 1970 Budget in excess of the average weekly payments made during the previous three months. The figures also show the additional duty which would have been payable had the quantities represented by the above average payments been cleared after the Budget. The dissected figures (or 1968 and 1969 are not readily available. However, there were no increases in Excise duties made in the Budgets of those years and hence no 'savings' were achieved through speculative clearances. The following figures, however, show the total gross Excise payments in respect of all products received in the five working days prior to the Budget eve in 1968. 1969 and 1970 compared with the average weekly receipts of the previous three months. {:#subdebate-52-18} #### Project N Aircraft (Question No. 4385) {: #subdebate-52-18-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are initial military orders for the Project N aircraft likely to fall short of the number considered necessary to begin production. 1. If so, what is the likely short-fall. 2. Willbe approach the Minister for Foreign Affairs to ascertain whether the aircraft's ultrashort take-off capabilities, simple design and low cost would make it a suitable item of equipment for inclusion in out foreign aid programme. {: #subdebate-52-18-s1 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. and (2) The potential military interest in Project N is currently under examination by Departments of Defence, Air and Army. The Government will consider later, after the military interest is clearer, whether Project N should Proceed to production.It has always been understood that our military requirements alone would not be sufficient for economic production of the aircraft. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been advised of the aircraft's capabilities. It is considered that it would be inappropriate to give small numbers of aircraft as aid before the aircraft were in general use in the area and service and maintenance facilities established. A market survey has been carried out in the South East Asian area and we will be endeavouring to promote sales of the aircraft in the area, as well as elsewhere overseas, if it is decided to proceed to production. {:#subdebate-52-19} #### Australian Capital Territory: Law Reform Commission (Question No. 4316) {: #subdebate-52-19-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) What matters have been referred to the Law Reform Commission for the Australian Capital Territory for investigation and/or report. 1. When is the Commission expected to deliver its first report. 2. Will the Attorney-General refer the proposed draft criminal code for the Commonwealth Territories to the Commission for investigation and report; if not. why not. {: #subdebate-52-19-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I refer the honourable member to the Ministerial statement on law reform for the Australian Capital Territory made to the House on 12th October 1971. 1. It is not yet possible to provide an answer to this part of the question. 2. No, the work on the draft criminal codeis at such an advanced stage that it would be inappropriate to refer the draft to the Commission. {:#subdebate-52-20} #### Handicapped Children (Question No. 4337) {: #subdebate-52-20-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >Is it because of Government policy (Hansard, 28th September 1971, page 1602) that the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, in inquiring into the problems of, and the provisions for assistance to, mentally and physically handicapped personsin Australia, did not have the benefit of access to reports of the interdepartmental committee established to make a survey of handicapped children and the facilities available for their use (Parliamentary Paper No. 45 of 1974,page vii). {: #subdebate-52-20-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The interdepartmental committee had not made a report at the relevant time. However, I understand that officers of *my* Department co-operated to the fullest possible extent with the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and supplied it with all information that was required and that was available. {:#subdebate-52-21} #### Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 4363) {: #subdebate-52-21-s0 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr Bennett: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >In view of the petitions presented to Parliament and evidence of pending evictions at Aged Persons Homes erected under Commonwealth subsidy, will he take steps to ensure (a) guarantee of tenancy duration protection to aged people paying donation deposits for entry, (b) that the audited annual statements of the income and running expenses of these establishments are made available to residents and public, (c) that evictions are not possible without recourse to an outside independent tribunal, (d) that units that do become vacant because of disputes are not resold but let, (e) that all boards of management have resident representatives elected on an annual basis and (f) that a review is conducted of the conditions of making grants to the satisfaction of residents and boards of management. {: #subdebate-52-21-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The organisations that establish homes with the assistance of subsidy under the Aged Persons Homes Act are religious bodies, charitable and benevolent organisations not conducted for profit, and local government authorities. Experience over the years since this Act commenced in 1954 has shown that these organisations act responsibly in the conduct of their homes and generally show a kindly and sympathetic attitude to the problems of the aged people they serve. Subject to organisations complying with the requirements of the Act and the conditions on which the grant is made, the Government has consistently refrained from interfering in the domestic running of their homes. The question of termination or otherwise, of the occupancy of residents who do not meet their reasonable obligations to the organisation conducting the home is considered to be quite property a domestic matter for the organisation and it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene. While all organisations accept a responsibility to provide permanent accommodation for aged persons, it would not be proper for the Government to force organisations to guarantee occupancy under all circumstances. Nor is an organisation permitted under the conditions of grant to alienate ownership or control of premises subsidised under the Act. 1. Charitable and benevolent organisations are usually registered under State Acts which require the submission of annual financial statements to a nominated State authority. No reason is seen to require organisations to make this information public or to supply it to residents. 2. Existing legal channels enable evictions to be contested in a court of law. The very few evictions from aged persons homes that take place would not justify the setting up of another independent tribunal. 3. No units in aged persons homes can be sold. All organisations receiving grants enter into a legal agreement with the Commonwealth which, in the case of organisations that accept donations, requires them to reach a position, as soon as possible, in which at least half the accommodation in the home is occupied by people who have not been required to make a donation. 4. This is a matter for the religious bodies, voluntary organisations and local government authorities themselves to decide. In many cases it would not be practicable to impose such a condition and in others the residents may not wish to take a part in the management of the home. (0 As mentioned above, organisations are required to enter into a legal agreement with the Commonwealth which sets out the terms and conditions under which the grant is made. These have been approved by the Government and are incorporated in an explanatory booklet which is freely available to organisations and other interested persons. Home Care Services - Senior Citizens' Centres (Question No. 4502) {: #subdebate-52-21-s2 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What sum has been (a) available and (b) granted for (i) home care services, (ii) senior citizens' centres and (iii) welfare officers at senior citizens' centres under the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 to each of the States in each of the last 2 years. 1. What States have indicated preparedness to participate in each of these schemes. {: #subdebate-52-21-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: National Film and Television Training School (Question No. 4669) {: #subdebate-52-21-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Interim Council for the National Film and Television Training School send him on 20th October 1971 the letter setting out the Council's dissatisfaction with the reports of P.A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd, and the transcript of discussions between the Council and the consultants for which the honourable member for Franklin asked on 28th October 1971. 1. Did he acknowledge receipt of this material by telegram on the morning of 25 th October 1971 and was it in his possession when he met Cabinet that afternoon. 2. Did he draw the material to Cabinet's attention and was the Prims Minister aware of its importance when he made his statement on 26th October 1971. 3. If so, why did the Prime Minister (a) refer to the report of the consultants but not to the dissatisfaction of the Council with that report and (b) not table the additional significant material which was then in his possession. 4. If the material was not drawn to the attention of Cabinet or the Prime Minister, can he say, why not. {: #subdebate-52-21-s5 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) See Hansard, page 3229. Redfem Mail Exchange: Letter Coding System (Question No. 3527) {: #subdebate-52-21-s6 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Postmaster- >General, upon notice: > >What was the initial cost of the letter coding system installed at the Redfern Mail Exchange. > >When were tenders called for the supply and installation of the system. > >What company, was awarded the contract and under what conditions. > >Which companies were unsuccessful and for what reasons. > >What is the annual (a) operating and (b) maintenance cost of the letter coding system. > >Is the maintenance . contracted out to the supplying company; if not, what arrangements (a) are made for maintenance now and (b) were made in the past > >What volume of mail was the system designed to handle. > >What volume of mail is the system currently handling. {: #subdebate-52-21-s7 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The cost of the letter coding system was $3.58m. 1. Public tenders under Schedule C.8754 were called on 21st July 1961 and closed on 3rd October 1961. 2. (a) Telephone and Electrical Industries Pty Ltd, Faraday Park, Meadowbank, New South Wales (Now - Plessey Telecommunications Pty Ltd). (b) Conditions - Supply, and installation of a total mechanised mail handling system. Contract 26145 was issued on 19th June 1962 and provided for completion of the entire project by May 1965. The letter coding and decoding system formed a major part of the overall system. 3. Eight other companies tendered letter coding equipment, generally to overseas designs. It is not Post Office practice to make public the names of unsuccessful tenderers. Under Item 1 of the Schedule, for which there were six offers, tenders were called for the supply and installation of a complete mechanised mail handling system to cater for letters, newspapers and packets, parcels and inward and outward bag handling. The lowest tender was rejected because the equipment offered would not have had the capacity to meet the specified loads. The additional equipment necessary to meet those loads would have carried the total price above that of the next lowest tenderer, Telephone and Electrical Industries. The other tenders under this item were unsuccessful because of higher prices. Item 3 of the Schedule, for which there were eight offers called for the supply and installation of a letter coding and decoding system complete with automatic letter transfer between stages. After close analysis of the offers for letter coding equipment, the offer by Telephone and Electrical Industries was chosen because the letter handling systems offered by other tenderers did not meet the Australian Post Office requirement for a completely integrated letter coding system. In addition Telephone and Electrical Industries tendered proven equipment for the rest of the project and it was judged advantageous for all mail exchange equipment to be supplied and installed by the one contractor. 4. (a) The total operating cost for the letter coding system during 1970-71 was $2,067,000. (b) The total maintenance cost for the letter coding system during 1970-71 was $1,142,000. 5. (a) All mail handling plant, including the letter coding system, is maintained by departmental staff, (b) After the equipment was installed, a contract was placed with Telephone and Electrical Industries for specialist advice in the care and maintenance of the system, but departmental staff were already carrying out most of the actual maintenance work. The contract was for the period 1st December 1966 to 29th June 1968 and involved a total cost of $134,343. It was not renewed in 1968 as specialist support was no longer necessary. 6. Mail traffic, like vehicular traffic or telephone traffic, fluctuates in intensity throughout the day, with the heaviest surge occurring in the late afternoon and early evening. Mail is also subject to seasonal peaks, the most intense of which predictably occur in November/December and at Easter time. In designing equipment to handle mail traffic, the seasonal peak hour load is the criterion the designer must use in dimensioning the system. For Redfern a figure of 300,000 letters per hour was quoted as the maximum theoretical throughput, to enable tenderers to determine the required number of coding positions and decoding machines, and the carrying capacity for the letter distribution network. This figure was derived from a projection of actual traffic counts, and provided for reasonable traffic growth and the fact that 100 per cent machine utilisation cannot be achieved in practice, because: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. tea and health breaks for the operators account for 10 minutes non coding time in each hour per position; 1. there are always some rostered coding operators absent, e.g. because of illness. The average absentee rate during week days is 8 per cent; 2. operators cannot sustain maximum performance for long periods of time; 3. some of the positions are out of service for maintenance purposes; 4. mail to be coded is not always available. Taking all technical human factors into account, the practically, achievable peak hour throughput currently is around 180,000 letters per hour. {: type="1" start="8"} 0. During a normal day the number of positions staffed varies up to a maximum of about 120, and the number of letters coded per hour varies up to a maximum of about 120,000. During the peak season all the available positions are staffed for lengthy periods during the day and the load coded during the day and the load coded during a peak hour approaches 160,000 letters. During a normal day, a load of around 1.5 million is coded and during a peak period this has been increased to a maximum of 2.4 million. Daily Newspapers and Television Stations: Control (Question No. 4271) {: #subdebate-52-21-s8 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Postmaster- General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attentionbeen drawn to a statement by **Mr Clyde** Packer, Deputy Chairman and Joint Managing Director of Television Corporation Ltd and Chairman of General Television Corporations, that 50 per cent of metropolitan commercial television stations and 75 per cent of metropolitan daily newspapers are controlled by the same two companies and that he considers this to be disturbing and not healthy. 1. If the position is as stated, what is the attitude of the Government to this form of monopoly control. 2. Does the Government intend to take any action in the matter. {: #subdebate-52-21-s9 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alaa Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I understand that **Mr Packer** has made certain comments relating to control of commercial television stations by newspaper groups. 1. and (3) I can deal only with that part of the question which relates to the interests of newspaper companies in commercial television stations. The statement attributed to **Mr Packer** does not reflect the existing position in relation to the interests of newspapers in the fifteen metropolitan commercial television stations in operation, suggesting that the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which are admittedly complicated, have not been understood. Basically, under the present legislation, no person (or company) is permitted to have a prescribed interest in more than two television station licences. However, the 'aw affords protection to those persons who held interests at the time the present legislation was introduced i.e. 17th December 1964, in excess of those now permitted, but which were within the bounds of the law then existing. In general terms, a 'prescribed interest' is a shareholding, voting or financial interest in excess of 5 per cent, held directly or indirectly, ia a licensee company. In relation to the question of control' of licences, it should be explained that under the present law, a person (or company) is deemed to be » a position to control a company if he is, broadly, in a position to control more than 15 per cent of the shares or votes in that company, either directly or indirectly. Full details of the interests of capital city newspaper groups in commercial television stations are contained in Appendix J of the Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It is to be noted that the following metropolitan newspaper companies have, within the meaning of the Broadcasting and Television Act, a controlling interest in more than one metropolitan (capital city) commercial television station - such interests being as indicated: The Honourable Member may be assured that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board maintains a continuing oversight of the ownership and control of licensee and related companies with a view to ensuring that the relevant provisions of the legislation are observed. {:#subdebate-52-22} #### Television: Perth Football Matches (Question No. 4443) {: #subdebate-52-22-s0 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr Bennett: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. Does the Australian Broadcasting Commission intend to provide again in Perth city areas the facility of direct telecasts of local football matches; if so, when will telecasts commence. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Can he say whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission's current policy of no direct city telecasts is influenced by a similar policy adopted by commercial television stations. 1. What were the Australian Broadcasting Commission's reasons for terminating city football telecasts. {: #subdebate-52-22-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The ABC has never provided direct telecasts of local football matches in Perth city areas, except in the case of Grand Finals which have been telecast direct in some years by special arrangement with the football authorities. Prior to this year it was the practice of the ABC and commercial stations to play videotape recordings of Perth football matches on the evenings of the match days on payment to the local football authorities of a negotiated fee for the rights. This year however negotiations for these rights failed, although the ABC was able to arrange for direct telecasts of Perth football matches to be transmitted on the ABC's country stations throughout Western Australia. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As indicated in the answer to Question 1, the ABC has never been able to negotiate with local football authorities rights for direct telecasts of football matches in Perth city areas. 1. See Answer (1). {:#subdebate-52-23} #### Papua New Guinea: Allocation of Land (Question No. 4480) {: #subdebate-52-23-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are Papuans and New Guineans finding it difficult to compete with expatriates for the allocation of medium high covenant land. 1. Are Papuans and New Guineans facing difficulties in raising the money for minimum upset price and then complying with the improvement covenant. 2. If so, will the Government take steps to (a) abolish upset price requirements and (b) extend improvement covenants for 2 year periods for all Papuans and New Guineans. 3. Is any preference given to Papuans and New Guineans in the allocation of land. 4. Will he request the Department of Lands to implement a scheme whereby in 1972 20 per cent of all land in all groupings is specifically increased for Papuans and New Guineans and this percentage is increased by 20 per cent each following year until a point is reached where expatriates can only apply for 20 per cent of all available land in the Territory. {: #subdebate-52-23-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands and Surveys in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Assistant Ministerial Member for Lands and Surveys has provided the following information: > >Yes. > >The amount paid for a lease is the tender less the upset price. If the amount of the upset price is tendered, the tenderer is not required to pay a premium. Some Papuans and New Guineans would not be able to comply with improvement covenants. However finance can be arranged through bodies such as the Papua New Guinea Development Bank and the Housing Commission. > >(a) A system already exists which allows Papua New Guineans to apply without tender for leases on which the improvement conditions are reduced, (b) No. The improvement covenant can be varied on the recommendation of the Land Board if warranted in special circumstances. > >Yes. In certain cases lands are advertised with a stipulation that only indigenous persons or wholly indigenous owned organisations will be eligible to apply. Other leases are advertised with a provision for indigenous equity participation. In all other cases, provided other things are equal, preference is given to indigenous proposals or proposals which contain a significant proportion of indigenous equity. > >No. The conditions relating to the release of land are determined after consideration of all factors and should not be fixed in the inflexible way proposed. {:#subdebate-52-24} #### Telephones: Port Augusta Exchange (Question No. 4493) {: #subdebate-52-24-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >When will the Port Augusta telephone exchange be connected fully to the national STD network. {: #subdebate-52-24-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Connection to the national STD grid is dependent upon the installation of a new telephone exchange at Port Augusta. It is tentatively planned that connection to the national STD grid will take place in the first half of . the 1973 calendar year.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711111_reps_27_hor75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant