House of Representatives
25 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 3633

PETITIONS

Aid far Pakistani Refugees

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some 9 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.

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 farthe 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 further $50m over 3 years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of upto 47½ 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.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the follow ing petition:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Crime Prevention

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That they are gravely concerned at the apparent appalling increase in crime in Australia, particularly in densely populated areas;

That they fear the police forces of the various States and Territories are undermanned and underequipped to handle the increase in crime;

Thai their concern is aggravated by the apparent number of unsolved crimes particularly those involving violence to the individual including murder.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will seek the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the States to enable:

proper town planning and development to halt the increase in densely populated areas which leads to increased crime,

the proper staffing and equipping of police forces to enable adequate crime prevention and detection measures to reduce the frightening increase of both solved and unsolved crime,

the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and

compensation to victims of crimes of violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr BERINSON:

– [ 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 ‘homemaker’ 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.

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr BENNETT:

– 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 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.

Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance

Mr ENDERBY:

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That the A.C.T. Pharmacy Ordinances 1931- 1959 Section 46, Sub-section (1) states that ‘A person shall not publish any statement, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, to promote the sale of any article as a medicine, instrument or appliance … for preventing conception’.

And that this infringes upon each individual’s right as a human being to all available information about contraceptive devices in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the words ‘or for preventing conception’ be deleted from Sub-section fi) of Section 46 of the A.C.T. Pharmacy Ordinances.

And y,our petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Bendigo Citizens for Pakistani Refugee Relief Appeal respectfully showeth:

That the petitioners are deeply concerned at the plight of the Pakistani refugees and with what is considered a lack of Government response in its aid giving programmes to relieve the situation in West Bengal.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Federal Government will increase its aid to the Pakistani refugees to Ten Million Dollars.

The Federal Government will gram income tax deductibility for donations to overseas aid organisations.

The Federal Government will endeavour by diplomatic initiatives to seek a just and humane solution to the problem of the refugees.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– 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 the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471 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 wilh other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties bc 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.

page 3636

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I give notice that at the next day of sitting I will move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the proposed draft criminal code for the Commonwealth Territories.

page 3636

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether the Chief Electoral Officer has yet prepared the certificates of the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States as required by the Representation Act. If not, why has he not done so in view of the fact that the Acting Statistician published the figures a month ago? Can he explain why the Chief Electoral Officer’s certificate could not have been prepared by, say, 4th November, as it was in 1954 after the census of that year, and thus have opened the way for a redistribution of electoral divisions within II months of the census, as also happened after the 1954 census? Why is there a delay in initiating a redistribution when the figures show not only a most unfair disparity in the population of the electorates but also a clear entitlement to an additional seat in both Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory?

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

– To my knowledge the Chief Electoral Officer has not yet obtained from the Commonwealth Statistician the census figures for the purpose of a redistribution. Until they do come to hand it is not possible to say conclusively whether a redistribution is either necessary or possible overall. The last redistribution, of course, was undertaken in 1968 and the Commonwealth did obtain figures from the Commonwealth Statistician when they were gazetted on 14th August 1967. There was a redistribution in 1968 and an election in 1969. There has always been some difficulty, as experience has shown, in rushing through electoral redistribution processes in that sort of time. It does take time to appoint commissioners and it takes time to take evidence from the public, and to draw boundaries. From the information I have obtained from the Chief Electoral Officer, it takes at least 7 to 8 months to undertake a redistribution after the appointment of the commissioners.

page 3636

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. 1 preface it by slating that many members of the work force are eligible for unemployment benefits but a considerable number are not aware of the requirements of the operative legislation, which states that unemployment benefits are payable from the seventh day after the day on which the claimant became unemployed or the seventh day after the day on which the claim was lodged, whichever is the later. Will the Minister give consideration to placing periodical advertisements in the daily newspapers of the requirements of the Act and, secondly, amending the Act by deleting the last section?

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

– To the best of my knowledge, the matters to which the honourable gentleman has referred are well publicised through the media using communications emanating front my Department. The honourable gentleman asked whether I would look positively at a suggestion which he has put forward. Certainly, I would not dismiss his suggestion lightly at question time. I will undertake to look at the recommendation which is put before me. I will respond to the honourable gentleman in written form.

page 3636

QUESTION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, is supplementary to the one asked yesterday by the honourable member for Wentworth. Is the Minister aware that the effective rate of protection on cars is in excess of 60 per cent? Does he know that the increased cost of utilities and cars caused by this protection is bitterly resented in the bush where these vehicles are essential tools of trade? Will the Minister assure me that the study which the Government is conducting will include a full Tariff Board inquiry so that the disadvantages as well as the advantages of this already high protection can be properly weighed?

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

– I am not in a position to give the honourable member an assurance that there will be a full Tariff Board inquiry into the automotive industry, in answering the question asked by the honourable member for Wentworth yesterday, I said that a review was being made of the motor vehicle plans scheme, not the whole of the automotive vehicle manufacturing industry which does have an effective rate of duty approximating the figure that the honourable member gave, although 1 was under the impression that the actual rate was 45 per cent. This level of protection has been arrived at as a result of a Tariff Board inquiry.

I think that 1 should mention here that the Australian automotive industry is not the only automotive industry in the world that is protected from overseas competition by tariffs, exchange control, quantitative restrictions or import licensing. The duty that applies at present on motor vehicles in Australia has been arrived at after a full Tariff Board inquiry. I conclude by repeating that the matter to which I referred in particular in answer to the honourable member for Wentworth yesterday was a review of the motor vehicle plans scheme and not of the whole of the automotive industry.

page 3637

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the expressed satisfaction of the Prime Minister with the outcome of his recent world tour, 1 ask him to make a statement in precise terms saying what action he intends to take to deal with the parlous condition of the rural economy, the depressed state of industry and the serious position in regard to the growth of unemployment. Will the Prime Minister in such a statement deal more particularly with the economic problems of prices, the economic trends in our economy and the world situation rather than giving a travelogue of his recent tour abroad?

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

– If the honourable gentleman had been attentive, he would have realised that a somewhat similar question was asked yesterday. 1 rely upon my answer to that question.

page 3637

QUESTION

TELEVISION IN COUNTRY AREAS

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. In view of the fact that for years now the metropolitan and most provincial city areas have enjoyed a surplus of television reception and in view of the fact that the inland, wealth producing areas of this nation have been deprived of this now standard amenity, will the Postmaster-General instruct his officers to accelerate their efforts to full pitch so that television may be installed in the central west and central highland areas of Queensland much sooner than presently programmed?

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

– About 2 years ago I indicated that some 38 additional stations in stage 7 of the provision of television would become available in due course. I am afraid that there will be delay before some of those stations can be brought into operation. At the moment I am having discussions with my Department and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, with a desire on my part to have the stations erected at the earliest possible moment. I hope that before the House rises I will be able to indicate the actual programme. But I want to be sure that when I indicate the programme, the completion dates that I give to the House will in fact be achieved and there will not be further delay beyond those points of time.

page 3637

QUESTION

RUSSIAN PRESENCE IN INDIAN OCEAN

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister for the Navy to a statement made in the House of Commons on 11th March this year by the Minister of State for Defence, Mr Kirk. In that statement Mr Kirk said that, apart from a short period during January when the Soviet Navy relief squadron took over from ships returning home, the maximum Soviet presence reported in the Indian Ocean was 6 vessels - 3 surface warships, an attack submarine and 2 support ships. I ask the Minister: Whom does he consider the more reliable authority - a British Tory Defence Minister or a commercial organ whose objective is to promote sales of warships? Does he still persist in clinging to his thoroughly discredited claim that the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean comprises at least 20 surface ships and an unknown number of submarines?

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

– [ am aware of the statement that was made. I would offer, as a suggestion as to how this type of difference of assessment may have come about, 2 factors: Firstly, that the area designated as the Indian Ocean may vary according lo the source.

Dr Cass:

– What next?

Dr MACKAY:

– Well, at the present moment there are 2 distinct groups of Soviet ships in the area that I consider to be, and my advisers consider to be, the Indian Ocean area. There are at present in the Indian Ocean a number considerably in excess of the figure mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning. One may consider that the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea are an integral part of the Indian Ocean area. Opposition members are interjecting. I am surprised that the Opposition should take the view that this is not significant. We are talking about the Indian Ocean in terms of its shipping significance for this part of the world, the traffic through the Persian Gulf to the Far East and its future significance in the event of the reopening of the Suez Canal. This whole area, which 5 years ago saw no Russian activity at all today does see a considerable Russian fleet activity. Secondly, the other consideration that may have caused a different assessment is, what constitutes a combatant ship or a warship? I am able to assure the House that since T have been Minister for the Navy the number of ships designated as having come from that source, has, according to the weekly report - I do get weekly reports - never been less than double the number mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

page 3638

QUESTION

QANTAIR

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Minister seen reports about a charter company called Qantair which proposes non-affinity charters to London and not to and from the United States of America where a multi-billion dollar tourist market exists? Will the Minister advise the Minister for Civil Aviation and Qantas Airways

Ltd that Australia can no longer financially tolerate the dairy industry type of protection given to that company and will he do everything in his power to allow American charter carriers into Australia or get Qantair to move into the lucrative United States market? Finally, is it true that wc have consistently refused American charter companies landing rights while we awaited the birth of Qantair?

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

– I will certainly sec that this matter is referred to my colleague in another place, but I would hate to let the matter rest at that point. The position is that an announcement has been made by the Minister for Civil Aviation that a nonaffinity charter company as a subsidiary of Qantas Airways Ltd has been formed and Wi 11 commence operations using the extensive Qantas fleet in the near future. But I do not think we should overlook the fact the Qantas has in its own right undertaken extensive charter operations over past years. In fact, the figures over the last 12 months, as revealed in its annual report, show that it did conduct charter operations not only to Europe but also through other areas.

The position regarding overseas charter operations into Australia is that they are examined by the Department of Civil Aviation on their merits and there has been quite a considerable number of overseas charter flights into Australia over recent years. So there has been no embargo but there has been, of course, some strict consideration of the conditions relating to charter operations. However. I think I can assure the House, on behalf of my colleague, that everything possible will be done to extend the charter operations of the Qantas subsidiary. I will draw the attention of the Minister to the point that has been raised by the honourable member in relation to charter operations by other overseas companies.

page 3638

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact that unemployed men aged 48 years and over applying to the Commonwealth employment offices for employment are being told that owing to their age there is little hope of work being found for them unless they have special qualifications? If these are the guide lines administered by the Commonweath employment offices - 1 doubt that they are - is it not a system of discrimination against the unqualified man seeking employment? Would it be more correct to say that the guide lines are laid down by the employers?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Certainly the information which the honourable member has mentioned is totally contrary to any of the instructions under which the Commonwealth Employment Service is in fact operative and is totally inconsistent with my direct knowledge of its operations, as J am sure it would be inconsistent with the honourable member’s direct knowledge of the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service in his particular locality. I can say that it is the function of the Commonwealth, through the Commonwealth Employment Service, to seek to place in satisfactory employment any person registering with that Service. As I recall the figures, during the course of last year the Service handled in excess of 1 million job registrations and a large number of older workers were in fact placed in employment. I can assure the honourable gentleman that we place considerable stress on the needs of older workers and. on the basis of special research reports which have been prepared by my Department, prospective employers are certainly counselled as to the advantages of employing older workers in terms of their experience and maturity and the certain knowledge that older workers are less prone to absenteeism and high labour turnover.

So far as guidelines are concerned, of course, apart from the general instructions issued through my Department, naturally the Service is required to operate on the basis of the job specification which is presented by the employer group. There are some employers who operate in a somewhat arbitrary and restrictive fashion in relation to the question of age eligibility for certain jobs. That is a matter which my Department regrets and which I regret. Anything which any honourable member in this House can do to overcome what is in effect an anachronistic attitude would certainly be appreciated because the whole function of the Department is to operate on the basis that ability and not anniversaries should determine job selection.

page 3639

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question Ls addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the honourable gentleman aware that if the child of a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner is treated in a private hospital rather than a public one, the pensioner’s entitlement card is inoperative and the pensioner must pay? Is he aware that the Department of Health has no discretion in the matter, irrespective of whether the private hospital was used inadvertently or on medical advice, and whether the condition was in urgent need of treatment? Bearing in mind that TPI pensioners are not normally members of hospital benefit funds, will the Minister have something done about the situation?

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

– I would be glad to refer to my colleague in another place the request made in the last part of the honourable member’s question. But I think I can say that I am aware that persons holding medical and hospital entitlement cards - I think from memory that the cases the honourable member quoted are in that category - can receive the benefits of the free hospital service side of the pensioner medical service only when treatment is given in a public ward of a public hospital. The background of this is that this is the traditional method by which the States who are responsible for hospital services have treated pensioners free of charge.

When the Commonwealth came into this arrangement and made available some financial assistance on condition that the pensioners were to be treated free of charge, the Commonwealth went along with the existing system. In other words, because the States are responsible for hospital services they, of course, are responsible for saying where people will be treated and how far the benefits of this scheme will extend. I might add that this should not be a hardship. Tt is well known both to the pensioners themselves and to the medical profession that this is a condition of the pensioner medical service. If the honourable member has knowledge of a particular case where there has been difficulty in obtaining a bed in a public ward of a public hospital I suggest that he should get the person concerned to take it up with the State hospital authorities.

page 3640

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask a question of the Minister for Labour and National Service. I preface my question by reminding the honourable gentleman that yesterday during question time the Treasurer, when talking about the official figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician, said:

  1. . there has been a bit of a downturn in the rate of increase in wages. They show that there has been an increase in profits from 3 per cent to 6 per cent.

I think the actual figure was from minus 1 per cent to an increase of 6 per cent. He also said:

So far as consumer spending is concerned they show that there has been what I might describe as a continuing subdued growth.

He went on to say:

In private investment for the year up to” the September quarter there has been a growth of 14 per cent, compared with the previous year.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member ask his question.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want now to ask the Minister whether he will instruct counsel representing the Commonwealth in the present national wage inquiry by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to put the submissions to which I have already referred and also the further submission which the Treasurer made to this Parliament that the state of the economy is one of improvement in the rate of growth and that present economic indicators justify statements that he had previously made that the strength of the economy is continually improving? Finally, will the Minister ask counsel representing the Commonwealth in the national wage case to point out further that the Treasurer is of the opinion that there has been a growth in the operating surplus or, in general terms, the profit of enterprises?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I can say to the honourable gentleman that counsel representing the Commonwealth in the present national wage case will certainly be made very much aware of any statement that the Treasurer has made in this or in any other place. The honourable gentleman who has posed the question will appreciate that it would be quite improper for me in this forum to canvass matters which are now before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but I can say in general terms - and I do not go beyond the generality of observation - that the Commonwealth, in intervening in the national wage case, will be putting very strong arguments which go to the point of suggesting the need for the strongest possible restraint at the present time in relation to the need to contain excessive wage increases in the general community. I do not go beyond that point. It would be improper for me to do so. I have a great’ deal of respect for the honourable member, as he knows, but I would have thought that he would not raise a question of this detail at this time.

page 3640

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to direct my question to the Treasurer. Have foreign investments in Australia assumed considerable proportions? Are investments from Great Britain given any preferential consideration over investments from other countries? Is the Government examining the position carefully and can the Minister state whether regulations and precautions are being taken to control the position?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– Overseas investment in Australia has now reached considerable proportions. Over the last decade the inflow of capital into Australia has been $7.9 billion. This $7.9 billion represents about 12 per cent of the total investment in Australia. In Australia we have very high savings rates by world standards, but even though we have high savings for investment in Australia they have not been sufficient to open up all the resources that are available to us for the use of the Australian people, so that the inflow of capital has augmented our own savings and therefore enabled a stronger growth economically and in development terms. The present rate of inflow is quite high. Last financial year it was about $1.5 billion. This year it is flowing at a higher rate.

Capital inflow essentially has 2 elements. One is direct investment in Australia by overseas companies and the other is borrowings within Australia from overseas for long-term developmental projects relating very predominantly to the development of our natural resources. I must say to the House that I believe that this capital inflow into Australia, put to use in Australia’s economic development, has been to the benefit of the Australian people. There is no preferential treatment for the United Kingdom. We do not discriminate between source countries. Of course, the investment in Australia by the United Kingdom is of a high order simply because of the long history of our association with that country. 1 should add in relation to the third part of the question that we are concerned to keep under close observation the nature of the capital inflow, lt is not easy to do this, because once the money comes in it gels disseminated and it is not possible always to know the ultimate destination of that money. But insofar as we are able, through the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Statistician, we do what we can.

We are satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a large inflow of what might be called ‘hot money’. Our general attitude is that we want the capital inflow lo be put to the advantage of the Australian economy and also we want to preserve Australian equity participation in the development of Australia. We have adopted a number of different methods of doing what we can to ensure this. For instance, we have adopted a borrowing guideline policy which is designed to encourage companies with overseas ownership to offer Australian equity. We have the Australian Resources Development Bank. There has been a takeover code developed by the States and the Territories. There are a number of ways in which we have encouraged Australian equity. I can assure the honourable member that not only are we receiving benefits from this but also we will continue to keep it under examination to make sure that Australian national interest is not offended. If Austraiian national interest is offended, we will stand ready to intervene as on occasions we have done.

page 3641

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Housing a question. On his visit to New

Zealand, did he study the system of capitalising a family’s child endowment as a grant towards the cost of a house? Has he calculated the annual cost of making a similar provision in Australia?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is quite obvious that this question has been inspired by some speculation in a weekly journal. The correct part of that speculation was that I did in fact go to New Zealand. It is not my desire to comment upon quite idle speculation but, with respect to that speculation, 1 can say that that proposition, which quite obviously has inspired the question, is not being proposed by me.

page 3641

QUESTION

WOOL SALES

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed lo the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. Did Economic Wool Producers Ltd recently complete its second sale of wool using selling methods of a very different nature from the traditional open auction method? Was there a clearance of 100 per cent of the wool offered, in contrast to the much lower clearance achieved at the recent Australian Wool Commission’s sales which attempted the same selling methods? Was the average price achieved at the EWP sale above the 36c per lb average set for the wool deficiency payment, despite the absence of bids from the largest wool buyer in Australia, the Australian Wool Commission? Would the activities of enterprising companies such as the EWP be jeopardised by any plan for total acquisition of the Australian wool clip?

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

– I am not able to confirm the honourable member’s assessment of the last sales of Economic Wool Producers Ltd, as the details have not been brought to my notice. Regarding its first sales. I think it is true to say that on average the performance was about the same as the auction system itself. I will endeavour to discover the information about the latter sale and give it to the honourable member. Concerning the last part of the honourable member’s question, of course there is no proposal for acquisition at this time.

page 3641

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Following the savage increases in taxes on motorists in New South Wales, his Liberal Party colleague, Mr Morris, the New South Wales Minister for Transport, entirely blames the Commonwealth Government by stating:

The Commonwealth’s attitude on roads money is typical of its attitude to the States. It generously looks after its own needs, sticks its bib into more and more State responsibility, then distributes the balance after satisfying its own needs to the Slates which have to provide all the basic community services.

Is what Mr Morris said factual?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I read only the first part of what Mr Morris said. I realised it was not a fact and abandoned reading the rest of it.

page 3642

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is the

Prime Minister aware that the AttorneyGeneral has stated that his department is reviewing the terms under which a person can intercept or record a telephone conversation, as laid down in the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act? Is the Prime Minister aware that Sir Garfield Barwick, described eavesdropping as abhorrent and that Sir Robert Menzies was emphatic that its use should be restricted to matters involving national security? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that as Prime Minister he will not allow any extension of the Act without contemplation of the fact that a man without privacy is a man without anything?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have not had any discussion with my colleague about this problem, nor have I received any Cabinet submission from him. But I can give the assurance that if the Attorney-General is looking at this matter, he will have to be extraordinarily persuasive and have a very powerful case to persuade me and I believe the Cabinet to change the present policy.

page 3642

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Dr CASS:

– Did the Prime Minister receive a recommendation on Aboriginal land rights from his Council of Ministers, and did he personally direct the Council to reconsider that recommendation after the Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, Dr H. C. Coombs, had advised him that he would resign over it?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– This is a matter internal to Government policy. I now have before me a submission which will be dealt with by the Cabinet, and I can assure the honourable gentleman that I will be present at that meeting when the decision is made.

page 3642

QUESTION

FOREIGN VESSELS IN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Has the Minister for the Navy heard reports of an unidentified fishing vessel being sighted off the Wessel Islands which are north east of Arnhem Land? Is there a naval patrol boat in the vicinity? Does he consider that we have adequate surveillance across the northern waters? In view of the fact that Cape Wessel is over 400 miles steaming from Darwin and 200 miles from Groote Eylandt, would the Navy consider stationing a patrol boat in Melville Bay on Gove Peninsula?

Dr MACKAY:
LP

– During the last few days there have been at least 2 instances of fishing intrusion from overseas vessels in our northern waters. One has been reported in the Press this morning. A Taiwanese vessel, the ‘Kuang Nam’, 1 think the name was, was apprehended by HMAS ‘Barricade* inside the Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns. That ship is being escorted into Cairns at the moment. There is a fisheries department representative as well as naval crew aboard the ship, and it is expected to arrive in Cairns at about midnight tonight. There was a report concerning the case which the honourable member mentioned off the northern part of Arnhem Land. Incidentally all these reports have been received from commercial shipping and directed to our attention. An Australian fishing vessel by the name of Coburg’ reported a Taiwanese vessel named ‘Hai Chin’ in the locality which the honourable member mentioned, near Cape Wessel. The Air Force went looking for the vessel. Several sorties were flown without discovering it. HMAS ‘Attack’ is in the area and is also looking for the vessel, but so far no contact has been made.

As regards the adequacy of surveillance, it is true that the whole question of surveillance for fishery purposes is currently being carried out on a limited basis by the Navy’s patrol boats. There are large areas that are not under adequate surveillance if wc are to prevent all incursions of the kind mentioned. Of course, that is one of the reasons why at the present time the Navy is thinking about a different type of ship with long range and helicopters to enable greater surveillance to take place.

page 3643

QUESTION

D IMPORTATION OF BRITISH CITIZEN

Mr BENNETT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. Is it a fact that his Department is giving consideration to the deportation of Christopher Coles, a 19-year-old British citizen who was recently convicted and gaoled in Western Australia for disrupting a church service? Is this deportation based on Mr Coles’ political beliefs? If the deportation is based in any way on Mr Coles’ political beliefs will the Minister investigate the case with a view to allowing Mr Coles to remain in Australia if he so desires?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– 1 have no personal knowledge of the case mentioned by the honourable gentleman. I will be glad to investigate it as he has asked. But I would make the general point that we are not in the habit of deporting people because of their political views.

page 3643

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– M.y question is addressed to the Treasurer and it relates to foreign investment and to a question that was asked of him a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Paterson. I ask him whether instead of giving an off the cuff answer to an off the cuff question he would seriously consider issuing a White Paper setting out with precision the controls imposed on foreign investment at the present time, supported by statistical and other detailed information indicating what in fact has happened in this field during recent years.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– 1 will give consideration to the suggestion made by the honourable member.

page 3643

QUESTION

INSURANCE

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that on 6th October this year he promised me that the Government was preparing legislation for Commonwealth supervision of general insurance other than life assurance and for such to be introduced during this session of Parliament. He further stated:

Officials and parliamentary draftsmen are doing all they can to have the legislation introduced at the earliest practicable moment.

I ask: Can he explain the outrageous contradiction between his statement then and that of the Attorney-General in another place on 26th October last when the Attorney-General showed himself to be totally ignorant of the so-called commitment by his own Government? How many more millions of dollars must be lost and how many more tens of thousands of innocent policy holders are to be fleeced before this Government acts? Finally, will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the legislation will be introduced before the House rises?

Mr McMahon:

– I ask the Treasurer to answer the honourable member’s question.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I will not nor can I give an unequivocal assurance that the legislation will be introduced before the Houses rises. The reason for this is that it is not possible to have legislation ready by then. Were I able to introduce the legislation it would give me great pleasure to do so because this is an area that I am very anxious to have filled by adequate, proper, well considered and well conceived legislation.

The development of this legislation has been long and has involved assiduous work by senior officers in the Treasury, by myself and by my colleague the Minister for the Army. The formulation of the legislation is a very big job. If the honourable gentleman realised how much consultation is involved, how much consideration there is of the issues and the interaction of one against the other that need to be reconciled, he would understand that no matter how much will there is to get this legislation ready, it is not possible to do so. Further, he would understand that to introduce such legislation in some form less than it ought to be would submit policy holders to even greater risks than they are now. At this stage all policy holders must be aware that there are some insurance companies which may not be able to honour their obligations. They, therefore, are able to take much greater care about the companies with which they contract insurance. When this legislation comes in, policy holders will be entitled to feel that it gives them the public protection for which they are looking. That is the Government’s objective. This is a policy matter totally within the ambit of responsibility of the Treasury. My colleague, the Attorney-General, is not yet involved in it because-

Mr Jacobi:

– He is responsible for the Parliamentary draftsmen who you said are working on it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Parliamentary Counsel come within the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General but, naturally enough, the Attorney-General himself does not draft legislation. I would have thought the honourable member would be aware of that. The AttorneyGeneral is in a position where he will, as a member of the Cabinet, consider all the ramifications of the legislation and I will be delighted to have his advice.

page 3644

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I was misrepresented by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) in his speech on the States Grants (Housing) Bill at a little after 5 p.m. yesterday. I was not in the House but at a meeting of the Privileges Committee. I was not aware of the honourable gentleman’s statements until I saw this morning’s Press. The honourable gentleman stated:

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if the Labor Party were in power it would institute a public inquiry into the inducement of people to have fewer children.

I have given no such indication. I have no such intention, nor has my Party.

page 3644

COAL INDUSTRY ACT

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

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1946-1966, I present the Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Joint Coal Board for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with the Auditor-General’s report on the accounts of the Board.

page 3644

INTERNATIONAL TREATY

Employment Underground in Mines

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– For the information of honourable members, 1 present the text of the following international treaty: Convention No. 123 concerning the minimum age for admission to employment underground in mines, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Fortyninth Session on 22nd June, 1965. The law and practice in both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions in Australia are in accord with the provisions of the Convention. Subject to the approval of the Federal Executive Council, the Government intends to lodge the instrument of ratification of this Convention with the Director-General of the International Labour Office as soon as possible, specifying that the minimum age for admission to employment underground in mines in Australia is 16 years.

Mr Whitlam:

– My colleague, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and I have for many years asked the successive Ministers for Labour and National Service to move, when tabling matters concerning International Labour Organisation conventions, that the House take note of them. I ask the . Minister whether he intends to pursue that course this time. I would point out that Prime Minister Menzies announced a procedure

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will ask the Minister about bis intention first. At this stage the Leader of the Opposition is speaking only with the indulgence of the Chair. Is it the intention of the Minister to move that the House take note of the paper?

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

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 3644

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, I present the first annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for the period 1st October 1970 to 30th June 1971.

page 3645

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

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

  1. Stage 5 Extensions of the Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin;
  2. Brucella Vaccine Testing Laboratory at Canberra, A.C.T.

I move:

That the reports be printed. l>r Patterson - The Opposition supports the motion. The Northern Territory -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 thought that the honourable member rose to oppose the motion that the reports be printed. The subject matter of the reports cannot be discussed on a motion for the printing of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Dawson wish to seek leave lo make a statement on the matter?

Dr Patterson:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Swartz:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition supports the proposed work in the Northern Territory. We are most pleased lo support the proposed plan to build a laboratory to test brucella vaccine. I am quite certain that all honourable members are aware of the danger that brucellosis presents to the health of all animals. I refer particularly to brucella abortus and, to a minor degree, to the other 2 strains, brucella meliterisis and brucella suis. The motton which has just been agreed to by the House has brought forward these proposals and plans and the reports on them by the Public Works Committee. I understand that the Opposition will bc given a chance at a later stage to develop and to examine the recommendations of the Public Works Committee.

page 3645

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

- Mr Speaker, as Chairman 1 present the 133rd report of the Public Accounts Committee. 1 seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GRAHAM:

– As honourable members will be aware, the Committee has, for many years, conducted combined inquiries relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer and expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but has tabled separate reports on both aspects of these inquiries. The 133rd report relates specifically to evidence taken by the Committee in connection with expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in 1970-71. In chapter I of the report, the Committee has stated that it has sought to ascertain during its inquiry whether or not the departments that required funds from the Advance to the Treasurer had maintained sufficient administration in the expenditure of funds under the items selected for public inquiry.

In considering this aspect of its inquiry, the Committee has taken into account the the change in financial policy which occurred in February 1971 and which was designed to achieve substantial reductions in Commonwealth departmental expenditure. This change in policy affected in many cases the amounts which departments might otherwise have sought in the additional Estimates and cases also occurred where, for unavoidable reasons, expenditure under particular items could not be contained at the levels set in February 1971. As a consequence, some departments had recourse to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in circumstances in which they might not otherwise have done so. Many of the explanations tendered by departments during our inquiry made reference to this change in financial policy with its necessary consequential effects on administrative practices and arrangements. In considering these explanations the Committee has sought to distinguish between the consequences arising from the change in financial policy and other circumstances which affected financial results and administrative performances.

The evidence taken during this inquiry has shown that in some cases expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made elsewhere in the appropriation legislation. In other cases, however, there was evidence of clerical errors, administrative oversights, failure to establish soundly based administrative arrangements between departments and procedural weaknesses within particular departments. There was also some evidence of a failure on the part of one department to render accounts for payment promptly to another department and a failure by departments to pay accounts promptly. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have arisen.

One disturbing feature to which the Committee would invite specific attention relates to the fact that in several cases amounts were charged to the Advance to the Treasurer without warrant authority in contravention of sub-regulation 1 of Treasury regulation 90 and that some of these overcharges were not detected until some time had elapsed after the close of the financial year. A further matter to which the Committee would again invite specific attention relates to the quality of evidence tendered by departments. While considerable improvement has been achieved in this regard by most departments in recent years, inadequacies persist and we would therefore again draw the attention of those concerned to memorandum 66/385 of 16th October 1970 issued to all permanent heads by the Secretary to the Treasury. That memorandum indicates clearly that written submissions and explanations required by the Public Accounts Committee should be carefully prepared and thoroughly checked for adequacy and accuracy of detail and absence of ambiguity.

Allied to this matter, the Committee would also draw attention to the fact that for many years its Secretary has issued notes relating to evidence for the guidance of departments appearing before it. These notes indicate the courses of action open to departments where errors are discovered by them in the written submissions that they have tendered. Arising from the evidence taken during the present inquiry, however, the Committee would emphasise that these courses of action do not provide for the amendment of evidence by a process of secret substitution. I commend the report to honourable members.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3646

WINE EXCISE

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I move -

That Parliament abolish wine excise because (a) the grape grower section of the industry is bearing, and is likely to bear, the main burden of the tax, (b). it has caused damage through being the most important factor in a strong downturn in sales and (c) it is largely self-defeating.

In the 1970 Budget for the first time an excise was brought down on table wines at the rate of 50c a gallon. I do not think that anybody doubted the right of the Government to so impose for revenue purposes a tax on an alcoholic beverage. In fact, as long as patterns of consumption were not disturbed it would not be a tax on the industry but on the consumer. All South Australian members of my Party made their views well and truly known at that time. But the consumption was disturbed and at the present time, in round figures, wine in stock - at the rate of 66 million gallons - is at a dangerous, all time high level considering the low intake from poor harvests during the last year. I will deal with storage capacity later.

Up to 25,000 tons of grapes could lie surplus in South Australia after the 1972 harvest. Consumption trends are down 11.5 per cent on the 1971 estimates, based on wholesale sale figures compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician, and down on assessed trends on clearance statistics for excise yielding purposes by 27 per cent. Whereas the Government budgeted for an excise yield, for the 10 months remaining in 1970-71, of $ 12.5m, the yield was only $9.25m. The industry growth prior to the advent of the tax had been about 1 1 .8 per cent per annum. Although the authentic figure is the clearance for excise figure, it will be my intention by and large during the next few minutes to use the less accurate but more conservative figure based on wholesale sale statistics. It is hard to attribute blame for this downturn in consumption to any factor other than excise. Its application could represent a tragic situation for growers of wine grapes in the coming harvest.

It was also a tragedy, in my view, that it was introduced as an excise or a tax on volume, and not as a tax on value. Thus, in one extreme instance - I stress the word extreme’ - a winery selling a 1,000 gallon tank of white wine at $1 a gallon pays excise at the rate of 50c a gallon on that wine as it moves from my State to, say, the Hunter Valley or perhaps from the area of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) to the Hunter Valley. There is a 50 per cent increase in price immediately, without any industry mark-up. By comparison, an expensive red wine, perhaps stored in wood for 2± years, or a bottle of champagne, rise in price by about 5 per cent over this period of time. So not only have the traditional cheap fortified wines been discriminated against but, worse still, so has the very growth factor of the industry - flagon table wines.

As the load on the industry was unevenly spread so did the excise discriminate more against some areas than others. The great table wine and champagne manufacturing companies could continue on their merry way relatively unhindered, but sales from those very firms responsible for the industry growth - the producers of bulk and flagon wines - have virtually had their sales brought to a standstill. The biggest single winery in Australia, in spite of immediate action to redirect and rationalise sales, has little capacity for the coming year’s harvest, nor have the other 3 co-operative factories around it. These firms are in my electorate and are owned by the community as shareholders. In spite of an enormous increase in advertising by the industry and by this firm, and in spite of a low intake last year, a growing surplus exists in the industry. The major cause of this surplus has been the downturn in sales, and the cause of this has been the altered competitive position brought about entirely by this excise. The storage statistics for all wines, excluding brandy and distillation wines, make plain the problem of an increasing surplus. I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table setting out these statistics.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr GILES:

– When they view these figures honourable members will “note that there is not a vast increase from one year to’ the next in terms of a surplus, but I would remind them that this is accounted for by the very low intake and poor harvest last year. It is also accounted for by the fact that traditionally over the years there has been a 20 per cent variation in either direction in terms of intake into wineries. It is also interesting to note the final figure of storage. The total of 66,491,000 gallons is much more than 3 times the current annual consumption. What was the Government’s intention in applying this excise? Was it to gain revenue? I think the clear answer to that is yes. Was it to dampen down wine consumption? Just as clearly I think the answer is no. In fact, a study of estimates for the excise yield - probably done by the Department of the Treasury - shows a figure of $ 12.5m, as I have already explained, for the year 1970-71 but the yield was only $9.25m. I maintain that those figures show clearly, firstly, that the intention was not to dampen consumption, and secondly, that the tax was to an extent self-defeating. In fact, it has been assessed by people other than myself that because the industry requested one week to pay after clearance, the Government lost $3m due to the extension of these terms to the beer industry. When other excisable items are taken into account it is not impossible that the Government actually lost revenue, particularly if the administrative costs of the collection of the wine excise are considered. So leaving aside for one minute the damage done to the industry, it is possible that the excise costs as much to collect as it yields. What a wonderful example of Parkinson’s law in operation if by chance it also takes more manpower to collect it.

I think the first mistake that perhaps the Government has made - certainly some of my colleagues in discussions with me have said this - is to compare an excise on wine with an excise on, say, tobacco or petrol. There are no clear competitors to petrol or tobacco and any initial consumer resistance is then fairly rapidly overcome once people have forgotten their intention not to drive the car more than once on a weekend or perhaps to give up smoking. Secondly if we look at beer, which is, of course, the most serious of wine’s competitors, particularly at flagon or bulk level, the supply of the raw material to the beer industry can quickly be equated with demand, it is adjustable, but this is not so in the case of wine grapes which are planted by a farmer as an investment in the future and he cannot control from year to year or from time to time the supply to meet an altered demand. The introduction of this excise was a tragedy to many people. Wine grapes are not annual crops like barley or sugar nor, ‘could I say, are they a fluid proposition such as water, the other ingredient in beer.

Wine grape plantings have been carried out mainly by private enterprise based on current trends of - consumption, and furthermore based on an industry economic study by the firm of P-E Consultant Group (Aust) Pty Ltd. These consultants made it very plain to the industry in contradistinction to Government advice on the subject that a surplus was not likely in the wine industry until the mid-1970s. This did not worry the industry very much because at that time it had not commenced any promotion scheme whatsoever. All honourable members will be well aware of the huge amount of money that has been poured into wine promotion, as luck would have it, since the excise was introduced by the Government in the 1970 Budget. So a loss of 11.3 per cent on anticipated trends, which I maintain is significant, may well now have been in excess of 20 per cent if it had not been for the industry’s own action in increasing promotion and advertising.

The next point I make is that the wine industry, in contradistinction to industries such as the beer industry, is a fully integrated industry. This means there is a clear relationship between the grower and perhaps the co-operative, or even the proprietor, and under these conditions the grower at the opposite end of the spectrum to the final retailer is the one who is going to receive the real handicap in terms of the action taken. Dairying, tobacco, sugar and even wheal - and now wool - are subsidised by the taxpayer. I am not now arguing that they should not be when manufacturing industries receive perhaps 4 or 5 times as much protection. But not only does the wine industry receive no help, it also suffers a positive disadvantage by having to stand an excise. The manufacturer is hurt by loss in turnover and increasing costs, but the grower of wine grapes faces the full onus of the levy if he cannot sell his grapes, grapes planted not as a crop, as I have explained, but as a long term investment based on growth trends of greater than 10 per cent per annum over a decade, growth based on a likelihood of greater consumption per head, as the figures I have would show. I seek leave once again to have incorporated in Hansard the figures showing wholesale sales per head of population.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr GILES:

– Those consumption figures clearly show increased plantings following those growth figures, thus the grower of wine grapes finds that his investment is placed in jeopardy by what I regard as a most unwise form of revenue grabbing. As one wine grower said to me recently: I cannot understand why the Government wants to wipe me out as an effective wine grape grower in order to then attempt rural reconstruction in my instance.” That, frankly, is how silly the excise seems to many people. So far South Australian growers have been hit in only 2 ways. Firstly, growers supplying most cooperatives are paid approximately SIS a ton door payment and usually 50 per cent of the total payment by the end of that financial year. The difference between the price set by the Prices Commissioner in South Australia and those payments is usually paid off in 3, perhaps 4, and in one case 5 years in annual instalments. Many shareholders in wineries are not now receiving these payments either wholly or partially. It was lack of income on these payments that I requested the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to inquire into prior to the Budget by reconvening the interdepartmental committee. The committee was reconvened, but from what I can gather it looked at some slightly different aspects of the problem. Secondly, the growers are hit due to inroads made into the competitive position of wine sales and subsequently consumer resistance leading to a large surplus of wines so that the Prices Commissioner in South Australia is unable, I believe - or so rumour says - to increase the prices of wine grapes significantly this year, in spite of a big upward movement in the cost of production.

Serious although these matters might be, they pale into virtual insignificance beside the likelihood of only limited capacity being available for the 1972 crop. In South Australia 7 co-operative companies took in the following tonnage of grapes: In 1970, 90,000 tons, 1971, 68,000 tons and in reply to a questionnaire sent out recently, demand for 1972 looks like being 50,000 tons. If this is so, and the harvest eventuates as forecast, then 20,000 to 25,000 tons of grapes will be unsold. This is the principal danger to growers, and it has been forced on them, I maintain, through a thoughtless form of action. Now that some danger has occurred, for goodness sake let us act before any further damage is realised. There is not one bit of damage that I forecast personally 12 months ago that has not been realised while we have waited around for the statistical information on which to base a case. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out wine consumption figures from 1964 to the present date.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr GILES:

– I would like to comment on these figures by saying that we had better look at the reason for limiting the accommodation for the 1972 crop. My time in this debate is running short, so I point out very briefly that the excise has cut consumption and there has not been a tendency to invest capital in increased storage. My second point is that over 3 year’s production of juice is in storage, which places a strain on the storage facilities. My third point is that scientific estimates show a huge harvest is due in this coming year and that production of all varieties of irrigated grapes will be up, with an above average crop of smaller bunches expected in the nonirrigated areas in my State. The Government says by way of argument that the trend to an industry surplus due to vertical integration was apparent before the excise was introduced. I have already argued against that situation but if we accept that I am wrong and the Government is right then it is fair enough to ask why the Government introduced an excise. If the problem was emerging then, why was the excise introduced? I maintain that there are grave illogicalities both in that example and in the Government’s attempt to explain a healthier sales trend by comparing the months of say September and October when everybody in the industry knows that there is an upward trend in sales during those months. If the Government is going to strike a comparison then for heavens sake strike it between the months of September and October of this year and the same months of last year, the year before and the year before that, because the industry feels that some injustice has been done to it by the types of answers given in another place to questions such as this.

J have attempted this morning in as moderate a fashion as I could to put forward a case to justify my motion which I regard as a good one. The excise, I think, is a thoroughly reprehensible, ill thought out piece of bureaucratic nonsense which is questionable as regards the effectiveness of its yield and is quite illogical in its application. My intention in future will be to reintroduce motions such as this one from time to time and until such time as this discriminatory form of tax is lifted or at least until consumer resistance, brought about by this action, is overcome. I commend my motion to the House and ask the Government to give relief along the lines 1 have suggested as rapidly as possible.

In the last minute available to me in this debate I will point out one more thing that bears on politics. After all, this is why we are here. One of my friends in the wine industry has for some time been in touch with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) but he has had no satisfaction as to whether the Australian Labor Party, if it were in power, would abolish this tax. I advise all people listening to this debate to be very wary before they fall for any hollow excuse which may be put forward by the Labor Party today. (Quorum formed.)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

Is the motion seconded?

Mr Kelly:

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). The wine industry is a major Australian primary industry with 150,000 acres sown to grapes. This is equivalent to the Australian fruit acreage and that indicates just how important this primary industry is. In the recent report of the Australian Wine Board presented to Parliament it was clearly stated that the 50c per gallon excise imposed by the Government in August 1970 had cost the sale of 2.4 million gallons during 1970-71. This is the first occasion that the Federal Government has imposed a direct tax on Australian wine. Before the 1970

Budget there was no tax on table wines and sparkling wines. This new excise duty is a heavy one and when it was introduced by the Government fears were expressed that it could cause a severe setback to the industry. An examination of the figures for 1970-71 indicates that the growth rate which averaged 11.8 per cent over the previous 5 years had been completely checked and that sales in 1 970-7 1 were well down on the 1969-70 figures.

The biggest effect that we see when we examine the situation has been in the retail bottle store sales of flagon and bottled wines. Total sales of wine in 1969-70 amounted to 24,385,001) gallons and industry leaders expected that sales would reach 26.8 million gallons in 1970-71. The halting of the growth rate alone has resulted in the loss of trade, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. Industry leaders met Federal Ministers earlier this year and pointed out to them the problems the industry faces and that this excise duty had caused a serious economic situation for growers and wine makers. In the 1970 Budget it was estimated that revenue from wine excise would be SI 2.5m in 1970-71. Preliminary figures which have been issued show that the amount raised by the tax was $9.25m.This represents a shortfall in revenue in 1970-71 equal to 6.5 million gallons of wine and it demonstrates the severity of this tax on the industry concerned. Further investigations show that there is a considerable surplus of wine within the industry which will reflect on the 1972 vintage intake, and this in turn could result in a surplus of grape tonnage. Indeed, an excess grape tonnage has already shown up in the industry.

The feeling among wine men from the Hunter Valley in my electorate to the Barossa Valley in South Australia is that the Government should not have imposed an excise tax on a rural industry which has shown prospects of high profitability and, above all, great export potential. These people feel that they are partly supporting other rural industries that are experiencing financial difficulties. These growers feel that if the tax remains it will probably be increased in future budgets, and this could eventually lead to a serious crisis for both growers and wineries. This has been the tendency of previous governments throughout Australia, of whatever political complexion. When a tax is brought in it is very difficult indeed to have it eliminated, and this is one of the fears which the growers and the wineries have. They feel that with the introduction of this excise the industry has been set back at least 2 years.

The wine growing industry is one which has developed over the years purely on its own initiative and drive and not on government subsidy, support or assistance. It has really developed over the last 5 years. Apart from Australian activity it has commenced to provide a valuable contribution to export earnings. Exports in 1970-71 totalled 1.4 million gallons compared wilh .1.3 million gallons in the previous year. Sales to Britain lifted marginally to 498,000 gallons, and Canada sales increased about 9,000 gallons to 476:201 gallons. But of course the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community will seriously affect Australian wine sales. There is likely to be a contraction of the United Kingdom market. There has, however, been some growth in exports to Canada, and these exports are to some extent compensating for the possible decline in exports to the United Kingdom. However there is great concern in the industry about the rapidly rising wine import figures. While Australia exports nearly 3 times as much wine as is imported, imports are growing rapidly. Italy is the main country which is exporting to Australia. These exports will have to be watched very carefully; otherwise they could have a very serious effect on the wine industry in this country.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– And on the balance of payments.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– And on the balance of payments, as my friend has indicated. Prior to the introduction of excise duty on wine, in my electorate great development was taking place and vineyards were being established at an accelerated rate, bringing a requirement of labour, materials and capital to the area. I can instance the great development that has taken place in the Branxton, Pokolbin, Broke, Cessnock area, at Muswellbrook, at Denman and in all parts of the Hunter Valley. There has been great expansion in this industry without any assistance from the Government.

Assistance has come from the local people, well established wineries such as Penfolds and others, and business people from the various cities, particularly Sydney, investing their capital.

Wine growing country is not the most fertile country in the world. A lot of the country now used for growing wine grapes was unused for other purposes but has been most successful in the productions of wine grapes. The Hunter Valley wines hold a very important place in the Australian wine industry because some wines produced there are amongst the finest and most distinctive in Australia. In 1963 the area in the Hunter Valley under wine grapes stood at 1,232 acres. By 1967 after the start of the boom it had reached 2,300 acres. This increased to 3,450 acres in 1969. In 1970, 3,000 additional acres were planted and it is predicted that this rate of expansion could continue for several years. Prior to the introduction of the excise duty it was anticipated that by 1975 the total area could be in excess of 12,000 acres. This is real development in a fine industry. It compares with 7,500 acres in the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area and 17,500 acres at present under wine grapes in the Barossa Valley of South Australia.

There is a high demand for Hunter Valley wines throughout Australia and sales have been excellent, but producers and those engaged in the industry are extremely concerned that the price of wine can be lifted to a figure which is out of reach of the buyers. This is very rauch so with the added costs of production - the wages, materials and land costs. Because of these high costs the producers of wine are very concerned with the resultant price that has to be charged for their product and the buyer resistance that could result. There is no doubt that the excise duty imposed has put a damper on the further development of a very fine industry. As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Angas, most primary industries receive Government assistance. The wool, wheat, dairying, sugar and tobacco industries are all subsidised primary industries and yet the wine industry is subject to an excise duty and receives no help from the Treasurer or the taxpayer. The growers have never asked for assistance. They have developed a fine industry on their own initiative and foresight. We should be helping the industry, not retarding it for purely revenue purposes. Look at the assistance given to the manufacturing industries. Tariff and other protections are given. The wine industry is clearly at a disadvantage when compared with these manufacturing and secondary industries.

With consumer resistance there could be large surpluses in the industry. This is evidenced by a record 66,491,000 gallons being stored at the present time, which represents on earlier figures quoted by me a 3 year supply of wine in this country. This is a situation which, if ‘these surpluses increase, will be a most serious one for growers and the industry to absorb and can bring a valuable and prosperous primary industry into financial difficulties. In view of the assistance that the Government gives to other primary industries, the Government could not well overlook the wine industry. It would have to help it financially. Assistance is something for which the wine growers and producers have never asked before, lt would be foreign to them. I ask the Government to give consideration to revising this excise tax which has been placed on the wine growers of this country.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– Thank you for the call, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I might say that I would be quite happy to yield to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) or the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) on this matter because the motion which has been moved is strictly in accordance with the principles and policies of the Australian Labor Party. So, there is no point in members of the Opposition prolonging the doubts as to where we stand. We will vote for the motion. The major matter before the House is whether the members who have spoken will vote for the motion and whether the Ministers would like to give us the benefit of the Government’s view on this revolt by its members this morning. I am happy to yield if either of the Ministers rise.

Mr Chipp:

– You know we always like to hear you.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I can see that the Ministers are running away from this matter. Of course, I do not blame them. They are carrying the can of me Government’s policy which, after a year, has proved to be completely and absolutely reprehensible. I remind honourable members that a year ago the Government took action against a primary industry which had asked the Government for no support, no subsidies and no special consideration.

One year and one month later, the chickens have come home to roost in this matter of wine excise, and pretty sick chooks they are. They too are suffering from a hangover after tasting the Government’s unpalatable brew. In defiance of the advice tendered by economic advisers of the industry itself, the Government introduced the first wine tax in the history of Australia. The only published evidence of its possible effects came from Dr J. Taplin and Mr W. Ryan, who examined the proposed tax and warned that price is a fairly effective regulator of consumption and predicted a 20 per cent drop in consumption if the tax were applied. The Opposition took the trouble to consult the economic data available. lt conferred with industry leaders and resolved unanimously that the tax should be rejected on the grounds that it could damage the industry to such an extent that the Government would be forced to use the proceeds, if any, of the tax to help rehabilitate the people who had been made to suffer because of the tax. 1 have the list of those members who voted for the tax. It includes the honourable members for Angas (Mr Giles), Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and Paterson (Mr O’Keeffe). The Opposition’s policy was clear and definite then and it is clear and definite now. The motion reflects our policy exactly. The answer by the honourable member for Angas on 13th October 1970 was to describe all our submissions, which he himself has made this morning, as nonsense. He repeated it twice to make sure we understood that he personally rejected all the points that we made - the same points which he has just made. He said that they were nonsense on 2 occasions. He accepted the wine tax and voted for it as did the remainder of the South Australian quartet comprising the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) and the honourable members for Wakefield and Boothby (Mr McLeay). It was a singularly silent quartet at that time and it has been silent in the period since. The silence of Dean Maitland has dominated the quartet on this subject. But the honourable member for Angas did indicate that if the Opposition were right and his Government were wrong, he would consider voting against his colleagues. The moment of truth has arrived. This is a test of his sincerity - indeed, of his honour - and I hope that he is worthy of the test. Only he can rescue his own credibility. We listened to the honourable member - 1 give him the credit for doing his homework in a specific and factual manner - indicate to the House exactly what has happened in the last 12 months and this was in accordance with what we indicated would be the case.

The situation is summed up very simply in the 43rd annual report of the Australian Wine Board which indicated that the estimated revenue of $12. 5m was actually $9.25m and that the shortfall in revenue in 1970-71 was equal to 6.5 million gallons Of wine at 50c a gallon excise. This helps to demonstrate the severity of the tax. The cutback in wine sales is acknowledged by all. The prospects are so grim that one South Australian industry authority believes that this will result in 100,000 tons of grapes being left on the vine to rot in the vintage from February to April next. So, the situation is not localised; it crosses State boundaries. However, let us be clear that in years of over-supply there could be a threat to 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the production of the area represented by the honourable member for Angas. Production could be surplus to requirements.

It is interesting to contrast the Government’s treatment of winegrowers to its treatment of the proposed increase in the excise on beer. It surrendered to brewery pressure. The breweries mounted a magnificent campaign and frightened the Government into dropping the increase. In fact, brewery profits have doubled in most cases, primarily at the expense of the wine industry. The utter stupidity of this tax is illustrated also by the findings of the South Australian Prices Commissioner. He examines all company balance sheets and profit and loss accounts each year. He found that the increase that wine makers could stand was probably no more than $5 a ton, so what did the Federal Government do but impose an excise of S75 a ton. No matter what price savings are made, the Federal Government has imposed an impossible burden.

Let me illustrate further how much the Government has put not a finger but a fist into the wine industry till. The bottle, which I have in my hand and which I purchased at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms half an hour ago, cost me $2.31. Of this amount, the grower receives 2c. The Government receives 4 times as much as the grower receives from the sale of this bottle.

Mr Daly:

– Why do you not incorporate it in Hansard?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I should like to incorporate it in Hansard, but not full. However, this is an indication of the extent and the severity of the impost. It costs lc to put the cork in the bottle and the grower receives 2c for each bottle but the Federal Government receives 4 times as much. That is a condemnation in itself - a silent condemnation, if you like. The disaster facing growers and winemakers is obvious; they have worn a track to Ministers telling them this. I thank the Acting Minister for Primary Industry for the glass he has put in front of me. It is the best gesture from the Government that I have had in 2 years.

What is the Government’s responsibility to the industry and to the growers? That master of cliches, the absent Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), admits that the wine excise must have had an impact and he has stated that the Government is keeping the tax under close review. But perhaps the best revelation of the Government’s real attitude was given by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Country Party, who is also absent, when he addressed the Clare show in South Australia and said:

While the Australian wine industry is having some problems, these problems are only associated with producers of lower quality wines. Manufacturers of good quality wines have little to worry about.

Within a few days, B. Seppelt and Sons Pty Ltd and S. Wynn (SA) Pty Ltd, nationally known wine makers, at their annual meetings, blamed the Government’s savage impost of excise for the fall in wine sales. The answer by the Deputy Prime Minister, who was one of those personally responsible for the tax, was to insult every wine maker in the nation, because they are all in this degree of trouble. He says you are all producing an inferior product. He has been called upon by industry spokesmen to apologise but he has not done so yet. The tragedy is that this is the answer by the Government and by the Deputy Prime Minister to the industry’s problems. Even visitors to the country can recognise the stupidity of the tax. Not the least among recent visitors was the Duke of Edinburgh. In a conversation with a wine man, he said: What is the effect of this new wine excise?’ The wine man said: ‘Very bad, especially on lower priced wines’. The Duke, obviously with a certain amount of foreknowledge said: ‘Do you mean it works out at 20 per cent on cheaper wines and 5 per cent on dearer wines?’ The wine man replied: Yes’. The Duke said: ‘A crazy system’. He docs not come to Australia often, but he conies often enough to identify the stupidity of this particular excise.

While the Government is hitting this industry - our industry and our growers - it has left the national doors open to a flood of foreign wines and spirits and has refused to take action to prevent obvious dumping in Australia by some foreign companies. Two million gallons of foreign wine have been imported into Australia since 1966-67. That constituted a loss to Australian wine growers of more than $lm. Brandy imports since June 1968 have exceeded 800,000 proof gallons, representing a loss of $1.3m. Yet, we have the absurd position of the Australian taxpayer subsidising overseas grape growers to the extent of $3 a ton. The industry has said very bluntly and definitely that if the Government is hungry for revenue there are other ways to raise it. If the Government is hungry for revenue it could have started with the flood of foreign wines and brandy; it could have tackled that matter first before it turned to the home industry. But no, the home industry in fact was the first to be attacked, despite all the advice. Then today we heard the honourable member for Angas, a Government supporter who voted for the tax, come back and say: Look, from my information and the information which has been furnished to me, I doubt whether the Government in fact is getting anything out of it at all. It could be losing revenue’. I give him full marks for his perspicacity 1 year and 1 month later. A convert is always welcome, and we hope that he will hold to his conversion when the testing time comes.

Lei me refer to another possible threat to growers of dual purpose grapes. These grapes are having difficulty now finding any home at all. The dried vine fruits industry is in serious trouble. By Government action the wine industry has been brought into serious difficulty. A considerable quantity of dual purpose grapes could have no home at all. I mention with some pride the fact that 90 per cent of the wine produced in the Slate of New South Wales and one-quarter of the light table wine produced in the nation comes from the town of Griffith and the surrounding district; and Griffith has a proud record for the quantity and quality of its wine. I can say also that we could see shortly anything up to 40 farms going under wine grapes, and those 40 farms happen to be associated with the Griffith Co-operative Cannery and the people who make it up. But a sentence of death has been imposed on this very useful institution which has forward sales, which has an up to date structure and which operates in an efficient manner.

The Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), who is presently in the chamber, has seen the telegram which came in just a few minutes ago. It contained an urgent request for representatives from the Griffith Co-operative Cannery to interview the Minister to determine what financial assistance the Commonwealth Government is now prepared to offer the Griffith Co-operative Cannery following the recent second refusal by the New South Wales State Government to assist in the present crisis. This is an incredible situation. A sentence of death is being passed on an efficient unit of production. This efficient unit of production already has forward sales, it has assets over liabilities, ‘jut it has been sentenced to death at this stage by the Premier of New South Wales. We hope that the sentence of death that he has passed will be commuted by the Federal Government in this instance because here again is another example of where the rural crisis has been deepened by Government action or inaction.

I find the situation at which we have arrived today very refreshing. I do not pour scorn on Government supporters who have found their consciences this morning, not at all. The submission made by the honourable member for Angas who moved the motion is in accordance with Opposition policy. The submission of the honourable member for Wakefield, who seconded the motion is in accordance with Opposition policy. The submission of the honourable member for Paterson, who supported the motion, is in accordance with Opposition policy. I think that this is very good and refreshing, and I would hope that their words will be matched by actions. But we have a sorry story. Let me emphasise again that there has never been any doubt as to our attitude or as to where our policy was and where it stands today. Anyone who suggests differently has only to refer to the annals of this House. Our policy is clear and definite.

Mr Giles:

– You are prevaricating.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Actions speak louder than words. There has been a betrayal of the wine industry by those who have had the honour lo represent it so far. These people have the chance to redeem their honour and their responsibility to the people they represent. As I say again, the moment of truth for them is now. ff they vote for the excise for a second time they should face their electors and tell them why. They can no longer run away from their clear responsibility to condemn the tax and to vote against it.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make it clear right from the outset that I do not support this motion, as it has been put forward. Nor can I, for reasons which will be immediately apparent, regard the present tax as an ill-considered piece of bureaucratic nonsense. That point T wish to make in the first instance. Secondly, if I may, I should like to comment on the remarks of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). It was noticeable that when this motion was first brought on not one member of the Opposition appeared to consider it of sufficient importance to put his name down on the Speaker’s list. It was a virgin list, as far as the Opposition was concerned though I would not now regard it as a virgin list, after listening to the speech of the honourable member for the Riverina. After all, he told us that actions speak louder than words. So far he appears to be the only speaker from the Opposition side. The first thing he did was to try to gag the debate and suggest that there should be no further speakers in it. It is noticeable that there are no Opposition speakers from the State of South Australia - the State which is alleged to be so badly affected by this legislation. Therefore, I believe that this is evidence that there is no real interest by the Opposition in this matter, and there appears to be no interest by honourable members opposite who come from South Australia. This seems to bear out the suggestion made by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) that the industry in South Australia has been unable to receive a clear answer from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) as to what the Opposition’s policy will be. I do not know whether that is true or not, but it has been alleged by the honourable member for Angas, and the actions today at least lend some colour to it.

I have 2 reasons for speaking. The first is that I feel and accept a great measure of responsibility because the measure imposing the excise was introduced by a government which I led. I want that to be thoroughly understood by the House. Nor do I think it at all wrong that an alcoholic beverage such as wine should be subjected to the same kind of taxation, or at least to taxation, as are the competitors of wine - beer, whisky and other spirits. Why should one alcoholic beverage be selected to be. free from what is imposed upon its competitors? Secondly, I would suggest - this has been argued very often, and it is of course true - that what happens in the wine industry gravely affects primary producers who produce the grapes from which wine and other spirits are made. That is quite true. But it is also true that what happens in the beer industry affects primary producers who produce barley, malt and the other primary products from which such beverages are made. So there is no significant difference in these respects. I would go further and say that for those reasons I do not think it wrong that a tax should have been imposed on this beverage. I do not believe that the results of the excise which was imposed have been such as have been suggested by the honourable member for Riverina and other speakers. I say that for this reason: The excise imposed was the equivalent of 8c a bottle, and the honourable member for Riverina admits that. He says that the Government gets 8c a bottle out of it. But as a result of the imposition of excise of 8c a bottle, the vignerons, the sellers of wine, raised the price of a bottle not by 8c but by 15c.

Mr Grassby:

– But you put it on at the wrong end.

Mr GORTON:

– They put it on, we did not; they raised the price by 15c, not by 8c, and this clearly has an effect.

Mr Grassby:

– You put it on at the end, not at the beginning.

Mr GORTON:

– We did not put it on; they put it on. That is the point. Further, on the half flagon - and it is really the bulk sale of wine in half flagons and flagons which has most been affected - the excise imposed by the Government was 25c, which was immediately raised by the sellers to 45c a half flagon. So if there has been a considerable increase in price, and of course there has because these initial impositions have mark-ups-

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

– Order! As it is now 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Nixon) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of notices be extended until 12.45 p.m.

Mr GORTON:

– I was pointing out that not only has this initial imposition been put on, very largely not by the Government but by the growers, but that as a result of that there is a mark-up all the way through until the final consumer and that is why the end price of wine to the consumer has risen so greatly. That being so, I think it quite improper to suggest that the end price has risen solely because of which I have spoken.

Furthermore, I believe that the sales of wine have not in fact dropped. What is true to say is that there has not been an increasing demand for wine year by year such as there has been in the past and that the grape growers and the wine industry can properly claim to have been suffering from the fact that there has not been an increase in demand rather than that that demand has been diminishing. This needs to be taken into consideration by the Government when looking at this matter.

So I would say this: Not because of what the Government has done but because of what has been done by the vignerons and by the sellers and by the mark-ups since then, there has probably been an effect on the demand for wine, particularly wine in half flagons and in flagons; and that this in turn has reflected back not on the wine houses, not on the great names who bottle wine, but on the grape growers in areas where wine is sold very largely in half flagons or flagons. If that is so, I think that the time has come when the Government could well, when considering its next Budget, examine the effects on the wine industry of the factors I have suggested, consider alternative methods of raising taxation on wine because wine should not be free of tax, and perhaps put a paper before the Parliament or before members showing the pros and cons of different ways of raising tax on wines. It could well be - and I know that there are difficulties in this - that a retail sales tax on wine might bring in as much revenue as the excise at present does; that the tax would be imposed at the end point of sale rather than at the beginning and there would therefore be no mark-ups. That might well stimulate the sale of half flagons and flagons of wine over and above what is at present the result.

I am not advocating at this stage thai this should be done - this imposition of a retail sales tax - but I am advocating that the Government, in formulating its “next Budget, should give full consideration to whether it might produce as much revenue and lower the price of wine. Perhaps the Government also could let us know - because I do not at this stage know - whether in fact that would be a better way of doing it or not. For the moment I cannot support the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas. Knowing the work that was put into this matter by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) and by other honourable Ministers and the long hours spent with officials in reaching the modus operandi of this, I know that it was not an ill thought out piece of bureaucratic introduction.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the motion ‘ moved by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). I am glad to know that the honourable member has changed, his mind on this question because he was among the Government supporters who voted for the imposition of the tax when it was first introduced and until now he has given no indication of any disapproval of the Government’s action. The honourable member tor Angas, like any other member of this Parliament who knows anything at all about the wine industry, knows perfectly well that the industry is almost the only primary industry left that is able to stand on its own feet.

Mr Nixon:

– What about beef?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I said ‘almost”. Beef is another industry but wine is almost the only one. The number of prim acy industries that aTe able to stand on their own feet without government assistance are dwindling in number all the time. Indeed, literally thousands of secondary industries are able to stand on their own feet only because of a great deal of government assistance they receive by means of tariff protection.

Australia produces the finest wines in the world. Our wines are infinitely better than wines that are produced on the Continent in spite of what people from the continental countries might say. Yet, this wonderful Australian industry, which dates back to 1840. and perhaps even before that year - In South Australia the industry dates back almost to the foundation of the colony - is being crippled by a tax that is not yielding good returns of revenue.

Mr Grassby:

– The Goverment will lose revenue.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In fact, it is losing revenue. I want to congratulate the honourable member for Riverina on the magnificent exposition of the Government’s weak position which he has given to the Parliament. There is no honourable member in this Parliament who has stated the case for the wine growers and the wine makers so eloquently and with such compelling logic as the honourable member for Riverina has consistently done ever since he has come here. The wine growers and the grape growers of Australia have in the honourable member the most effective representative that this Parliament has ever seen. Never before have we seen an honourable member who has graced this chamber with such eloquence on behalf of these people.

Let us have a look at the ridiculous situation we have in Australia in respect of the wine industry. We have a flat imposition of excise duty on wine which means that cheap wine, when the excise was first introduced, carried a burden of up to 33 per cent. This was the percentage rate of the tax which was placed upon cheap wine, the wine that the ordinary working man has to drink. The only wine that the ordinary working man can afford to consume usually is flagon wine. When this imposition was first placed upon wine he had to pay a tax of the order of 30 per cent. According to the honourable member for Riverina, the ordinary man still has to pay; 1 think, 25 per cent. Is that what the bon.ourable member for Riverina said?

Mr Grassby:

– The tax here gives the Government 4 times what the grower gets out of that bottle.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the tax on a flagon?

Mr Grassby:

– On a flagon it is 20 per cent. :

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am obliged to the honourable member for that information.

Mr Giles:

– It is 50 per cent in some cases.

Mr Grassby:

– That is right, in some cases it is 50 per cent.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As we have heard, in some cases it is 50 per cent. I notice that the honourable member for Angas has interjected to say mat the imposition in some cases is 50 per cent. Therefore, although my original statement of 30 per cent sounded outrageous when it fell from my lips, I now realise that this was an understatement of the true position. Expressed as a percentage, what is a tax of 8c on a bottle of expensive imported French or Italian wine? It would be about 1 per cent or 2 per cent. Therefore, it is just outrageous and indefensible for this Government to carry on with the present situation.

I am of the opinion, and no-one will convince me to the contrary, that the Government’s sole reason for introducing this tax on wine was to placate its wealthy backers from the brewery interests. Everybody knows that the breweries of Australia are heavy contributors to the Government’s campaign funds, and why would they not be? Why would they not want to see this Government returned year after year when through this Government they are able to cripple their competitors? They are crippling their competitors in the wine industry in this way. The former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), gave the game away only a few moments ago when he said that it was not fair to have a tax imposed on one kind of alcoholic beverage and not upon another.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. Is it in order to point out to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the breweries make beer, which is drunk by the workers, who are represented by members of his Party?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Griffiths will resume his seat. I would remind him that I suggested last night that the honourable member for Chifley should read the Standing Orders and discover what is a point of order. I suggest that the honourable member for Griffiths does the same thing, and 1 give a general warning to the House in relation to the practice that has sprung up of purporting to take points of order when in fact no points of order are involved. I suggested last night that if the pursuit of this practice interrupts the business of the House the Chair will take action. I regret that the honourable member for Griffiths has taken this point of order today. I make that general comment to the House in regard to the many points of order that are being taken by honourable members and suggest that honourable members read the Standing Orders so that they will know when they are permitted to take a point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Unlike the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), we on this side of the House believe in supporting Australian products. We do not believe in travelling on some foreign airline when our own Qantas airline is available.

We do not believe in supporting some industry that is in competition with our own good, healthy, solid, earthy Australian industry. There is a significant development in the wine industry of which we should take notice, and that is the takeover of well-established Australian wine industries by foreign investors. In another 5 years there may not be many wineries left that will be owned by Australians. When that day comes perhaps the quality of the wine will deteriorate because no longer will the family wineries that we have in the industry today be there to maintain the recognised standards of wine making. In South Australia there are many little wineries today. Pirramimma is one in South Australia of which I know that is owned by one family, lt is one winery which uses the very best methods for producing wine, irrespective of the profit motive that might otherwise compel it to use less scientific means. These little family industries will not be able to continue much longer if the impost that there is now on wine is allowed to remain.

I hope that the Government will allow a vote to be taken on this matter. If it is sincere it will insist upon a vote today, and if the honourable member for Angas is sincere he will vote with the Opposition or allow the Opposition to support him in his motion. The grape growing industry in Australia is one of the greatest primary industries we have left. It is one of the few that do not appear to be withering on the vine. But it will soon wither on the vine if the Government persists with this stupid, inexplicable attitude towards the imposition of this tax upon wines. I do not need to say any more about this matter. The honourable member for Riverina has covered the matter so well that there is no need for anybody to speak further on the subject. I have much pleasure in supporting the honourable member for Angas and I hope that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who is looking at me now and who, I hope, understands the value of the industry, will vote for the motion when the vote is taken.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– This debate so far has been quite interesting not so much from the subject matter itself as from the attitudes that have been expressed. Opposition speakers have questioned the courage of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), as a member of the Government, in talcing certain action. I for one congratulate him on the courage he has shown in moving this motion and enabling a debate to ensure. But I also congratulate the Government for being a tolerant, democratic and responsible Government and allowing a motion critical of the Government’s performance to be moved by one of its members. Some honourable members opposite have been making statements about courage, but when one looks at their own activities this is something which seems, to be very lacking. There are few, apart from the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who have had the courage publicly to question any of their Party’s policies. Of course, the honourable member for Grayndler questioned his Party’s immigration policy and he had very good reason to question it in view of some of his Party’s policies which seem to be shunted around at the present time. The Opposition has also raised the point of outside influence on the Government, lt should be the last to talk about outside influence. I can remember some talk only recently, about penal sanctions and other matters relative to the arbitration system, that was immediately shut up by a very little bit of outside influence.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order. With deference to your recent remarks on points of order, is it in order for the honourable member for Murray to divert from the subject under discussion to discuss industrial policy? Will you pull him back into gear?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Murray that he make no more than a passing reference to this subject, as has been done by other honourable members.

Mr LLOYD:

– It was only a passing reference because that is all it deserves. The question involved here is one of rural policy because it relates to excise duty on a product of a rural industry. The point made by the honourable member (or Angas as to what the Australian Labor Party would do if it was in Government is a very interesting point, because what some honourable members opposite say as members of the Opposition could be completely different from what they would say if the Labor Party were the Government. A statement by the leading spokesman for the Opposition on rural affairs, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), after the Australian Labor Party conference in Launceston should make people think a little more about this matter of what the Labor Party would do or be capable of doing in regard to rural policy matters, such as the wine excise, if it were in government.

Mr Kelly:

– Could you give us details of that?

Mr LLOYD:

– I do not think it is worth giving details about because the Opposition never gets down to specific matters such as the wine excise; it just waffles on. As the honourable member for Dawson has said, the majority of members of his Party are against rural affairs altogether. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster), who is interjecting, should look at some of the statements made by his colleagues in the Senate about too much support being given to the wool industry.

Mr Foster:

– So it is, too. You are not giving any support at all; you are ruining it.

Mr Turnbull:

– 1 rise to order. This is a legitimate point of order which I have raised in (his House on many occasions. No honourable member should be put in the position in which I am of having interjections shouted into his ear all the time.

Mr Foster:

– He is at it again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Turnbull:

– He is the one who is at it again yelling out in my ear, as he is doing all the time. I will not put up with it and I will raise points of order every time I can. I wish he would keep quiet.

Mr Foster:

– I have not interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LLOYD:

– The only support which the Opposition would give to wool would be to use it to pull over the eyes of its members.

Mr Kirwan:

– I rise to order. The honourable member has spoken for 5 minutes and has not made reference once to the wine industry. He should be made to address himself to the motion before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would suggest to the honourable member for Forrest that the honourable member for Murray is relating the tax matters involved here to other subjects. I would suggest also to the honourable member for Murray that he do not make these other matters the subject of his speech.

Mr LLOYD:

– In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than anybody else, I will relate my remarks to this debate in more detail. Before doing so, I wish to make a couple of comments on the speech made by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). The right honourable member did quote some of the price increases that had occurred since the excise was introduced. He referred to the mark up that took place on bottles of wine and on certain half flagons of wine. He said that it was not only the excise which had increased prices. The first point that I make on his speech is that the moment taxes are increased or an excise is imposed the possibility for retailers to increase their margins is opened up. While this may help the retailer, at the same time, it certainly does not help the grower. In this debate I would speak for the grower rather than for the retailer. The point was made that the price of half flagons increased by a certain amount. I think that, if checks are made as to what the grower who actually produces the flagon wine receives, particularly where the grower is selling at his own door or is selling to somebody else for retailing, they will reveal that he is not receiving any mark up and that the mark up occurs further along the line in retailing.

I certainly would agree that the excise that was introduced was wrong, if for no other reason than that it was too severe. To introduce overnight an excise which will increase the price for some bulk flagon wines, leaving aside at all any mark up, by 50 per cent in an industry which is accustomed - and I think rightly accustomed - to a certain growth rate and which is planning on that growth rate, must cause dislocation in that industry. Therefore, if the Government was right in introducing the excise - I am not saying that it was - the excise should have been at a far lower rate than the severe rate which was imposed in the first instance. I know that it would be wrong to say that any industry as large and as varied as the wine industry would not have some problems of its own making and that all blame for current problems could be put on the wine excise. The plantings of superior varieties of wine grapes are certainly a factor which complicate matters in the industry. The vertical integration that has taken place within the industry to a certain extent either by marketing people buying vineyards or by winery operators becoming their own selling agents and increasing their own plantings so that they no longer buy in bulk from a co-operative or from a grower and also the possible over production with increased acreages of vines being planted in such areas as the Hunter Valley, as the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) mentioned, are factors to be considered.

As (he honourable member for Angas pointed out, the wine industry felt that it had this situation in hand because of the growth in consumption which it had every right to expect would continue, and because of the increased advertising which it had embarked upon. I believe that the wine excise has caused several problems. Firstly, it has stopped the upward trend in wine consumption. The figures for last year showed this to be the fact. Secondly, it has damaged and dislocated the structure of the wine industry. It has dislocated the structure in the sense that that section of the industry which sells flagons has been hurt whereas other sections of the industry have not been hurt very much if at all. I refer specifically to the high price table wine section. I think that the honourable member for Angas referred to the fact that the wine excise works out at approximately 5 per cent on a bottle of table wine but up to 50 per cent on flagons. It has dislocated the structure because it has made less competitive with other forms of alcoholic beverages the cheaper forms of fortified wines such as sherries which are sold in flagons. It has dislocated the industry also because of the effect that it has had at grower level. The grower is the person least able at the present time in the industry to take some of these knocks.

I wish to quote from an article entitled Smaller wine firms face a cash squeeze’, which appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 22nd August 1971 and which was written by Mr Jim McCausland. The article reads:

The smaller grape growers face immediate and long-range problems. Australian wine makers grow only 15 per cent of their grapes. The other 85 per cent is grown by independent and usually small companies.

Most of the smaller grape growers, principally in South Australia, which produce 70 per cent of Australia’s wine, belong to the large co-operatives, such as Berri, Renmark and Loxton, who process the grapes and market the wine.

But because the excise tas continues and demand slackens, the co-operatives will have trouble selling the wine and will subsequently be unable to accept grapes from the small growers.

Another dislocation caused by the wine excise has been the dangerous build-up in wine stocks. At the present time, allowing for :i 2-year holding period, 3 years wine consumption is in stock. With respect to while wines, one does noi wish to hold white wines for that period, if for any period at all. This stock is held in spite of a poor harvest last year. I am told by several wine growers that by the show of bunches at the present time the prospects are for a big harvest this year. This will complicate the problem because with a good harvest approaching the industry must face the inability of the wineries to take in as much wine because of the buildup in stocks at this time.

The wine industry embarked on a most expensive advertising campaign during the summer months between November and February of 1970-71. I believe that this advertising campaign to promote white table wines cost $150,000. I think that, as the honourable member for Angas pointed out, without this advertising campaign wine consumption figures in Australia would have been lower than they are. The success of this campaign is reflected in the fact that white fable wine sales increased. The fact that they increased means that the drop in projected sales for the other types of wines was even greater than the figures show.

What can this cause? I believe that the result of this excise can be a greater cost to the Government because more rural reconstruction will be forced on grape growers and this will cost the Government more than it will receive in income from the excise. It will cause also further complications because the quantity of sultanas used in wine making dropped from 80,000 tons in 1969-70 to 41,000 tons in 1970-71. The figures that I have quoted come from the annual report of the Australian Wine Board. The use of sultanas could drop even further this season if, as is expected, the United Kingdom enters the European Economic Community. Not only will our wine sales to the United Kingdom drop further than they have already but also o-.ir dried vine fruit sales to the United Kingdom may be expected to fall because of the associate status of several other dried fruit producing countries.

If the sultana grape cannot be made into wine it could he forced back into dried fruit production at a time when the dried fruits industry is less and less able to accept this further intake of sultanas. I believe that this will complicate even further the situation in which increased reconstruction will be requited by some of these unfortunate growers.. This stale of affairs has been spurred on by the imposition of this excise. I hope that, in the next Budget, the Government will do something to alleviate the present position either by abolishing the excise completely or by reducing it at least to a level which will demonstrate in time that the cost to the consumer has not been increased to such an extent that the result will continue to be a reduction in consumption, because this is what has happened up to the present time with this excise.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition wishes to make quite clear that the Australian Labor Party opposed the legislation which introduced this excise on wine following the announcement of the imposition of that excise in the Budget Speech in 1970-71. Every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the Australian Country Party voted in favour of this vicious, unjustified tax. Let it be made quite clear right from the start that the tax - that is all it is - was supported by every member of the Country Party and particularly by honourable members opposite who have spoken today. It was supported by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who is now making a great stand and electoral play about being opposed to the tax. Of course, the wine grape growers in his electorate and in other electorates have revolted because they know, as the Opposition knows, that this tax should not have been imposed at that point of time.

If the Government and the Treasury had done their homework they would have seen that already there was a downturn in the rate of growth as regards sales. This is important. Any government that deliberately defies these trends without going into the reasons for them deserves the censure of the people and the censure of this House. The Government is the Cabinet, no: the backbench members of the Liberal and Country Parties. The Government, as strictly defined, deserves censure. Now, because the pressure is on, its supporters ar- squealing. I have waited patiently for the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (M” Nixon) or the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) to get up and answer the charges that have been levelled a* the Government by the honourable member for Angas, by members on both sides of this Parliament and particularly by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby). But we have a wall of silence.

Mr Chipp:

– I just rose and you beat me to it.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It was my turn to get up. You had all morning to get up. The Minister for Customs and Excise is worrying about the fact that he did not set up before. Now that I have challenged him he wants to get up. Rarely have we -seen in this Parliament such blatant acts of hypocrisy as we have seen today.

Mr Chipp:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark alleging hypocrisy on the part of the members who have spoken. It is a direct allegation against those persons.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I said ‘of the Government’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Dawson said: ‘Where have we seen greater hypocrisy?’ He did not name any particular honourable member. Whatever might have been the implication, it is not the province of the Chair to take an implication. If the Chair did that, I feel that the Chair would be involved in the implication. Therefore I feel that, while the remark might have been unwise, there is nothing that the Chair can do in this particular situation.

Dr PATTERSON:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the ruling. I believe it is the correct one.

Mr Daly:

– Congratulate him on his wisdom.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Angas, the honourable member for Paterson - so that the listeners do not think that is me I will tell them that he is Mr O’Keefe - the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who seconded the motion although he did not speak - I assume he must agree with it - have deliberately and blatantly gone back on the aci ion they took only several months ago.

Mr Lloyd:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. 1 was not in the House when that decision was made.

Dr PATTERSON:

– We have seen today-

Mr Lloyd:

– A point of order. Will my name bc withdrawn from that statement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Murray says that he was not in the House at the lime.

Dr PATTERSON:

– When the vote was taken?

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The voting list in Hansard at page 2054 shows that on 13th October the member for Murray did vote in favour of the measure.

Mr Lloyd:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This excise was brought in in the 1970 Budget. T. was not here at that time.

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order - the member for Murray was.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Murray has raised a point of order in relation to his situation in regard to this Bill. I suggest that the honourable member for Dawson might clarify the situation.

Dr PATTERSON:

– If that is the case, 1 will do so. The member for Murray did vote for it. Certainly we accept that. Let me reiterate the points that have been made in this debate. This vicious tax has imposed an unjustifiable burden on the economic position not only of primary producers but also of those unfortunate people who have to pay exorbitant prices for Australian wines. There is no need for this. Why does the Government not take some action against imported wines? The LiberalCountry Party Government is supposed to protect the interests of primary producers. If ever any measure before this House sold out the primary producers this one does. It is quite clear that the only member from the Government side who has had the courage to defend the Government’s action has been the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). Every other Government speaker has condemned the issue.

It is quite clear that if the Government does not review and revise its position and if it does not immediately repeal this vicious tax then more and more wine grape growers are going to be in serious trouble. As the level of growth of economic activity in this country lessens the spending power or the consumers’ ability to purchase the same amount of wine decreases because of the increase in price. What this Government has done is ruthlessly to exploit the growers and the consumers. Anybody who studies economics knows that the supply is inelastic because the vines are there and they have to produce the wine irrespective of the price unless they want to go broke. The same thing applies to the people who consume the wine. My friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said that the consumers are the working people and the business people of Australia and they are being singled out deliberately by the Government.

Mr Chipp:

– I do not notice any praise for your opponent, Mr Grassby.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Calm down. It is quite clear that the wine industry, the growers to a man, and the consumers of wine all want this vicious tax to be lifted. Obviously this must be tested in the Parliament by a vote. The honourable member for Angas has made it quite clear-

Mr Chipp:

– Two Ministers want to speak on it.

Dr PATTERSON:

-I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The question is-

Mr Chipp:

– On a point of order, the honourable member for Dawson just slated that I have spoken inthe debate. That statement is not true, and I want it withdrawn.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

TheHousedivided

Mr Deputy Speaker ( Mr P. E. Lucock)

Ayes . . . . . . 52

Noes . . . . . . 57

Majority . . 5

In division:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)That is not a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for precedence to general business has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under general business for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3664

PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Ministerial Statement

Mr MCMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - In my recent statement to the House on my overseas visit, I mentioned the representations which 1 made in London on the problems for Papua New Guinea arising from British entry to the European Economic Community. I am now pleased to be able to inform the House about the successful conclusion of negotiations on behalf of Papua New Guinea. The British Government has accepted an offer from the Six under which exports originating in Papua New Guinea will be able to enter the United Kingdom until 1st January 1978, under the conditions which apply at the time of British accession to the Community. The offer also provides for review of these arrangements. In making these arrangements for the Territory, the Community has stressed the exceptional features of the Papua New Guinea position both from the point of view of its international status and from that of its economic strength. In accepting the offer by the Six, the British Government expressed its confidence that the Community would make reasonable arrangements for Papua New Guinea in the context of any review. 1 am sure the House will join with me in expressing appreciation for the special efforts made by the European Economic Community to recognise and provide for the unique needs of Papua New Guinea.

I present the following paper:

Papua New Guinea and the European Economic

Community - Ministerial Statement, 25th

November 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Opposition welcomes the statement, lt would have been helpful if the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had given us some indication of what this would specifically mean to Papua New Guinea in terms of value of trade. The treatment of Papua New Guinea in this matter is perhaps not exceptional. The European Economic Community offers no particular barriers to countries of tropical agriculture and 1 presume that this decision means that New Guinea coffee, cocoa, tea, rubber and one or two other tropical products, including tropical fruits, can enter the EEC market. In this respect the position of Papua New Guinea is parallel with a good many tropical African countries and with the West Indies but that rights of entry have been extended to Papua New Guinea is very welcome, lt could be that in the future an expansion of trade will develop between Papua New Guinea and the EEC. This is one step which will help to make an independent Papua New Guinea viable in the future. As such we are glad to receive the news.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3664

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

-I move:

The reason for moving the suspension of the Standing Orders is that it was evident just prior to the suspension of the sitting that both the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) and the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) wished to speak to the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). After I had risen to my feet both Ministers gave an indication that they wished to speak. Also I believe other honourable members on both sides of the House want to express their opinions on this most important subject. I do not wish to debate the issue but the issue is important and there can be no question that there is a need to finalise it.

A motion was put this morning by the honourable member for Angas and a debate took place. Under the Standing Orders the debate had to be discontinued at 12.45 p.m. At that time I attempted to move the suspension of the Standing Orders but because of some confusion at the chair at the time there was some uncertainty as to whether I could move that motion at that point of time. I would think that an important issue has arisen in regard to the Standing Orders because it would seem that if we ever reach this position again under the Standing Orders the Speaker must at 12.45 p.m. interrupt the debate and under no circumstances may any honourable member move for the suspension of the Standing Orders. By the time I walk from where I sit to the table it is too late anyway. I had only one alternative and that was to rise from where I was seated right next to the chair and nsk that the Standing Orders be suspended. But in fairness to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), who occupied the chair at the time, there was some confusion and this is the reason why 1 have now moved this motion.

It is essential that this debate bc continued. It is essential that the honourable member for Angas who moved this motion be given the opportunity to have honourable members from both sides of the Parliament vote on this motion, and particularly the members of the Australian Country Party and also the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who seconded the earlier motion, to enable them to express their opinions in this House. If they vote against this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders everybody in this Parliament will know exactly what sort of people they are.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I wish to second the motion. Like other honourable members on this side of the House I was somewhat concerned at the inability of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) to give us their views on this important subject. I know that the Minister for Customs and Excise was really disturbed when he was seated at the table. He even stood up to take the call from the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). The Minister said: ‘I desire to express my views on this matter.’ It is only fair to let a man bursting with knowledge on this subject express his views in this Parliament.

This motion from this side of the House comes more in a desire to let Government supporters exercise their freedom and right to vote on an issue about which they say they are concerned. If it is true that Government supporters have views on this matter and they can vote as they wish, what a splendid opportunity they have to exercise that tolerant and democratic process about which the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) spoke when he said that an honourable member was entitled to move such a motion as this. I support the motion to suspend the Standing Orders because I cannot think of a greater insult to such a dedicated defender of wine growers and producers as the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) than being denied the right to express in this Parliament, in a most democratic way, where he stands by voting on the motion he moved. What more democratic approach could there be to this problem? I listened to the honourable member today and for once I felt that he was sincere. He even appealed for a bipartisan policy on wine excise. Government supporters said, in effect, that what we were saying was right.

Why not give to these gentlemen opposite the opportunity to do for their electors what they say they want to do. When all is said and done it is of no use sham fighting on this issue. The honourable member for Angas said that it was a matter of great concern lo his district and to the great State of South Australia. I almost wept when I heard the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) speak.. He too was moved. Having looked at the Hansard record, which is full of their names as having voted for the excise, I thought that they had repented. Let us have a vote on it.

Mr Lloyd:

– 1 rise to a point of order. Earlier today I was misquoted by the same honourable gentleman and I do not particularly want to be misquoted again. He referred to the Hansard report and my name has just been mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

– I did not intend to offend the honourable member but this is an excellent opportunity for him to let the House know how he will vote on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Grayndler that the question before the House is the suspension of Standing Orders, not the attitude of individual people or how they will vote in relation to a matter. I suggest that the honourable member confine himself to the motion before the Chair.

Mr DALY:

– You know, Mr Speaker, that 1 always accept your kindly rebukes in the spirit in which they are given, and I accept the one on this occasion also because I know from long experience that in your position you are not a man to be argued with. I want to be brief and finish off on this note: I summarise our position by saying that we are moving for the suspension of Standing Orders in the interest of the Government, which says that it believes sincerely in the matter that has been proposed by the honourable member for Angas. We have no desire to curtail expulsion of opinion by the 2 Ministers who, as 1 mentioned earlier, are evidently bursting with knowledge on this subject. I would not like to see the members of the Country Party denied the opportunity to speak for the primary producers in an effective way by voting in this Parliament. I would like to see them particularly give expression to an intelligent vote for once by voting for Labor policy. If our motion is carried it will present them wi’.h such an opportunity, and that is why it has been moved.

The motion is to suspend Standing Orders so that we proceed to debate this measure until a vote is taken and we know precisely where all members of the Parliament stand. That is the sole basis of the motion. The case for the suspension of Standing Orders has been ably put from this side of the Parliament and honourable members opposite have said that they support our point of view. Why then is there not general agreement? Let this motion bc carried on the voices. Let us all vote as a united parliament to see that justice is given to those who produce this great and spiritual product, wine. I hope the House will support me in that point of view. I would like to hear now the Minister for Customs and Excise give his view on this important measure. Today in this Parliament he has rivalled the silence of Dean Maitland until it was too late to speak. Let him come out of his shroud, as it were, and give us his views. He will have an opportunity to do so by voting for the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which has been moved from this side.

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

– I will not take up much time of the House on this matter, although I appreciate the light atmosphere that has been introduced by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). The procedure for dealing with general business is well understood by all honourable members, particularly the honourable member for Grayndler, who has been in this House a long time.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Too long.

Mr SWARTZ:

– Perhaps the interjection Ls correct. Correct or not, the honourable member understands the Standing Orders. He understands standing order 104. He understands also that the matter raised by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) is a matter of general business. Today the House met earlier and by agreement of the House a longer period was devoted to general business than is normally allowed. In other words, not only has there been a debate on general business today but the debate has been extended for a period of half an hour beyond the normal period allocated for general business and I think that fact is understood by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Grayndler.

The point is that Government business is listed for debate this afternoon. There is an important matter to be debated first. There are some important Bills that have to be debated and i am sure that honourable members opposite, as do all other honourable members in this House, want to get on with the business of the House. The matters that are under the heading General Business’ on the notice paper are listed in accordance with the normal procedure and will be dealt with in accordance with the normal proceduresof this House. There will be no change under these circumstances. As it is necessary to get on to Government business, as listed this afternoon, as quickly as possible I am afraid that we cannot accept the motion that has been moved by the honourable member for Dawson and seconded bythe honourable member for Grayndler. In view of the fact that we must quickly get on to the business I move:

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Dr Patterson’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 6

Qt test ion so resolved in the negative.

AYES

NOES

page 3668

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Senate Resolution

Debate resumed from 24th November (vide page 3619), on motion bv Mr Swartz:

That this. House associates itself with Senate message No. 235 and endorses fully the sentiments expressed in the message.

Senate’s message -

The Senate transmits to the Mouse of Representatives, for information, the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:

That the Senate of the Australian Parliament places on record its appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty.

Particularly do we express our sympathy for the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict.’

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– In speaking to this resolution, with which I believe every member of this House would wish to be associated, can I say that the men and women of our 3 Services carried out their assignment in Vietnam in the best tradition of the Australian Armed Forces. They have added lustre to a great record. All those to whom I have spoken have remarked on the extremely high standards set by our forces in Vietnam. We have become the acknowledged experts in jungle warfare and, because of this, our instructors have been in great demand not only in Phuoc Tuy but also in some of the delta and other areas as I discovered when I visited those areas with President Thieu in December last year. Many thousands of Vietnamese have been trained by our instructors. The Air Force and the Navy too have carried out difficult jobs, often under fire, with great precision and distinction. In fact, all Services in Vietnam have been loyal, dedicated and devoted and have carried out their tasks in the manner in which we would have wished them lo do, and they have reflected great credit on our country.

We were allotted the province of Phuoc Tuy, a province with a history of underground subversion against the Saigon Government which went back many years into the days of the French occupation. At the time when our forces first went to Phuoc Tuy they found a province in which the Vietcong were deeply entrenched. In fact, at that time it was estimated that at least one-third of the population of South Vietnam and two-thirds of the land area was under communist control. The task allotted to our force was nol an easy one but both the military and the civic action assignments were carried out efficiently and with the highest standards of professionalism that kept a determined enemy away from the centres of population and markedly assisted the people and the economy of Phuoc Tuy Province.

The young Australian servicemen in Vietnam proved to be among the finest ambassadors we could have had in such a difficult and complex situation. By their respect for local customs, by their cheerful assistance to the people in the wide ranging humanitarian civic action tasks, our servicemen earned great goodwill for Australia among the people of South Vietnam. They are among the finest young men and women that Australia has ever sent overseas to an operational area. This is a view wholeheartedly supported by this Government, by our allies and by the Australian people, lt was a sad day for many South Vietnamese when the Australians finally left. This is what was said by the Phuoc

Tuy Province Chief at a recent handing over of a housing project to the Vietnamese:

In the matters of fighting spirit and constructional ability, you are probably among the greatest of men. You have fought valiantly in defence of the ideal of freedom. The Communist aggressors turn and run when they hear of your presence. You are ever present in the enemy’s hiding places, on the most dangerous roads and the most remote villages and hamlets. When he comes he is scared of the advanced tactics you use on your operations. You have not only fought but you have used your skilled hands to transform swamps into housing areas, you have turned jungle into prosperous villages, everywhere that you have applied your skill you brought vast improvements.

The actions of the soldiers of the Australian Task Force are inscribed on the hearts of the people of Phuoc Tuy Province. You will always have the warmest gratitude of the people of the South and the history of Vietnam will reflect your work. You may proudly tell your relatives and the Australian people that you have sincerely used your time and mobility to help the Vietnamese people. On this occasion we request you, Mr Ambassador, to convey our warmest gratitude to the Government of Australia and the Australian people. Thank you.

Our troops went to a Vietnam which was heavily infiltrated by the Vietcong and reeling from attacks by them and the North Vietnamese. It appeared that these forces were getting ready to deliver the final coup-de-grace which would overthrow” the Government and turn South Vietnam into a communist state. Had this happened it would have been wracked by slaughter on a grand scale. And what other countries would then have been over-run? Would Laos, Cambodia and Thailand have been over-run?

Not long after our task force arrived in Vietnam one company was engaged by four battalions of Vietcong and North Vietnamese in the Long Tan plantations. The enemy suffered such heavy casualties that they never again attempted to attack in force but confined themselves to insurgency and infiltration. As well as guaranteeing the security of Phuoc Tuy Province and breaking the hold of the Vietcong tax gatherers our forces concentrated on civic action in a number of fields. These included hospitals, housing, roads, water supplies, schools, and education materials. Doctors and nurses went from Australia to minister to the sick. I am sure that this work was deeply appreciated. When he came to Australia in January 1967, Air Vice-Marshal Ky said:

My primary purpose in coming here is to thank, on behalf of the people of Vietnam, the people of Australia for all you have done - and are doing for us. In particular, we wish to thank those families whose sons, fathers, brothers, husbands have gone to Vietnam. We want to thank you for sending us your surgeons, your doctors, and your nurses who have aided hundreds of our citizens. We want to thank you for sending 1,500,000 text-books for our school children and we want to thank you for all the other aid.

And above all, we want to thank and offer our sympathy, understanding and prayers for those families who have lost their loved ones on the field of battle in Vietnam. Wc know little can be said that will lessen their pain, their suffering and their sense of loss. But for what solace it may provide, I think all of us can say that the lives of not only the next generation of Vietnamese but also the next generation of Australians will be affected by the final outcome of this war.

Air Vice-Marshal Ky went on to state:

We are fighting for the rights which belong to every human being - the right to be left alone, the right to grow and develop in the way we choose, the right to give our people the chance freely to select the government they want.

Unfortunately, in a war of this kind, or indeed in any war, casualties are inevitable. Our sympathy goes out to all those relatives who have lost loved ones in this conflict, and also it goes out to those who have been maimed or wounded and whose enjoyment of life may thereby have been lessened.

Today our troops are withdrawing and leaving behind a different Vietnam from the one they went into. It is one where physical security has been vastly improved. Very much more land is under cultivation, and some of the latest high yielding varieties of crops are being grown. Much of the land is now owned by local ‘tillers of the soil’ instead of the previous absentee landlords. New roads have been built and today the people can travel these roads with greater freedom from harassment and illegal tax gatherers than ever before in the past decade. Hospitals, water supplies and schools have been improved and other important public service utilities upgraded. These are real achievements. They are achievements largely made possible by Australian servicemen. Our force in Vietnam has added significantly to a better life for the people in our former area of responsibility. This resolution seeks to record the Australian Parliament’s appreciation and its gratitude to those who have helped to make this possible. I commend this resolution to the House.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

- -Mr Speaker, the Opposition supports the basic proposition put to the House. However, we will move an addendum designed to elaborate future attitudes to Vietnam and the other Indo-China states. This is an expression of support for the pledge given by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) not to embroil Australia in future wars in IndoChina. Accordingly, it should be acceptable to Government members; and we urge that it be accepted to round off the resolution before the House. Bearing in mind the source of this resolution, the House must be thankful that it is moderately phrased and expresses sentiments that I am sure all Australians will support.

There has been an immense volume of debate on Vietnam in this House and in the public arena. The time for reassessment of policies and attitudes will come when all Australian troops are returned from Vietnam and the future of that country emerges a little more clearly. It would be pointless to go over ground that has been covered extensively and exhaustively in earlier debates in this House. 1 want to look briefly at the record of Australian troops in Vietnam and the impact of the war on our defence structure.

The attitude of the Australian Labor Party to the individual troops committed to Vietnam was put with admirable clarity by the former Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), when the first battalion was committed to the war in May 1965. He made it clear then that despite the Labor Party’s opposition to the war, it regarded it as a duty to support to the utmost troops doing their duty in the field. The right honourable gentleman further said:

In terms of everything that an Army in the Geld requires, we shall never deny you the aid and support that it is your right to expect in the service of your country.

In the subsequent 6 years of warfare the Labor Party has fulfilled this pledge. It has always carefully distinguished between the policies of the Government and the implementation of those policies by men doing their duty in the field in Vietnam. There have been criticisms of aspects of military policy; this is the right and indeed the duty of an opposition Party. Undoubtedly errors of military judgment were made in Vietnam; this happens in all wars and military leaders must expect this sort of criticism.

But the Opposition has always been most careful in conceiving its duty as the protection of Australian life in Vietnam and the exposure of abuses when they occurred.

It is a measure of dedication and sense of duties of our soldiers in Vietnam that abuses and excesses were few. To an overwhelming extent Australian soldiers in Vietnam conducted themselves wilh restraint and respect for humanity. Unlike other participants in the war the tactics adopted by Australian forces did not employ the use of free fire zones, stupid defoliation, and search and destroy operations which devastated large civilian populations. In incredibly difficult circumstances the Australian operations were conducted with restraint and with a sense of responsibility to civilian populations in the regions where they operated.

The Vietnam war was an immense strain on the Army. The Army was the principal victim of the defence rundown of the late fifties. In the period from 1963 to 1965 it was subjected to immense pressures purely for the political expediency of committing troops to Vietnam. At its peak the Army administration was servicing Vietnam with 3 battalions a year. In addition a battalion was committed to Malaysia-Singapore and there was the heavy burden of training 16,000 national servicemen each year. The Army responded magnificently to these immense demands; its efficiency and dedication in this highly arduous period is to be admired. For these reasons the Opposition agrees that the House should express its gratitude for these sacrifices and this dedication to duty.

In length of time the Vietnam war was the most sustained commitment ever undertaken by the Australian armed Services. By the time the last units are withdrawn at the end of this year Australians will have maintained a major commitment for 61 years. Even then under the policy of the present Government training teams and special advisers will remain. In demands on the Services the Vietnam War far exceeds Australian commitments to the Korean War and the Malayan emergency. The casualty lists have been high; at least 473 killed and around 3,000 wounded. The cost to Australia has been assessed at about $40m a year but this is the bare accounting difference between the cost cf keeping troops in Australia and the cost of sending them to Vietnam. If bidden costs are taken into account the annual cost to Australia must have been rather higher.

The Opposition believes that the spending of life and scarce resources in Vie* nam was futile and that this futility will become more apparent in the next few years. We join in the expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives. These unfortunate people have to make their own bitter assessments of what these sacrifices entail and whether they should have been demanded. The number of wounded in Vietnam raises important questions about the future of the veterans who survived. In the nature of injuries afflicted the Vietnam war was one of the most terrible in history. The development of weapons with greater ability to maim and disfigure was accompanied by improvements in medical techniques which assured ti higher survival rate. Many survived terrible wounds which would have caused certain death in earlier wars. The use of helicopter evacuation and new drugs and methods of healing meant that a much higher proportion of the very seriously wounded survived.

The welfare problems created by these peculiar features of Vietnam have produced immense problems in the United States. These problems are present on a reduced scale in Australia. For Australian soldiers the most terrible weapons causing disabling wounds were undoubtedly the anti-personnel mines. Because of the nature of operations in Vietnam, many Australian soldiers were maimed by these mines; many young men will not be able to participate in an active working life because of these wounds. This is obvious from a study of the numbers severely disabled by the terrible injuries listed in the schedules of the Repatriation Act. These are matters which will require careful and compassionate consideration from the Government.

In particular the benefits available to Vietnam veterans and their future should be examined in detail by the Toose Inquiry into the Repatriation structure. To a much greater extent than other wars the permanently maimed from Vietnam are very young men; often only in their early 20’s.

This means that a greater percentage of young men have been denied productive working lives because of Vietnam. The presence of a high percentage of national servicemen in the Vietnam combat units has ensured this. There is little point in the Parliament paying lipservice to the sacrifices of our troops in Vietnam if this expression is not translated into measures for the effective care and rehabilitation of those veterans.

Mr Reynolds:

– Look what the President of the Returned Service’s League had to say about their treatment.

Mr BARNARD:

– Yes, as the honourable member for Barton has interjected, there is a great deal that the Repatriation Department can do in this respect. I think it is gratifying that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) is now sitting at the table. No doubt he will participate in this debate and one would expect that he will have something to say on this important issue.

In particular the anguish of those young men who will be dented satisfying professional or family lives because of Vietnam must be given special consideration. There are some questions arising from the resolution which has been transmitted to the House from the Senate. It is ironical that this resolution should have been sponsored by a Party which has been the most consistently wrong and misguided of any contributor to the Vietnam debate. In outandout hawkishness and callous disregard for human suffering the Australian Democratic Labor Party has even exceeded the Government. lt would be foolish to expect this Party to have any rational thoughts about the future of I ndo China and Australia’s relations with the countries of Indo China. There is a little more hope for (he present Government. It seems that at long last it has recognised the futility of military involvement in Indo China, but it has hesitated about putting its doubts into effective action.

The key to the future of Indo-China is North Vietnam and the relations of the rest of the world with North Vietnam, or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as it calls itself. With China admitted to the United Nations. North Vietnam is the most powerful Communist country remaining outside the world community.

The Communist Government of North Vietnam has dominated Indo-China in the past 20 years. Military efforts have failed to quell either the North Vietnamese Government or the Communist wing working in association with it in South Vietnam. There is no sign that the military strength of the North Vietnamese Government or of the situation in North Vietnam generally or the will of its people and leadership have been diminished in any way by the military efforts of the United States and its partners. It is unrealistic to expect that this country will suddenly lay down its arms or wither away as an effective power. The only hope of assuring peace in Indo-China and assuring the neutrality of Indo-China lies in negotiations with North Vietnam.

Mr Graham:

– Ah, ah.

Mr BARNARD:

– The difficulties of the present Australian Government initiating any sort of dialogue with North Vietnam are immense, but eventually a start will have to be made to normalising our relations with this country. One would hardly expect a sensible comment or interjection from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham). He has never been guilty of making one in the time that he has represented that and other electorates for the brief periods he has been here. The only hope, and I repeat it for the benefit of the honourable member, of assuring peace in Indo-China is to open negotiations with the parties involved. Unless the neutrality of Indo-China can be assured and guaranteed by international supervision, then the way is open for further protracted and bloody warfare in Indo-China. In particular it will set the vast armies of North Vietnam and South Vietnam at each other’s throats. It must be plain that no solution in Vietnam can be found without negotiations and some form of settlement with, the Communists. One of the realities of withdrawal is that the need for accommodation will be forced ultimately on the Government of South Vietnam. Until accommodation is reached in Vietnam the wars in Laos and Cambodia will continue because the contending forces in Vietnam have made these states part of the Vietnam cockpit.

In paying tribute today to the performance of their duty by Australian soldiers in Vietnam, it is proper that recognition be given to the future of Indo-China. Once all our troops are out ii will not be possible for Australia to wash its hands of IndoChina. There is a duty to assist in the rehabilitation and rebuilding of all the states of Indo-China. There is also a duty to embark on the difficult course of negotiation and settlement.

Admittedly this is an immensely difficult task for an Australian government which has involved itself in the military war. But the task of opening up channels with North Vietnam will have to be faced in the next few years by all the countries which sought to destroy it, including the United States and Australia.

A year ago it would have been unthinkable that this Government would go as far along the road to rapprochement wilh the Peoples’ Republic of China as it has gone in recent months. Now it must swallow its pride and make a similar gesture towards ending the isolation of North Vietnam and diverting it towards the establishment of a peaceful balance in Indo-China. With these observations about the nature of Australia’s future role in Indo-China, I move the following addition to the resolution before the House:

That the following words be added to the motion - and also endorses the promise of the Prime Minister that Australian troops will not again be involved in Indo-China.

Mr SPEAKER:

– ls the motion seconded?

Mr Beazley:

– 1 second the motion.

Mr BARNARD:

– With this addendum, the Opposition supports this expression of appreciation for the performance of their duty by Australian servicemen in Vietnam in accordance with the direction of the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day. We join also in expressing our sympathy to the families of those Australians who were sacrificed in this cruel and pointless war.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Opposition finds it odd that this resolution did not come to this House from the Cabinet. Surely at the conclusion of a war such a motion should have been initiated and moved by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in the House to which the Government is responsible. It is an odd, backhanded way of bringing in a resolution of this character for it to come from the Senate for consideration by this House after consideration by the Senate. In the article by Peter Samuel in the Sydney ‘Bulletin’ which touched off the crisis in the Government, and which was held by Peter Samuel to have been inspired by the former Minister for Defence, now the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), it was said that Cabinet was indifferent to the fate of the Army in Vietnam. That can be the only explanation of the fact that the Government has left to the Senate the initiative in moving this motion of appreciation to the troops and of sympathy to their relatives.

The present Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) in the course of his statement spoke about the overthrow of the government of South Vietnam. Are we supposed to stand here and forget everything that has happened in 10 years, and not recognise or remember that Sir Garfield Barwick, as Minister for External Affairs, In this House deplored the overthrow of the government of South Vietnam, the government of Diem? And who overthrew it? Everybody in this House knows that that government could not have been overthrown if the coup had not been supported, by President Kennedy with Ambassador Lodge as his instrument. After chat time the situation in Vietnam deteriorated from one in which the United States of America needed only 300 advisers to one in which it needed 600,000 troops.

Nobody will quarrel with the sentiments of this resolution; surely gallantry is not the issue. We have not said the last thing about the charge at Balaclava when we say that the soldiers were gallant. We have to ask why they charged and who blundered. They are the historic questions. We have not said the last thing about Anzac when we say that the soldiers were gallant. The question is: Was it wise that they were there? If it was, was the operation carried out properly? We have not said the last thing about the Somme when we say that in contrast with the French Army, the British Army did nol mutiny when for 30 days, clay after day. it was thrown at German positions in the Somme and 60,000 men went down every day and nobody broke discipline. But Churchill never forgot it. It was the horror of his life and the blind strategy of frontal assault he decided to avoid more than anything else in the Second World War. Merely to commend the gallantry of the soldiers on the Somme, who probably attained a height of bravery never attained in human history before or after, is not to have said the last thing about the strategy and tactics of Field Marshal Haig at the Somme. Nor is it the last thing to say about Vietnam that the soldiers were gallant.

I had reason to have a debate, in the University of Western Australia with my Liberal opponent at the last election. He twitted me about certain statements I had made in support of the operations in Vietnam. These statements are to be seen in Hansard and I do not deny or repudiate them. When Sir Robert Menzies said in this House that the American fleet had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, I believed him. It was not true. The false report resulted from the incompetence of American sonar operators who could not tell the difference between the sound of a torpedo coming at their ship and the sound echoed off the rudders of their own destroyer Turner Joy’ as it turned in its manoeuvres. T believed the statements - and some of the stuff came from the Department of External Affairs - which indicated that China was really involved in Vietnam, until, staggeringly, at a later stage in history we had the late Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, saying in this House, after the Government had been twitted and twitted about the level of government trade with China, that the Chinese were not involved in the war in South Vietnam. We have been induced at various times to found attitudes of mind based upon - I will not say ‘untruths’ because I believe the Government’s own sources of information were false - misinformation emanating from some quarters which apparently the Government believed; at least, T hope the Government believed them.

For a long time this Government has been trigger happy, lt was trigger happy over Suez, lt deplored the fact that a settlement was achieved there. We did not see from the former Prime Minister too much joy in his initial statement which reduced the Australian commitment in Vietnam.

Ruthlessly and ceaselessly, everything that has happened in Vietnam has been used to incite fear in Australia and to extract Democratic Labor Party preferences. There was a time when the British fought a war that is called the ‘War of Jenkin’s Ear’. If the Vietnam war is properly named, from Australia’s point of view it will be called the ‘War of DLP Preferences’. It has been used quite unscrupulously and quite consistently in Australian internal politics.

I believe that the Vietcong are a massacring, ruthless group of people. I happen to believe that many torces in the Government of Indonesia are precisely the same. That is why 300,000 Chinese were murdered in cold blood and that is why, in West Irian today, without any tremor from us, large numbers of people are being consistently chopped down. They are no more ruthless, however, than the Government of Pakistan which is carrying out genocide on a scale which leaves the Vietcong or the Vietcong’s opponents for dead. We must not forget, if we remember history, the swift hush-up when Mr White, the Secretary of the Department of the Army, made a speech at the United Services Club in which he described the southern generals who succeeded Diem shooting prisoners of war in a large compound. He said that the prisoners were made to run and that they were shot for sport to see who could get the biggest bag of prisoners. The moral distinction between the 2 sides as far as massacre is concerned is not very clear.

The other thing that we must face is that for a very considerable part of the time - and the Americans have much more candour about this than our Government has ever had - we have not known who were our enemies and who were our friends in South Vietnam. It has never been easy to identify Vietcong supporters and non-Vietcong supporters. The terrible disadvantage under which European troops fought in Vietnam was that they themselves were easily identifiable and their opponents were not easily identifiable. But let us be done with the story that it is massacre and ruthlessness that attract the Government’s disapproval or the Government’s warlike action. If they did, we would now be at war with Pakistan, we would have been at war with Indonesia, and we would be concerned about what is happening in West Irian. We are concerned about none of these things.

I do not believe that over the Gulf of Tonkin, which was the casus belli for bombing North Vietnam, or over such questions as the presence of Chinese, the Government wilfully misinformed the country. It did not wilfully misinform the country, but it very clearly did misinform the country. I give it credit by saying that I believe it misinformed the country by inadvertence. But it is very clear that we should be quite certain in future of our sources of information when confidently stories are put about that certain events have taken place which involve the necessity for retaliation. In American parliamentary practice, where the structure of the Parliament does not mean that every blunder that the Executive has made must be concealed and everybody must gang up to endorse the actions of the government or it falls, the inquiries by the Senate into the Gulf of Tonkin resolution have been most clear and have established the events that really did fake place.

We hope that the Government’s words about its appreciation of the ex-servicemen of Vietnam will be matched by its repatriation generosity. This is the thing for which the Returned Services League asks. If it is in the form of war service homes, we hope that the Government will make new adjustments about the price of land and about the cost of building a house. We hope that, in the inflationary situation, it will take a look at the inadequacy of the pensions for meeting the kinds of costs that men rehabilitating themselves into the Australian community today will be called on to meet.

The addendum moved by the Opposition compliments the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in effect on his promise that Australian troops will not be involved in future in Indo-China. Let us be done, whatever else we think about the situation in Indo-China, with the view that the Government of North Vietnam has been disposed of. I personally doubt whether the Vietcong has been disposed of. It will be time enough to claim victories when we see whether the Government of South Vietnam by its own efforts is viable. But one thing is perfectly certain: The Government of North Vietnam is still there. I have no reason to believe that the intermittent bombings which took place inflicted upon the economy or the people of North Vietnam the same damage, the same casualties and the same traumas as 6 or 7 years of continuous war in South Vietnam inflicted on the people of South Vietnam.

Do not let us pretend anything else than that the United States Government gave to North Vietnam a guarantee against invasion. While there were aerial attacks on a tremendous scale, no reason exists to believe that this left the economy of North Vietnam - the basis of its war machine - fundamentally disturbed. So it is premature to claim that what has happened in South Vietnam means that no future government of North Vietnam can with impunity start a policy of intervention in South Vietnam again. I do not think a North Vietnamese government will do so immediately. 1 think that there are enough elements in South Vietnamese politics, especially if South Vietnamese politics becomes an election between 2 people instead of the election of one person on the classic communist model which we are ready to deride when it is practised by communists but apparently not when it is practised by Thieu, lo ensure that from 2 candidates in some future election there will emerge in the South Vietnamese Parliament, if it still exists - and parliaments usually do not last long in Asia - some other element in the Government which will want to go into collusion or collaboration with the North, perhaps to seek unity with the North, and the position of South Vietnam may well be weakened.

However, that is a matter for the South Vietnamese to decide, lt would have been wise if the continued existence of the Diem Government had been left as a matter for the people of South Vietnam to decide. The price of an ill-informed interference in the affairs of South Vietnam has been very high. I do not believe for one minute that, if Diem had not been overthrown, there would ever have been any need for any significant number of American troops or any significant number of Australian troops to be involved, or for the general Austraiian involvement in Vietnam, except perhaps in the way of economic assistance.

I think that it is true to say that, in Asia, Britain has forgotten more than the United States ever learnt. I happen to believe that the opposite is true in Europe where the United States has deep experi ence and, from the time when Woodrow Wilson recreated Poland and Czechoslovakia, has shown a very constructive purpose there. But by intervening on the broad mainland of Asia and not merely on the peninsula where there could be an end to the military line, by violating the simple principle of not interfering with a government that was in existence and viable - imagine the British in the days of the Raj overthrowing any maharaja who was a loyal ally - and by doing that with Diem, the United States helped to create the crisis for which they have paid a very high price in blood in their efforts to solve.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). The major reason why the Government cannot accept this amendment is that, if it refers to what the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said in answer to a question on 23rd November, it is a deliberate misquotation of what the Prime Minister said. The amendment says ‘the promise of the Prime Minister that Australian troops will not again be involved in IndoChina.’ What the Prime Minister did say, as recorded at page 3455 of Hansard, was:

But on this matter I will now make a positive statement: Long ago I was asked whether we would be prepared to send training personnel to Cambodia, and I immediately gave the answer no. Consequently, that became a decision and was confirmed and accepted by the Government. We have never been prepared to send training personnel to Cambodia. We are not prepared to send them, and we are not prepared to permit Australian fighting troops to go to either South Vietnam or Cambodia.

The Prime Minister did not say that Australian troops will not again be involved in Indo-China and therefore the Government cannot accept the amendment, on the major ground that it is a complete misquotation of what the Prime Minister actually said.

I want to congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) on his comments in this debate. I support them entirely and 1 will not reiterate them. I commence my contribution to this discussion by repeating the cause of it. Yesterday the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) moved the following motion in the Senate:

This Senate of the Australian Parliament places on record its appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty.

Particularly do we express our sympathy to the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict.

The motion was passed by the Senate but not without a great deal of political comment which had nothing to do with its meaning. In my comments I do not intend to demean the sentiments contained in Senator Gair’s motion by indulging in political dogmas and so attempting to obtain some cheap political advantage out of what is a sincerely expressed tribute to the men and women of our fighting forces for their efforts in Vietnam. As Minister for Repatriation I have the ministerial responsibility for the Department which over the last SO years has administered the legislation covering the whole spectrum of the entitlements, including medical treatment, of ex-servicemen and women who have served Australia in various conflicts. It is mainly in this capacity that I want to associate myself and the Government with this well deserved tribute which was expressed by Senator Gair yesterday in the Senate.

I had wished to confine my remarks solely to the tribute. However, because of comments made in the Senate yesterday both at question time and during the debate on this matter, and also because of the comments of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) during this debate, I think it appropriate that I should mention the entitlements available under the rehabilitation section of repatriation and the qualifying conditions to those entitlements. There has been criticism of the benefits available to our armed forces. This is to be expected. It is never hard to find fault with something. It is easy for the Opposition to say that the Government ought to be more generous. If ever the Opposition becomes the Government it is really going to face a problem finding the finance to carry out all the promises it is making or implying.

The repatriation and rehabilitation benefits available to special overseas service forces - these are mainly the people who served in Vietnam - and ‘the qualifying conditions are fully and clearly set out in a readily available pamphlet which I have here titled ‘Repatriation Benefits for Special

Overseas Service’. Because many areas are covered in this pamphlet I will mention briefly only some fundamental facts. I stress that 1 am doing this only because certain queries have been raised during the course of this debate. My comments will be simply a factual statement of the situation. The first area is eligibility. Members of the forces and their dependants are eli’gible, if incapacity or death have either resulted from an occurrence or been contributed to or aggravated by special service. In the case of a member of the forces who is not actually on special service, repatriation benefits are provided for incapacity or death resulting from an occurrence - including the contracting of a disease - that resulted from action by hostile forces in an area outside Australia.

Mention has been made of the benefits available compared with those available after the Second World War. Repatriation benefits for special service overseas are provided generally on the same basis and at the same rates as are provided for exservicemen of the 1939-45 war and, of course, 1914-18 war. On the rehabilitation aspect, re-establishment, education and vocational training are available for a national serviceman either on a full time or on a part time basis regardless of whether he served in Australia only or outside Australia. Periods of training are limited to one year full time or 2 years part time. Members of the permanent forces do not qualify for these benefits through the repatriation system but there are certain training benefits available to members of the permanent forces through their own Services departments. Also business and agricultural loans are available to national servicemen. The sums are comparable with those available after the Second World War, which were at that time $1,500 for a business loan and $3,000 for an agricultural loan. At the present time a sum of $3,000 is made available for a business loan and $6,000 for an agricultural loan. Statistically adjusted, the comparative value is slightly lower at the present time than it was in 1945.

The basic difference between the 2 benefits available is that the training programme is for one year full time or 2 years part time whereas, after the 1939-45 War a complete course was available.

There are reasons for this. The period of service of 2 years is relatively short as compared with that during the Second World War. There is a uniform age on enlistment. Ex-national servicemen do not have the same training needs, generally speaking, as the ex-servicemen from the Second World War. There is not now the national need, as there was subsequent to 1945, to train people over a very wide range of occupations. There is the opportunity - this is important - for any national serviceman to defer his call-up if he is undertaking a course of study or training which could reasonably be expected to be completed before national service. There is also the likelihood that most young servicemen will return to their former employment without suffering any substantial disadvantage because of the retention given by the reinstatement in employment provision in the Defence Act. After the Second World War only preferential employment provisions were available.

Nevertheless the Government is keeping under review these benefits that are available to national servicemen. Any changes In this matter are primarily the responsibility - I ask honourable members to note this - of my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). The fina! thing 1 wanted to say as far as the ex-Vietnam lads are concerned - excuse me for calling them lads, they seem like that to me - is that we have established a special liaison officer in each State to look after ex-servicemen who have returned from Vietnam.

I appreciate being able to join with others in paying a tribute to the men and women of our armed Services who have fought in Vietnam. I feel personally qualified, to some degree, to do this because of my visit to South Vietnam last year and also because of my visits to repatriation hospitals, and conferences of the Returned Services League of Australia in particular, in my capacity as Minister for Repatriation. My experiences in these areas enable me to support to the fullest degree the words of the motion passed by the Senate. I can assure honourable members that it is a humbling experience to meet young men who have been wounded, some very severely, in the Vietnam conflict. Their fortitude and courage have amazed me. Of course, there have been some unhappy moments with these young men, but broadly speaking their cheerfulness and acceptance of their disabilities have been an inspiration and are to their everlasting credit. There will be a continuing review of the cases of those personnel severely wounded in Vietnam. But I want to point out that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition greatly exaggerated the situation when ite talked about the permanently maimed. At the moment there are 24 ex-Vietnam personnel receiving the special rate of war pension. The independent inquiry has been asked to look at this matter in great detail.

J have also had the unhappy task, as have many other members in this House, of meeting the relatives of those who have been killed in battle. Speaking broadly once again, their attitude in the circumstances has been admirable and my sympathy goes to all these people. The members of our armed forces in Vietnam deserve our thanks. The personnel involved ranged from Regular Army professional .soldiers to national servicemen, and the indispensable nursing staff. During the time I was in Vietnam last year 1 was able to assess that this tribute is well justified. One could not help but be proud to be an Australian on hearing the universal comments of praise for our Service personnel. Senior officers of the United States, Vietnamese <»nd Australian units all expressed the highest appreciation of the efforts, both military and civil, of the Australians. The position was concisely summarised by a top Vietnamese general when 1 asked him how he found Australian soldiers. Fie answered very simply: ‘Wonderful’, and he really meant it. There is no doubt in my mind that the presence and the conduct of our forces in Vietnam has done much to maintain and enhance our image in South East Asia. It is because of the experiences I have just outlined that 1 join with other honourable members in paying a sincere and humble tribute and acknowledging a debt of gratitude to the personnel of our armed Services who served in Vietnam.

Mr DALY (Grayndler) (3.391- I join in the sentiments incorporated in the motion of gratitude to those who have served and to those who have not returned from the conflict in South Vietnam. At the same time 1 endorse the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the

Opposition (Mr Barnard). Although I, with other members on this side of the Parliament, agree with what has been said in respect of the gratitude given to the men who have given their lives, some of them conscripted, which does not detract in any way from their magnificent courage, on an occasion like this one cannot help but place on record the condemnation of the Government that puts us into a conflict in which Australia should never have been involved. From the very commencement of this unfortunate, cruel and wicked war in Vietnam members on this side of the Parliament stood firm in their opposition to it because we knew the sacrifices many would be called upon to make, sacrifices that would bring suffering not only to the Vietnamese people but also to countless thousands of Australian homes.

Consequently at every opportunity - during election campaigns and at other times - members of the other side of the House criticised this Party and its members for being disloyal, for being procommunist, for being opposed to Australia’s security and all those things that went with it. Some members of this Party more than others were singled out for special mention and in a debate of this nature today I do not think it would be proper for me to pass by the opportunity to mention 2 members on this side in particular, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who stood up to a terrific battering as to their integrity, loyalty and courage from honourable members opposite because of their opposition to this conflict. In the main they were no different from most members of the Labor Party but today they must feel, with the Government withdrawing and with the position in South Vietnam worse than it was before this conflict started, satisfaction to know that their courage in opposing this Government’s involvement of Australian men in the war in Vietnam has proved to be justified. fs it not tragic that while we are withdrawing from Vietnam and when we are realising the failure of that conflict this Government is keeping men in gaol, men who conscientiously refused to serve there and have proved how sincere they are by going to gaol for periods of up to 2 years? As we know, the Government was conned into entering this conflict. It was never invited in there by the South Vietnamese. It had its arm twisted by the American, authorities for political purposes. To the eternal discredit and shame of those who have run this country for 20 years 473-odd Australians lie dead today and almost 3,000 men have been maimed and wounded in a conflict in which we should never have been engaged and in which honourable members opposite know we were never invited to participate by the South Vietnamese. Therefore today there is a measure of hypocrisy about the Government. The Government is not thanking and expressing its gratitude to those who served and the relatives of those who lost their lives. This is a Democratic Labor Party motion. As the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) said, the Government never even thought of giving them any thanks and if the DLP had not sponsored the motion it would not have been brought on here today. The Government has not brought it on out of gratitude to those who deserve it. The only reason it has been done is to make political capital and to put the Labor Party, as one might say, on the spot on this great issue.

Right down the line the Government’s altitude on the Vietnamese war has been contemptible, un-Australian and disloyal to the Australians who were called to serve there. To think that the Government introduced conscription to back up its plans after having its arm twisted is a disgrace to government in this country. The guilty men sit on the other side of the House. We were committed to blindly following American policy by that historic statement of ‘All the way with LBJ’. What a great penalty we have paid for that slogan said on the lawns of the White House in Washington. But the day of reckoning has come and today this Government must acknowledge that it has failed in South Vietnam. It committed this country wrongly and the people will hold it responsible when the lime comes. Why, even now the Government wants to slide both ways in respect of the amendment we have moved. The weak excuse given by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) in respect of this matter was that what is contained in the amendment was not what the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said about Indo-China. Does that mean that the Government is going to commit Australian troops to the paddy fields of Indo-China and other places in the future? Does that mean that in Cambodia and other places there will be Australian forces? We believe the Prime Minister has given an assurance to this Parliament that they will not be committed to Indo-China in the future.

If the Minister for Repatriation has been truthful today this Government is again misleading the Australian people. The real reason why the Government will not support the Opposition amendment to this motion today is that the Government knows that the amendment is justified and should be passed by this Parliament. The Minister for Repatriation nearly made me sick a moment ago when he spoke of gratitude to ex-servicemen. There is only one way to show gratitude to ex-servicemen and that is to provide adequate pensions and housing, to look after the dependants of those who did not come back and to ensure that those who are suffering will have all that is necessary to keep body and soul together and to allow them to enjoy as best they can their way of life.

Let us have a look at what the Returned Services League of Australia says about the great story the Minister told a few moments ago. 1 have with me a document which was put out by the RSL. I do not think that the League runs all over the country supporting Labor candidates. That has not been my experience. The document reads:

Honoured in war . . . forgotten in peace.

On the back of the document the following statement appears:

The RSL urges you to make your protest now

To your Parliamentary member.

To the Press, Radio and TV. To the Public of Australia.

Authorised by the 52nd National Congress of the Returned Services League of Australia . . .

A quarter of a million copies of this document were distributed throughout the length and breadth of this country. It goes on:

Theirs is not to reason why . . . give - so they live - not die . . .

Then it states:

The Commonwealth Government’s neglect of War Pensions for incapacitated veterans must be resisted.

It says:

The present levels of war pensions are a disgrace to the Government, a disgrace to Australia and a betrayal of those who have suffered in war.

Is that not a good enough answer from the League that says it speaks for the exservicemen of this country? Does it not show up the sham and hypocrisy of this Government’s expression of gratitude? It goes on to say:

This is the position of the Australian exserviceman in 1967.

. within this system the Government has condoned the erosion of War Pension values until they have reached the lowest level on record.

It goes on:

The veteran, incapacitated beyond earning ability because of war, receives compensation less than the lowest paid worker in industry.

The Government has ignored the plight of all war pensioners and abandoned war widows to the miserable amount of compensation they received prior to the last Budget. lt is no wonder that the Minister did not read out to the Parliament the contents of that circular. This is what those engaged in the Vietnam war have come back to under this Government.

Let us again look at the situation in which these men were involved in Vietnam and what the Government is thanking them for today. Everyone on that side of the Parliament and everyone throughout this nation knows that never has this country been more divided by a conflict than it has by the Vietnamese war. Demonstrations throughout the nation by people from all walks of life indicated that they realised the falsity of the Government’s charge that Australia’s security was involved in Vietnam. And today with great regret I say that it is tragic to think that so many young Australians are dead r.nd so many are wounded and suffering as a result of a conflict which was condemned, I believe by the vast majority of this country and certainly by people throughout the world. America is divided on this issue and it has been divided right throughout the conflict. If there is one country where people need courage to demonstrate in it is the United States of America. By the thousands people lined up in that country to protest against this conflict.

We find now that right throughout Asia our reputation is damaged. We find that in that part of the world today, far from getting any thanks for being associated with the Americans in Vietnam, we are discredited as people who have gone onto foreign soil, ravaged the country and in every way contributed not so much to the security of that country but to the destruction of its way of life. It was one of the worst days in our history when we went into this conflict in Vietnam. It was costly, lt has been said that it cost us more than $40Om, apart from the lives lost and the suffering that has come to the people. Those who watch television and who read the newspapers must view with horror the torture that was inflicted on the people in that, country in efforts to gain information from them. We must also in turn think of the suffering that American servicemen who have been captured in that conflict are undergoing. lt has been a conflict that we should never have been engaged in and it should be a warning to people on both sides of this Parliament, but particularly on the Government side, that we should stay out of foreign wars and let the people concerned settle their own differences in their own way and in their own time. Today in Vietnam allied forces are walking out - if we can call if that - of a country which is more ravaged and more internally upset than it ever was before. The elections there are probably the most corrupt that it is possible to get at this time. As we know the governments there change as often as a man changes his shirt. The situation is that this conflict has called for a useless and fruitless sacrifice by countless thousands of people. Even . at this stage the Government refuses to acknowledge, 1 think, that its policies have failed. In the last days when our troops were about to come out they were engaged in a conflict in which several lost their lives and others were injured.

Only at the point of the political gun, as it were, has this Government been prepared to acknowledge that it should pull out of that conflict, so determined was it to go alt the way with LB J, as it has said. Therefore today as we pay a tribute to the valour of those who served, as we pay a tribute to those who suffer today, to the relatives of those who did not come back, let us ponder from our own position in this Parliament what our guilt is in involving these men and their dependants in this conflict which was never a declared war, in which our security was never endangered and for which we are suffering today.

I cannot help but think that at the very height of this conflict when our men were dying and suffering in Vietnam members of the Australian Country Party sat in the corner and sold their wool to troops which they said were fighting against Australian troops. The Country Party was prepared to trade with the enemy at a time when our men were dying there. That Party put its gold before the lives of those people. In this respect there are guilty men on that side of this House and they should not sleep too easily when these issues are being debated. 1 know that other honourable members wish to participate in this debate so I do not wish to speak at any greater length. But let me summarise by saying that it is regrettable to think that after 30,000 men have served there, many of whom were killed or injured, it has been left to the Australian Democratic Labor Party to bring forward a motion of gratitude which this Government could not amend or alter but which it blindly supports because it never even thought of it. Now when we are seeking not to have troops involved in Indo-China in future, in line with the Prime Minister’s thinking, the Minister for Repatriation denies the Prime Minister. I cannot blame him, I suppose, because he is merely getting into line with the majority on that side of the Parliament. Above all else let us never again in this Parliament be a party in any shape or form to the commitment of Australian troops to a conflict such as Vietnam - a useless and cruel war which, as 1 said, has been responsible for suffering and conflict throughout the world, for demonstrations and for the dividing of nations. From one end of the world to the other it has been responsible for dragging Australia’s name into the mud, not for the valour of the men who served there but because of our stupidity in going into that conflict.

I pay tribute to those honourable members on this side of the Parliament, in high places in the Labor Party, who, at great personal risk and at times subject to insult and no doubt some suffering, stood up to the best that the Government could offer by way of criticisms and accusations of disloyalty. The people of Australia owe much to the Labor Party. Our policy has been vindicated. It has been a long, hard fight. We may have lost elections on this issue because of the false propaganda disseminated by those who sit opposite. But whatever happened we stood firm and true to the things that we believe in. We stood for Australia in this conflict. We did not believe in the useless sacrifice of life. Our conscience is clear but let the Government ponder on its sorry and deplorable record in this conflict.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– Having listened to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and having counted the number of times he mentioned our troops about whom this motion is concerned, I believe that his outlook in respect to the whole motion was summed up in the last 3 minutes of his speech when he told us about the glory of the Australian Labor Party, the sacrifice of the Labor Party and how the Labor Party had stood firm against all enemies. Indeed the Australian servicemen who served in Vietnam quite definitely in the outlook of the honourable member for Grayndler, come second to the Austraiian Labor Party. The main thing that seemed to upset the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) was that the motion had been moved in the Senate by a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I can only say that perhaps it is a little premature to move this motion even at this time because there are still approximately 2,500 troops in the Vietnam area. All the troops, of course, have not yet come home.

I, like the honourable member for Fremantle, would have preferred to have seen this debate take place as a result of a motion by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) at the appropriate time. I would like to have seen the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) also in attendance in this House and I would like to have seen this House full with honourable members from both sides. Neither of those gentleman are here; I admit this.

Mr Uren:

– I raise a point of order. Mention was made of the Leader of the Opposition not being present in the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition was present in this House during the speeches of the 2 leading speakers on this side of the House. The Prime Minister has not been present during the whole of this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! What the honourable member for Reid is putting does not constitute a point of order, and he has been in this House long enough to know this.

Mr JESS:

– If the honourable member for Reid had listened he would have known that 1 said I would have preferred to have both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition present. 1 know that the Opposition does not like to hear the truth frequently, and no doubt there will be many opportunities to gag me during this debate. But let me take the point that has been put up.

Mr Uren:

– Put your military boots on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Uren:

– Why are you such a militant? Why do you want to kill people?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Reid.

Mr Uren:

– Warn me as much as you like.

Mr JESS:

– If the honourable member for Reid, who has been congratulated by the honourable member for Grayndler for his heroism, could contain himself and not be overwrought, perhaps he could sit through the rest of this speech. The motion before this House is that the Parliament places on record its appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served during the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty.

I revert to what the honourable member for Grayndler said. He said that the motion was moved to embarrass the Labor Party. In what way would the passing of this motion, with acclamation and a unanimous vote of this House, embarrass the Labor Party? Does the Labor Party not believe that the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict acted with courage, dedication and a sense of duty? But when we listen to the speeches made by members of the Opposition we find trust, this motion has been taken as an opportunity to discuss the politics of our involvement in Vietnam. The motion has nothing lo do with the politics. Lt supports neither the Government’s action nor the Opposition’s action, lt supports neither that we should have gone into Vietnam nor that we should have come out. It merely gives credit on behalf of this nation to those who went to Vietnam and who served this country. If the Opposition wants to make anything else of the matter 1 think the people of Australia will quite clearly understand its motive.

Let us understand what is happening. We are paying credit to the men of the Royal Australian Navy who served in the Vietnam theatre, and to the members of the Australian Regular Army, the national servicemen, the members of the Royal Australian Air Force and the nursing sisters who served in that area, lt is to them and to them alone that this Parliament on behalf of the people of Australia, whichever way they vote, is giving credit and thanks. To reduce this debate to sordid politics and to talk about those in gaol and the heroism of members of the Labor Party is the grossest hypocrisy 1 have ever heard. I think it is deplorable.

Let us note the record of those who have served in Vietnam. The men of our services have been awarded 4 Victoria Crosses, 32 Distinguished Service Orders, 8 Distinguished Service Crosses, 75 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 50 Military Crosses, 1 George Medal, 3 Distinguished Service Medals, 37 Distinguished Conduct Medals, 9 Distinguished Flying Medals and 77 Military Medals. The service of those people who have served this country has been second to none. Although many of these people, as has been said by the Opposition, might not have wished to go to Vietnam, they went and served this country valiantly and with courage and distinction.

I remember when I had the honour of reviewing the 2nd Recruit Training Battalion. When called upon to make some remarks I said this ‘In the hills around this valley of Puckapunyal there are many ghosts. They are the ghosts of your fathers and your grandfathers. These men are looking on you today and I am sure they would never have been prouder than they are at this moment.’ The men of this battalion have served their country and, as 1 have said, have served with distinction. The traditions of the battalions with which they served date back over many years. Great traditions have been established for those men who will come after them. They have created a reputation second to none throughout South East Asia. The honourable member for Grayndler said that we have repudiated and have left a stain on the reputation of Australia in South East Asia, but these men have been the greatest ambassadors this country has ever had.

Mr Uren:

– Rubbish.

Mr JESS:

– The honourable member for Reid says: ‘Rubbish’. That is typical. Let me say to the honourable member for Reid - and it has been said by many distinguished servicemen - that some people trade on what may have happened in their misfortune, but 1 believe that most people in this country will give credit to the national servicemen and soldiers of the Regular Army who went and served this country so valiantly. The war in Vietnam was a soldier’s war. It was not a great war in which generals deliberated and moved great bodies of troops, lt was a soldier’s war in which the section, the platoon and the company went out and did the fighting. The outcome of the conflict rested on the heroism, service and devotion of the private, the corporal, the lieutenant and the captain. These were the ones who established Australia’s reputation.

I would like to quote the words of Field Marshal Slim because they sum up better than anything else the credit that should be given to the Australian servicemen. I think this is an important statement which is a reflection of sentiment today. After having presented a battalion colour to one of the regular battalions he said:

A battalion now has 2 colours - the Queen’s Colour and the Regimental Colour. The Queen’s Colour symbolises the service you owe to your country and to your sovereign, its head. This is loyalty above all local and party interests; it is to Australia as one country, your country, united under its Queen. It links you also to all other countries of the Commonwealth.

He went on:

The Regimental Colour inspires a more intimate loyalty - that to your own battalion. It is the symbol of comradeship and unity. Under it no member of this battalion will fail in his duty or lower his own standard of conduct, because if he does be will fail his comrades. Your comrades are not only those who serve with you today, but those who, in the past, built up the tradition of “ the regiment. They are those, too, who will follow after you. It is your privilege to hand down to them your traditions untarnished.

We in this House, I hope, are saying, and saying unanimously, that these traditions of the Australian Army, the Navy and the Air Force have been handed down untarnished and with added lustre by those who have gone and served Australia in Vietnam.

Instead of highlighting, as the Opposition has so frequently done and as the courageous honourable member for Reid has done, those who avoided their responsibilities and those who are prepared to divert others from serving their country, it would be better if today for once we could give credit to the great majority who went and served with honour and distinction with no credit to either political party. Speaking as the Parliament of Australia on behalf of the people let us say that we feel that the job they did was well done, that they have added lustre to Australia’s traditions and that we are grateful for their service. Let it be understood also that when they were serving in the field they received little encouragement from publicity media in Australia. More publicity was given to those in universities who did not want to go and who wished to protest. They were photographed with distinguished and courageous members of Parliament. No publicity was given to the pass-outs of national servicemen when they finished their recruitment training and were ready for posting. Very little publicity was given to individual acts of heroism, but I think the morale of the 3 Services stood and stood firm.

In conclusion I would like to say that in spite of what has been said by members of the Opposition and the calls that were made by the distinguished Labor Party in the State of Victoria for the troops to mutiny, and the calls that were made by the distinguished Leader of the Opposition for troops to disobey orders, the Services stood firm. They ignored this call from the alternative government of Australia. In my opinion the people of Australia have great need to be grateful for the example the Services have set. If only Australians in their civil life and home life could have the same morale, the same principles, the same unity and the same courage as were shown by our troops in the field, Australia would be a great nation. But when I look at honourable members opposite I think this is an impossible dream.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Deputy Speaker, while I disagree with a great deal-

Mr Swartz:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was a firm agreement between the Opposition and the Government concerning this debate. It was agreed that there should be 3 speakers from each side after which the debate would conclude. The Government is prepared to honour that agreement. A number of Government supporters would have liked to speak on this debate but they have been informed of the situation. The Government is prepared to adhere to the agreement and I suggest that the Opposition, having made a firm agreement, also should adhere to it.

Mr Uren:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in charge of this matter for the Opposition and T know of no agreement. I support the right of the honourable member for Wills to speak.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

Ayes . . . . 56

Noes . . . . . . 50

Majority . . . . 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Mr Barnard’s- amendment) be so added.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 56

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3684

PAY-ROLL TAX (STATE TAXATION OF COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1971

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3684

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1th November (vide page 3419), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– It is ironical that the War Service Homes Bill should follow the debate that we have just heard, and in passing I refer to the Senate’s message which was the subject of that debate. It stated:

That the Senate of the Australian Parliament places on recordits appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty.

Particularly do we express our sympathy for the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict.

If one examines the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who introduced this legislation on behalf of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) one finds that the war service homes scheme is part of the Government’s repatriation policy or programme. I question whether the Government will extend sufficient sympathy in order to permit parents who lost their sons in the conflict in Vietnam to receive some benefit from this legislation. I wonder whether the Government in fact will broaden the war service homes scheme to give some real benefit at least to those parents who have lost their loved ones in this conflict. I think that the resolution which the House has just passed was a very shallow and empty one. I could go on and refer to the hypocrisy that was expressed by honourable members opposite. One of the sad things that one is expected to do in public life is put up with this hypocrisy. I suppose that one has to put up with hypocrisy in all parts of the world, but one should strive to make it a better and more tolerant world.

The legislation that is now before us is not making any real contribution to those ex-servicemen who served in the First and Second World Wars and those who served in Vietnam. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the maximum loan under the war service homes scheme from $8,000 to $9,000. The Bill also provides for a widening of the definition of ‘holding’ in the War Service Homes Act, which will enable certain interests in land, not presently provided for in the Act, to be accepted as 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 section 30a, 31 and 36 of the Act. Clause 7 provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act - section 30b - which will empower the Director of War Service Homes, 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. I would say that this section of the Act is designed to give power to the Director so that the Division can enforce a law to exclude from provisions of the Act certain people who may have served in a war. It seems that the tolerance of the

War Service Homes Division and in particular the tolerance of the Government has worn out. The Government wants to put people in this category out in the street and exclude them from the benefits to which they are entitled under the Act.

Clause 10 of the Bill provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act - Section 48o - which will empower the Director to advance money on mortgage to an eligible 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. The Minister in his second reading speech said that the war service homes scheme is the Commonwealth’s own housing scheme. He went on to say:

The scheme is part of a comprehensive range of repatriation benefits for Australian ex-servicemen and women and their dependants. Its aim is to assist eligible persons to secure homes of their own by providing them with low-interest, lang term housing loans.

I want to stress the words, ‘its aim is to assist’ eligible persons to secure homes. The Minister did not use the phrase ‘to acquire’ a home but said ‘to assist’ them ‘to secure’ a home. At least in his speech of half truths the point came through that the Government will only assist people to secure a home because any person with common sense knows that the inadequate loan which will be available from the War Service Homes Division is not enough to enable a person to acquire a block of land and to build a home on it. The loan as present only assists applicants to purchase a home.

There was a time when the war service homes loan paid the entire cost of a person’s home. In fact, in 1.950-51 in the rosy early days of the crusading Liberal Government, the maximum loan was $5,500. At that time the average cost of a home and land throughout New South Wales was only $4,160. Therefore the loan enabled a person to acquire a home the value of which was even in excess of the average cost of a home in New South Wales at that time. In other words, a person receiving a war service homes loan could build a better home than the average home. But what is the position today? The Government says that its heart is bleeding for ex-servicemen and that it wants to make a contribution particularly to those young men who have just returned from Vietnam. I might mention in respect of the total number of men from all States who served in Vietnam the greatest percentage come from my own Stale of New South Wales. But what is this Government, whose heart is bleeding for them and which expresses great sympathy, doing for them? It has raised the limit of the loan from $8,000 to $9,000.

I would like to quote from the latest report of the War Service Homes Division which states that the average cost of a dwelling on land in New South Wales is $14,990. Even with the increase of $1,000 which is provided under this Bill a person who receives a loan from the War Service Homes Division will still need $5,950 to pay for the cost of an average home and land. But back in 1950-51 when the average cost of a home and land was $4,160 the advance from the Division was $5,500. As I said earlier a person who received this loan could build a better than average house. But, of course, those were the days when the Liberal Party was a crusading party, when ex-service members of the Liberal and Country Parties sitting on the back benches loved to wear their badges and wore them with pride to show that they were ex-servicemen. They said that they

would ensure that the ex-servicemen of the Second World War were given a good deal. This was the cry of those young crusaders at that time. The young Turks of the Liberal Party made sure that the amount of loan was increased and that the loan was set at a level far in excess of the average cost of a home. This is why I foreshadow that in Committee I shall move that the loan should be increased to $15,000. Even that figure, when we consider that the value of money in 1950-51 is not the same as today, is not adequate. But this is the figure set out in the policy of our Party and this is the figure that I will urge the Committee to accept.

So that we can examine the record of the War Service Homes Division, the cost and the amount of money that has been spent on this scheme and the amount of money that has been received in revenue, 1 ask permission to incorporate in Hansard a table which was compiled by the research section of the Parliamentary Library.

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

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. It will be noted that at present there are still 10,300 applicants throughout the Commonwealth requiring war service homes. After many years there are many ex-servicemen for whom it is not even permissible to make an application for a war service home loan. For instance, up to 1952 it was permissible for a person who negotiated, a loan or a mortgage with a bank or lending society to transfer that loan to the war service homes scheme. That practice has been abandoned. An ex-serviceman who took out a loan from a bank or lending society because of the backlag in advances those early years and could not wait for a war service homes loan to be granted is not able to transfer that loan. I am in this category although I am possibly more fortunate than most people. I do not have to worry about the great burden because, putting aside all the problems that a parliamentarian has, at least I get a salary which is far in excess of what most people in the community receive.

At least 70 per cent of the people earn less than the average weekly wage of J584 a week, so we know the great problems that most people face. I shall deal with some of the costs that people have. I have a great respect for officers of the War Service Homes Division. They administer the Act under great difficulties. 1 know of the potential of the Division. There is no limit to what could be done because in principle the war service homes scheme is probably the finest housing scheme that has ever been known in this nation. My Party and I would like to see the scope of the scheme expanded far beyond the area embracing those persons who are now receiving benefits from it. We would like the War Service Homes Division to lend up to 100 per cent of the value of properties against which advances are made. Also, we would like to see the establishment of a revolving fund within the Division to cater for all persons who come within the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility, extend the purposes for which such an additional and supplementary war service homes advance can be made, and establish a war service homes financial division so that money could be made available over a wider spectrum at the realistic interest rate of 3t per cent. 1 know that this would not be easy to do but it could be done if there was planning of economic priorities. I do not see any reason why a nation such as ours cannot determine its priorities, and recognise that the housing of our people should be one of the highest. The Government has to determine these priorities.

This Government is a lazy and a tired government after 22 years of administration. As I said, those young Turks who in 1950-51 were making sure that their comrades who served in the war would get a fair go, are silent today except for some crocodile tears. I am not a sarcastic man. I just feel so deeply about this. 1 feel sick - I do not want to use the word ‘embittered’ - when I see the hypocrisy rolling from that side of the House in expressions of sympathy for young servicemen from Vietnam. It riles me, feeling as I do about this Government. It has the opportunity to do more if it wants to be sincere. Where are those men who wore their RSL badges with pride? What are they doing to support the resolution that was brought into this House today? In his second reading speech the Minister for Social Services dwelt at length on the repatriation measures. This is a repatriation measure. The Minister has clearly indicated that this loan is no longer available for eligible persons to acquire a dwelling but to assist them to secure a home. To assist them! 1 thought the War Services Homes Act was intended to provide loans so that eligible persons could acquire homes.

The Opposition wants to make this loan fund a recirculating fund so that when money is required it can be provided from the recirculated funds. Over the last 5 years this Government has been receiving more money by way of receipts from interest and repayments than it has been spending on war service homes. In 1966-67 it spent $59m and received $67m. In the following year it spent $46m and received S69m. In 1968-69 it spent $50m and received $72m. In the following year it spent $55m and received $77m, and last year it spent $61m and received $78m. In other words, there has been a credit over the last 5 years of something like $90m. I would like to see that amount recirculated into a loan fund. The Opposition would like to see these loans made available to other persons and the system as a whole grow.

I want to deal now with an aspect that will be dealt with by the amendment that I have foreshadowed. I want to argue basically on the situation in New South Wales, and particularly in Sydney, in regard to the costs of houses and land. The position of the costs is everywhere an acute one but these costs differ from State to State and from city to city. There is no argument at all that in relation to these costs Sydney has the greatest crisis of any city in the nation, particularly with respect to land costs. Of course, housing costs go hand in hand with land costs.

In Sydney the average cost of land is $8,000 and the average cost of a house in the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board area, which stretches from Kiama in the south to Brooklyn on the Hawkesbury River in the north to Emu Plains in the west, was $1 1,600. So, looking at the broad spectrum, in this area the average cost of land and dwelling is in excess of $19,000. Even the Government’s table which I have incorporated in Hansard shows the average cost of land and dwelling in New South Wales to be $14,990. Surely honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly those from New South Wales such as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham), who served with the forces and wears his Ail Force badge with great pride, should stand up and vote with the Opposition on this issue and on the amendment which will bo moved later. Surely the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who is a great war horse, a great man for blood and guts in war, a great supporter of the Vietnam war and the sending of our boys overseas, should vote with the Opposition. Where are those crusaders of the services on the Government side? I want to see them vote with the Opposition. The departmental figures are there for them to see. Going back through the history of this Government’s administration one will find that at one time not only did the available loan meet the average cost of a war service borne, but that those eligible for one got an even better than average home.

There are other aspects of this subject with which I want to deal in the Committee stages. I want to deal with aspects such as the power of the Director and the Minister. I want to consider the right of the Minister to define the power of the Director and to say what he can and cannot do. I would like to receive a stricter definition of the powers of the Minister. There are examples of instances where the Minister has even placed restrictions on the Director while on other occasions he has made his own independent decision. The Opposition wants to see a regulation controlling these powers. In November 1968 my Party moved an amendment and in the Committee stage of this Bill it will move a similar amendment. We will deal also in the Committee stage with other aspects, such as cases where a person is suffering from illness, and other difficult cases. We will consider the position of the widow of an eligible person and that of the wife of an eligible person who is temporarily oi permanently insane or incapacitated, in addition to other problems and technical detail which the -Opposition, due to its personal involvement, feels should be dealt with in the Committee stage. We hope that there will be sympathetic consideration for these matters on the Government side and that, even if honourable members opposite do not support the Opposition on this occasion, they will at least give the matters serious thought so that the Act can be altered in the near future. I hope that, on this occasion, even honourable members on the Government side will vote with the Opposition to support my amendment.

The war service homes scheme commenced with very fine principles. The scheme has deteriorated because of the policy of this Government which has allowed inflation to run rampant. Housing and land costs have increased out of all proportion to the rise in average weekly earnings. During the Committee stage I will quote the figures for New South Wales with respect to war service homes. I point out now that land and housing costs in that State alone with respect to war service homes have risen some 3 times faster than average weekly earnings.

It is with these words that I offer some criticism of this legislation. I hope that those honourable members on the Government side who wear their RSL badges with pride will at least vote with us to support our amendment seeking to increase the value of the war service homes loan to $15,000 so that the people in New South Wales to whom I have referred - and New South Wales is the most populous State of the Commonwealth - will be not only assisted to obtain a home but will be able to acquire a dwelling and so live with some security. If this is done they will also be able to live in some peace and will receive some reward for past service in time of war, whether they served in the Second World War or in Vietnam.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I listened to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) speak of his sympathy for men returning from conflict. I bear in mind the debate which preceded discussion of this Bill this afternoon. I will not discuss those matters in this debate or bring them into the contribution which I intend to make, except to say one thing. I agree with the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) that the motion which was moved earlier today was introduced prematurely. We should have waited until all of our servicemen were home before we started saying some of the things that we said this afternoon. In many instances what was said was uttered for political purposes only. I do not propose to use those matters in my speech.

I see from the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) that overall 322,000 eligible persons have been assisted with home finance under the War Service Homes Act. At the present time 188,000 people are receiving loan assistance. A quick mental calculation using the figure of $6,000 per home, which is the additional amount that the honourable member for Reid has suggested by way of amendment is required to be added to the present loan level, gives a total of $ 1,128m. I believe that sympathy must be mixed with a certain amount of practicality, no matter how distressing the situation is. The scheme is a very fine one. I would say that rising costs probably have whittled away the overall benefit of the money to the ex-serviceman. But it is impractical to suggest that $l,128m should be provided with a wave of the hand.

The amount of the war service homes loan has been increased from $8,000 to $9,000 while the interest rate has remained the same at 3 J per cent over 50 years. A great number of people have been assisted under this scheme. The point that I wish to make this afternoon concerns the difference between the cost, of building a house in the south - that is, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne - and the cost of building a house in the Northern Territory. I refer to any part of the Northern Territory, be it Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Darwin. I urge the Government and anyone who has the responsibility of working out the amount of a fixed loan or a fixed grant relative to the cost of erecting a home to give consideration to the argument that I will put A person working out the value of such a loan or grant calculates the cost of erecting a building in the south. I take as an example the cost of building a house in Adelaide. I instance the average family home with 3 bedrooms which is between 12 squares and 15 squares in area. The cost of building such a house in Adelaide is between $750 and $1,000 a square. Therefore in Adelaide the cost of a 12-square home is approximately $9,500 while a 15-square home costs approximately $15,000.

When the Government determines amounts for loan housing purposes, it should take into account the fact that in Alice Springs the cost per square of a home of the same type that I have just mentioned varies between $1,200 and $1,500. This means that in Alice Springs a 12-square home costs $15,000 and a 15- square home costs as much as $22,500. The cost of a similar home in Darwin would be roughly the same. 1 believe that housing costs in Darwin were slightly higher a couple of years ago because a great deal of building was going on. A great demand existed for construction work. Now prices there are somewhat keener and I think that they would have returned to approximately the level of costs at Alice Springs. The cost of erecting a home at Tennant Creek is $200 a square more than the cost in Alice Springs. These are the costs which must be met by a person receiving either a war service homes loan or any other form of grant, loan or fixed amount.

I have compared the cost of building an average 3 bedroom family home in the Northern Territory with the cost of building the same home in the south where the determination is made as to what the size of a housing loan or grant shall be. The difference in the cost of a 3 bedroom home in the 2 areas is approximately $5,000 for the 12-square home. With respect to a 15-square home, the difference between the cost of erection in Adelaide and in Alice Springs or Darwin is $7,000, almost as much as the amount of the war service homes loan itself. If the amount of the loan was raised to $15,000, as the honourable member for Reid suggests, the same comparison would apply. Depending on the size of the house that the serviceman built, it would cost bini $5,000 or $7,000 more to erect in the Northern Territory.

I ask why the Government permits people who live in these more remote areas to be disadvantaged to this extent. A difference of $5,000 between the cost of erecting a 12-square home in Adelaide and a home of the same area in Alice Springs or Darwin in the Northern Territory is a large sum of money. I ask the Government to reconsider this situation so that some type of sliding scale may be introduced by which, as building costs rise, some favourable differentiation will be applied with respect to these loans to people who live in the outposts of this country. What is more, building costs in Darwin are escalating even more now with the threatened stoppage of the Western Australian shipping service. A lot of building material and timber is brought up the west coast in these ships. If the service is stopped next month the building costs will go even higher.

Mr James:

– They do not stop because they like it.

Mr CALDER:

– They stop because the wharfies take something like 48 days to unload 5,000 tons of cargo. That is why the ships cannot afford to go there. I ask the Government to look at the fixed amount of the loan and to consider a differential for people who live in the outback, where costs are a lot higher. The simple figures that I have produced this afternoon show the cost of building these houses. I urge the Government to bring in a scheme so that these people will have parity wilh those who live in the south.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I shall deal with a few other matters and in particular with paragraph 2 of the amendment which seeks to increase from $9,000 to $15,000 the amount which an eligible person may borrow. I believe that this is common sense. Anybody with any practical knowledge must appreciate that the amount of $9,000 is not nearly enough to cover a reasonable borrowing to purchase or to build a home under today’s cost, structure. Immediately after the war the amount which a person could borrow went a very long way towards covering the cost of purchasing or building a house, including the cost of the land. To say today that the proportion of the cost of a house and land, or a secondhand house, has to be reduced is ridiculous and quite unreal. AH it does is to force people on to the second mortgage market.

Although people can borrow at 4) per cent interest on a war service home they are nevertheless forced into the situation of borrowing at very excessive rates on what one could call the black market. This is the second mortgage market in which interest rates are excessive. Admittedly, the War Service Homes Division must give approval to any such borrowings. Nevertheless it is illogical that a person should be placed in the position of having to pay excessive interest rates on the black market. To avoid having to do that, people need an appreciable amount of capital behind them, which the great majority of those who apply for war service loans do not have.

I wish to deal also with the matter of second loans. This is an issue which has been raised in this chamber for many years by honourable members from both sides of the House. I have dealt with many cases, as other honourable members have, in which people have to sell their present war service home for such very valid reasons as health or transfer in employment or because their family has multiplied and the home they are living in is no longer adequate. Except in very exceptional circumstances approval for a second war service loan is decline. In all my experience of the cases which have come to me 1 have not gained from the present Minister or from the Minister when I previously served in this Parliament one single approval of a second loan, even though in some instances extreme hardship was created by forced transfer of employment from State to State in the Public Service. Other cases of extreme hardship were brought about by bad health - in asthma cases, for instance - necessitating a move to another place. Yet the approval has always been declined.

If a person has a reasonable case approval should be given. It is logical that if a person has to move because of his employment, for health reasons or because his home is no longer adequate for his family he should not be placed in a position of having to renounce his war service loan and borrow at very much greater rates. When all is said and done, the amount of interest charged for a war service loan is simply what should be charged in respect of all housing loans whether they be from the War Service Homes Division, insurance companies, banks or building societies, not to mention all the fringe organisations which are reaping far too great a benefit for themselves at the expense of the ordinary home buyer.

It seems logical to me that we grant repatriation benefits to any person who served in the Second World War, irrespective of whether or not he served in a theatre of war and irrespective of whether or not he served in the Australian Imperial Forces, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Navy or the Citizen Military Forces. In other words, a person who served during the period of the Second World War can receive repatriation benefits if he served in the CMF, but for some reason we do not adopt the same approach when it comes to a war service loan. I cannot understand the logic of this attitude. I am fortunate enough to have a war service loan because I was in the AIF. and served in a theatre of war. There were plenty of people in the A IP who never served in a theatre of war and there were plenty of people in the CMF who did so serve because they were directed into a theatre of war. Yet I find that many CMF personnel come to me asking for assistance. If they did not serve in a theatre of war they are not entitled to a war service loan. Yet if that same person during his period of service in the Second World War received some injury as a result of his service, or contracted some disease or illness which is permanent, irrespective of whether it was sustained inside or outside a theatre of war, he would be entitled to repatriation benefits. As I said, the logic of this attitude on the part of the Government and the Department is just beyond my comprehension.

I come back again finally to the matter which I first mentioned, and that is that the amount of loan which has been increased from $8,000 to $9,000 does not allow for the excessive increases in building and land costs that have occurred since the previous increase of the loan. By limiting the loan to $9,000 a person must either have a large amount of capital behind him in order to purchase or build the home or. alternatively, that person will be forced on to the market for a second loan at very high interest rates. I do not think this is doing the right thing by the ex-serviceman because, when all is said and done, this legislation was first introduced to assist ex-servicemen lo obtain homes and to meet from 80 to 90 per cent of the cost of those homes. That is simply not possible under this Bill unless the person concerned is to buy a hovel somewhere.

Mr Luchetti:

– This is injustice.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I agree with the honourable member for Macquarie that this is an injustice. It is a complete contravention of the original intention of the Act. The Act has not kept pace with the passage of time or with the excessive increases that have occurred since the war in the costs of building, and land in particular, and I believe for this reason that it wold be far more logical and far more real if the Government were to accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Hallett)- Order! I point out to the honourable member for Chifley that there is no amendment before the Chair at the moment. Amendments have been foreshadowed, but they have not been moved.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I stand corrected. I believe that the proposal in the amendment which has been foreshadowed is far more logical and real and is far more likely to assist the ex-serviceman in the manner in which the Act originally was intended when this legislation was first brought into the Parliament. It was intended to ensure that every ex-serviceman had the opportunity of purchasing a home at reasonable interest rates and with reasonable repay.ments by being able to obtain the vast proportion of the funds which were required to purchase or build that home at a reasonable rate of interest. For that reason I support the amendment which has been foreshadowed.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– I do not propose to speak at any great length because I do not think that is necessary after our pretty exhaustive debate yesterday on housing in general, but there are a few points on which I would like to place emphasis, and I have one interesting suggestion for the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) to consider. I think we should now and then consider what a magnificent scheme this has been. The war service homes scheme was commenced in 191.9, and for the 30 years up to 1949 when this Government took office, a total of 63,000 ex-servicemen had been provided with homes at a cost of $105m. From 1949 up to June this year 261,217 ex-servicemen have been provided with homes at a cost of $1,3 3 5m. These are very big figures. I was just doing a little mental calculation which indicates that in the total period of the scheme’s operation - I think it is one of the most magnificent any country has ever adopted - a total of 324,217 ex-servicemen have been provided with homes, and with their families, which is the way we normally calculate things in Australia, this means that about 1 million people have been provided with homes. These are very big figures and this scheme has had a tremendous effect upon the community.

The interest rate that has been mentioned is a subsidised interest rate. It still stands at 3$ per cent over a period of 45 years or, in the case of widows, 50 years. I would point out to members of the Opposition who are proposing to move for further expenditure that under the existing rates of interest applicable to loans of this kind the interest rate is subsidised by approximately 4 per cent. In other words, on a loan of $9,000 an ex-serviceman is receiving a gift of approximately $360 a year or $7 a week. This is sometimes not thought of when people refer to the figures which apply to the loan. The position is not as it has been stated by a few honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) did mention this, but if honourable members read the very beginning of this Act they will find that the intention was to assist exservicemen to get a home. It is not a housing scheme in the ordinary sense but is a repatriation scheme. In other words, it is a repatriation benefit for the man who has served his country as a soldier and it must be looked at in that light. It is not subject to a means test in any shape or form although there are, of course, conditions which apply to it. For instance, an exserviceman cannot get a loan if he already owns a home. The loan is granted only once.

I intend to make a suggestion in relation to this loan. I understand and sympathise with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) who spoke of the additional costs in relation to homes in Darwin. Because of the nature of the loan, it being a repatriation benefit, it is not a loan in the ordinary sense secured upon a certificate of title of a property. The title cannot be further encumbered, without the approval of the Director of War Service Homes or the Minister, by a second mortgage. In certain circumstances a second mortgage can be obtained from a bank provided that the bank lends the money as a personal loan and the home is not used as security because power of sale cannot be exercised against a war service homes title in the event of default unless this loan has been approved by the Director. That is, of course, a very important factor.

I appreciate, and I have said this before in the House, that with increasing costs the amount of $9,000 is not large and I have thought that it ought perhaps to be increased a little. I would not have been averse if it had been increased to $10,000 but I certainly do not support the amount of $15,000 that has been mentioned. That is quite absurd. As I have pointed out, every time we increase this loan by $1,000 we are giving a very considerable amount to the ex-servicemen because of the subsidised interest rate. This is the difficulty. But in my opinion there is a way by which this difficulty can be overcome and a way by which the problems referred to by the honourable member for the Northern Territory can be solved and the deposit gap about which the honourable member for Reid is so worried can be bridged.

This Government has established an organisation called the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The function of the Corporation is to do precisely what we want to do here, and that is to bridge the deposit gap. It is a Government organisation, as is the war service homes organisation. There is no reason in the world why special permission could not be given to the HLIC to guarantee a second mortgage taken out by an ex-serviceman at the normal current rate of interest which may be 7 per cent or 74 per cent in certain cases to enable the borrower to bridge the deposit gap under better than the normal conditions in our community.

There is no doubt that this could be done and these people would be able to get this money because if security were given by the Government with the HLIC insuring a loan to make sure that the repayments were made then there would be no chance of default in repayment of the second mortgage and there would be no difficulty whatsoever in getting the money which a soldier may need to bridge the deposit gap. In any case I think that a system could be introduced which would require ex-servicemen to put up a reasonable deposit. I do suggest to the Minister that this is something that ought to be looked at because it is a problem and rather than increase the loan beyond the proposed$9,000to assist ex-servicemen with the excessive prices for property such a scheme would overcome this difficulty. I seriously suggest that this is something which might be looked intoI know that perhaps in certain circumstances the Director of War Service Homes may be sympathetic in permitting a second mortgage but I have known of a lot of cases in which this has become a problem because of the nature of the security required for a second mortgage. It is quite different from the average commercial considerations.

We all know about the second loan which was mentioned by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), because every honourable member has been faced with circumstances in which people have wanted a second loan. I think that the Department of Housing which, if 1 may say so, is one of the best organised and administered departments in the Federal organisation I say quite definitely that its administration is splendid in every way should look very closely into the question of a second loan. Under no circumstances should this great housing scheme be endangered by allowing it to become the kind of scheme in which people can trade in property.

The scheme gives a repatriation benefit in terms of the acquisition of a home for an ex-serviceman. I think that the Department is doing the right thing by not allowing a second loan unless the case calls for the utmost sympathy. But there are cases in which second loans should be granted. These are the extreme cases, and there have been many such cases. Perhaps some of us think that the Department is a little too hard in regard to this matter but I point out to honourable members and to the Government that this Department has to be very firm about the question of a second loan. If it were not second loans could interfere with the proper administration of the scheme.I hope that the Minister will take some notice of what I have suggested in relation to the bridging of the deposit gap for ex-servicemen by attaching a special condition or by permitting the HLIC to provide proper security for an ex-serviceman who needs a second mortgage.

Debate (on motion by Mr Les Johnson) adjourned.

page 3693

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, which is for an Act to replace the Trade Practices Act 1965-1971, was foreshadowed in a statement the Attorney General (Senator Greenwood) made to the

Parliament on 7th September 1971 following the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited and others - commonly referred to as the concrete pipes ca-e. The purpose of the Bill is to overcome the constitutional defects that were found to exist in the Trade Practices Act in that case.

In his statement of 7th September the Attorney-General pointed out that the High Court had held that, due to the way in which the Trade Practices Act sought to use al! the constitutional powers believed to be available to sustain the legislation, it was open to legal objection. The AttorneyGeneral ako pointed out that the High Court had made il clear that the corporations power in section 51 (xx) of the Constitution could be used to support legislation dealing with the restrictive trade practices of corporations and that the Government had accordingly decided that the immediate remedial legislation should be founded on that power alone.

Although certain provisions of the Trade Practices Act dealing with resale price maintenance were subsequently declared to bc valid by the Commonwealth Industrial Court there are substantial parts of the Act which have been rendered wholly inoperative by the High Court’s decision. Proceedings which were on foot with respect to pharmaceutical wholesalers have not been able to be continued. The legislative requirements and powers of the Commissioner of Trade Practices with respect to examinable agreements and examinable practices and the provisions relating to collusive bidding and collusive tendering have not been able to be enforced or exercised. lt is clear from the High Court’s decision that there are large gaps in the effective operation of the Act. In these circumstances the present Bill has been introduced as a matter of immediate need in order to remedy the defects in the legislation. It is an interim, or holding measure, pending the introduction at the earliest possible opportunity of strengthening legislation. 1 have more to say about this strengthening legislation later.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to stress the holding character of this Bill. Certain amendments to the Bill which tire quite incompatible with this holding char acter were made to it in another place. These amendments relate to monopolisation, predatory price cutting and discriminatory dealing. The amendments relating to predatory pricing and monopolisation are contained in clauses 35 and 36. Insofar as discriminatory dealing is concerned, sub-clause (l.)(a) of clause 38 has been amended, as appears from the explanatory memorandum, and sub-clause (l.)(b) of that clause is new. As I have already indicated, however, (he Government is currently reviewing this legislation with a view to strenghening it. The task is both an important and a complex one. The subject matter of the amendments will be considered in that review. But, Sir, the ill-considered changes introduced into the holding Bill could have unintended and damaging effects and should be avoided. The amendments that were made in the other place are plainly ill-considered. They would give rise to many uncertainties. Businesses would be left in doubt as to whether proposed courses of action would constitute criminal offences. The new offences of monopolisation and predatory pricing would render the existing examinable practice of monopolisation unworkable and the net result would be that far from strengthening the other provisions of the Bill the amendments would weaken it. The Government cannot accept these amendments. I shall be moving for their deletion at a later stage and 1 propo.se to disregard them in the rest of this speech.

The task of remedying the defects in the Trade Practices Act by way of amendment of the existing provisions would have been a complex and unsatisfactory one, that is, if we left the existing Act, so far as it remains in existence, and tried to add amendments to it. The Bill accordingly provides for the repeal of the existing Act, and for the re-enactment of provisions that are similar except that, apart from the shipping provisions, they are founded on the corporations power alone. The shipping provisions remain founded on the overseas and inter-State trade and commerce power but the other provisions of the Bill do not draw upon that power nor upon other powers such as the power with respect to the Commonwealth’s Territories. This has been done in order to avoid problems of the kind disclosed by the High Court and, by facilitating the drafting, to avoid undesirable delay in the introduction of the Bill. The relationship of the Bill to the corporations power is provided for in a number of the operative provisions of the Bill such as those defining the agreements and practices that it covers. As the Attorney-General indicated in his statement on 7th September 1971, the Government is satisfied that legislation thus based entirely on the corporations power will cover the vast majority of significant restrictive practices that could be covered by Commonwealth legislation if reliance were placed on all available powers.

The Bill does not make provision for complementary State legislation, nor does it draw upon the reference of power from Tasmania. The task of including provisions with respect to these matters would have been a complex and time-consuming one and it would have delayed the introduction of the Bill. Such provisions have accordingly been deferred for consideration in connection with the subsequent strengthening legislation. I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Apart from minor drafting changes and some transitional provisions, and some changes concerning the manner of fixing the remuneration and certain related matters for the statutory office holders, the provisions of the Bill differ from the existing Act only to the extent that is necessary to remedy the constitutional defects. I shall refer to some of the more important of the differences. Further details are set out in the explanatory memorandum I have circulated to honourable members. The examinable agreements and the practices covered by the Bill have been re-defined so as to relate them in each case to the corporations power. I shall not take the time of the House to explain the details of these changes. They are indicated in the explanatory memorandum. The general approach, however, is to confine examinable agreements to agreements under which restrictions arc accepted by corporations and to confine the practices to those practices which are either engaged in by or affect corporations. Similarly the provisions relating to the offences of collusive tendering and collusive bidding have been confined so that they apply only to tendering and bidding by corporations.

Part XV contains a number of transitional provisions, which will give continuing effect to certain steps that have been taken under the existing Trade Practices Act. It would be pointless to require that these steps be taken again under the new provisions. It is provided, for example, that the persons presently holding offices under the Trade Practices Act should continue in the corresponding offices under the new provisions. This will apply to the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal, the Commissioner of Trade Practices, the Registrar of the Tribunal and the Clerk of Shipping Agreements. As a great number of agreements registered under the existing Act will be subject to registration under the new provisions, it is provided that the parties to these agreements need not again furnish particulars that they have furnished for the purposes of the existing Act. The agreements in question are deemed to have been registered under the new provisions, and they are to be incorporated with and to form part of the register kept under the new provisions.

The Commissioner of Trade Practices has of course received from persons and is currently holding much information which it is plainly desirable that he should be able to retain. The Bill accordingly authorises the Commissioner to retain documents he has obtained from other persons so long as the documents can be related to a relevant head of constitutional power. The Bill also ensures that the new secrecy provisions apply to documents and information that the Commissioner has obtained under the existing Trade Practices. This means that the Commissioner and his staff will be forbidden from disclosing documents and information of this kind except in the narrow circumstances in which the secrecy provisions permit disclosure.

Another group of transitional provisions deals with the various proceedings that have been conducted or are presently on foot in the Trade Practices Tribunal. The first of these proceedings was between the Commissioner of Trade Practices and Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd. These proceedings were ended when the company gave to the Tribunal an undertaking to cease engaging in certain conduct. In the second proceedings - relating to frozen vegetables - the Tribunal recently determined, after a lengthy hearing, that certain agreements were contrary to the public interest, and it made a consequential restraining order. The Bill will ensure that the undertaking, the determination and the order have continuing effect. Two other proceedings are at present pending in the Trade Practices Tribunal. The first of these was instituted by the Commissioner of Trade Practices in May this year against certain wholesalers of pharmaceutical products, ft concerns an alleged examinable agreement. The other proceedings concern an application that has been made by a publishing company for the exemption of books under the resale price maintenance provisions. In both cases preliminary conferences have been held before the Tribunal and steps have been taken towards a full hearing. In order to avoid the need for these cases to be instituted anew, and for the preliminary steps to be taken again, the Bill provides for these cases to be regarded as if they had been instituted under the new provisions.

The Bill contains somewhat similar provisions in relation to overseas cargo shipping. Under the existing Act notices have been served by the Minister for Trade and Industry on a number of shipowners requiring them to appoint agents resident in Australia, and to have an address for service in Australia. The BUI provides for these notices and the agents appointed and addresses notified to the Minister in response to them to be deemed to have been served, appointed and notified under the new provisions. There is a similar provision with respect to notices served by the Minister on shipowners requiring them to undertake to negotiate with shipper bodies in certain circumstances, and to undertakings given to the Minister in response to these notices. Conference agreements that have been furnished for filing under the existing Act will not need to be filed again. The secrecy provisions governing the Clerk of Shipping Agreements and his staff will apply to documents and information obtained by them under the existing Act. The agreements and practices of certain primary produce marketing bodies are exempt from the operation of the present Act by virtue of regulations made under section 106. These exemptions are continued by the present Bill but they may bc varied by further regulations.

As 1 have made clear, the present Bill is a holding measure to deal as a matter of urgency with the immediate effects of the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case. Apart from changes made necessary by that decision the provisions of the Bill are substantially the same as those in the existing Act. At this stage the Bill does not provide for the extension or strengthening of the existing provisions. The Government has, however, made it clear that it places great importance oh the need for effective restrictive trade practices legislation to help bring about a more competitive atmosphere in the economy. I remind honourable members that in January of this year the former Prime Minister expressed the view of the Government that increased internal competition would help the economy, In April the Government introduced legislation, to outlaw resale price maintenance. On 17th August the Prime Minister informed the Parliament that the Government was reviewing the Trade Practices Act in order to Strengthen it and to encourage much more vigorous competition. In the AttorneyGeneral’s statement on 7th September 1971 he said that the Government was committed to strengthening the legislation and that it proposed to follow the present holding Bill with a further Bill the purpose of which will be to strengthen the legislation. The Attorney-General referred to the considerable amount of work and attention that was being given to this objective and, in particular, to the consideration being given to the matter by an interdepartmental committee. The Government has since received a report from that committee. The report covers a number of important and complex matters which deserve close consideration. The Government is proceeding to give these matters full and proper consideration. Honourable members may be assured that the Government is proceeding with this task as expeditiously as possible. The preparation of a Bill on such a complex and important matter may take some time, but the Government proposes that, as soon as it is in a position to do so, it will announce the nature of the changes that it has decided to make the legislation.

The immediate and pressing need, however, is to restore lo the statute book restrictive trade practices legislation that is constitutionally sound. That is the purpose of this Bill. Earlier in this speech I referred to certain provisions which had been inserted by way of amendment in the other place and mentioned that I would be moving for their deletion at a later stage. Subject to this I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 3697

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1971-72

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $30m to be lent to the Australian Wool Commission, in order to supplement as necessary its working capital. The money will be available for use by the Commission, to the extent that it is necessary for it to purchase wool in the course of maintaining its reserve prices in the wool market, and for the purchase of price averaging plan wool on hand at the end of the third pool period.

I think it is worth while recalling briefly the sequence of steps leading up to the present situation. The Wool Commission was established about 12 months ago, empowered to operate a flexible reserve price scheme for wool sold at auction. The aim was to reduce the instability of auction prices and to prevent wool being sold at reduced prices due to temporary slackening of competition at auctions. Following a rise in the initial period of the Commission’s operations, wool prices fell and the Commission decided that, when auctions commenced after the Christmas recess, average reserve prices would be held at the closing levels of the 1970 sales. This action resulted in the Commission purchasing or having passed in to it large quantities of wool. However in sales after Easter there was some improvement in the market and the Commission’s purchasing rate fell during the closing months of 1970-71. The Com mission also resold some 73,000 bales of its stocks. After some further sales between the selling seasons, the Commission’s stock at the commencement of the 1971-72 season was 431,000 bales.

The House was informed in my Budget Speech that the Government would continue to support the Commission in its reserve price operations on the same basis as in the past season, subject to regular reports and review by the Commission. The decision to introduce a one-year scheme of deficiency payments was also announced in the Budget Speech. These decisions were reached after consideration of the severe financial plight of the wool industry and also of the best assessments available of the market outlook. At that time the economic measures subsequently taken by the Government of the United States of America and the consequent international currency disturbances could not be predicted. The extent to which these unforeseeable factors have affected the market situation cannot be measured, but undoubtedly it has been marked.

The Commission’s buying-in rates during the early months of the current season were at a high level. Clearances to the trade during November have been better, but continued purchases by the Commission have brought its stocks to in excess of 700,000 bales. The Government has therefore undertaken a further review of the wool market situation. On the basis of the latest report by (he Commission on its operations, and its views on alternative courses of action, recommendations were presented to Cabinet by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). The Government decided that the best course of action in present circumstances was for the Commission to maintain its current reserve price.

The working capital already available to the Commission totals $86m. Of this amount $22m has been made available as a loan from appropriations by this Parliament - SI 2m in the last financial year and $1Om in the current financial year. Loans totalling $64m have been made available to the Commission by the trading banks, of which $30m has been made available this financial year on the basis that it will be repaid not later than 30th April 1972. The Commission pays interest at 64 per cent per annum on all these borrowed funds and the same rate is proposed on advances from the money to be appropriated by the Bill. Unless the Commission’s buying-in rate drops very sharply the money already available to it for wool purchases will be fully committed during the parliamentary recess. lt was against this background that the Government decided - despite its reluctance to introduce new measures at this stage of the sittings - that this Bill should be brought forward now. The alternative would be to face the likelihood that the Commission would have insufficient funds available to enable it to hold its present reserve prices. The Government is not willing to take that course, lt believes that the disruption to the wool market likely to result from abandonment of the Commission’s reserve prices would result in a further fall in wool prices and make recovery more difficult. It would also result in an increase in the financial commitment for deficiency payments which, if prices during the rest of the season remain at present average levels, is estimated to be just over $t00m. Were further funds not provided to the Commission to maintain its present reserve prices, it is a matter of speculation what the resultant fall in prices and consequent increase in deficiency payments might be. If the fall were to average 6c per pound, the additional commitment for deficiency payments would be about $65m.

Looking further ahead, to 1972-73 and subsequent years, it is clear that the level of support provided to the wool industry this year, through deficiency payments and the Commission’s reserve price operations, cannot be continued. No industry can expect an open-ended commitment on the part of the Government and the taxpayer. The wool industry has been advised by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry thai proposals it is developing for the Government’s consideration must be realistically based and take fully into account the likely relationship between market demand and prospective supplies. The measures adopted this year will cushion the effects of the decline in the wool market and give time for adjustment to the new circumstances to be worked out. But for the future the Government will be seeking long-term solutions, including thorough investigation of the possibilities of supply management.

The Government hopes that in the period between now and the end of the 1971-72 wool selling season there will be a marked strengthening of demand and that the outlook for 1972-73 will be one of confidence. The Government and the industry must, however, plan for the eventuality that the trend will not be as favourable. For the present the Government has decided that the Wool Commission should continue to operate on the basis of its current fixed reserve price policies and that the Commission should be given access to additional funds to enable it to do so. The funds to be appropriated by this Bill are for that purpose, and 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 3698

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Pursuant to statute I. present the following paper:

Audit Act - Supplementary report to the Auditor-General upon other accounts (or year ended 30th June 1971.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3698

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 3693).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In resuming the debate on the War Service Homes Bill I want to say, as other honourable members have said, that the war service homes institution in Australia is highly regarded right throughout the community. Indeed, it has brought great benefit to large numbers of ex-servicemen. The war services homes principle has been upheld by both Liberal and Labor governments, and it goes without saying that this will always be so in the future. The War Service Homes Act was enacted in 1918 and it came into operation on 6th March 1919. It is interesting to note that some 320,000 ex-servicemen have been assisted with loans over that period. I understand that the assets of the War Service Homes Division are in the vicinity of $936m, and despite the benefits extended to ex-servicemen, the fact is that this great institution runs at a profit. I was intrigued to hear the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) express the view that exservicemen were being subsidised. The operation of the War Service Homes Act is not a subsidising process at all. As I have indicated, it is a very profitable venture.

The war service homes scheme is financed by allocations of money from Consolidated Revenue. The money comes from revenue, not from loans. Of course, from that standpoint very beneficial results are derived for ex-servicemen and also for Consolidated Revenue. The country al large has benefited enormously at the expense, if you like, of ex-servicemen. Large profits have been made out of providing war service homes for Australian ex-servicemen. That may come as a surprise to the honourable member for Bennelong. If he is harbouring any kind of malice or anxiety because he thinks that we have been subsidising ex-servicemen, let me encourage him to get ‘hat idea out of his head for all time, because it is not so. As I have said, actually we have been deriving considerable profits from the operation of the war service homes scheme. In fact, 1 understand that this year we have spent some $61 m on the scheme, but we have collected $16m more than we have spent.

Mr Irwin:

– That is not right.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am just indicating the position for this year. If the honourable member for Mitchell were to look at the operations of the scheme during the years, from ‘he time of its inception - and I am sorry that I have not had time to do so - he would be able to establish that this fabulous rate of profit has been made. As my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has said, if the Government can do this in regard to the provision of war service homes for ex-servicemen, it can also do i’. in regard to the provision of homes for other people. The honourable member for Bennelong is trying to interject. If he has a point of view to put I would be quite happy to discuss this matter with him because what 1 have said is unquestionably true. If it is necessary, on the mo’ ion for the adjournment of the House I will produce figures to substantiate the points I have been making.

The war service homes picture has not always been a rosy one. The honourable member for Bennelong talked about the benevolent attitude which the Government has adopted towards ex-servicemen in the 20-odd years it has been in office. But the fact is that for many years there were great queues for war service homes and the waiting periods extended over 15 or IS months. Thousands and thousands of exservicemen have been required to accept temporary finance at high rates of interest from all kinds of high interest money lenders and to repay those loans at 12 or 13 per cent interest. After financing those temporary loans the ex-servicemen have had to start afresh with their war service loans. T think that the honourable member for Bennelong and the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who is sitting at the table, would be prepared to concede the truth of what I am saying. For years and years the Government adopted an altitude of indifference towards the provision of war service homes. Year after year the Opposition contended that strong efforts should be made to take up the backlog of applications for war service homes, but ‘he Government did not respond until a short time ago.

Let us consider what happened last year. The memories of honourable members opposite are very short in this regard. Do not challenge me on this question because I have the substantiation here. LaU year there was a 6-months delay before exservicemen received war service loans. Why was that? This year there is a Budget surplus of $630m. Such is the state of the economy and the affluent nature of the Government’s finances, yet last year it obliged ex-servicemen to queue in order to borrow money at high rates of interest, lt kept them waiting for 6 months for war service loans. The Government has had a record of stop-go policies, and it has not always been benevolent in its attitude towards ex-servicemen regarding the transportation of their loans, the provision of second loans and such matters.

The Opposition is contending that the Government should raise the level of war service loans. It is ridiculous that at this moment an ex-serviceman can borrow only $8,000 for a war service home. The honourable member for Bennelong ha-< the audacity and the hide to stand up in this place and give the impression that the

Government really cares about exservicemen. Just a short time ago in another debate the Government was lauding the actions of the ex-servicemen who have returned from Vietnam. Of course, we all applaud what has happened there, but if one looks at the level of benefits that are paid under the Repatriation Act to servicemen who have lost an arm or a leg, one is unable to .support the contention that the Government has been benevolent in its attitude towards ex-servicemen. We are asking that the amount of a war service loans should be increased from S8.000 to a larger figure. I know thai lbc Government is proposing to raise the figure to $9,000, hut we are saying that it should be larger than that. We say that it ought to be approximately $15,000, because that is the amount of money which ex-servicemen are in fact paying for their homes.

The Government has adopted a petty and pedantic attitude in these matters. There has not been an original idea from the Government on the provision of war service homes for many years. Why should not we be thinking of expanding the war service homes scheme? There are many are’as into which it can justifiably be expanded. At the present time a serviceman has to be a member of the special overseas force before he is eligible to receive benefits, such as the preferential interest rate of 3$ per cent, under the war service homes scheme. We take the view that die scheme should be expanded to include other people. In fact, we say that its benefits should be available to all servicemen - the members of the permanent forces who indicate their willingness to get to war and to accept a military career. What would be wrong with extending the scheme to include all national servicemen - the young men of our country? 1 have already indicated that the war service homes scheme is not costing the Government anything; in fact the Government is making money out of it. What is wrong with making the scheme an enticement to young men of this country to serve in the forces? If we did this sort of thing we would be able to eliminate compulsory national service training. The provision of benefits such as this could be one of the attractions to entice young men to make a career in the Services. I suggest to the Government that it should earnestly consider these proposals.

There are many other things which could be done. Because of the profitable nature of this scheme in my view the Government ought to be prepared to extend it to people such as public servants and residents of the Northern Territory. I think that a contention was made in this regard even by the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Calder) who could hardly be regarded as the most intrepid of thinkers so far as these matters are concerned. There is an incredible reluctance on the part of the Government to take a compassionate and even a human attitude in regard to .such matters as the request for second assistance.

My colleague the honourable member for Barton [Mr Reynolds) has a very great involvement in the affairs of ex-servicemen. He takes a great interest in the Returned Service’s League of Australia and is always readily available lo ex-servicemen. He told me the other day that he had made representations on behalf of several exservicemen who had sought second assistance under the war service homes scheme; that is to say, they had already received a loan and they were asking for another loan. In effect they were asking for approval lo use the first loan for the acquisition of a second house which suited their convenience. One ex-serviceman, who f think my honourable colleague said was a TPI pensioner, built his house at a location near where an expressway has now been constructed. Six lanes of traffic roar up and down not far from his house. Naturally this ex-serviceman, who receives a pension for his war condition wants to be able to transfer his war service home loan (o finance the purchase of a dwelling in another area. But the request made on his behalf by the honourable member for Barton was rejected. Other people are in a similar situation.

The honourable member for Barton has told me of people who have been moved from one Stale to another, lt is incredible that the Commonwealth, in these cases, often deprives itself of the portability of ils public servants because of its unwillingness and its unpreparedness to provide second assistance or a second loan for a public servant who is compulsorily being moved from one State to another. There are many cases of this kind. I had a constituent who asked for consideration for his application for an additional grant. He bad received a second loan or second assistance because - I speak from memory - his house was to be resumed by the Education Department of New South Wales provided the Commonwealth would make second assistance available to him. He received second assistance and relocated himself in another house. However, he took only a small proportion of the , loan to which he was entitled. Subsequently he made a request for additional assistance. He wanted to take up the balance of his second loan because he wished to provide a sewerage service to the second house. He was told that he was unable to get additional assistance, which is made available to enable people to enlarge their homes and provide sewerage and things of that nature, because he had successfully applied for second assistance. Just how can we reconcile those things? What justification is there for an attitude of that kind?

I want to make some brief reference, in the time that remains to me, to the justification of the case for increasing the loan from $8,000 to $15,000. 1 am aware that the purpose of this Bill is to lift the loan to $9,000, but in my view that is not sufficient. I have some statistics to utilise in this regard but, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether 1 could do this after dinner?

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before the dinner adjournment I was advocating the expansion of the war service homes scheme and contending that rather than the war service homes scheme being a liability on the nation it in fact has made a profit. This is because the finance for war service homes is not derived from loan funds at all but is an allocation from Consolidated Revenue. I was making the point also that the war service homes scheme because it is making a profit even at its low rate of interest, 31 per cent, should be used as the basis for a scheme that would give housing opportunities to many other Australians in addition to ex-servicemen. I certainly believe that all ex-servicemen, including those who are at present doing national service or who have done national service, could be encouraged to undertake a military career if they had the war service homes scheme as an incentive. Similarly a lot more can be done to expand the scheme in the short term into the Public Service area and into the Northern Territory.

More importantly, there is no reason why the Government cannot show a bit more enthusiasm and take a very hard, efficient and effective look at the economics of the scheme. And if what I have been saying is the fact, that is, that it is making a profit - and I believe this to be the fact - we should take the business of financing homes out of the realm of money lenders and give the young people of Australia the opportunity to get housing at a reasonable rate of interest. To my way of thinking there is no reason in the world why this should not be done. We have been operating the war service homes scheme on the present basis since 1918 and this Government has been in office for a long time. It has been there especially during the period of rising land prices and housing costs and there is good reason now why we should be looking at this scheme to see whether it can be a kind of millennium for everyone and whether it is the kind of principle that should be expanded. When all is said and done, there have been many ex-servicemen who believed they had an entitlement under the war service homes scheme and who because of their belief applied for a loan but were unsuccessful. The fact is that since the scheme has been in operation something like 553,000 applications have been made and 321,000 have been approved. So there are 227,000 ex-servicemen who believed they had an entitlement and who have been rejected. Of course, there are many others who have never submitted an application at all.

The honourable member for Bennelong, who preceded me in this debate, was contending that there is no need to increase the maximum amount of the war service home loan which at present stands at $8,000. The Government intends under the Bill now before the House to increase it by $1,000 to $9,000. However, the honourable member believes it is unnecessary to increase the amount and says in effect that if these people want more money they should borrow it. He has advocated an arrangement whereby these people should be able to obtain coverage from the Commonwealth Housing Insurance Corporation. This is an expensive process. There is a high rate of interest involved and the person borrowing the money has to incur the costs involved, f do not believe this action is necessary. If they do have to obtain a second mortgage it ought to be sufficient for the Commonwealth Government to give its imprimatur to the lending authorities, lt ought to be sufficient for the Commonwealth Government to say to any lending authority in respect of a person who is an approved war service home applicant and who seeks the approval of the Commonwealth to obtain a second mortgage: ‘Yes, he has the collateral’. That should be sufficient and the great financial resources of the Commonwealth should be there to back him up. lt should not be necessary for these ex-servicemen to incur additional expense.

I want to mention just a couple of figures to show why the war service home loan should be lifted to a limit of SI 5,000 from the $9,000 it will be as a consequence of this Bill. The figures in the annual report of the War Service Homes Division indicate that the average cost of dwelling houses has been much higher than the loan which has been made available. The average cost of building a house in New South Wales has been $14,990 and there are many other figures which time will not permit me to enunciate now. Between 1961 lo 1971 the increase in the average cost of a war service home has been $6,000. One can imagine the kind of increase that will take place in the future. It is sensible and reasonable, as the Opposition proposes to show by its amendments to this Bill, that we should raise the limit on war service home loans from $8,000 to $15,000 because this is in keeping with the real costs that ex-servicemen are incurring at the present time. The alternative to doing this is to force the ex-servicemen in this country, who have been eulogised this afternoon, onto the mortgage market and into the hands of money lenders so that they will be spending large amounts of money meeting high interest rates. I believe that this is completely unnecessary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I will endeavour to enlighten honourable members opposite - (Quorum formed) As f was saying when 1 was so rudely interrupted, since the present Government came to office in 1949 some 261,000 persons have become home owners under the war service homes scheme. This is a record of achievement. There has been no slowing down of war service home construction since this Government came into office despite the fact that this Government’s term of office has seen heavy demands placed on the Government for finance for numerous new and important undertakings. We have every right to be quite proud of our record in the war service homes field. I am certain that under the administration of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) and his officers this activity will continue to be one in which the Government can take pride for many years to come.

The estimates for the Department of Housing provide for the expenditure of more than $94m on the various aspects of: the Department’s operations in the current year. A major activity of the Department is the construction of war service homes for those who have served this country in the various theatres of war. No doubt exists that the $60m allocated for war service homes will be money well spent. It will provide long term low interest loans for those who have served the country in war and who have been prepared to give their lives in order that our freedom may be secure.

One of the most pleasing aspects of the operation of the war service homes scheme is that about 20 per cent of those receiving these benefits have served Australia in the Vietnam war. No doubt this percentage will continue to increase in the future, particularly after the Vietnam commitment comes to an end. The Vietnam veterans deserve all the benefits that the war service homes scheme can provide. They have served this country with courage and honour. No doubt many of them will be able to obtain homes for their families through the provisions of this scheme.

Another aspect of the scheme which deserves special comment is the fact that those eligible for war service homes still are able to be assisted on application. In other words, there is no waiting period. Bearing in mind the demands’ that are placed on the War Service Homes Division. 1 believe this is a most notable achievement for which the Minister for Housing, who is at the table, and his officers can take credit. I certainly hope that this state of affairs will continue well into the future. The situation is different from the position some 10 years ago when long waiting periods were in force to meet the heavy demand for war service homes.

This year in excess of 7,800 applicants will be assisted by war service homes loans. I applaud the decision of the Government to increase the maximum loan from $8,000 to $9,000. Borrowers in the immediate future will receive the benefit of this increase. The Government recently agreed in principle to the acceptance of conditional purchase tenure in my own State of New South Wales as a suitable security for war service homes purposes. This certainly is a step in the right direction. Strata titles can how be accommodated and 99-year leases can be offered as security.

I wish to assist Opposition speakers who have demonstrated their confusion regarding money matters on which they appear to get out of their depth. As I stated, 261,000 people have been assisted by the war service homes scheme since 1949. Their repayments total approximately $80m a year. This year, in excess of $61m will be advanced for this scheme. By their peculiar mathematics, honourable members opposite have worked out that the profit from the scheme is $20m. How foolish can they become? The point is that in addition to the interest charge of 31 per cent we must take into consideration the huge staff, including professional people such as surveyors and legally qualified persons, who are employed to service this Division. Honourable members opposite do not take any of these matters into consideration. They take the income from these 261,000 people together with income from those who received advances prior to 1949 and who are still paying off their homes, and they fondly for their own purpose endeavour to create the idea that a profit of $20m has been achieved.

I turn to the subject of second loans. The scheme as originally conceived in 1918-19 sought to supply returned service-

21366/71- -R– 1131)

men with a home. There were many applicants. Times have changed considerably. When this scheme was initiated, Australia was a small nation with a population between 4 million and 5 million. The idea of the scheme was to enable ex-servicemen to obtain homes. In a great number of cases the first home provided to an exserviceman meets his lifetime requirements But difficulties do occur especially in providing extensions to a home and adding sewerage and other amenities that become available.

Allowing for the increases in management and control we should consider the needs of the ex-serviceman who. at this time, wants to extend his home or to add a few amenities. I know that acceptance of the need to meet these requirements would create extra work within the Division but I think that, rather than cause these people either to pay off the war service home loan or to obtain a second mortgage, it would be far preferable for the Division to supply this money. After all, these men have done a lot for Australia and, although they are not as highly regarded today as they once were, I still hope that this Parliament will revere them and acknowledge that, but for their deeds, we would not be living in the affluent society in which we live today.

The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) endeavoured to denigrate me because of my actions with respect to Vietnam. I am proud of my views. But I am one of those people who never expects anybody to do what T would not do myself. But for his slurring statement about my views, of which I am proud, I would not say this. I was in the front line in France when I was 18 years of age and I was a regimental sergeant, Lewis gunner. So, I have no compunction about what I did.

To those people who talk about Vietnam I say that they should go back to 1965 and recall the confrontation of Malaysia by Indonesia. They should recall the attempted communist coup in Indonesia on 30th September 1965. That coup failed by a few hours only. If both these plots had been successful, what would our position in Australia be today? The doves would be squealing like guinea pigs. They would be saying to America: ‘Come to our aid! Come to our aid!’ They would have gone to the Old Country - the United Kingdom - and said: ‘Come and help us! Come and help us!’

Let us get things straight. They are living in a fool’s paradise. If the 2 plans of which I have spoken had been successful, we would have been humbled and we would have had to put every Ounce of energy into building up great military forces to defend this wonderful Australia. I was disgusted to hear the statements that were made in this House today when we were trying to honour our men who served in Vietnam. Honourable members opposite spoke in a mean and despicable fashion and moved an amendment to the motion by which we were trying to give honour and thanks to those men who fought for us on Vietnam. Yes, I am proud that I supported our Vietnam commitment. The time will come when many of the doves who opposed this commitment will be regarded as traitors to Australia and to the free world.

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

– We have been privileged to listen to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) who has given his characteristic explanation of the value of this Bill. We are’ proud also to be able to agree with the honourable member for Mitchell in his assessment of Australia’s obligations in the world. Those obligations were undertaken by many Australians. Reference was made earlier this afternoon to those obligations. This Bill is not a large one compared with other War Service Homes Bills, lt was designed primarily to increase the maximum loan which can be advanced under the War Service Homes Act. I am grateful that the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John ‘ Cramer), who seems to be the butt of many charges by the Opposition, the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) have been able to describe clearly and explicitly the value of the assistance which the War Service Homes Act gives to those purchasers and borrowers who undertake and receive loans under the Act.

The level of the assistance to be given as a result of this Bill cannot properly be assessed unless it is realised that the interest rate remains at 3) per cent. It is true that the maximum advance will be increased from $8,000 to $9,000; but what is often unstated is that the interest rate will remain at 3f per cent with respect to this advance. It is appropriate to put into context . some of the criticisms that have been made of the Bill. Those who suggest that the amount of the loan is insufficient and who compare the cost of homes in various parts of Australia with the loan of $9,000 do so in a very lopsided manner. For example, were a loan of $8,000, negotiated on what are generally going rates of interest, to be compared with a loan negotiated under the rate of interest applicable under this Bill, an appropriate question to ask would be: What would be the total amount paid in interest to service that loan over the period for which the loan would apply? In other words, what is the comparison of the value of $8,000- or $9,000 - at 3i per cent interest, with the same amount of money at 7 per cent or 8 per cent interest? That is what people are paying elsewhere in the community. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and many other members of the Opposition have indicated that such interest rates are being charged outside the scheme.

Under the War Service Homes Act the loan applies for 45 years and, at the rests that are appropriate, at 3) per cent, $8,000-odd has to be paid in interest over that period. Let us compare that with what applies to other loans for housing. Even for 45 years an extra $10,000 would have to be paid, making a total of $18,000 compared with $8,000. The same comparison applies to loans of $9,000. This indicates what a great relative and real advantage this proposal represents compared with what can be obtained otherwise in Australia. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Maisey) knows it, because be has had some recent experience in this field.

The comparison can be put in another way. What is the total interest charge at 7 per cent on a loan of $9,000 compared with one at 3) per cent interest? This is a rather complicated calculation. It would be between $12,000 and SI 2,500. They are the types of comparisons which are appropriate to a proper conception of the fundamental nature of the Bill. Under those circumstances, and given the fact that this advance has been increased under current economic conditions, the extent of the Government’s concern with respect to war service homes activities is well demonstrated. After all, however one may like it and however one may dispute it, the fact is that fairy tale economics cannot make these sums available. Economics consists of an analysis of costs and of what alternatives are available. The Government has made it perfectly clear that it wants to give a real measure of increased assistance to war service homes activities, and it has done so.

The other features of the Bill relate to the types of security which can be negotiated and which may be appropriate for a Joan. These apply to certain leases which are more applicable to New South Wales, such as conditional purchase leases, certain kinds of State leases and local authority leases for a period not less than 99 years. I hope that those provisions of the Bill, which are rather technical, will be well received by all the honourable members from New South Wales on both sides of the House. In addition (o that, it is appropriate to consider some of the comments that have been made as to the alleged profit making aspect of war service homes activities. I find it very difficult to understand the reasoning in (his case. The provision of war service homes, as a financial enterprise, is not a profit-making activity. A table incorporated in a speech by the honourable member for Reid shows that in the 50 years since the inception of the scheme and for the period from 1950-51 it has not been a profit-making activity. I will quote some of these figures. Capital expenditure from the inception of the scheme to 30th June 1971 was $1.400m. The receipts with respect to that expenditure run at something over $900m. The gap illustrates not a profit-making activity but rather the reverse.

The loan balances outstanding at this moment are well over $900m. So the scheme is certainly nol a profit-making activity in a fully employed economy. Taking the period from 1950-51 to the present time, which was alleged lo have been rather more favourable, lcl me refer to the table which was introduced by the honourable member for Reid. I have done a quick sum, and it may be inexpert. The receipts from interest and repayments were less than $900m. The capital expenditure over the period was in excess of $l,200m. Whatever analysis is made over whatever substantial period of time, it will be seen that this is not a profit-making activity. Therefore one looks askance at the proposition that, because it is allegedly a profit making activity, it ought to be expanded to cover the whole community. The converse argument would be that, because it is in fact not a profit making activity, it may be impossible to expand it to the rest of the community. Let me make one other point in relation to this matter. A number of speakers have indicated that criticism of the Bill by the Opposition ls in the context of an overall housing policy supported by the Opposition. I have done some costing on housing policies supported by the Opposition and I understand that, On any analysis-

Mr Uren:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister summing up or is he making another second reading speech? If he is summing up he may sum up only on the discussion that took place in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order! The Minister did not move the second reading, so he is not speaking in reply.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I was pointing out some of the errors in the analyses put forward by members of the Opposition. I did not advance these matters. I am indicating some of the errors that are appropriate to be mentioned. It is my obligation to indicate these errors. We must have an addiction for the truth, lt is the Government’s desire to have that addiction on this occasion. Were such a scheme to be expanded to cover the whole of the community an extra S880m would be involved each year. From an analysis of other policy measures of the Opposition we can see that an extra $780m a year would be involved in expenditure on health and education proposals. As time goes by no doubt our sums will become more cumulative and more continuing. However, I return to the precise nature of the Bill. This Bill will be well received, lt will assist many men who desire assistance under it. It will assist the furtherance of the most generous and the best housing scheme in Australia.

While I am summing up I must refer to one or two points which were also made by the honourable member for Bennelong. He appreciated the real value of this measure. He said that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation might be given special permission to undertake insurance on second mortgage loans taken out by men who negotiated an advance under this Bill. He will appreciate that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is at present debarred from insuring mortgages on loans advanced by the Commonwealth but. of course, those mortgages can be insured by other mortgage insurance corporations at substantially similar rates of interest. So this Bill has as its principal aim the extension of the war service homes scheme. It is a scheme which has been in operation for over 5 decades and we think that this measure, which is designed principally to increase the maximum loan to $9,000 at 31 per cent interest, deserves the support of the House.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has tempted me to speak in this debate. I have often taken part in debates on the war service homes scheme. I have had something to do with the War Service Homes Division. I am one of those from the Second World war who had the advantage of this finance. It is a long time since 1 have heard a more shameful departure from the spirit of the legislation than in the Minister’s evaluation of the system of war service homes finance. Let us take one or two of the points at issue. First of all lel us deal with the question of the $9,000 loan. It is true that 20 years ago $9,000 would have been an ample loan, but at no stage in the last 20 years has the war service homes finance system been adequate lo bring housing within the reach of many Australians requiring it. That is just one of the facts of life. In Melbourne the average expenditure on a house is now somewhere between $14,000 and $16,000 no matter what sort of house one buys. The average price of housing land is somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000. So almost the minimum price for which one can get a standard home in Melbourne is about $11,000. That is just for the house itself. The result is that no matter what one does one will pay between $14,000 and $16,000 for the average, standard suburban house in which any Australian is entitled to live.

Mr Crean:

– It is $20,000 in Sydney.

Mr BRYANT:

– My colleague from Melbourne Ports points out that it is $20,000 in Sydney. If a person wants a house above normal standard either in size or equipment inside it is will run to $20,000 in Melbourne. There are some of the facts of life. For whom are we making these provisions? We are making them for servicemen. Let us consider the young fellows back from Vietnam. A number of them are totally and permanently incapacitated. Some of them have been conscripted into a lifetime of poverty. How are they ever going to make up the housing gap? They are driven to the housing commission type of housing which, adequate as it is through most of Australia tor what one might call average housing, does, not supply any of the individual requirements of the citizen. When I heard the Minister here this evening speaking as he did I. felt it was time that somebody stood up on a day such as this and denounced him as loud and long as one could do that. I have heard no more shameful use of eco.nomic doctrine as an explanation of a social measure in the 16 years I have been in this House. Moreover, this is the day upon which we passed a resolution of gratitude to the men who went to Vietnam. We know of course the Government’s tears of gratitude meant nothing at all and that this is just a political gimmick. Our friend from Mitchell (Mr Irwin) who was attacking us a while ago in the course of his oration showed that he does not know anything about it. He is completely insensitive to the ex-serviceman along with everybody else.

What are the principles behind war .service homes finance? First of all, it is not a financial system. It is not based upon economics. It has no relationship in its genesis to the ordinary economic derivatives of public finance. It is, first of all, a reward for people who have served the country in a special way. It has nothing to do with the economic theories of the Minister foi Housing - the shameful Minister lor Housing, let us put it that way. In the other context it is a vote of gratitude, a vote of thanks to the servicemen for the service they gave. This again has nothing to do with the values of interest rates, usury and ordinary financial systems. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Mr Uren:

– His middle name is Scrooge.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. My colleague from Reid says that the Minister’s middle name is Scrooge. I am not surprised that the man cannot understand what it is all about. He belongs to the age group of 41 or 42. He looks a bit older.

Mr Cope:

– He is 48.

Mr BRYANT:

– No, I do not think he is quite as old as that. For 20 of the last 30 years Australia has been engaged in warlike operations. For the last 6 or 7 - since 1963 - he has been organising the sending of young Australians to fight in warlike operations and he has had ample opportunities in the last 20 years to sacrifice himself. But of course he has not done that, so he does not understand what it is all about, nor do any of his colleagues on the other side of the House. There are half a dozen of them. I have their names here. They are all in his age group. He is a young man under 50 who has had ample opportunities to prove his patriotism in the last few years. The Minister for Housing has demonstrated here not only that is he no patriot but also that he has no common sense and no sensitivity. I regard his speech this evening as one of the most disgraceful I have heard, particularly on a day like today.

There is another aspect of war service homes finance to which we ought to turn our attention. In a sense it is a compensation and assistance scheme for people who have made a sacrifice which cannot be measured in monetary terms. There is no way of evaluating what the young man who spent 2 years in the Army and 12 months in Vietnam may have lost and what it may have cost him. There is no way of evaluating what it has cost the man who spent 5 or 6 years in the Services in the last war or 4 or 5 years in the trenches in the First World War, physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. So one of the methods by which this country has demonstrated its gratitude, or has attempted to do so, has been the war service homes scheme. So as a piece of, one might say, national gratitude the war service homes scheme is on the statute book to show that Australia means business. Over the years it has been the most generous - T suppose that is the term to apply in this context - form of finance. Its inter est rate is about the lowest and its terms of repayment are about the longest and smallest. But does this really make it the best system? Does it make it the most readily available system in Australia? Let us examine for a moment another stack of suffering citizens, the people of Canberra.

Mr Nixon:

– I beg your pardon?

Mr BRYANT:

– The people of Canberra, for instance. They also have a good housing system. If the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, my friend from Orbost, who also sends young men to gaol and leaves them there, particularly his own constituents, instead of going to wars himself

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER <Mr Corbett)Order! I think the honourable member should keep to the terms of the Bill instead of criticising the Minister.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am talking about servicemen. Perhaps there are other people in the House who do not know what I mean by that. In Canberra we have a very good housing system and it is to the ‘credit’ of this Government that it has been retained largely untouched. A young person is able to get into a Government house in Canberra - there is a waiting period admittedly - on a minimum deposit. Certainly the interest rate is higher but the repayments and deposit are within his reach. A person can walk into a house in Canberra for somewhere between $500 and $1,000. Is that what we do for the serviceman at Oodnadatta, Orbost or Miles? We do not. The serviceman going into a house provided under the war service homes scheme will need a deposit of between $4,000 and $7,000 no matter where he goes. That is the reason why we have moved for the raising of the loan to $15,000 which ought to be adequate under the Australian system at present. Therefore the propositions that we put before the House are related to 2 things: The facts of life in housing and recognition of the fact that war service homes finance is not a finance system but it is a special recognition accorded to a group of Australians who served.

We on this side of the House, of course, believe that it is time that this system was expanded to include other people and that we develop a recognisable philosophy of housing with the object of making available to Australians high quality housing with loans at low interest rates and long term repayments. I believe that is a logical social objective. I am one of those who returned from the last war with nowhere to live, so my wife and I got to work and more or less built most of our home by ourselves. In the end we went into the war service homes system. It was not possible to get into it at the time; it has always been a fairly bureaucratic and restrictive system in this regard.

I suppose about 90 per cent of the Australian community want homes of their own. They want a home of their own in a place where they want to live. There is no earthly reason why Australia cannot supply it for them. The Minister for Housing supplied in this place this evening figures of fantasy dragged out of the system and said that our scheme would cost an additional $800m a year or $2,000m. I forget the figure he used but it was probably a bit less than the defence vote. But what is the score? It is true that the Government has at its disposal the funds allocated through the Budget system but there is almost unlimited finance available outside governmental loans systems today at exorbitant rates of interest. Bridging finance can be obtained at 131 per cent.

Mr Martin:

– Usury.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. Why cannot we pass some legislation to extract this money and place it into the national housing system? lt is true that a good deal of it would be money that people had invested with special sorts of firms, the various hire purchase companies and other financial institutions, at the highest possible rates of interest so that they can live more satisfactorily on their earnings. I believe that it is quite unconscionable to permit this kind of housing finance to exist in this country. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars available in this country at high interest rates for housing. It is our duty to direct the available finances of this country to the people at a reasonable rate of interest.

I believe that the war service homes finance system ought to be expanded to include all servicemen. I do not believe there is any’ justification for the continuation of the demarcation between those who served in a war zone and those who did not. I believe that a person who puts on a uniform, particularly in the regular Services - and this applies also to people who put on a uniform in the citizen forces- has accepted a different kind of responsibility, duty and sacrifice to the community than anybody else has. One would hope, of course, that sacrifice will not be demanded of them but those people who put on a uniform, no matter now humble the rank, no matter how dull the employment, still at some time are readily available to make the supreme sacrifice for the benefit of the community. I think it is little enough for us to expand this system to include all those who put on a uniform.

We on this side of the House would like to see the system extended to the community at large. I rose to speak in this debate because I was shocked at some of the remarks of the Minister. I was provoked by the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell. But I wish also to place on record my despair at a system which can be allowed to continue year after year and which is so patently inadequate when it comes to finance. The Minister might be able to use his arithmetic and say: ‘In this way home purchasers will eventually pay only $8,000 in interest and in the other way they will pay $10,000’.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is $18,000- an extra $10,000.

Mr BRYANT:

– Very well, $18,000. I know that the interest rate is the killer. It makes a substantial difference in a person’s standard of living and in the amount of money a person will pay over the period of the loan. As I recall, when 1 did my arithmetic, I found that a change of ( per cent in interest over 20 years means an extra year in repayment, or something to that effect. So interest is a very important factor in housing finance. But I do not believe that is the argument and therefore the interest rate that the Minister talked about is, I believe, irrelevant. If we are talking about the supply of housing to people, it is the accessibility of housing that counts. It is of no use to say to people: ‘In 5 years time if you have saved hard enough, if you have sold your car and managed to get a cheap block of land, you will do all right out of the war service homes system. By the time you are 40 you will have saved perhaps $2,000’. The essence of a housing contract is accessibility now, when the house is needed. There is nothing like the heartbreak of looking for a house. Tonight the Minister and many of my colleagues opposite - many of whom have had distinguished service for their country’s cause and many of whom show sensitivity when they have to face up to individual problems on behalf of their constituents acted in a way which I believe is very sad. Is it not time that, in the most vital element in domestic accord, in achieving happiness and everything else that goes with the quality of life, we should make a house priority No. 1 in the national objectives?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

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

Clause 3.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of “Borrower” and inserting in its stead the following definition: -
Mr UREN:
Reid

-I move:

I have moved this motion because at present there is a restriction as to the type of persons who can get a war service home loan. To be eligible a person must, of course, have served overseas in a war zone and is basically treated in terminology as a returned soldier, sailor or airman. We feel that the legislation should be amended so as to cover other soldiers. I might ask Government supporters why they conscripted Australia’s young people. The Government conscripted the young people of Australia because it argued that it was unable to get a sufficient number of people to join the military services. Consequently the Government has conscripted sufficient numbers for its military services. Many of these young people were sent to Vietnam or to Malaysia when it was involved in confrontation with Indonesia.

The Opposition argues that a review of the inadequate conditions for soldiers of this country is long overdue. We on this side believe that if a person is prepared to join the forces he is entitled to services and amenities such as those provided by the war service homes organisation. We have consistently argued this proposition. We believe that a commonsense approach should be taken towards improving conditions for servicemen. On behalf of the Opposition I have moved this amendment to try to encourage this conservative government to improve conditions. By way of example I refer to a motion which was moved today in this House. It was a crocodile, tear motion, if I may say so. It was a motion of hypocrisy in regard to socalled

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I suggest that the word ‘hypocrisy’ is being used a little bit too frequently in this House. It is being directed in general terms but also sometimes by way of inference in particular terms. 1 think it might be wiser at this stage for the Committee, and the House, to pause and give consideration to the use of this word. I would also remind the honourable member that he should not refer to matters that have already been dealt with in a previous debate, except perhaps by way of illustration.

Mr UREN:

Mr Chairman, as you well know,I treat this Parliament with respect. I have been here for 13 years, and even thoughI can be troublesome at times I treat this Parliament with respect and observe the Standing Orders. But if I may say so, Mr Chairman, in your position you are sensitive and your own personal sensitive feelings are influencing your rulings. I will not talk about an individual being hypocritical but I will continue to say that a government is a government of hypocrisy. With all due respect to you, Mr Chairman, there is no power whereby you can direct me to withdraw that word. It may hurt you because you are a member of a party and a supporter of a government that has been a hypocritical government so far as I am concerned.

Today a motion was moved that this Parliament express its gratitude to those soldiers who served in Vietnam. The narrowness with which those men are treated on their return from Vietnam is appalling.

I will not deal with the cost of dwellings. I will deal with that matter when speaking to a later amendment. I want to deal with the narrowness with which the Government, of which you are a supporter, Mr Chairman, treats members of the Services, for instance those naval personnel who serve on the troop ship HMAS ‘Sydney’. In taking troops to Vietnam this ship enters a war zone and sails through dangerous waters. This ship has been used to transport soldiers to and from Vietnam, but when those who serve in it return to this country and make an application for a war service home loan their application is refused on every occasion. Even though many of these men have paid many visits to Vietnam, because they did not stay a sufficient time within a danger area they are excluded from the war service homes scheme.

When someone on the Government side moves a motion such as the one that was moved earlier today relating to troops who have served in Vietnam have I not the right to start talking about hypocrisy? I will continue to use that word. I will use it again when we deal with the question of housing costs later in the Committee stage. If one wants to mention war records, I can compare mine with that of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) and other honourable members. But let us not talk about the past; let us talk of the future. I want to see the war service homes scheme, which T commend, extended because it is the right of every Australian to have the security of a home, and meeting the cost involved in obtaining that home should not be a drudgery.

In the early history of this Government the war service homes scheme was one of the finest schemes ever introduced in this nation. I only hope that in the time of a Labor government, when I may have the responsibility of administering the War Service Homes Act, I can spread the benefits of this legislation amongst many Australians to show that we are concerned not only about the ex-serviceman and the serving serviceman but also about every other Australian, because I think the war service homes scheme is a fine housing scheme. I think the principle of it is a fine principle. I have expressed my praise that we have such a scheme and I have expressed my attitude towards it. I am not asking the Government to go as far as we progressives on this side of the chamber would go. I am talking to conservatives. I am trying to convince conservatives, who conscript people into the Army because they say they cannot get them to join voluntarily, that they can get people into the Services if they give them an encouragement. If the Government can offer better conditions more people may be prepared to give their service to the Army. All that we on this side of the chamber ask is that all people who join the permanent military Services be given the right to participate in the war service homes scheme. My colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), who is the spokesman for defence in our Party, is to make a few words of contribution to the debate. He will deal in some detail with our attitude to the treatment of servicemen and our attitude in regard to war service bornes. I hope that the Committee will support the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I welcome the opportunity to support, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the Australian Labor Party shadow Minister for Housing, on what is a most important amendment. First of all may 1 say that when I was sitting in my office a few moments ago listening to the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) I felt much the same as I am sure the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) felt when he was drawn into this debate because of the lamentable and shocking reply from the Minister for Housing.

We are now discussing the war service homes legislation, and frankly I am appalled that the Minister should display such ignorance and lack of knowledge about what after all is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been introduced into this Parliament dealing with the rights of ex-servicemen. I know and appreciate that I am not in a position to be able to make a second reading speech at this stage because we are dealing with an amendment in the Committee stage. I wish that I did have the opportunity to deal in detail with some of the anomalies and some of the omissions that the Minister glossed over in his reply to the debate on the second reading of this Bill.

The honourable member for Reid has moved an amendment to provide for the extension of war service homes benefits to all those who have served in the armed Services of this country on a volunteer basis, that is, those who have volunteered to serve in any one of the armed forces. In supporting this amendment I put it to the Australian people, as we have put it to this Parliament on a number of occasions, that the benefits of the war service homes legislation should be extended to encourage young people in this country to become members of the armed Services and to accept their responsibility in this way on a purely voluntary basis. But of course we are up against a Government which really does not believe in voluntary enlistment. It is more concerned with conscription.

Mr Reynolds:

– Getting them on the cheap.

Mr BARNARD:

– The Government is concerned with getting men for its armed forces on the cheap, as the honourable member for Barton has just pointed out. What would an extension of the benefits of the war service homes legislation mean to this Government? Those who have spoken in this debate would know only too well that, as the honourable member for Reid has pointed out in a very competent address to this Parliament on this legislation, this Government is now making a profit out of those who accept their entitlement under the war service homes legislation. I hope some time later this night on a further amendment to be able to present to the Parliament the figures which show that this Government is now making a profit out of the war service homes legislation. I do not blame the departmental officers for this state of affairs because I know that the Department of Housing administers the War Service Homes Act with a great deal of humanity and sincerity. The plain fact is that when one looks at individual cases under the war service homes legislation one finds that the Minister has issued a direction. It is ministerial policy. Many provisions contained in this Act shall apply to ex-servicemen in this country to guarantee to them assistance under the war service homes legislation, but such provisions have been curtailed because the Minister has issued a ministerial direction. I challenge the Minister to stand in this Chamber and deny that this is not the case in relation to special assistance. For example, I refer to the transfer of existing mortgages. The Minister knows that these are dealt with in the Act and its benefits should be extended to ex-servicemen but, because of ministerial direction, ex-servicemen are denied these opportunities.

Let me return to the matter under discussion, namely, whether we should extend the benefits of the war service homes legislation to all those who serve in the armed forces in this country. Would it cost Australia a great deal to do this? Naturally, it may increase the allocation that will have to be made available by the Government to this Department to include those who will become eligible for these benefits if this amendment is carried. However, this Government has always adopted the attitude that rather than increase the allocation, it should be reduced. I ask the Minister to produce statistics which will show how the average cost of a home in this country has increased and how the overall allocation has substantially decreased. Finally, of course, the Government now is making a profit from its War Service Homes Division. This is no credit to the Government and I want to hear the Minister justify the Government’s attitude to war service homes and to those who are eligible for benefits under this Act. The Opposition believes that if the provisions of the war service homes legislation are applied to those who are prepared to volunteer for any one of the armed Services in Australia, then this is no more than that to which they are entitled.

Only a few months ago, I made a plea in this House during an adjournment debate - of course, it was ignored; one does not expect it to be accepted by this Government - for those who fly into Vietnam. I pointed out that those who flew into Vietnam on a special trip were, of course, directed to do so by the Government and were carrying out their responsibilities. They were in Vietnam overnight. I asked that they be eligible for the provisions of the war service homes legislation. Under the Act, of course, anyone who serves in Vietnam for 24 hours - for one day - is entitled to the benefits of the war service homes legislation. In the case that I instanced, the groups of pilots who flew special trips into Vietnam and who stayed there overnight were denied such benefits. The former Minister for the Navy, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) was in the chamber while I was putting my case. I have a great respect for my colleague, the former Minister for the Navy who, I thought, was at least listening to the debate on that occasion with a great deal of sympathy and who appreciated my point of view. However, this was some months ago and the Government has done nothing about it. How can it justify these kinds of anomalies?

Mr Killen:

– 1 am agreeing with you completely on this. I do not deny it.

Mr BARNARD:

– I am glad that the honourable member does agree with me. However, the plain fact is that the Minister has done nothing at all about this matter. How does he justify these anomalies? The Government is prepared to allow such anomalies to continue under this legislation. Anyone who serves in Vietnam for 24 hours and who has been sent there as a member of the Army or of the Royal Australian Air Force is entitled to the benefits of the Repatriation Act as it applies to war service homes. In this case or in the case of people who happened to go to Vietnam as members of the crew of the HMAS ‘Sydney’ - which was referred to by my colleague, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) - they are not entitled to the benefits of this legislation. How does the Minister justify these anomalies? Let the Minister stand in this chamber and tell the people not only of this Parliament but also of this country how he justifies them. The members of the crew of the HMAS ‘Sydney’, which is transporting troops to Vietnam and anchoring off the shores of Vietnam, receive no assistance under this legislation. What sort of Government is it that allows these anomalies to continue?

The amendment which has been moved would provide these benefits to anyone who joins the Services. After all, any person who joins the Armed Services is entitled to choose in which arm he wishes to serve. He gives an undertaking that he will serve this country in any sphere or in any area to which the Government chooses to send him. One may go to Vietnam, but the one who spends his time in a base in

Australia is denied the entitlements of this Act. It will be interesting to hear the honourable member, who so often speaks for ex-servicemen in this country, explain this attitude.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– It is most interesting at all times to listen to members of the Opposition discussing amendments like the one we are now debating. In the case put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Defence, he referred to the fact that a seaman on HMAS ‘Sydney’, which is used for transporting troops to Vietnam, is not entitled to the benefits of the war service homes legislation. The Government has over the years - I think from the commencement of the War Service Homes Act - always had as a requirement for the benefits of this legislation that there should be service in a war theatre. In transporting troops to Vietnam HMAS ‘Sydney’ does not enter a declared war zone and does not remain within a war zone for the required period of time.

Mr Barnard:

– You are not serious.

Mr JESS:

– If the honourable member can restrain himself for a minute he will enable me to express my thoughts. I am sympathetic to the fact that in today’s circumstances a serviceman enlists for service anywhere and has no control over where he will serve. I agree with what the Opposition said in this respect and I have made suggestions to the Government. I hope that eventually provision will be made in this legislation whereby such servicemen will receive an entitlement.

Mr Uren:

– Well, vote for the amendment.

Mr JESS:

– Just a minute. I ask you, Mr Chairman, what would you do with a punch drunk gentleman? Does one just keep trying to find time-

Mr Uren:

Mr Chairman, he should withdraw that remark.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! Might I suggest that honourable members should behave as members of the Committee of the Federal Parliament.

Mr Cohen:

– But he started it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member “foi” Robertson will be quiet. The honourable member for La Trobe will withdraw the remark he made about the honourable member for Reid. I would suggest also that the honourable member for La Trobe might make his speech with due regard to the fact that this is the Committee of the Federal Parliament.

Mr JESS:

– I do withdraw. I merely asked you, Mr Chairman, what one would do if confronted with it, because I am fed up with interjections.

Mr Barnard:

Mr Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order.

Mr JESS:

– I have withdrawn it.

Mr Barnard:

– I think this was a statement that one would not expect even of the honourable member for La Trobe. 1 think there should be an unequivocal withdrawal. The honourable member tor La Trobe should withdraw the remark immediately. It was a reflection on my colleague, the honourable member for Reid, and the honourable member for La Trobe should withdraw it without any qualification.

Mr JESS:

– I will withdraw it without qualification.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understood that the honourable member had withdrawn it.

Mr JESS:

– I withdraw it without qualification but I would ask that I should be given protection to enable me to make my speech and not to experience the same difficulties as I had this afternoon. As 1 said, I am sympathetic to the fact that the serviceman of today enlists for service in any theatre and he has no control over where he is posted. However this is not the purpose of the Opposition’s amendment, and members opposite know it. If one nad listened to the speeches which have been made by honourable members opposite throughout this debate one would have found that it is proposed to extend the provisions of the War Service Homes Act not only to servicemen of today, but also the members of the Citizen Military Forces of yesterday and to any soldier no matter what service he has had or at what period he undertook that service. No honourable member opposite has referred to the cost of this proposal. As I have said, after listening to honourable members opposite who have spoken in this debate one finds that it is proposed to extend the war service homes provisions not only to exservicemen but to the whole population. In other words, it will not be, as it has always been, a benefit given to a serviceman to allow him to catch up because of the sacrifice he has made in undergoing service overseas. Labor policy is ultimately to extend the benefit across the board. Under Labor’s policy there will be no difference between a serviceman and a nonserviceman.

Mr Uren:

– How do you know?

Mr JESS:

– Because one-half of the honourable member’s supporters have said it in every speech they have made. The amendment refers to a ‘former member who has been honourably discharged’. It. is not referring to seamen on HMAS Sydney’; it is referring to everybody, including those who served at Victoria Barracks or at the Sydney barracks throughout the last war. It is widening the whole scope of the war service homes scheme.

Mr Cohen:

– We would even extend it to you.

Mr JESS:

– Even I would be included. But I am not entitled to a war service home, nor do I think I ought to be, because through a malady I was not able to go overseas. I volunteered to do so in the early stages. It did not take me 5) years to make up my mind, but I was rejected. Therefore, I did not go overseas.

Let it be clearly understood that what the Opposition is moving in its amendment is not what it is saying. Ji the Opposition were to move an amendment which stated that servicemen of today, under today’s conditions, should be entitled to war service homes, I would agree with that amendment, and I am sure that other honourable members on this side of the chamber would also agree, with it. We are endeavouring to do that. But the amendment is not saying this. It is going right back to the First World War, to the South African War - to’ every war in which we have been involved. The amendment refers to servicemen wherever they have been engaged and whatever they have done, lt is widening the scope of the Bill so incredibly that I could not vote for it. If the amendment were to provide, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has suggested, I think that there would be a justification for accepting it. I was moved to come into the chamber and enter this debate because, as was the case with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I was listening to the broadcast of the debate in my office. I was tempted to vote for the amendment, and I went to my Whip and said: ‘I am tempted to vote for the amendment, but I have to read what they have actually said in the amendment’. From reading what the Opposition actually says in the amendment I find that it does not mean what some honourable members opposite have said it means. It means that wherever - and I repeat the word wherever’ - any soldier Has served at any time, whether it be in the militia in peace time or not in time of war, or whether he has served 6 months in the Pay Corps during a period of peace, he will be given a war service home. As far as I am concerned, I would not support that proposal at this time.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that the Committee has been interested to hear the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and also the interjections made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). These very significant developments have occurred during the course of this debate. Earlier in the debate, during the second reading stage, several honourable members stood alone on this side of the chamber when we were contending that the war service homes scheme was a profitable venture and that the Government should be able to extend it without cost to the country. Of course, this is the nature of the amendment that we have moved. Let me say at the outset in connection with the remarks of the honourable member for La Trobe, if I have not misunderstood him, that he is making the point that if the Opposition were to move an amendment which was designed to accommodate present members of the forces he would be prepared to support it.

Mr Jess:

– Yes, but that is not what you are saying.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would remind the honourable member of the terms of the amendment which is before the Committee at the present time. They are as follows:

Australian Soldier1 means a serving member of the Forces or a former member who has been honourably discharged.

If I. may engage in this aside, Mr Chair-, man. would I be correct in assuming that the honourable member for La Trobe would be prepared to support an amendment which did not contain the words after the word ‘Forces’ in the present amendment? That is to say, he stands for the proposition that eligibility for war service homes should be extended to people who can be described as Australian soldiers, because that means serving members of the Forces. If we moved an amendment which stated: ‘“Australian Soldier” means a serving member of the Forces’, I understand that the honourable member for La Trobe would be willing to support us in that regard.

Mr Jess:

– You would be dead right.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have an indication from the honourable member for Reid that by making a correction to the present amendment we would be able to accommodate the honourable member for La Trobe, because he has been talking about members of the Navy more than about soldiers.

Mr Jess:

– I have been talking about servicemen.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course. If the word ‘serviceman’ were substituted for the word ‘soldier’ in the amendment, the honourable member would be more effectively accommodated.

Mr Jess:

– I would even agree with that.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Very well. I have an assurance from the honourable member for Reid, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate as the shadow Minister for Housing, that that amendment could now be moved on behalf of the Opposition. I have the imprimatur of the honourable member for Reid who has handed me a proposed amendment which changes the amendment which has been before the Committee up to this point of time to read:

Australian Serviceman’ means a serving member of the Forces.

Of course, the intention is to provide war service homes benefits to people who fit that definition, lt has been a significant debate. 1 am pleased that the honourable member for La Trobe has brought a little sense to bear on this matter from the Government’s point of view. I was particularly interested to hear the honourable member for Moreton, a former Minister for the Navy, interjecting this afternoon and indicating bis willingness, too, to do something towards this end. This afternoon we had crocodile tears from the ex-service Government supporters who were expressing their approval of the service given by the Australian forces in Vietnam. Of course, we all share in those expressions of approval. But we took the opportunity to say that more consideration should be extended to Australia’s serving members by way of providing improved repatriation benefits and of course war service home benefits. Here we have the first test after that significant debate this afternoon, and it provides an opportunity for Government supporters more or less to put their money where their mouths are, if I can express it like that, and show that they are fair dinkum in what they say.

The honourable member for Moreton, a former Minister for the Navy, has indicated that he approves of the proposed amendment, too. I hope that he has the interests of the members of the naval forces at heart to the extent that the honourable member for La Trobe has indicated and is prepared to go along with this proposed amendment. Now that we will have a vote on this amendment in a short time, it seems that we will have the support of at least 2 Government supporters. 1 am pleased to see that the honourable member for Moreton has come into the chamber because I have been talking about him.

Mr Killen:

– 1 have just been out for a moment. I am very sorry. I hope the honourable member will forgive me.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Certainly. 1 have been expressing warm approval of the fact that he indicated that he would go along with the idea of providing war service home benefits to serving members of the forces. I know that the honourable member for Moreton will be pleased to know that the Opposition has decided to submit an amendment to that effect. Already we have an indication that the honourable member for La Trobe is prepared to assist us.

Mr Killen:

– May I take it that you are fining it down to serving member?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Exactly. We are simply saying that the definition of ‘Australian Serviceman’ means a serving member of the forces. The amendment is designed to extend eligibility for assistance under the War Service Homes Act to serving members of the forces. My colleague the honourable member for Reid would be pleased to make a copy of the proposed amendment available to the honourable member for Moreton. I do not want to talk at great length about this matter. I had proposed to outline the way in which a serviceman is described in the War Service Homes Act. 1 do not know that it is necessary to do so. One effective summary is along these lines: Eligibility - that is eligibility for a war service home - in respect of current service in the forces is derived from the period of service as a member of the forces for the purposes of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962-1968. ‘Member of the forces’ is defined in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act as meaning a’ person who while a member of the defence forces has served on special service.

Of course, there are many members of the forces who are in far off places rendering their valuable service. The honourable member for Moreton knows, for example, that on the Equator on Los Negros or Mantis Island many members of the Royal Australian Navy are making very significant sacrifices under- very difficult conditions and that Australian servicemen are stationed in Darwin, elsewhere in the Northern Territory, Papua New Guinea and Singapore. The fact that they do not get into a theatre of war is obviously not the point. A serviceman can go to Vietnam, never hear a shot fired, come back and be eligible for a war service home loan. Why, then, should he not be entitled to war service home benefits if he goes to intolerable places such as Manus Island or if he serves in the bowels of a ship in the tropics for a long period of time?

If honourable members look at the report of the Department of Defence, they will see that in the year 1971 there were no fewer than 123,000 serving members of the forces made up of 23,000 in the Navy, 76,000 in the Army and 24,000 in the Air Force who will benefit at the present lime. Mr Chairman, we have been very willing to spend large amounts of money on deploying these personnel in times of war and in times of peace. In fact, the defence estimates for 1971-72 run close to $ 1,000m. When we can spend that kind of money on defence it ought to be reasonable for this Committee to support the allocation of money which will enable members of the Services to derive some benefit from the career that they have undertaken and the great sacrifices which they have made overseas. Accordingly, 1 am prepared to move-

Mr Uren:

– I should seek leave to move the amendment to my original amendment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then I am prepared to commend strongly the amendment I have outlined to the Committee and if leave is given to the honourable member tor Reid to amend his amendment we will be able to test the feeling of the Committee and to seek from the honourable members for La Trobe and Moreton the support which they have indicated they are prepared to give to this proposal. If our amendment is carried a large number of servicemen - young servicemen - will be able lo derive great benefit in obtaining low priced dwellings under the war service homes scheme.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I seek leave to delete from my amendment the words or a former member who has been honourably discharged’. My amendment will then read:

In clause 3. before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: (aa) by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ and inserting in its stead the following definition:

Australian Soldier’ means a serving member of the Forces.

May I briefly point out to honourable members that the definition of ‘Australian Soldier” is set out in section 4 (1.) of the Act as follows:

Australian Soldier’ means a person who, during the continuance of the war which commenced in the year One thousand n.’ne hundred and fourteen. . . .

is or was a member of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia enlisted or appointed for or employed on active service outside Australia or on a ship of war;

In other words, an ‘Australian soldier’ - and I have been given this information by the departmental officers - means a naval, military or airman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the Committee grant the honourable member leave to amend his amendment? There being no objection, leave is granted. The amendment now before the Committee is: ‘ “Australian soldier” means a serving member of the Forces’.

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

– The Government does not accept the amendment for several reasons. If the amendment which was moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) were accepted, many servicemen would be omitted as being those who would qualify for an advance under the Act, as is indicated in section 4 of the Act. The amendment would also have the effect in the present circumstances of disadvantaging those who presently qualify under the Act for war service homes advances. The principal reason for which the amendment is not accepted is that the principle has been that the eligibility under the War Service Homes Act has been based traditionally on enlistment for -active service abroad or actual service in lime of war or with respect to warlike operations. These circumstances occurred when the serviceman concerned was exposed to hazards of a warlike nature and beyond those of normal peace time service. This is the principle of policy which has underlain this Act for many years and is the one to which we presently hold. It has been in fact the philosophy of the Act over 50 years. The amendment proposes to alter that philosophy.

Furthermore, the extension of this service in the way in which the honourable member for Reid and other members of the Opposition have indicated would have several effects. They would be effects of a quantitative nature applicable to those who presently qualify. As I said, these effects would be several in number. Firstly, a significant waiting time would have lo be introduced. We have been able lo gut away from having a waiting time as has applied in the past. A little over a year ago a significant waiting time applied - the waiting time then was for a period of up to 6 months. We have been able to get away from that state of affairs. The only waiting time that is appropriate now is the necessary period required for the processing of applications.

Also, if the Opposition’s amendment was carried the appropriation would have to be altered. That is not an impossible condition. But if the waiting time was not to be altered it would be impossible under the present economic conditions and under the present appropriations to service those advances in the way in which they have been serviced in the past. For these reasons, and having regard to the philosophy of this Act which has been supported many times in this chamber, the Government does not accept the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Reid.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– -1 accept the fact that to bring in an amendment in this way is a difficult operation. As I see the Act, the amendment and the Bill, it is necessary to redefine what we mean by ‘Australian soldier’. That is what we are trying to do. One of the difficulties of our operations in the Committee stage of a Bill is that we have not yet defined the way in which we can do this collectively. It is obvious that in the chamber there is a peace of collective thinking. There have been some members opposite - probably a good number of them - and members on this side who could produce a widened version of a definition of ‘Australian soldier’.

I do not concede any of the points which the Minister for Housing stated about making the. scope of the Bill too wide. But for the purposes of achieving a consensus between ourselves and people opposite I am prepared to go along with some of this and therefore seek a definition of Australian soldier’. I will keep talking for a few minutes to enable someone to get the definition straight. I think that ‘Australian soldier’ will be defined in this case to include all those who are presently serving, wherever they are, plus all those who have already qualified. As I understand it, that is what we want to do tonight.

Mr Buchanan:

– It is too wide.

Mr BRYANT:

– The honourable member for McMillan says it is too wide but there are at least a couple of honourable members on his side of the House who are prepared to say that it is not too wide. What exactly does it mean? During the First World War some 330,000 people served overseas. I presume all those who are still living, perhaps 100,000, are qualified. In the Second World War I understand that some 560,000 tq 600,000 servicemen in the Australian services served outside Australia and basically they are all qualified. So that in the community there are some 600,000 to 700,000 people qualified by reason of their service in those 2 wars, plus those with service in Korea, on special operations or Vietnam. So it is somewhere in the order of 600,000.

The honourable member for McMillan referred to Australian serving servicemen and for the moment for this purpose we will include only regulars. I do not approve of that as an exclusion but I will go along with it for this purpose. There are 60,000 to 70,000 personnel in the regular forces at present: So in fact if we widen it we do so by no more than 10 per cent. A large number of those at present in the services, perhaps 15,000. to 20,000, may well be qualified because of their operations in Vietnam and so on. So what we are attempting to do. first of all, is to widen the range of ex-servicemen qualified under the War Service Homes Act. I do not believe that the definition of it or the difficulties imposed by the Minister for Housing are valid at all. It is not a different form of philosophy.

When this kind of legislation was first passed in this House in 1918 the servicemen and a handful of women had been serving, generally speaking, at least 10,000 miles away from Australia. It was not an Australian involvement and,, therefore, it was logical to say that if one served in Australia one was not really in it. That was where it started. But in the Second World War it came nearer home and eventually people who served in the Navy, operating out of Sydney and Brisbane and so on - some did anyhow - although they might not have landed anywhere, were deemed as on operations. I think that was the case in the Air Force. The Army was a little more exclusive. If one served in the Northern Territory one was qualified.

Honourable members opposite have been saying for years that we face imminent peril. Wherever we live in Australia we are under constant threat.

Mr Cohen:

– The Russians are coming.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. The Russians are coming, the Chinese and the Vietcong are coming and all the rest. The proposition the Opposition is putting forward is that anyone who is in the Services at all is in business, in a different way from a civilian. The honourable member for McMillan shakes his head and it is interesting to note that it did not rattle. The facts are that the person who joins the Services accepts a different quality of citizenship, responsibility and a possible result from anybody else. Therefore, we believe the definition should be expanded. I know that this war service homes system with its definition, as narrow as it is, creates a great deal of heartburn, dissatisfaction and frustration. I know it is of great satisfaction to people when they qualify for a war service home loan. Therefore, I believe that we should resolve this question of definition. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), ingenious as he is at defining all sorts of other things, may well be able to do it. We should ensure that the definition is made clear in this House. I accept the qualification of the Minister that by scrubbing these words we will exclude all those people who have qualified before but surely it is not outside the wit of this Committee to have produced a definition while I have been on my feet.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– The amendment suggested by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) does not meet the objections I have in mind. I am wondering whether 1 can persuade the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) to give us, the Committee, an undertaking, to use words which are well known in this place, to have another look at this proposal and, if need be, move an amendment to the Bill in the Senate. I shall tell the Minister my objections to the present arrangement. I have known men who have been to Vietnam in “Sydney5 on 2 or 3 occasions but who have no entitlement to the war service homes advantages. This is quite wrong. 1 have known characters who have flown Hercules aircraft into Saigon and various other places in Vietnam, and who have operated other aircraft, but because they have not gone there ostensibly charged with operational duties they are not entitled to the advantages of the war service homes provisions or to wear ribbons. 1 have never disguised, even when I was Minister for the Navy, my objection to this. An able seaman in ‘Sydney’ is not in a position to say to the Naval Board: ‘If I served on HMAS ‘Perth’ off the coast of Vietnam 1 would have an entitlement but because 1 serve in ‘Sydney’ I do not have an entitlement’.

With great respect to- my honourable friend, he completely misconceives the philosophy of the War Service Homes Act and 1 will swiftly demonstrate it to him. Those who volunteered for service in the Royal Australian Air Force during the last war and did not get out of Australia have a war service homes entitlement. So the honourable gentleman’s proposition that there must be actual service abroad is a proposition that cannot be sustained. This is an . incredibly artificial situation into which we have got ourselves. The Minister is a person of goodwill and has tried to defend the position as best he can, but 1 am wondering whether he could be encouraged to give to the Committee an undertaking that by the time this Bill gets to the Senate the Government will say: Those people who have served, particularly in South Vietnam, in one of the 3 Services, even though they have not been committed to an operational theatre, should have an entitlement.’

Mr Buchanan:

– Do you mean the entire Navy?

Mr KILLEN:

– Not the entire Navy.

Mr Birrell:

– Put them all in.

Mr KILLEN:

– There is no need to be lugubrious about it.

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– lt is true, is it not?

Mr KILLEN:

– If a man has gone to Vietnam 3 times in ‘Sydney’ 1 think he should have an entitlement and I will not withdraw from that position at all. There could be a person who has taken aircraft into South Vietnam and run whatever hazards may be involved. On the other hand there could be a person who actually has been committed to a theatre of operations in South Vietnam and within 24 hours of his arrival there he is qualified under the

Act. I do not say by any means that he is not entitled to it but this situation seems to me to raise a rather difficult and a highly artificial attitude. It will not cripple the country. Bless my heart and soul, with $1, 600m pouring into Australia this year, what is involved here is peanuts. This will not heat up the economy: It is no reason why any person should come out in a fever. It will not cripple the Budget. We managed today to introduce a Bill appropriating$30m for some other cause.

This is an opportunity to show an expansion of mind and some imagination. I hope the Minister for Housing will say to the Committee quite crisply and as curtly as he likes:I have got the message. I will undertake to have a look at it without commitment and will take it over to the Senate. If need be, I will report back to this House’. This will not take any skin off the Minister’s nose and it will not take any skin off the nose of any other person. 1 only hope that the Minister will do it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The amendment before the Committee is an attempt to provide for members of the forces the benefits of war service home finance. At today’s interest rates, these benefits are considerable. I think that it is reasonable and proper that a Government which, over a considerable period, has consisently claimed that the rights of exservicemen should be paramount, has claimed also that it is not easy or not possible to maintain a volunteer army, and has based its case before the electorate on this type of platform should accept the amend men! which would provide for all persons who have served in the armed forces of this country access to the benefits of this Act.

Unfortunately under the provisions of the existing Act, many persons are denied access to this form of benefit. I quote one case whichI had before the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) recently. It concerned a person who was called up during the last war, who served in Townsville, who was eligible to be transferred to other parts and who was at Townsville at the time when that area was bombed, but who is not eligible to receive war service homes finance. The proposal that persons who had their lives at risk and who over a considerable period volunteered for service in the armed forces and so placed their lives at risk should not be denied access to the benefits of this Act to me is totally unanswerable. It is important that this Parliament should recognise the benefits which are given to persons under this Act and also the right of ex-servicemen to obtain these benefits.

It is possible indeed. I think that it is most likely that a far more feasible proposition would be to move an amendment to insert new words after the words ‘Australian Soldier’ so that the definition would read:

Australian soldier’ means a serving serviceman or person.

By doing this we would include serving members of the forces and would not eliminate by default any other person. I realise that, in redrafting any amendment hastily, problems of drafting arise. What the original amendment seeks is not necessarily provided for when some of the words in this clause are eliminated. By writing into section 4 of the Act the words that I have proposed, that section would then read: (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears-

Australian Soldier’ means persons serving in the Australian. Forces or a person who. during the continuance of the. war which commenced in the year One thousandnine hundred and fourteen or during the continuance of any war in which His Majesty became engaged on or after the third dayof September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty nine-

I believe that the words ‘Her Majesty’ might be more appropriate now in that sub-section. If those words were added, this would mean that serving personnel would be covered by this Act I think that is unquestionable and that no person who is currently covered by the Act would be eliminated.

This seems a simple proposition and a proposition which should be adopted by this Committee. It should be voted for by every member of the Committee. I think that it is unfortunate that the Minister for Housing has chosen to reject unequivocally any form of amendment. He has used the excuse that an amendment in this form would alter the Act in a way which is not acceptable. I accept his argument on this point. But I do not accept the proposition that, because this amendment is not acceptable, he should not indicate that the

Government would be prepared to consider an amendment which did meet the requirements which we are endeavouring to place in the Act.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I seek some clarification as to exactly what the amendment is that we are discussing. Furthermore I point out (hat in the amendment proposed to the amendment all words after:’“Australian Soldier” means a serving member of the Forces’ were to be deleted. Now I am not sure what is to be put in. I wish to make clear what I am prepared to vote for. Let it be most clear that as the Act stands at the moment a regular soldier, sailor or airman serving at this time and who in my opinion could serve for 5 years or 10 years or 15 years - is not entitled to a war service homes loan if his commanding officer or the powers that be have not appointed him to a war theatre. I say that he should be so entitled. But I will not vote for the amendment to insert the words ‘serving member of the forces’ if by definition that phrase includes a member of the militia who joins tomorrow, or who joined a month ago, and who does one days service a week. I seek a clear interpretation of what ‘serving member’ means. Does it mean a permanent, regular member of the Army, Navy or Air Force; or does it mean a serving soldier whether his service be part time or full time? If we are not clear on that point, we are in trouble.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The amendment, as proposed at the moment, seeks to amend the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ in subsection (1.) and to insert in its stead the following definition:

Australian Soldier’ means a serving member of the Forces. …

A number of objections have been raised to this amendment and a number of comments have been made upon this point. To meet some of the objections which have been raised concerning those who may go into an area in which warlike activities are taking place, as referred to by the former Minister for the Navy, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), would require that they be designated as being eligible for advances under the War Service Homes Act by virtue of the special duty provision which is included in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. A special duty in relation to a special area means a duty relating directly to warlike operations or a state of disturbance by reason of which a declaration in respect of the area has been made by regulation in accordance with section 4 of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act.

If the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) were adopted paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), of sub-section (1.) of section 4 of the War Service Homes Act would be excluded immediately. These paragraphs include a number of categories. I will read the whole section. This is the section in respect of which a substitution would be made-

Mr Uren:

– We are aware of it. It was your adviser who advised me.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Then, the enormity of the proposition ought to be realised. The definition ‘Australian Soldier’ applies to an appropriate section of the War Service Homes Act. The acceptance of the amendment to this definition would have an effect on the administration of the Act which we would regard to be unfair compared with the conditions that have applied in the past. We do not accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. The section which, as I mentioned a few moments ago, would be omitted includes this provision:

Australian Soldier’ means a person who, during the continuance of the war which commenced in the year One thousand nine hundred and fourteen …

It would also apply to other areas of conflict. For these reasons, the Government does not accept the proposed amendment.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move the following amendment-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the Opposition seek leave to withdraw the amendment and the amendment thereto.

Mr Uren:

– I seek leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr BARNARD:

– I move:

Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: by adding at the end of the definition of “Australian soldier” in sub-section (1.) the following words: and includes a serving member of the permanent forces’.

I have moved this amendment because 2 honourable members from the Government side have had the courage to stand up and support the Opposition’s proposal in this respect, to provide for an extension of the War Service Homes Act to cover those who have joined the armed Services I am now referring to the regular forces of this country on a permanent basis for the duration of their service.

Mr Swartz:

– May I interrupt?

Mr BARNARD:

– I am not very happy about it.

Mr Swartz:

– In view of the circumstances there has been a lot of confusion in relation to this until we can get things sorted out I suggest that the Committee report progress.

Mr BARNARD:

– No. I think you ought to let me put my case on this. I would be very happy to comply with the request of the Leader of the House later.I understand his motive in suggesting this. But there ought not to be any doubt in the minds of honourable members opposite about what the Opposition proposes in relation to this matter. After I have made my explanation the Opposition will be very happy for progress to be reported. Undoubtedly there are honourable members on the Government side who believe that there ought to be an extension of the War Service Homes Act to provide for those who join the Navy, the Army or the Air Force on a permanent basis and who serve this country in that capacity whether their service is in Australia or overseas or, as the Government terms it. in a prescribed area. The amendment I have proposed clearly puts this proposition. I understand the objection that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) had in relationto this matter. He does not believe that members who joined up for a day or a week that is, those who come within the description of serving in the Citizen Military Forces ought to be entitled to the benefits of the war service homes legislation. Neither do we believe that, but we do believe that the benefits ought to be extended to provide for those who volunteer to serve in the armed forces.

I think that the amendmentI have proposed meets the wishes of both the honourable member for Moreton , (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for La Trobe, both of whom have had the courage to stand up and say that they support this proposition. The honourable member for Moreton put to us the reasons why he believes the scheme ought to be extended. He pointed out some of the anomalies to which I have already referred. I referred, for example, to those who fly into Viet nam on special service. The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has not done his homework. He does not understand the Act. It is quite clear that he had to get the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) to come to his assistance and ask that progress be reported. I suggest that the Minister ought to do his homework and he ought to understand the Act. He simply does not understand it.

I do not want to go back over all the anomalies that have been referred to during the course of this debate, butI want to emphasise with all sincerity the proposition that has been put by honourable members on this side of the House. There is a clear case for the war service homes legislation to be looked at so as to bring within its ambit those who join the armed Services of this country to serve Australia, whether their service be in Australia or outside it. However ridiculous it is that the Minister for Housing has not done his homework.I believe that I can substantiate my claim that he has not. The plain fact is that, as the honourable member for Moreton pointed out, anyone who joined the armed Services as a volunteer during the 1939-45 war the honourable member for Moreton referred to the Air Force had a TX number, a QX number, a VX number or an NX number or the appropriate prefix according to the States of the Commonwealth in which they enlisted. They were entitled to assistance through the War Services Homes Division whether their service was in Australia or outside.

Someone referred to the Victoria Barracks. How ridiculous it is for the Minister to use that as a valid argument when the plain fact is that any member who served in the Victoria Barracks during the last world war and who had a prefix X before his number was entitled to assistance from the War Service Homes Division. I ask the Minister to look at this Act andlearn something about it. His lack of knowledge of the Act is a disgrace to this Parliament.

There are members on his side of the House who would support what I have said in this respect. All we are asking for is justice for those who have served this country. The honourable member for Moreton referred to those who served in HMAS ‘Sydney’. I apologise for the fact that when I first spoke on this matter I referred to HMAS ‘Melbourne’. I meant HMAS ‘Sydney’. How can the Minister justify a situation in which those who serve on the ‘Sydney’, taking troops to Vietnam, and who are stationed there overnight in an area patrolled by HMAS ‘Perth’ are not entitled to the benefits, when everyone serving on the ‘Perth’ would be eligible for the benefits of the war service homes legislation. Because they happen to go to Vietnam as a member of the crew of the Sydney’ the Minister says to them: “You are not entitled to the benefits of the war service homes legislation.’

I put it to honourable members opposite wilh all sincerity that all we want to do is ensure that those who serve this country - who are prepared to accept the responsibilities, whether as members of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force and who are prepared to join and be called upon to serve this country overseas - are entitled to the benefits of the war service homes legislation. That is the only suggestion the Opposition makes in relation to this matter. It is a reasonable proposition. I believe that the Minister now acknowledges that this is a reasonable proposition because he has agreed with the Leader of the House that we ought to report progress. I make one final appeal to honourable members opposite. I hope that when progress is reported they will use whatever influence they have on the Minister - who does not know the Act, docs not understand its implications and does not understand how it was applied to those who served during the last world war and the First World War - to see that he accepts this proposition, which is a reasonable one.

The honourable member for Moreton made a very good point when he asked: What will it cost this country?’ It may mean an increase in the appropriation, but the plain fact is that when one looks at it in relation to the overall Budget it is just a matter of peanuts. The honourable member for Moreton put it in a very descriptive form. He said it was a question of peanuts, but the Minister and the Government must accept some responsibility for this. They consistently have opposed any action on the part of honourable members on this side of the chamber to bring about what, after all, is a change that would be acceptable to al) Australians.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Progress reported.

page 3722

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 October (vide page 2687), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second rime.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I move:

Last night when we moved for the withdrawal and redrafting of certain legislation in connection with housing the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) denied the right of the Opposition to do anything about legislation other than to applaud it and seemed to imply that that was the sole function of the Opposition. He said that we would be holding up the legislation if our request that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted was carried. In case the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm. Fraser) sings again the same note let me say at the outset that we are putting this amendment forward quite genuinely and I hope we do not have a repetition of no defence of the Government’s position against our proposal whilst denying our. right - in a matter which concerns a State agreement - to move an amendment of this kind. So I hope, if I may paraphrase a distinguished former leader of the Liberal Party, that they will not be like Browning’s bird and sing every song twice over ‘lest you should think he never could recapture the first fine careless rapture’. We hope that the discussion on our motion for withdrawal will be more intelligent than was the discussion last night.

The legislation which is before us advances Commonwealth expenditure to meet certain contingencies in the State universities because of the changes in academic salaries. It relates mainly to the changes of some of the technical staffs of the universities, but we need to look at the Government’s formula in university education. Let us suppose that a professor’s salary is increased by $2,850 a year. The State meets $1,850 of this and the Commonwealth meets $1,000 of it. But this conceals a particular fact: The Commonwealth gets back most, or sometimes all, of its contribution in income tax from the professor whereas the State pays the extra $1,850 and does not get it back. In other words, we have a situation in which the Commonwealth is always riding inflation like a cork on top of the water whereas the States are like a heavily laden ship that goes charging into the waves of inflation and suffers the strains that a ship does of hogging and sagging.

We believe that the time has come, if university education is to advance, for the Commonwealth to assume the financial responsibility for all tertiary education. It is the view of the Australian Labor Party that the Commonwealth should be exclusively responsible for financing universities, colleges of advanced education, teachers colleges and tertiary technical education. However, that is not germane to this Bill and our view on this Bill is that the exclusive responsibility for financing universities should be upon the Commonwealth. If the whole structure of tertiary finance were lifted from being a burden on the States, at the present time I believe it would relieve them of an expenditure of some $230m. We would wish that this additional assistance to the States would lead to the States spending in other areas of education the money that they so saved. This would be the most simple way of making additional Commonwealth assistance to education because I do not believe that any State would regret the departure from its expenditure obligations of the whole structure of tertiary education. The Commonwealth coming in at this level would involve the States in a minimum of administrative adjustment. They would be glad to be relieved of the burden of university education and I know that they would be glad to be relieved of the extremely unfair formula of $1 of Commonwealth expenditure for Si .85 of State expenditure.

The usual plea of the Government on matters like this is: Where is the money to come from? The Minister has paid me the compliment of following some of my utterances and adding them up. He gets a remarkable figure. If we suggest that in the first year of a Labor government we would make an emergency grant of $180m full stop to the States and in the next year we would assume the obligation for tertiary education without repeating the $l80m emergency grant, we are confronted with a process whereby the Minister adds the $180m in one year onto $230m the next and says: ‘Your promises will cost $410m’, whereas the situation is that $180m would be spent in one year and $230m in the next.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– You know quite well that that is utterly untrue.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– You had our figures up to $525m. On some aspects of the Labor Party’s education policy we do not know what the costs would be because we do not know what an education commission or a schools commission would recommend and we do now know which recommendations we would be accepting. That is a different matter altogether but it is quite amazing how the Government, which can impose taxes which take from the Australian community a surplus of $630m and immobilise it, cannot face the possibility that some of that $630m might be used to transform the capital equipment of education in some of the states. The Government took this as an anti-inflationary measure and now finds that it is producing a stagnation in the economy which it did not anticipate. But imagine how the welkin would have rung if we had promised to spend $630m on education, equal to the $630m surplus which the Goverment is taking and immobilising at the present time. Without turning a hair we now have the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) making exchanges with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and contemplating that some destroyers might cost $l,000m, but he was not making this as a firm statement. After all, the Royal Australian Air Force was allowed to get away with $300m for an aeroplane that will not fly, so why should not the Navy have $ 1,000m worth of destroyers, surface shins that are sitting ducks

Sot air attack, despite the fact that everybody knows that the capital ship of the Navy today is the submarine. But I leave that aside.

The Government can very easily contemplate such expenditures or surpluses of $630m. But if we suggest in a country of gross inequalities in education, where a large part of our skilled young people are not getting to either higher levels of technical education or scientific or academic education, that there is a need for expenditure which may mobilise the skills of our people, Government supporters follows us with an adding machine and say that this will cost so-and-so. They assume that their own decisions to create great surpluses like $630m are infallible but that anybody who suggests that this sort of money may be spent in another direction must be insane. It reminds me of the time when Mr Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who was later Lord Bruce, made a speech in which he said that he was the only man who could be the Prime Minister of Australia. Although the Sydney ‘Bulletin’ supported him, this was too much for that publication. The ‘Bulletin’ published a cartoon of him as an angel in stoles of white floating in a stained glass window with these words in Gothic script coming from his mouth. ‘Only I am possible’. When the Government puts its policies before the Australian people it always says, “This is the only possible expenditure’.

We have had lectures on education over the years from the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, showing that there was no Commonwealth constitutional obligation for education. He made that assertion year after year, for a whole decade, while the Commonwealth remained non-interventionist. Then suddenly the Commonwealth Government found, with no change in the Constitution, that it could begin to assume quite large obligations in education. We believe that the Commonwealth must take an interest in tertiary education with some different form of approach than this Si for $1.85 and that the field of tertiary education is the field in which the new Commonwealth intervention should take place. This will transform the other levels of education because of the removal from the States of the burden of tertiary education. The one thing that we can be quite certain of is that this proposal will be derided tonight. If the Government lasts for another 4 or 5 years the successor to the Minister for Education and Science or the same Minister, if he is still there, will be bringing in a measure along these lines. So we will be no longer impressed, having seen the Government adopt, 5 years later, all the policies that it said were impossible.

We appeal to the Government to begin to adopt without this unnecessary delay a policy that will lead to the transformation of education. I do not expect that the Government will accept our amendment that this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the Commonwealth to assume exclusively the responsibility for financing university education. It is not the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is expressed in this legislation and within that framework we have no objection to this legislation at all. The States Grants (Universities) Bill consists of some minor adjustments that have been made necessary because of some wage decisions and some minor alterations which have been made necessary to transfer funds from one project to another because universities have had some change within the triennium in their internal strategies for the use of the funds.

The Bill is quite unexceptional. We have no objection to the Bill as such but we are moving this amendment because we believe that the way forward in tertiary education is for the Commonwealth government to be fully responsible for it and not to have it as part of the annual conflict between the Commonwealth and the States or resting on a formula of $1’ Commonwealth for $1.85 State which works out appallingly unfairly on the States while to the Commonwealth it represents increases in salaries upon which revenue is paid back to the Commonwealth in the form of income tax. The States are not equivalent beneficiaries of that tax. This Government rides inflation like a cork and every kind of inflation in Australia leads to a vast increase in tax revenue. Do not let us evade that point. The Government which rides inflation like a cork might be the one that is best fitted to carry the full responsibility for expenditure on the higher levels of education, and for that reason we have moved this amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Reynolds:

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

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in a somewhat untypical rambling speech, on his own admission, roved quite widely beyond the field covered by this Bill. But nevertheless I do not accuse him of utter irrelevance because when he talks about the question of $1 from the Commonwealth for $1.85 from the States in the matter of universities finance he is, of course, talking of actualities, lt may well be that the total acceptance of tertiary education by the Commonwealth to the exclusion of other bodies may in fact be a sensible proposition. I think 1 could say reasonably that it has not been beyond the comprehension or the exercise of thought of supporters of the Government. Nevertheless that is not really the issue at stake at the moment, although I suppose that it can be projected from this Bill that the whole question of Commonwealth educational responsibility might be brought into issue. The question of defence expenditure is, I think, almost totally irrelevant.

The problem here was one of making good discrepancies between university budgets and expenditures in the triennium 1970-72. The reason for the problem that occurred was that non-academic, nonteaching salaries and wages did not rise automatically or were not provided for automatically as were academic salaries by other means. The result has been that after submissions to the Australian Universities Commission and after strong persuasion by that body, as I think the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) mentioned in his second reading speech, the Commonwealth has provided supplementary finance for the purpose of nonacademic salaries. I cannot give the position of all universities but the University of Tasmania budgeted for roughly a 4 per cent annual increase in these salaries. This was found to be inadequate to the extent of about $800,000 for the 1970-72 triennium.

One of the problems which remain, is that the total of State and Commonwealth finance now coming forward as a result of this Bill in the case of the University of

Tasmania runs at around $420,000 or not much more than half of that which it identifies as being needed in this triennium. Of course it is not quite as simple as that. There certainly appears even at this point that there will be ah inadequacy after this legislation comes into effect But we do of course have the problem of rates of increase and just how much these should be. It is well known in this chamber that universities have increased their population of both teaching staff and students at an unprecedented rate in the last 2 decades and probably in particular the last one, and provision on the whole has been made for that. It is not relevant, nor would it be possible, in this debate to question the whole business of the relationship of these increases to the increased amounts of finance that have been made available. Nevertheless it is true to say that basically those increases have been sufficiently underpinned, even at one or two stages very well underpinned, by the Commonwealth’s greatly increased expenditure in this field.

That of course still leaves us with the problem of just how efficient the universities are in the management of their finances. I think most people outside universities would see them as fairly inefficient institutions. Some of us who have been inside them for some time would likewise see them as reasonably inefficient in the manner in which they go about some of their increases in staff and their developments of one sort or another. Whether that makes them in any sense unique in this community I doubt. Tn fact I think it is probably fair to say that the inefficiencies of universities are certainly no more than the inefficiencies of this institution, and that may be a case for improving the efficiency of both.

However, as I say, I do not think we can examine that problem thoroughly here but it is one which is relevant. So I think that because of the great demands that are being made increasingly on the Commonwealth in the whole field of education, some of them justifiable, some of them less so, it will be incumbent upon the universities - I think they have recognised this already - to tighten up to the best of their ability, subject only the difficulties of the human condition and the manner in which we operate our democratic processes through committees and the like, the manner in which they spend their money, both salaries and other forms of expenditure, so that it is expended in the best and least wasteful possible ways.

Having said that, I do not want lo take up an undue amount of time. I believe we are very far behind schedule. I merely want to make the point that welcome as this Bill is, recognised as is the problem which has brought about the Bill, the problem is not totally solved and it will require both this Government and the State Governments, and in fact the universities themselves, to work with considerable enthusiasm to ensure that this problem does not recur more or less incessantly, which is something about which, I think, the honourable member for Fremantle was somewhat apprehensive. In that sense I join with his sentiments in that matter.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– As has been said, the purpose of this Bill is to provide additional recurrent grants to the States to help them meet exceptional increases in non-academic salaries at universities for the calendar years 1971 and 1972. This of course occurs within the triennial grant period running from 1970 to 1972. In characteristic fashion, this being a recurrent grant, the Commonwealth is providing $1 for every $1.85 provided by the States and from fees from university students. 1 would like to emphasise that. I think so far the references that have been made have been to the $1.85 provided by the States. I will speak about the implications of this fee contribution in a while.

It is not mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) but I understand from a previous speech he made that the cost of this provision will be of the order of $5. 4m. As has also been mentioned, there is provision within this Bill for minor amendments to existing legislation so as to allow transfer of Commonwealth contributions from one project or purpose to another. The transfers have been requested by the States. They have also been recommended by the Australian Universities Commission. The transfers do not involve any extra money being provided by the Commonwealth.

The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has moved on behalf of the

Opposition an amendment to the effect that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted so as lo provide for the Commonwealth to take over responsibility for the financing of universities. I think it is well known by now that the Australian Labor Party, on taking over responsibility, also intends to provide for the abolition of all fees at universities. 1 understand that the estimated cost of such a provision would be about $16m. One of the implications of abolishing fees at universities would he to allow people to get to the university on merit and not simply on the basis of being able to afford to go there. Admittedly Commonwealth scholarships are provided to allow quite a number of people to get to university who might not otherwise be able to get there. But I think every honourable member is conscious of the fact that there are many very able students in our community who are not able to win one of the comparatively scarce Commonwealth scholarships and who are debarred from getting to the university because of the fees that are charged.

Not only would we, as part of Labor Party policy, want to abolish fees at universities but we would want to ease the means test that applies to the receipt of a living allowance. As I will also mention later, the matter of fees is only one part - an important part - of the cost of sending a youngster to university. Certainly more costly is the upkeep of a youngster while he is attending such an institution. Of those who are already on scholarships at the present day only 11 per cent, because of the harshness of the’ means test on the living allowance, get a full living allowance. The living allowance is not a particularly generous one. Of those who receive university scholarships, 54 per cent get no living allowance and 35 per cent get a part living allowance.

If it were not possible immediately to abolish university fees the obvious alternative would be to increase the number of Commonwealth scholarships and to place a means test on them. If only a small number of scholarships can be made available let them go to those people for whom they are vital if they are to get to the university. Plenty of studies have indicated that many of the people who get Commonwealth scholarships are people who are already economically, socially and culturally privileged in our community and that those for whom a scholarship is vital are deprived of the opportunity of ge ting to university even though they have an inherent ability to master a university course if they could only get to university.

About 40 per cent of students at universities in New South Wales - I speak for that State only - presently receive no assistance whatever. Having mentioned that $1.85 will be made available for every $1 provided by the Commonwealth, the $1.85 deriving from the S ates and student fees, I should comment on what is going on as far as fees are concerned al the present time. Fees at the University of Sydney - this is pretty typical throughout Australia at the moment - will be about $531 in 1972, and by 1.973 they are expected to be $611.

Two-thirds of Commonwealth scholarships go to the children of Australia’s lop 20 per cent of salary and wage earners and, as T have already indicated, this deprives many others who do not come from such affluent homes from getting to the university. 1 repeat that two-thirds of Commonwealth scholarships go to the children of Australia’s top 20 per cent of salary and wage earners. Only 8 per cent of children of working class parents who leave school enter university although they make up 33 per cent of the school leavers. If honourable members want further information I would point out that fewer than 2 per cent of the sons and daughters of unskilled and semi-skilled workers now gel to universities. Research shows that in terms of inherent or innate ability a big percentage of them would be able to master a university course. Other kinds of discrimination should be removed and we think that the Labor Party policy would do much to remedy the situation.

Instance that females are not proportionately represented at universities. In 1967, of the 17 to 22 year olds in the community, 7 per cent of males and 3.2 per cent of females enrolled at university. In 1971, 84,800 males but only 38,976 females enrolled at Australian universities. People living in rural and country areas are disadvantaged as compared with those who live in urban and metropolitan areas. They have less opportunity of obtaining a university education. What are some of the implications of all this? The increased financial requirements of universities are being met in an inequitable way. As I have said, $1.85 is being provided by the States and from fees as against SI from the Commonwealth. Fees are being forced up in such a way that many students who do not have scholarships but who would qualify for scarce places cannot afford lo take them. In 1972 the increase in fees will be of the order of 16-2/3 per cent and I understand there will be a further increase of 165 per cent in 1973. I remind the House that in 1970 university fees were increased by 20 per cent. Not long ago the Minister for Education and Science spoke about trying to extend equality of educational opportunities throughout the community. He should examine the situation that obtains in the universities. He should look at those who are getting to university, those who are being helped to get there and at those who will benefit most from the taxation concession that was introduced recently in the Federal Budget. Most of the help will go to those who have the most opportunities and the most support.

According to a survey made by Australian university students an average family with an income of about $4,400 a year pays almost 46 per cent of that income to send one member of that family :o a university. Honourable members can appreciate the tremendous sacrifice that is required of such parents whose sons or daughters do not win scholarships. Tremendous obligations are imposed on them in trying to give their children tertiary education. Of course the situation is aggravated at present by the difficulty that many university students are experiencing in securing vacational employment to help raise funds to enable them to continue their university courses next year. This is one way by which students have been able to ease the burden of their sorely tried parents in trying to meet the financial costs of a university education. This aspect was reported in this evening’s new, but 1 knew of it personally long ago. Because of the Governments present policy many students are finding it exceptionally difficult to find vacational employment.

I have referred already to the contribution that is required of students to enable the States to provide the $1.85 for every $1 of Commonwealth grant. The States are being forced to divert scarce educational funds to universities at the expense of other levels of education. Is it any wonder that the States are not able to meet the requirements of the nation-wide survey of educational needs? The Commonwealth says that it has provided the States with the necessary funds but the States have a different story to tell. This is one aspect that I should like to discuss on another occasion. One might wonder how this arbitrary figure of $1.85 was arrived at in order to meet the Commonwealth’s grant of $1. Historically I understand it was based on the proposition that a State government would provide $1 and the students, through fees, would provide 85c. This, of course, is no longer the position and as a result the States have to find more than $1 to meet the Commonwealth $1 grant. As the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) rightly said, the Commonwealth Government is able to get back a big proportion of the money that it expends through the income tax that is levied on the staffs of universities. lt has been brought to my notice very forcibly in the last week by some important people in a New South Wales university, which I will leave unnamed, that even as a result of this Bill the universities will get about only one-half to two-thirds of the amount that they requested to meet non-academic salary adjustments. I should like to hear the Minister comment on this point. The universities will not receive sufficient to meet non-academic salary adjustments that have been granted under awards. Only half or, at most, two-thirds of what they require will be provided by this legislation. What will happen is that universities will be unable to fill important positions on their staffs. I understand that there has been a protest by vice-chancellors to the Australian Universities Commission concerning the Commonwealth’s failure to provide for die necessary increases granted by awards. These days, with inflation running riot as it is, it is impossible for the universities to predict accurately at the beginning of a triennial period what their financial requirements will be.

Professor Rupert Myers, . the ViceChancellor of the University of New South Wales, stated recently that the grant to his university for the triennium 1970-72 already had proved to be $6m short of the amount that the university would need for that period. He said that a recent supplementary grant of $2.5m to the university had been of assistance but that the university still had serious financial problems. ,In the same vein the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University. Professor Bruce Williams, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in October - a few weeks ago - as having told the Australian Universities Commission that shortage of finance had caused a fall of morale in the academic staff and that the university’s 3-year programme was ‘in ruins’. According to the report this university has been unable to improve the ratio of staff to students and there is a worsening of conditions. He said that research opportunities had been restricted and library facilities and other services were being hampered.

In the report of the Australian ViceChancellors’ Committee for the period 1967-70, it was suggested that the overall level of grants to universities for the triennium was inadequate. The Committee believed that they were geared to the capacity of the State governments to meet their shares and were influenced by the increasing grant for colleges of advanced education. In one part of the report the Vice-Chancellor’s Committee complained:

The Committee was r.ot satisfied with the extent of consultation required by the Act, which took place with the universities, and believes that the balanced development of the universities called for a greater degree of consultation and a lesser degree of ‘instruction’, sometimes inexplicable instruction, from the Commission.

All I am saying is that the universities are not happy with what has been provided by the Universities Commission. They feel that their estimated requirements are being pruned down to the extent that the universities are not able to operate efficiently.

State governments have complained about the Commonwealth Government requiring them to put up so much money. There are strong objections from many students currently at universities to their having to meet the increased fees that have been necessitated by the formula. Of course there should be loud howls of protest from the hundreds, and possibly even thousands of would-be university students who are not able to get to universities because of the operation of quotas on the one hand and by the high fees that are being demanded of them on the other hand. The Labor Party advocates strongly thatthe Commonwealth Government should take over the financial responsibility for the universities. This would relieve much of the burden on the States and it would enable the Commonwealth to make places available in universities on merit by the abolition of fees. It is for that reason we urged not only that fees should be abolished but also that greater generosity should be shown towards the amount of living allowance that is provided and also towards the means test which controls such living allowances.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I have listened with interest tonight to the remarks of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and of the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). My colleague the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) some little time ago replied to the speech made by the honourable member for Fremantle who moved the following amendment:

That the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for assumption by the Commonwealth of responsibility for financing university education.

I do not want to go over that ground. Some interesting points were made by the honourable member for Barton. I have noted three or four of them andI will say something about them as I proceed. For instance, he referred to the problem of increasing fees at universities. He referred to the desirability of increasing scholarships. He also referred to certain inequalities which still exist. Another point I noted, and with which I agree, is that not all. university problems will be solved by this Bill, and I do not think that anyone suggests that they will be solved by this Bill.

In common with my colleague the honourable member for Denison, I welcome this Bill and the additional financial assistance that it provides for universities during the 1970-72 triennium. Unexpectedly large increases in non-academic salaries and wages represent a major problem for university authorities, and speaking with regard to my own State, I know that the extra financial help decided upon by the Commonwealth Government is very much appreciated. I refer particularly to the University of Queensland at St Lucia, and I take the opportunity of stressing, because I think this needs to be stressed, that the University should be judged by the solid work of the vast majority of the staff and students and not by the headlines given to a handful of radicals and extremists whose chief aim appears to be to disrupt. Maybe they are friends of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who is trying to interject.

I understand that consequent upon this legislation that we are considering, it will now be possible, within the still very stringent limits of the funds available, to pay more attention to rising costs and increasing needs in other areas, such as equipment, maintenance and the library. Unfortunately, so far as the library at the University of Queensland is concerned, the rise in costs of materials is much higher even than the rise in wages. So the problem in this area is still acute and looks like remaining so for some time. My information is that the Queensland Government is supplementing increased grants after, but not before, 1st July 1971. As a result of extremely heavy financial burdens on the University of Queensland during 1970 and the first half of 1971, the provision of staff, equipment and ancillary services has fallen behind, and it has not been possible to reach the targets proposed by the Australian Universities Commission in its fourth report which was published in 1969.

The position of the University of Queensland is one of particular difficulty, and tonight I want to speak briefly about these difficulties. It is the only university in Brisbane, now a city of approximately 750,000 people, and it is the only university in Queensland to provide a widerange of professional courses which, as honourable members know, are very costly. In addition, it is the only large metropolitan university in Australia to provide external study courses. It is not expected that the Griffith University will be in operation for another 4 years, or longer. In the meantime, the situation at St Lucia continues to become more difficult, with growing enrolments. Even when the Griffith University is established it will not provide professional courses, nor will it cover external studies. Consequently, very heavy burdens will continue to fall on the University of Queensland for many years to come, and there is undoubtedly a strong case for special financial consideration to be given to this university during the next triennium, as well as during the current one.

I am glad to say that the building programme at St Lucia, which had previously been held back, is now progressing reasonably satifactorily. As honourable members know, clause 5 of the Bill sets out the allocation of funds for new buildings and for extensions in the current triennium, 1970-72. The central library at St Lucia is expected to be built in 3 stages and to be completed in about February 1973. The western arts wing, which is an extension of the main building, is expected to be completed in May 1972. A new microbiology building to replace the one at Herston will be built on the western side of the campus, and it will be a big improvement. Plans for the building of a great hall are also under way. A public appeal for funds was launched about 11 years ago, and there was a good response. A total of approximately $400,000 was subscribed by the citizens of Queensland towards the building of a great hall at the University of Queensland. In addition, the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments both guaranteed to contribute $100,000 towards the cost of this great hall, and a tender has recently been received which will enable the long delayed plan for a great hall to proceed.

The honourable member for Barton made some comments about increases in fees, and I share his concern in this respect. The question of student fees gives cause for concern not only to students and their parents who have to find the fees, but also to the university authorities. The State of Queensland requires that 23 per cent of the University’s income shall be obtained from fees, and I believe that Queensland is unique in this respect. If the University fails to raise 23 per cent, the maximum government grant is not attracted. Tn 1972 fees are expected to rise by approximately 27 per cent, and by all standards this must be regarded as a very steep increase. Unfortunately, it is likely that quite a number of very good students may be precluded from enrolling at the University from 1972 onwards by reason of this steep increase in fees. I believe that this situation is inequitable, and I agree with what the honourable member for Barton has said regarding the need to iron out inequalities where they exist. I believe that ‘his situation warrants further special financial consideration.

I also agree with the suggestion of the honourable member for Barton that consideration should be given to the granting of additional Commonwealth scholarships. This would be a very welcome course and I hope that the Government will find it possible to do this in the current triennium as it has done in recent years. I am glad that the Opposition is not opposing the Bill but merely moving an amendment to it. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill and 1 regard it as a major step forward in the field of tertiary education in Australia.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– First of all, to deal with the points raised by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury), I noticed that . he still has this dual formula university in his mind. There are those decent solid students who get on with their work with their heads down and pass examinations, and there are those mischievous characters with long hair who go out and demonstrate. I think that the honourable member will find that, generally speaking, ali university students are potential demonstrators and they are all potentially hard working students. In fact, the university system is such that it takes from the top of the school system in Australia - I do not like the term ‘cream’ but certainly some special section of people who are able to handle the situation, lt is still a very narrow group in the community, and it may well be that with our form of university education it will always be so. It is about 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the people in the 17 to 22-year age group. We are speaking about a special group of citizens. I hope that they will always take an active interest in politics. If the 100,000 young people who are at universities exclude themselves from public affairs it is to the great disadvantage of the community.

I do not expect them to agree with us always. I do not expect them to agree with us after the next election when we are running the country much more effectively than it is now. 1 will be the last to denounce their activities. If there is anything wrong with the Australian community it is the failure of people to participate in politics; it is the failure of people at ail sorts of levels to take an interest in political affairs and accept a political commitment.

If one of the products of the last few years has been an increasing commitment to political action of young people, particularly those who are going to be leaders in cultural, commercial, industrial and professional life of the community, then it is all to the good. I hope my friend, the honourable member for Ryan, will not discourage it although it is discouraging to him when he finds that nearly everyone who gets a liberal education under his belt and starts to gather the greater wisdom that comes from continued study in life, deserts the Liberal Party. The reason why the Opposition has moved the amendment this evening is not as our friend, the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), might have put it - so that we can have a pleasant ramble around the areas of education - but so that we can exploit the opportunities that this Parliament offers, rarely enough, to debate some of the major issues in this particular field.

A few months ago the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) produced a very lengthy statement in this House. 1 suppose it was a valuable contribution to conservative educational administrative thought. But what it should have done was to open a major debate in the Parliament. It did not do so and we have to pick it up moment by moment and say something on the question of university education We have been involved in debates here almost since the inception of university education as a Commonwealth responsibility. Up to 10 or 12 years ago the Parliament took little note of education. Our former Prime Minister, the great national leader for reactionary thought, the right honourable Sir Robert Menzies, used to pooh-pooh the idea that the Commonwealth Government ought to attend to the matters of education. But by 1959 or 1960 he started to take some interest in the areas of universities. About 1963 he discovered that there were votes in things such as State aid. Suddenly he became a great committer of Commonwealth money and Commonwealth thinking of a qualified sort to the question. The reason why we want the Commonwealth to accept full responsibility for universities is that we believe there is no future in leaving the matter in the State arena.

The problems are these, as I see them. First of all the States have restricted resources. I might believe that the States are narrow in their interpretation of their authority; that none of the States, whatever the political complexion of their governments, uses the resources of their own banking systems which are at their disposal in any sort of imaginative way; that often they pour their money into things of which I would disapprove anyhow; and that such things as a capital gains tax and other sorts of revenue gathering at their disposal have been ignored. But the facts are that it is unlikely that in the present system or in the foreseeable future the States will have at their disposal large sums of money upon which they can draw for expanding needs in the community.

The first point that ought to be made and which ought lo be clearly understood is that the States now are so restricted that only the Commonwealth has the expanding resources at its disposal to take up the challenges of the Commonwealth education system. But there are some other things inherent in our education system that can only be challenged by Commonwealth action. With 15 or 16 universities and with tertiary education expanding both vertically and horizontally, as one may put it, the facts are that only by some concerted national action are we going to overcome some of the major difficulties.

One of these difficulties flows from the elitist concept of university education. When I was young the university was somewhere other people went. One of the contributions of the war was that people who went off to war and came home were put through university in thousands. If there was a revolution in Australian society it was the product of the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. To me and to thousands of others the doors of the universities which were closed emphatically in 1939 were opened as widely as they could be in 1946. This, of course, changed the whole social attitude to university education and families such as mine could see that not only people such as the odd one who managed to make the distance for some reason or other - the person who became a teacher and then for professional reasons managed to get into university - received a university education but that a university education became a natural social objective for the whole family. So the elitist concept which still 1 think lies pretty heavily on the minds and consciences - what there are of them - of the people opposite has been discarded by the rest of the community. lt is a logical objective for almost any Australian with a child capable of handling academic activities at all to see the university as the goal. This is exemplified for me by my own electorate. My electorate lies along Sydney Road, up past Royal Parade and past Melbourne University. Up to a few years ago the university doors were closed to most of my constituents. Secondary education was minimal as far as most of them were concerned. Coburg is one such area. I suppose that this suburb makes up one-fiftieth or thereabouts of the metropolitan area of Melbourne, lt has been a substantial suburb for the best part of a century. In 1963 or 1964 there were only some 30 people undertaking matriculation in Coburg. This year there are over 200. lt has been in the Camberwells, the Caulfields and so on of Melbourne that the rise in the demand and aspiration has not been so great. So the change in social attitude means there are so many demands upon university education that the States have no possibility of handling them. It will only be by concerted national action that these demands will be overcome.

There are past inequalities of education and these are across the board. Women have had less of a fair go than have young men: people in industrial areas have had fewer opportunities than those in nonindustrial areas; people in country districts have had much less access to higher education than those in a city; people in Victoria had much less access to higher education than people in New South Wales; and Aboriginal people have still not achieved the same equality or anywhere near it. So there are continuing past inequalities that flow on into modern society. They can only be challenged when someone with the resources and responsibilities across the nation take them up.

Then there is past neglect. The university, as I said before, was for the few and therefore no-one bothered much. Melbourne University in 1936 and 1937 was a pleasant cloistered spot set alongside Royal Parade with a pond in which one could throw dissident students and reluctant lecturers. This has gone. Melbourne University has now become almost a great academic factory. This has happened to most of the universities of Australia. But in those days no-one had to worry much. A handful of people went through the university system. It will only be by national action at national level with the resources at our disposal that we will overcome these difficulties.

Rising aspiration has never been effectively acknowledged. I do not see a university education as a piece of social class elevation. I see it as a natural and logical aspiration of people for their children. Another change is going on at the same time. In recent years 1 have noticed that people are prepared for some of the family not to bother to become university students. I know of one family - a working class family, I suppose one could say, with a skilled tradesman as a parent - of which one son has finished university, one is in university and 2 others are coming up.

That brings me to another area in respect of which only the Commonwealth can find the answer - that is the area of student support. I believe that this falls into 2 parts. First there is accommodation and secondly there is the matter of allowances - and allowances come into the fees area. It is popular enough to argue that most students do not pay fees - I have the statistics somewhere - but that argument is not very relevant. For the person who is paying the fee it is absolute. The fee for the average family on an ordinary wage in Australia is an almost impossible burden for the family to carry. Therefore, I think it is important as a social exercise that fees be abolished by whatever method we can do it.

Then there is the question of allowances, and we have not faced this question adequately at all. No honourable member on this side of the House would say that he knows the absolute answer but it is our belief that by the time a person is 17 or 18 years of age he should be beyond depending on the charity of his parents if they are rich or, if they are poor, on the charity of the government: and because of what will happen to that person and what he will do for the community the Government should supply him with an adequate living allowance. We do this for teacher students without any qualification or means test and we do it for hundreds of men who are in the Service academies. They cost an extravagant amount but 1 do not begrudge the money that we spend on them. And we do it in many other areas of the community. Various instrumentalities, private and public, support students very substantially. Again I believe it is a subject to which we ought to turn our earnest attention.

The other matter I wish to refer to is accommodation. I would think of it as a fruitless exercise to open medical faculties at every university or specialised university faculties. Students should be able to move more freely around the university system in Australia, but at the moment there is completely inadequate university accommodation, and what there is is inclined to be too expensive. We ought to be able to solve this problem. There are 2 other areas to which we should turn our attention. One is the question of external studies and the other is the question of the open university. I will deal with the open university first. The British, a conservative society 1 suppose, but often most imaginative and adventurous in social exercises, have the open university. They originally intended, I believe, to call it the university of the air but now it is called the open university. One of the facts of life is that we will have less use for people as functioning units in society and people will demand more of themselves, developed from their cultural background, the wisdom or whatever it is one gets from higher education. So we have to look at education more from the point of view of oneself and one’s personality rather than one’s function in society. While we are turning out people as engineers, their engineering capacity and faculty will be a decreasingly important part of their life, and this applies to everybody. It does not matter whether one is a tinker or tailor, soldier or sailor. I suppose the last people who will be working around the clock are members of this Parliament - but that is a self-inflicted wound.

The facts are that we have to develop an education system to which people have access whether they have the academic qualifications in the first place or not.

When Britain threw the open university open for applications there were 129,000 inquiries; 43,000 applications were received and 25,000 were accepted. It is my belief that the university system has to become more accessible to the community and that there are large areas of higher education which could be developed by such adventurous and imaginative techniques. Then there is the question of external studies. This is one of the most serious deficiencies in the modern university system. There are countless thousands of people throughout Australia who could benefit from university education and from consistent study in some area or discipline. For instance, studies of foreign languages in this part of the world might be worth while sponsoring. The Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Indonesian language course is a credit to the ABC and I hope one day that we will hear some honourable member opposite say something nice about the ABC. I have met people who have learned that they can get along in Indonesia as a result of the ABC course. Progress in these areas - external studies, expansion of the university system, accommodation, student support, removal of the disadvantages and the inequalities in education - can only be achieved by the Commonwealth. We on this side of the House are not mad centralists. I suppose in the Labor movement there is a move towards greater capacity for action in the field than there used to be. We realise that the initiative finally lies here. I hope that honourable members opposite will give serious thought to the principles behind our amendment and that honourable members opposite, who are listening so patiently, at least will give some thought to those principles in such a way that eventually they might get around to acting on them. The Government has only about 300 more days during which it will be able to act upon its own initiative. After that it will have to put up with those matters which we will tackle in a much more imaginative way.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

I shall briefly say something about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). I thank honourable members for taking part in the debate. The honourable member for Fremantle foreshadowed that the Government would not accept the amendment. Of course, in saying that he was right. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) suggested that we should give some thought to the principles which lie behind the amendment. This has been done. These matters have been proposed on a number of occasions.I believe that the principles on which we operate are basically much more valid than the ones on which the Opposition appears to operate. The honourable member for Fremantle indicated that he believed that the States would be glad to be relieved of the burdens and problems of tertiary education and that this area should be taken over by the Commonwealth.

Mr Beazley:

– Financial burdens.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– All right, financial burdens. If the Commonwealth is to accept the total financial burdens, is it thereby also to accept total responsibility for the location, timing, government and management of the universities in the States? Is it a reasonable or rational proposition to have a situation in which universities, which are established under State legislation, whose timing and beginnings are decided by State governments and whose location is and should be decided by State governments, are to be financed solely by the Commonwealth? I do not think that that is a reasonable proposal. The inevitable result of the Commonwealth assuming total financial responsibility for tertiary education would be that the Commonwealth would make total decisions. This certainly would not be in the interests of education of any kind. It would indicate an extreme move of power and influence to the centre of government in Australia. I would have thought that one of the things the honourable member for Wills and other honourable members concerned with education wanted to support was the decentralisation of authority so far as education is concerned. That proposition is not consistent with greater centralisation of finance and responsibility.

Mr Reynolds:

– I would like to argue that proposition too.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Does not the honourable member prefer decentralisation of educational authority?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hailett)Order! There are far too many interjections.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The only other point I mention in relation to the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Fremantle is the annual suggestion that the formulas between the Commonwealth and the States should be altered. At present it is $1 to $1.85. The principal argument used by the honourable member for Fremantle seemed to be that the Commonwealth received back much of its additional expenditure through increased taxation. If that is to be allowed as a legitimate argument in this context, I think the honourable member should concede that the Commonwealth provides roughly half the recurrent revenue of the States, excluding their business undertakings, through the financial arrangements which we have with the States. The fact that we provide half the States’ recurrent revenue also would be a legitimate argument to put into the balance. If we received additional funds in the form of income tax revenue as a result of some measure of this kind, we need to bear in mind that we are providing very substantial funds for the States in any case. By those means nearly half of what the States pay is paid for by the Commonwealth. I do not think that the arguments which the honourable member put on that point carry great weight. The Government does not accept the amendment. I am glad to know that, once the amendment is defeated, the Opposition will support the Bill.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beazley’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr J. M. Hallett)

AYES: 46

NOES: 41

Majority .. ..5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3735

WAR SERVICE HOMES LEGISLATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs Minister for National Development · LP

– I merely want to give to the House an assurance that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has advised me that Cabinet will consider the position of regular servicemen who are finding difficulty in obtaining home finance. My understanding is that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) will be happy to accept this undertaking.

Mr JESS:

– Yes, I accept the assurance.

Mr Killen:

– I indicate that I am happy to accept it, too.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I am sure the honourable member for Moreton is happy to accept it. It is in accordance with the amendment moved by the Opposition. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his courtesy in allowing me to say this at this point of time, because we have deferred the Bill to the next day of sitting. In other words, the debate will not come on again until next Tuesday.

page 3735

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 August (vide page 365), on motion by Mr Fairbairn:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Education and Science · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– May I suggest that we have a cognate debate covering the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill, the Australian Commission on Advanced Education Bill and the Australian Universities Commission Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– In general the Opposition supports these 3 Bills. The first one relates mainly to academic salaries, to appropriate additional grants in order that the Commonwealth might meet its share of the cost of the new levels of academic salaries in colleges of advanced education under the accepted matching formula. We have said what we think about this accepted matching formula on a number of occasions tonight, and I do not want to go into that question again. The third of these Bills, the Australian Universities Commission Bill, provides for an additional full time member of the Australian Universities Commission and also provides for some co-ordination of action between the new Australian Commission on Advanced Education and the Universities Commission. Very clearly, of these 3 measures the most important is the one that sets up the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. I want to make some comment on that.

The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the previous debate accused the Opposition of having ideas that would lead to centralisation. I am perfectly certain that if last year we had suggested the establishment of an Australian Commission on Advanced Education we would have been told that we were centralising. Here again the Commonwealth is setting up a powerful advisory body, to advise on the financial needs of all these colleges of advanced education. Quite clearly, however much the Minister may disavow it, there is a rise in Commonwealth influence on this whole subject. I would like to take a quotation from an essay titled ‘Colleges and the Community’ by S. Murray-Smith in which he had this to say about our colleges of advanced education:

Australia’, we have recently been told, ‘supports universities because people in universities say it should, and because Sir Robert Menzies in the late fifties set up a commission to prove the point by reaching a foregone conclusion’. One could take this further and say that Australia supports colleges of advanced education because some means had to be found of satisfying the insensate demands of the electors for ‘qualifications’ for their children, and universities had proved to be too expensive, too radical and too unresponsive. The Martin Committee showed us the way forward: To retread the old Australian technical education system, which had been running on the bare canvas for the past 50 years.

I do not think that is a fair comment, but it is a view that is held, in certain circles, of colleges of advanced education. I hope that the setting up of this commission will make quite sure that what we are doing in advanced technical education is not a retread of the tyres that have been worn down to the canvas in the last 50 years. We need to face the fact that there was a bad turn in tertiary technical education. In the 19th century what was begun was very broad indeed. In fact, there were 2 leaders in technical education in the late 19th century. There was Selfe in Sydney and Campbell in Melbourne who were bold enough to advertise that they would teach anything to 6 or 12 people who would get together and say what they wanted to breadth in some of these tertiary or learn. There was a quite remarkable advanced technical education institutions. In fact, some of the great landscape artists of Australia learned their art in such places from teachers who were attracted there.

Then the bureaucrats got to work and one most remarkable thing happened in Sydney. Whereas before 1914 there were 26,000 students in Sydney technical schools, when logic began to be applied as to who should be admitted - there were demands of qualifications for entry and the old breadth of artists and all sorts of people coming in disappeared - almost within 1 year the number of students in Sydney technical schools was cut to 13,000. For years and years they did not recover from that position. The Canberra College of Advanced Education seems to me to restore some of the breadth that Selfe and Campbell had in their bold invitation that they would organise technical education for any number of people between 6 and 12 who indicated what they wanted to be taught. As I say, the result was a fruitful period in technical and advanced education.

The Opposition welcomes the formation of a commission for the colleges of advanced education. Just as the Commonwealth has proved that the establishment of a universities commission has advanced universities, just as it will prove that colleges of advanced education will be developed by this commission, so we say that it is imperative for the advance of Australian education there should be a schools commission and a pre-schools commission to advise the Commonwealth on the needs of those forms of education. There will be no other way for it. The Minister complains about a philosophy of centralisation. He had better go back to the High Court decision in the uniform taxation case. There is the root of centralisation. The States have been left with the expenditure departments, the Commonwealth has the revenue departments, and all sorts of social services have been limping along with that problem ever since.

Having said those things, I would like to say that we support the 3 measures under consideration. One of them is quite major - the setting up of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education - and the others, which the Minister has introduced for cognate debate, are incidental.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I want to confine my remarks almost entirely to the Bill about which the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) spoke. Quite clearly, as the honourable member said, this is an extremely important move, although I do not think it is such a centralising move as the honourable member for Fremantle suggested. After all, we have in operation already - in fact, over some years now - the Advisory Committee on Advanced Education. It is now to take another name. I suppose there is some aura of added authority in the title of Australian Commission on Advanced Education. However, I doubt whether the increase in power at the centre is as great as the honourable member for Fremantle suggested. It seems to me to be the logical thing to do. My equivocations, my qualifications or queries are rather of the kind which the honourable member for Fremantle made and are directed in particular towards the role of these colleges as alternatives to the universities.

I think it is fair to say, with due deference to the foresight or the accession to demands as they then stood of the Commonwealth to enter this field and to regularise this field of alternative tertiary education to that provided by the universities, that the Commonwealth was not entirely clear at the time of the setting up of these colleges as to just what their function was to be, and in fact - I may do somebody an injustice - I am not quite sure that we are entirely clear what their function is even now. I see as the point to be made most here in relation to this Bill that the Commonwealth, or rather now the Commission, should see it as a prime duty, and no doubt it will, to regularise and to rationalise as much as is possible the role of these advanced colleges which it is to administer, because we have sufficient difficulty in providing the unending infinite demands for expenditure on education without having any unnecessary overlap as between universities and the advanced colleges. In that sense I am pleased to see that the Minister for Education and Science mentioned in his second reading speech and, in fact, in his second reading speech on the Australian Universities Commission Bill, that both these bodies, the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education, are obliged to consult one with the other, presumably concerning their modus operandi, the matters of education which they wish to control and the direction in which they would like to see the institutions for which they are responsible going. So if those things act as they read then I think we can welcome this Bill with very little qualification, only to say that it is a most rapidly growing field.

The Minister has drawn attention to expenditure of a little over $100m in 1967-69 rising to $250m in 1970-72. There are nearly SO institutions to be administered by the new Commission and clearly this is a most significant area of Australian education which is blossoming. I do not want to take up the time of the House to launch into a long speech in the direction of educational philosophy, which might be appropriate to this occasion, because really I think this is adding another name, and perhaps a little more force, to the title of a pre-existing body. Provided that it does the sorts of things which I am sure the members of that Commission are aiming to do, of the kind I have just mentioned, this will be an important step in the right direction for Australian education. Finally, as to the question of the Australian Universities Commission Bill, the addition of a second full time member to take the title of deputy chairman of the board, without any detailed knowledge of my part of how necessary it is, would appear to be a logical step in a body which on the whole I think would be seen by the universities, by the

Government and by others to have done a fairly good job over the period of its existence. In fact, that is probably faint praise. It in fact has made a much more rational situation for the universities of this country and those who have worked in them certainly would know of the advantage that has brought, particularly in the smaller universities which have been less able to fend for themselves and which, before the existence of the Australian Universities Commission, had to wait before they were able to follow in the footsteps of their larger brethren.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I only regret that we are under some pressure here tonight to speak to a number of Bills - five in all - in such a short time. I recognise also that we aTe in fact trying to speak to the lengthy statement on education and science made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) only a couple of weeks ago. First of all, I want to address my remarks to the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill and I would like to move an amendment to the motion ‘That the Bill be now read a second time.’ I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not refusing to give the Bill a second reading this House believes that the policy of matching grants should be examined to ascertain whether it permits of an adequate system of advanced education and sufficient funds should be made available to the States in the form of recurrent grants to permit the abolition of fees in Colleges of Advanced Education’.

I do not want to trespass too much on the argument that I advanced when debating the previous Bill. Once again we are dealing with a Bill to provide for Commonwealth subsidies. In this case it is to make provision for increased academic salaries for the colleges of advanced education. Exceptional increases are taking place within the triennial period and they are said to flow mainly from the 1970 national wage case.

The Bill also provides for some minor machinery adjustments to the recurrent grants schedule. These are due to reallocations within the province of the legislation. Once again, we are looking at the matter of the formula. I do not want to re-hash what I have already said about the $1 Commonwealth grant for every $1.85 from the States and from fees from Students. I wish to add just one point to what I said when discussing the previous Bill; that is, the Wark Committee in its first report in 1966 advocated that recurrent grants should be on the basis of $1 from the Commonwealth for every $1 provided by the States.

The Commonwealth rejected that proposition at the time and this may be now rather a matter of regret as it is leading to heavy penalties not only on the States but also on the students. Just as there have been steep increases in university fees in recent times, and more are projected for the next 2 years, so have there been increases in the fees paid by students at colleges of advanced education. The increased fees are all the more important because so many students who go to colleges of advanced education are unable to obtain a relatively scarce Commonwealth advanced education scholarship. This means once again that there is gross inequality of opportunity in determining who will attend colleges of advanced education. That is why our amendment suggests that we seek to abolish fees at these institutions and allow people to proceed there on merit rather than on the financial capacity of their parents or friends.

This move would be beneficial not only to the individual students but also to the community at large because it would make it possible for people to attend tertiary institutions who are able to render as a result the most service to the community. As I also indicated in the debate on the previous Bill, we need not only to abolish fees but also to increase living allowances and to make the means test applying to the living allowances much more lenient. I agree with the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) that we are still trying to clarify in our minds the function of colleges of advanced education. I suppose that they have quite a wide range of functions. The universities and the colleges of advanced education are still trying to work out their relationship to each other. The early distinction , that was made by Sir Robert Menzies and others does not seem to apply any longer.

Colleges of advanced education are now in the business of handing out degrees in respect of a number of courses, but they also have courses leading to subprofessional awards. I agree with those people who think it is healthy to have diversity in colleges of advanced education. Looking in on some of them, including the college here in Canberra, there does seem to be quite a healthy diversity in the types of courses offering and the organisation of those courses. Most of the colleges I have observed have been of the multi-discipline kind and this seems generally to be a good tiling. I know that Sir Ian Wark thoroughly discourages the idea of monodiscipline for colleges of advanced education.

At present many teachers colleges are aspiring to become colleges of advanced education, possibly not only on educational grounds but more on political and economic grounds. This is one way in which teacher’s colleges could attract recurrent benefits from the Commonwealth. They do not get it under the teachers college grants which only apply as far as capital requirements are concerned. So there is an argument as to whether you can have a teachers college as being, solely on its own merit, a college of advanced education. Most people seem to discourage this idea. They reckon that there is a good deal to be gained from students, and staff for that matter, mixing with people of various disciplines. For what it is worth I am encouraged to endorse that point of view. I think that teachers or student teachers can be raised in a rather ratified atmosphere where they go out of school into a glorified teachers college atmosphere of something like a school and then go back into a school without having mixed much with the community at large.

I rather incline to the view that we should have multi-discipline colleges of advanced education. I only hope, though, that people will recognise that students do not go to colleges of advanced education or any tertiary institution, for that matter, just for vocational reasons. I regret the trend of argument that has been put forward here recently that we might be overproducing graduates from those institutions. I think there is a lot to be said for people getting a general education, an advanced education. Many people only really begin to appreciate history, economics, political science and what have you when they become more mature. I often hear people say, ‘Why do not you teach the youngsters in your schools all about politics and about how to vote so that we can cut down on the great number of informal votes at election times?’. My observation is that these studies at schools do not have the relevance that they, have when a youngster becomes 19, 20, 21 or older, when he becomes more inquiring and more critical and starts to look into the realms of philosophy, sociology, world government and all these sorts of things.

I would like to see many people have the opportunity of going to a college of advanced education without necessarily having any vocational objective in mind. 1 would like to see colleges of advanced education cater for that sort of thing. I apologise in advance for quoting a few statistics, but what is the status of colleges of advanced education at the moment? In 1970 - and I will give these statistics in round figures - ‘there were 37,000 students in colleges of advanced education. At that time there were 51 colleges, 21 of them in Victoria. Victoria has been well ahead, in this type of development, of all other States. Of those 37,000 students 15,500 - again in round figures - were undertaking full time courses and 20,000 were doing part time courses. Nearly 1,200 were doing courses by correspondence. Once again it is interesting to look at the sex make-up of the students. There were 30,500 males and 6,500 female students. I hope that there will be much more opportunity in the future for females to enter colleges of advanced education. I think that this is in the interests of society itself, for the sociological reasons I mentioned and the cultural reasons which I alluded to a while ago. Of the number of students in colleges of advanced education in 1970, 19,000 were in Victoria. By comparison New South Wales had only 4,266. The higgest enrolments for courses at colleges of advanced education are in this order: business studies, engineering and technology, building, surveying and architecture, art and design. Getting down fairly low in priority is paramedical studies. In more recent times education has come into the picture. It is interesting to note that fairly low on the priority scale at the present time is liberal studies. As I have already said I hope that this is something that will build up over the years ahead.

When I first wrote down my few comments in regard to this matter I was advocating a national authority to help plan the distribution of tertiary institutions or colleges of advanced education. We are dealing with 2 other Bills in company with the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill. One of them provides for an Australian Commission on Advanced Education and the other provides for a second full time member of the Australian Universities Commission. 1 thought that in the second reading speech of the Minister a rather pious hope was expressed that these 2 commissions would consult and bring about some rational development of universities and colleges of advanced education. I do not think it is unfair to say that there has been a good deal of tension in the relationship between the universities and the colleges of advanced education. I feel that the universities have some suspicion that they will be outdone by the colleges of advanced education and that the development of the colleges will take place somewhat at the expense of the universities. I hope that this suspicion can be sorted out and that they can work together.

I was rather hoping that we would follow the recommendation in the Martin Committee report and the example of the New South Wales Government in providing for a third body on which the colleges of advanced education and the universities were represented. The Martin Committee envisaged an Australian tertiary education commission or something of that kind. This has not come about. Instead we have these 2 bodies. I welcome the extension of the full time membership of the Australian Universities Commission. It is obvious that the one full time comissioner, who is the chairman, has been overworked and that there has not been as happy a consultation between the universities and the Commission as there ought to be. I am hoping that the addition of a second full time member to the Commission will assist in this regard.

It was stated in the Minister’s second reading speech that the Australian Commission on Advanced Education, the new body, was to be established on parallel lines to the Australian Universities Commission. Somebody writing to one of the Melbourne newspapers the other day noted this difference between the 2 bodies: The Australian Commission on Advanced Edu cation will have under it charge 48 colleges. It is to have only one full-time member. On the other hand, the Australian Universities Commission, which is looking after 18 universities, will have 2 full time members. I think this pretty uneven development. I would like to hear from the Minister, when he is replying a little later, why it is that there is only one full time member on the Australian Commission on Advanced Education but 2 full time members serving on the Australian Universities Commission. I would have thought that with not only the speedy development that has occurred in colleges of advanced education but also the projected development ahead of them it would have been a fair idea to have at least 2 full time members on the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. I do not know what guided the Government in making provision for only one full time member.

I finalise my remarks by referring once again to the difficulty many people experience in entering these colleges of advanced education. One of the points that concern me is that the scarce number of scholarships available have not all been taken up. In 1970, of the 2,500 scholarship available only 2,109 were taken up. Yet, there were 40,745 applicants for this scarce number of scholarships. Admittedly, a number of these applicants also apply for other scholarships. But that does not altogether explain to me why these scholarships are not all taken up. I know that they are made available as later year awards, but that does not explain to me why they are not taken up as open entrance awards. In 1972 there will be 4,000 scholarships instead of the 2,500 scholarships which is presently the case. But in the last year for which I have figures only 10.2 per cent of those who had gained entrance to colleges of advanced education were, in fact, receiving scholarships. So, I am hoping that there will be a much more generous provision for people to enter these colleges. This of course would happen if the Government accepted the amendment which I have moved to provide for increased funds that would allow the States to make provision for the abolition of fees in colleges of advanced education. I might have made other remarks if more time had been available but I will leave it at that. I will be very anxious to hear the Minister explain why there was this restriction to just one full time member of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. We are now in a situation where there are 48 colleges and the number is likely to increase very quickly in the future.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Kennedy:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– First of all, referring to the amendment that has been moved, I think everyone would be very pleased if fees in colleges of advanced education could be abolished without having to place undue strain on the economics of education generally. This is the problem with which we are faced in trying to provide funds in the many avenues of education into which the Commonwealth is now being drawn. The Commonwealth has been particularly active in the field of tertiary education, which is the field with which the Bills we are discussing tonight are concerned. I draw attention to the second reading speech of the former Minister for Education and Science on the State Grants (Advanced Education) Bill in which he said:

The main purpose of the Bill before the House is to appropriate additional grants in order that the Commonwealth might meet its share of the cost of the new levels of academic salaries in colleges of advanced education under the accepted matching formula. The need to provide these supplementary grants has arisen from the salary increases awarded in the 1970 national wage case.

These remarks emphasise the fact that these things do not come alone and that the cost of increases in wages, however justified those increases might be, still have to be met. This requires more and more finance. If we are to move into other fields that require finance there must be a limit. If there is not, the cost to the community will be very heavy or there will be restrictions in Commonwealth expenditure in other fields. However I accept the fact that the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill simply allows the Commonwealth to carry on as it has been. It has accepted the principle that it should provide its share of the increases and it has fulfilled its obligation in this regard. The cost for the 1970- 72 triennium though is fairly high. The cost of all increases in academic salaries provided for in the Bill will be over Sim and the cost in the financial year 1971-72 will be over $750,000. However, the Government is willing to join with the States by making supplementary grants to them and thereby meeting its obligations in that field.

The problem, as I mentioned before, is that in addition to meeting these costs we have to remember that the Commonwealth will be asked to support the States in other fields of education. I mention particularly the difficulties of people in outlying areas. As a result of these difficulties they have got together and formed an association which is called the Isolated Children Parents Association with the subject of getting assistance from both the States and the Commonwealth to provide some sort of education for their children. The Commonwealth will be called upon, and I believe very justly called upon, to provide extra finance for that purpose.

I agree with those honourable members who have spoken already that the Australian Commission on Advanced Education Bill is probably the most important of the Bills we are considering in this cognate debate. I pay a tribute to the work that is being done by colleges of advanced education. I am, however, more conversant with the work of the Queensland Institute of Technology (Darling Downs) at Toowoomba which has gone from strength to strength. Much support was given to its establishment. An earnest endeavour had been made to secure a university for that area but the Institute of Technology is providing a wonderful service not only for Toowoomba and its immediate surrounds but also for far flung areas west of Toowoomba. It is meeting the needs for tertiary education. The availability of accommodation in Toowoomba has enabled many students from outlying areas to attend that institution. In the early stages of its operations the fees were reasonable and enabled many students to take advantage of tertiary education which they would not have been able to avail themselves of had it not been for this Institute of Technology. Undoubtedly these remarks would apply equally to other institutes of technology and to colleges of advanced education in other areas. I might mention also that for many years great work has been done by the Queensland Agricultural College at Lawes.

Mention has been made of the cost of education. It is easy for people to ask continuously for the expenditure of money on education. I am not suggesting for one moment that education is not one of the most important avenues for government expenditure. We must keep pace with the educational needs of our nation. We must keep pace with the educational progress that we see evidenced throughout the world and it is essential that large sums be made available in all fields of education, not only for tertiary education. As has been mentioned, the programme for the 1967-69 triennium cost more than $100m and it is proposed that for the 1970-72 triennium expenditure will exceed $250m. These are large sums and it must be remembered that in the conduct of government there is need to supervise expenditure to ensure that money is available for essential requirements. In my opinion education ranks high among our requirements.

The purpose of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education Bill rs to give effect to a decision to establish a new statutory body to be called the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. I do not want to repeat what has been said already, because the hour is late, but it is gratifying to see a continuing and increasing interest by the Commonwealth Government in the fields of education because without such interest Australia would not be able to progress. I hope that the community at large gives credit to the Government for the steps it has taken to increase educational standards in the community. The Commonwealth Government moved ato the field of advanced education as a result of its acceptance of the recommendations of the Martin Committee which advocated the establishment of this new type of institution in the field of tertiary education. I believe that the establishment of colleges of advanced education has been a wonderful success particularly in those areas where it has not been possible to establish universities. I am pleased to note that the Australian Universities Commision and the proposed Australian Commission on Advanced Education will be working in co-operation, I believe to -the benefit of tertiary education generally. Like the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds), who preceded me in this debate, I could talk for a long time on the many aspects of this legislation, but I know that honourable members generally will be confining their remarks. In that spirit, although I feel that there is a lot more to be said about this legislation, I will confine my remarks to what I have already said and just give my support, which I am sure all people who are concerned about the progress of education in Australia also would do, to the legislation before the House.

Friday, 26 November 1971

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

I am afraid I cannot share the optimism of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). I am particularly concerned about the way in which the colleges of advanced education in Australia are being financed, especially the ones in Victoria. The method of financing them is retarding the growth of colleges of advanced education and also limiting the opportunities of young people to obtain a course of advanced education. I want to refer briefly to the Commonwealth and State grants which are to be made in the present triennium and look ahead to what may happen in the next triennium when, I believe, there will be very savage cuts in the estimates of the Victorian colleges, which will have a very serious effect on advanced education in that State.

I believe that advanced education is being very seriously retarded in Victoria in particular. I will specify in a few minutes time why I believe that. However, it is essential first of all to look at what has been provided for in the present triennium, which is for the years 1970 to 1972. The colleges of advanced education in Victoria themselves set a figure of $132m, which consisted of capital requirements of $5 8m and recurrent requirements of $74m. The total sum of $82m was allocated to the colleges in Victoria for this triennium, which is now in its second year. There was in fact a cut of $50m in the requirements of the Victorian colleges. The capital estimates of $5 8m were slashed by 50 per cent. The colleges were granted only $30m for this 3-year period. The recurrent requirements estimate of $74m were slashed by about 30 per cent, and the colleges were given $52m, which was $22m less than what was required. What has in fact taken place is a very severe slashing of the amounts of money required by the Victorian colleges for the present triennium.

One can take the traditional Government view on this matter and say ‘Well, it is all Sir Henry Bolte’s fault. It is a State matter’, and reject completely all Commonwealth responsibility. But in doing so one is, of course, ignoring the moral responsibility that the Commonwealth Government has towards advanced education, as has been expressed, for example, by the fact that it established the Martin Committee on tertiary education and the Advisory Committee on Advanced Education and sought the Wiltshire report on academic awards and the Sweeney report on lecturers’ salaries. So it has a commitment. Guidelines have been laid down for the colleges of advanced education in Victoria to show in which way they should progress, but, unfortunately, the archaic sharing of financial responsibility between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government is not enabling those guidelines to be pursued effectively by the colleges in Victoria. I wish to quote what Sir Henry Bolte said last year when the question was raised in the Victorian Parliament about the $22m that his Government had, in co-operation with the Commonwealth Government, slashed off the recurrent requirements estimate of $74.2m. Sir Henry Bolte’s statement, which was an ominous one, was:

As far as this so-called cut is concerned, as claimed by Dr Law -

The Vice-President of the Victorian Institute of Colleges - this was the estimate that they put in, which was an exaggerated amount which would have given over 100 per cent increase.

I am quoting from the ‘Age’ of 19th November 1970. What Sir Henry Bolte was saying there was that it was absolutely ridiculous for the Victorian colleges to expect to be given in the present 3-year period twice the amount that had been given to them in the previous 3-year period. He said that that was totally unrealistic and that he was not going to buy it. Of course, in saying that, he was ignoring the fact that the demand for advanced education in Victoria was growing very rapidly and that there was a need in Victoria for students with advanced education qualifications. Sir Henry Bolte simply wiped his hands of his responsibilities. That is the background to the points which I will raise later. Sir Henry Bolte has made it clear that he is opposed to making any substantial increase in the amount of money required by the Victorian colleges.

What sort of effect have the cuts in the present 3-year period had on colleges in Victoria? One of the most worrying things about the cuts is that they have resulted in a limitation being placed on the number of students being admitted to colleges of advanced education. For some years now we have acclimatised ourselves to this epidemic of rationing of education in universities. It is affecting teachers colleges now. It has started in the colleges of advanced education for one principal reason - the limitation of funds in the present 3- year period. At the present time in Victoria there are 8 colleges and institutes in which quotas are levied on some courses. For example, last year the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology rejected 76 students who wanted to undertake the course to obtain a diploma in applied chemistry. This year it rejected 147 students for this course. This represented about 50 per cent of the students who were eligible to take the course. For the course of civil engineering, last year 29 students were rejected and this year 112 were rejected, or 48.5 per cent of the eligible students. For the course to obtain a diploma of art, this year 295 students were rejected, or 45 per cent of the eligible students. For the accountancy course, this year 522 students were rejected, or 54 per cent of all eligible students. At the Swinburne Institute of Technology 600 eligible students who wanted to undertake a part time course in general studies were rejected, and this represented 82 per cent of all students who applied. For the fulltime course in general studies, 184 students were rejected, or 55 per cent of all eligible students. In another college 10 students who wanted to take a course to obtain a diploma in occupational therapy were rejected. This represented 53 per cent of all eligible students.

Dr Everingham:

– We need more occupational therapists.

Mr KENNEDY:

– -As the honourable member for Capricornia points out, this is an area in which we need more graduates.

This is what is happening. The rationing of tertiary education in the advanced education field is developing at a disturbing pace. This financial stringency is affecting colleges at every level. These institutes are multi-million dollar investments, but from day to day they are living from hand to mouth, never knowing where the next few thousand dollars are coming from. This is how finely balanced their budgets are. As regards staffing, Victoria in particular has the highest figure of all States in its proportion of junior to senior staff. There are also differences between the salary levels of the top ranks in the colleges and in comparable positions in universities. So we have this sort of discrimination being built into the colleges and institutes.

In many cases classes are still too large, buildings are still out of date and equipment is grossly inadequate. Many of the technical school origins of the institutes are still visible. I am not saying that these can be eliminated overnight by any means, but the point is that the development is not proceeding rapidly enough, in particular if we are genuine in our desire to see colleges provide education that is ‘different from but equal to’ that provided by universities. This development will mean more spending and more investment in advanced education than we have been prepared to provide so far. As regards capital development - and I pointed this out 2 years ago when we were discussing another advanced education Bill - we see in many cases in colleges of advanced education that libraries, including buildings, equipment and books stocks, and also the number of qualified librarians provided, are not comparable with those provided in universities. So this is the picture of what has emerged in the present triennium during which we have had savage cuts in colleges’ incomes.

Additionally, what is even more worrying throughout the country is the steady increase in fees. In 1970 fees rose in some institutes in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Now, in 1971, it is reported that in New South Wales fees in universities and colleges of advanced education could rise next year by up to 16 per cent. One thing I want to refer to again in particular is the fact that in Victoria, for a number of years, having departed from free tertiary technical education, the Government kept to a static fee of $80 a year for tuition. That has been raised by 25 per cent for next year. That is a milestone on the path towards making advanced education as exclusive and as prohibitive as university education already is for many children of lower income families and particularly students in country areas. I do not want to go any further on this matter at the moment. I merely want to point out that this is the trend being established already. This is what is happening in Victoria. Because of the fee increases parents and students are being forced to make up the necessary finance for advanced education in those areas where the Commonwealth Government and the State Government are refusing to meet their responsibilities.

Within my electorate the effect of what I have been talking about can be seen at the Bendigo Institute of Technology, an institute of which everybody in my city is particularly proud. Everybody, myself included, is particularly enthusiastic to see this college increase in its standing in the community and increase in its standing among people involved in tertiary education and among those who would employ its diplomates and future graduates. But the college already is concerned about next year. The increasing rate of demand for positions by students in the college may be such that next year, reluctantly, it will be forced to introduce quotas. Nobody in the college wants to do that - nobody. The principal does not want to do it, the staff do not want it and the college council does not want to do it, but there is a reality to be faced. The reputation of the college is exceptionally high. Students are finding difficulty in getting into Melbourne colleges. They are being turned away from the metropolitan universities and want to go to this college, but there is a danger that they will be quotaed out.

In another area, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology already has been forced into the degrading position of having to beg from the community in order to put up additional buildings. I think it required Sim. It is a staggering reflection on Government priorities that an institution of this magnitude and of this value has to go round begging in the community for money to put up its essential buildings and facilities.

I refer now to the coming triennium. I want to reiterate that the problems facing colleges in the next triennium, from 1973 to 1975, will be faced effectively only if there is full Commonwealth responsibility for advanced education. Earlier the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) spoke about the financing of university education. 1 do not go along with the abhorrence of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of centralism in this field. What is happening at the moment is that, in effect, there is centralism, a uniformity, about advanced education throughout Australia. The uniformity is represented by the growing level of quotas, the increasing fees and the increasing inadequacy of the facilities. So there is a uniformity.

It is clear that the State governments no longer can meet this task. I do not believe it is any answer to raise the bogy of centralism when there is an objective to be met by this Commonwealth Government, that is, to provide effectively for at least one level of education in this country. The Commonwealth Government must accept full responsibility for all levels of tertiary education, particularly advanced education. The colleges have already worked out how much they will need in the 1973-75 triennium. The total sum that is required by all the colleges in Victoria for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 is over $300m, or to be specific $305m. This is more than twice the amount that was sought for the present triennium 1970-72 and it is almost 4 times the amount that was granted to the Victorian colleges during that period. I believe that it is virtually inevitable that the Victorian Government will slash these figures very savagely. On the basis of what the Victorian Government has done in the past and on what Sir Henry Bolte has said in relation to the estimates of the present triennium I have every reason to believe that the Victorian colleges will receive only $180m in the next triennium. This means that the estimates of the colleges, which I believe our conservative and responsible estimates, will be cut toy about $120m. That is the situation as I see it.

Unless the Commonwealth Government is prepared at the very minimum to work out a new means of sharing financial responsibility in this field with the State Government of Victoria, and at best to accept full financial responsibility, the Victorian colleges will receive not the $305m they require but about SI 80m. To break this figure down, what the colleges have sought in capital estimates is approximately $137m. On the basis of what the Victorian Government with the support of this Government has done in the past, the colleges might get about $68.5m after a 50 per cent cut. The recurrent estimates are for a total of Sl68.78m. The colleges may get $112m on the basis of a 30 per cent cut which was applied for the present triennium. What effects will these cuts have? Again, we will see an escalation in the quotas. At present, quotas in universities are very extensive, very widespread and very large. They have almost reached epidemic proportions in universities. At present quotas affect 8 colleges of advanced education. More colleges will have quotas applied if the sort of cut which I have just outlined is applied in Victoria.

The alternative to applying quotas is to try to squeeze students into a limited number of buildings with limited facilities and limited staff. This is the alternative and while I think that the quota system will be chosen, there is also a danger that there will not be an improvement in the present ratio of students to staff. Honourable members will recall that the Advisory Committee on Advanced Education stressed that in colleges of advanced education there must be a very great emphasis upon the teaching side of learning. There is a danger that the staff required will not be employed and that the staff members that are provided will find that they are doing more work and are spending more time lecturing and tutoring than they should be and spending conditions for staff at colleges will be less attractive than those at universities. This again will damage the attractiveness of colleges by comparison with universities. It will also be difficult for colleges to increase the number and variety of courses being offered.

In general it is safe to say that the progress of the colleges towards being degree granting institutions - towards being genuine tertiary institutions - will be hampered unless the money that has been sought is provided. I believe there will be a continuing escalation of fees, as the Victorian Minister for Education has pointed out, until these reach the levels applying in some universities and until such times as they, coupled with quotas, make the colleges of advanced education no longer the institutions for working class children, which I do not believe they should be merely, anyway. They will be just as exclusive as universities are. This will be disastrous for students in country areas in particular, who are already debarred from universities by distance, quotas, exorbitant fees, limited numbers of scholarships, and inadequate living allowances.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Cope) negatived:

That the honourable member for Bendigo be granted an extension of time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– During the course of the debate I was asked one or two questions. Specifically, I was asked why there are 2 permanent members of the Australian Universities Commission and only one on the Commission of Advanced Education. I think this is a question of historical development. The Universities Commission has for a very long time operated with one permanent member and, as honourable members would know, the Bill now before the House seeks to add a second permanent member to that Commission. In terms of total finance and the number of students, a judgment was made that the workload of the Commission, even though its number of institutions is smaller, at the moment is still greater than that of the Commission of Advanced Education.

I think the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) would realise that there has been a steady development in the colleges. The changes that are incorporated in one of these Bills now before the House turn a committee which, while reporting directly to the Minister for Education and Science, was still part of the Department of Education and Science, into an independent statutory commission. Although this is proper in terms of status and prestige and from the point of view of its relationship to the Universities Commission, honour able members need to have it explained to them, as the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) has pointed out, that the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education has for a large number of years operated with a good deal of independence and in precisely the same manner as it would have operated if it had had the independent statutory powers of a commission. So I do not really believe that the changes the Government proposes are of great substance. Nevertheless, the changes are proper and should be made.

As the work of the Commission of Advanced Education further develops, as I have not the slightest doubt it will, the student numbers in colleges will grow dramatically. I cannot foretell what the progress might be in future years, but clearly it is an area of growing involvement and maybe at some future time the membership of the Commission of Advanced Education will need to be examined to determine whether a second permanent member needs to be added to it. I regret that I am again unwilling to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. In some sense, the amendment is similar to the one moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in relation to an earlier Bill and I had something to say about that at that time. I believe that even the honourable member for Bendigo should recognise the progress that has been made in colleges of advanced education over the last 3 to 6 years. He has one of these colleges situated in Bendigo and will have seen its growth. He will have seen its development. He will have seen the transformation of old buildings and the construction of new buildings of a very high standard. He will be well aware of the greatly increased morale, stature and status of the college at Bendigo. This situation is something which is repeated right around Australia. One of the pleasing things which 1 have no doubt the honourable member is glad to see and which I, coming not from a capital city area, am also pleased to see is that the colleges of advanced education are opening up and making it easier for many students in country areas to obtain opportunities for tertiary qualifications. I have no doubt that that situation will continue. I am glad for the participation in the debate of the honourable members who have shown an interest in these matters. But again, on behalf of the Government, I say that we are unwilling to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3747

AUSTRALIAN COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November (vide page 3032), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

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 Malcolm Fraser) read a third time.

page 3747

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 November (vide page 3032), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

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 Malcolm Fraser) read a third time.

page 3747

ADJOURNMENT

Canneries Abortion

Motion (by Mr Malcolm Fraser) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The hour is late not only for the Parliament but also for a gallant body of farmers and their families who tonight feel that they have been cheated and betrayed. The toll of a situation not of their making is already making inroads on individuals who have fallen ill. One tonight is in hospital with a nervous breakdown. Another told me: ‘I arrived here as a migrant 16 years ago with 2 suitcases. I have worked hard and long. If this happens I leave Australia with only one suitcase’. I am referring to the situation at the Griffith Cooperative Cannery Ltd. Perhaps this is the only cannery in Australia which has sold forward the entire pack for next year. The growers face extinction because the combined FederalState governments cannot to this stage find a guarantee of $200,000. The growers do not want money, not a red cent in cash. They simply want a guarantee which is demanded by the Bank of New South Wales, which has decided that if the Government is giving some canneries $4.5m in cash the Bank should at least have a guarantee in relation to this cannery. The growers have not been paid at all for the fruit that they delivered last season. They are owed $250,000. They have assets valued at more than $500,000, which they have put into the cannery. Because they have agreed to make this sacrifice by putting in half of what they are owed, the cannery at present has assets in excess of liabilities. It has sold its pack forward. The harvest starts in 21 days. In addition the cannery provides 120 jobs for the town of Griffith in New South Wales.

Very reasonably, the management and shareholders of the cannery asked for a government guarantee. The assets of the cannery are worth $1m in any case. The Premier of New South Wales first said that this cannery had received great assistance, in money and other ways, from the Government of New South Wales. He said this in the New South Wales Parliament. The fact is that this cannery has received no help of any kind from his or any other government. The Premier then indicated that, if the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture recommended a guarantee, it would be given. The Minister came, saw and said that he would recommend a guarantee. The Premier has broken his undertaking. In a letter that I received from him yesterday - that is, Thursday - he indicated that the State could not afford to help. He made no reference to his undertaking; he forgot his offer of help. He said that the State could not afford it.

I first raised this matter with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who is now in Europe. After I raised the ma’ter in this House, the Minister did discuss the problem with the New South Wales Government. He told it that the problem was a small one which it could handle easily. 1 made representations to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), and he replied by telegram: ‘Surely it is not seriously argued that the sum is beyond the resources of the State of New South Wales’. The Acting Minister has indicated in further talks that New South Wales has made no move of which he knows to help the cannery. No approaches and no suggestions have been made. He agreed after our last conference - and I thank him for his agreement - to contact the State Government. He informed me just before this debate tonight that he would be doing that today - that is, Friday.

Premier Askin also has agreed now to the conference that I suggested be held in Canberra between the Commonwealth, the State representatives and Mr Ralph Bradley, who is the national leader of the canning fruit growers. The Premier has undertaken to make representatives available. I have conveyed this undertaking to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. I ask him tonight to convene a conference on this subject as a matter of urgency. The suggestion has been made that the growers should make an outright gift of everything that is owing to them - that is, $250,000 plus plant worth $500,000 - and accept heavy levy charges for the privilege of delivering to the Leeton Co-operative Cannery. The Leeton Co-operative Cannery already is rationing its own suppliers. The gesture would be meaningless because if $750,000 is taken from Griffith growers they will be bankrupt, the town will lose jobs and everyone will be hit. The town of Griffith is fighting back in this matter. Moves are already under way to try to raise, by debentures, money from within the community.

My purpose in rising in the early hours of this morning is to appeal to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry to convene now that conference, to which Premier Askin has belatedly agreed to send representatives, and at least to see whether 2 powerful Governments can match the efforts of a small town and a small cooperative to avert a sentence of death given so carelessly in Sydney this week.

I conclude by pointing out that this is a matter which in Griffith has touched the whole of the community - its businessmen, its growers, its workers and all its townspeople. They are doing their best to try to save a situation which would bring great hardship on the eve of Christmas. The other thing that hurts is that there is no need for this hardship because the cannery has assets in excess of liabilities. It has sold forward. All is in readiness to go ahead. The only thing that is lacking is a modest bit of paper which could well come from the Commonwealth and State governments in partnership. In fact, what the growers are being asked to do is to give up more than 3 times the amount which is sought by guarantee. I do not think that is justice in the context of other help that has been given, and I do feel that this is a moment for an appeal for urgent action by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. I thank him for his co-operation this week. He is puzzled, as I am, about what has happened in Sydney. I would hope that the appeal would be heeded. He knows that I am making it. I make it with every ounce of sincerity that I can muster at this hour of the morning on this most important matter to many people.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I heard the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) speaking about the Griffith Co-operative Ltd tonight. I do not want to get involved in any discussion about that cannery, but about a week ago a Press report of a speech made by the honourable member about the Griffith cannery mentioned that the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd had been given over $4m by the Federal Government - tonight he mentioned that again - and that another cannery had been given $4.5m. This is not true. The SPC has not been given any money by anybody. It was lent $4.2m by the State. An interest rate of 7 per cent is being charged on that loan. Suppliers to the SPC, particularly the pear suppliers, are having money withheld from their fruit income to repay the interest and the principal of this loan. I believe that conditions in the fruit industry are serious, but never so serious that we should depart from fact when we are discussing the situation.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I am sorry to detain the House at so late an hour, but I feel that I should make in the national Parliament submissions of considerable public importance. Only a few weeks ago the overwhelming majority of Australians again paid particular interest to Australia’s greatest horse race - the Melbourne Cup - when millions of dollars changed hands. This year has seen millions of dollars changing hands as a result of Australias interest in mineral developments through the sometimes called snide stock exchange dealings which brought into being the Senate Select Committee to investigate securities and exchange and the Australian stock exchange.

A week before the Melbourne Cup, an abortion trial took place at the Sydney criminal courts. It is generally accepted by those interested that a considerable amount was involved in the trial of 5 of the country’s most prominent allegedly illegal abortionists. I refer to the trial of Dr Louis Wald of Vaucluse, Dr Thomas Charles Wall, medical practitioner of Double Bay, Dr George Benthan Morris and Mr and Mrs Robert Colbourne of the Heatherbrae Clinic, Bondi. This quintet of accused were acquitted after a 4-week trial in Judge Levine’s court. They obtained the mercy of Judge Levine’s court as the learned judge’s summation to the jury more or less depicted them as great humanitarians relieving their patients of great mental turmoil and physical distress and reprieving them from possible death should their pregnancies have continued. If the medical practitioners believed that such was the case, it was not unlawful to terminate the pregnancy. I understand that was the context of the learned judge’s remarks to the jury.

Abortion law reformists, for whom I have considerable sympathy, welcomed the court decision. But I point out to the Parliament just how far these medical practitioners, supposedly possessed of great humanitarian qualities, were concerned about the future health of their patients. On page 114 of the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation for the year 1970-71 the name Dr Thomas Charles Wall appears. He is reported in this document as understating his assessable income by an estimated $24,471. I have no doubt that he is identical with the accused Wall who obtained the mercy of Judge Levine’s court recently. I ask: How much did he really get away with? To what extent is his make-up humanitarian? On page 123 of the report of the Commissioner of Taxation for the year 1970-71 the name of Louis Wald, medical practitioner of Vaucluse, appears for understatement of income. He is quoted as understating his income by $8,615. Again I ask: How much did he really get away with? So far I have been unable to locate the name of Dr George Morris among the income tax defaulters.

I take it that the 3 doctors mentioned - Doctors Morris, Wald and Wall, have long ago taken the medical practitioner’s oath. I understand it says: 1 swear to defend the integrity of human life and maintain upright relationship with my medical colleagues.’ I have been informed that the number of illegal abortions carried out at the Heatherbrae abortion clinic at Bondi average 16 a day, at an average cost of $200 to the unfortunate womenfolk who visit there. The fee is always requested to be in cash, and no receipts are given. Does this depict this quintet of abortionists as people moved by humanitarian qualities? Sixteen operations a day in a 5-day week, in simple arithmetic, amount to 80 abortions a week at a charge of $200 an abortion. In my calculations this would earn for the clinic $16,000 a week. If one were to assess this income over a period of 52 weeks or a calendar year, the income to these doctors or the Heatherbrae clinic would amount to $832,000 a year.

I just point this out in passing to depict the human qualities that Judge Levine’s court led the jury to believe. The trial lasted over a 4-week period and the jury were allowed to go to their homes each night prior to the commencement of the addresses of the Crown Prosecutor, defence counsel and the judge’s summation to the jury. I am not suggesting that the court or the jury were corrupt in any way, but I know that corrupting a jury over a period of a lengthy trial is not without precedent in Australian criminal courts where big money and powerful influences are involved. It is really a simple matter to contact jurors or some of their closest friends while a trial is proceeding. Their full names are called out so many times during the trial that one has only to pick up a Sydney telephone directory to be able to identify them with sitting jurors.

Despite the apparent or obvious wealth of the 5 accused, their counsel, one of Australia’s most eminent Queen’s Counsel, Sir Jack Cassidy - whom we never hear of appearing for a conscientious objector or a person of low income - in my view is throwing mud in the face of the Crown and the Australian community or the Australian taxpayer by now asking that the costs of the trial be awarded against the Crown. In the event of this application being successful the Australian taxpayer will have to pay out $25,000 to $30,000. For instance, an abortionist under trial in the Sydney criminal court has been quoted by a leading Sydney Queen’s Counsel $2,000 as a retainer to take the case and $6,000 for his defence.

Is it any wonder that we find it indicated in the daily Press that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), an up and coming leading criminal lawyer in his own State of Queensland, is fairly throwing away his political career, casting it to the winds, as his life in politics has given him an alternative profession - that of a criminal lawyer. But I do not suggest that he is throwing his political career to the winds to encroach on the rich preserves of defence counsel who appear for prominent wealthy abortionists. I believe that it well could be his wish to defend only those abortionists who seek his help and who become accused of infringing the criminal law on humanitarian grounds in using the merciful interpretation of the law of the humane Judge Levine who adjudicated at the recent gigantic abortion trial of the clique from the Bondi clinic.

That brings me to the point that to destroy a human life in its mother’s womb is reprehensible in the extreme. But is it not equally or more reprehensible for a mother to be driven to the point of mental and physical torment or to the point of suicidal indifference because she is unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy as she cannot find the necessary money or the necessary abortionist? In my view, this whole situation is ‘brought about by parliaments and politicians failing in their duties to the community and not being prepared either to legalise or to stamp out this sordid evil of which so many of our womenfolk in the community have at some time in their life been forced to seek to avail themselves. Recently we read in the newspapers of an attempt being made by a Sydney doctor to bribe with an offer of $300 a week a CIB officer engaged in the suppression of abortion. That officer will be the principal Crown witness at the trial of a wealthy doctor whose attempts at corruption failed. I think the Government should at least make a statement to the people of Australia. Those unfortunate women who pay out exorbitant amounts of money to terminate pregnancies should be invited to make claims against taxation when the expenditure is genuine. The Taxation Commissioner’s report for the year 1969-70 also pointed out that Frederick James George Smart, a medical practitioner well known as a lone operator in the professional abortionist field, under stated his taxable income by $29,368.

Mr Acting Speaker, time will not permit me to say all I wanted to, but I do hope that the Government will do all in its power in relation to these matters. (Extension of time granted.) I made reference to Frederick James George Smart who understated his taxable income by $29,368. I was somewhat bewildered last week when I asked the Parliamentary Library for a copy of Judge Levine’s summation to the jury. This is usually supplied at short notice by the senior court reporter in Sydney. However, I am grateful that Judge Levine replied promptly to my wire today and is making his summation to the jury available to members of the Parliament per medium of the Parliamentary Library. I hope that my remarks tonight may achieve something in reducing this racket and the high costs of abortion brought about by a few ghouls in the honourable medical profession. Many honourable members of this Parliament exemplify the highest conduct in the medical profession and I certainly do not want to denigrate that decent section of the medical profession who honour their oaths and obligations to society in such a self sacrificing way. But I believe that the ghouls should be exposed and the honourable men should be applauded.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– I would like to add a few words to what has been said by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). I do not want to buy in any way into the subject matter that he has raised. I personally would agree with many of the things that he has said. But I feel that he has weakened his case and I am glad to say that I cannot agree with some of the comments that he made, particularly about Sir Jack Cassidy. Sir Jack Cassidy is the doyen of the Sydney Bar. He is one of the most senior of the Queen’s Counsel in Sydney, and to say that in some way a fee affected the way in which he regarded his moral duty to the community, to say or imply that he went only for the fat fee and never took the part of the underdog is, in my own personal experience quite incorrect. On several occasions I have been asked in my former capacity while I was engaged at the University of Sydney to assist Sir Jack with cases in which he was appearing, I am certain, for a very small fee indeed because of the humanitarian content in them. I am certain also that if he was successful in the case mentioned it was because of his skill, because of his ability, and for no ulterior motive or underhand reason. While I can applaud many of the objectives the honourable member has had in raising this subject tonight - I too deplore some of the practices associated with this trade that he has mentioned - 1 cannot sit by and hear the name of Sir Jack Cassidy linked in the way that it has been, suggesting that he was in some improper way associated with the profiteering that has gone on at the expense of, as the honourable member said, the unfortunate woman involved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.51 a.m. (Friday)

page 3752

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Egg Production: Control (Question No. 4658)

Mr Nixon:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Primary Industry I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The letter from the Victorian Minister of Agriculture was dated 19th October 1971.
  2. The reasons given by the Victorian Minister were that his Government . . . ‘does not favour a policy of closed industries be they primary or secondary. If the principle of protection and closed industries is accepted in the rural sector, there is no sound reason why this principle should not be extended to protect the smaller shopkeeper under pressure from large supermarkets, the small factory trying to compete with large combines or even to the professional man competing for survival in a situation of an excess of qualified persons.’
  3. The Victorian Minister was informed that the Minister for Primary Industry knew that there are other State Ministers who are very concerned about the situation. At this stage he has arranged for the matter to be listed for discussion at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, although he was not sure that this would be regarded as adequate by the members of the Council.

Egg Production: Control (Question No. 4659)

Mr Nixon:
CP

– As Acting Minister for Primary Industry, I supply, the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The present position is that the Victorian Minister for Agriculture expressed the view that no useful purpose would be served by holding a special meeting of the Agricultural Council on the question. The Minister for Primary Industry replied that he had arranged for the matter to be listed for discussion at the next meeting of the

Australian Agricultural Council but he was not sure that this would be regarded as adequate by the members of the Council.

Civil Defence (Question No. 4707)

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Commonwealth expenditure on civil defence since 1945 has been as under -

Prior to 1955-56 there was no separate record of expenditure as it was absorbed in the Department of Interior’s figures.

1950 .. .. ..3

195.1 .. .. ..6

1960…… 44

1965…… 47

1970 .. ..65

East Pakistan Refugees (Question No. 4622)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an official statement by the Indian Foreign Ministry on 20th October 1971 which, as reported in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 22nd October 1971, stated that India was determined that Pakistan should create conditions for the safe return of refugees, and if it did not, the international community was expected to put pressure on Pakistan to reach such conditions but if the international community failed then India would have to think of ways and means and reserved the right to take any action which might be in the national interest.
  2. Do the problems created by the crisis in East Pakistan and the influx of refugees into India threaten the maintenance of international peace and security in the terms of Article II (2) of the United Nations Charter.
  3. Will Australia raise this issue in the United Nations General Assembly or support initiatives by other countries to enable concerted international action to reduce the danger of war by encouraging tolerable political conditions for the return of refugees to their homes.
  4. Has the Government received any communication from the Government of Bangla Desh; if so, what response was made to the communication,
  5. What proportion of East Pakistani territory is under the de facto control of the Pakistan Government
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Not at this time.
  3. The Australian Government ha.i exercised and will continue to exercise, its influence in what- ever way it can to reduce tension in the Indian sub-continent.
  4. Australia does not recognise the so-called Government of Bangla Desh’.
  5. It is not for the Australian Government to comment on the extent of control exercised by the Government of another State in any part of its territory.

Maritime Safety and Pollution Conventions (Question No. 4516)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What instruments were adopted at the ministerial conference of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in London in October 1971.

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

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

No instruments as such were drawn up by the Seventh Session of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation Assembly held in London in October 1971, but a number of resolutions were adopted. Apart from resolutions of a procedural nature, and some minor corrections to the International Convention on Load Lines, the main resolutions were on the following subjects:

Two resolutions relating to the International

Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960-

traffic separation schemes for narrow and congested channels including Bass Strait;

performance standards for radio direction systems;

performance standards for echo sounding equipment;

radio equipment used for search and rescue;

fishing vessel stability and crew safety:

fire safety requirements for tankers;

safety requirements for unmanned engine rooms.

Three resolutions relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954 as amended in 1962 -

protection of the. Great Barrier Reef by prohibiting discharge of oily mixtures within 50 miles of the easterly edge of the reef;

reduction of marine pollution hazards by the limitation of tank size in tankers; and

reduction of marine pollution hazards by the introduction of efficient oily water separators and oil content meters on ships.

Indonesian Visits to Australia (Question No. 4612)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many Indonesian parliamentarians, officials of the Indonesian Public Service and members of the Indonesian Armed Forces visited Australia as guests of the Australian Government during the last 6 months.
  2. What are their names.
  3. For what purpose did they visit Australia, and how long did they stay in each case.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable members questions are as follows:

  1. Two.
  2. and (3) Mrs Wiratmo, Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Mrs Justice Wiratmo visited Australia from 5th July to 26th July to exchange views with Australian jurists and officials, particularly about social welfare legislation, juvenile courts and systems of appointment to the judiciary. During her visit she participated in the Sixteenth Australian Legal Convention in Melbourne. Mr Imron Rosjadi, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Indonesian ‘ Parliament (DPR), and a Vice Chairman of the Nahdatul Ulama (Muslim Scholars) Party. Mr Rosjadi visited Australia from 19th September to 3rd October, to acquaint himself with the Australian parliamentary system, the organisation of Australian political parties and the trade union movement, and Australian views on international relations in SouthEast Asia.

Investments in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines (Question No. 4139)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

Can he supply information on investment by Australian and foreign companies in (a) Singapore; (b) Malaysia; (c) Thailand and (d) the Philippines corresponding to the information he gave in respect of Indonesia in answer to question No. 3303 (Hansard, 17th August 1971, page 183).

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

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

  1. Singapore

No details are available from official Singapore sources of investment agreements concluded with the Singapore Government by foreign companies or of actual investments made in Singapore by foreign companies.

Official Singapore statistics record that as at the end of December 1969, the total cumulative investment made by foreign companies in Singapore, as represented by gross fixed assets in manufacturing concerns, amounted to the equivalent of approximately $A150m. The breakdown of identifiable foreign investment by countries as at the end of December 1969. was as follows:

By the end of 1970, cumulative foreign investment in gross fixed assets of manufacturing concerns in Singapore had increased to the equivalent of about $ A 295m. The breakdown by countries of this figure is incomplete and only the following details are available:

  1. Malaysia

The . only official Malaysian details available relate to foreign investment in Malaysia in pioneer’ companies, that is, those eligible for certain investment incentives or concessions. Details of Australian investment in pioneer companies as at 31st December 1970 are set out below:

  1. 15 companies with Australian participation.

    1. The total amount of Australian investment in these projects was $A 1.16m.
    2. The projects were-

Flour mill - Kuala Lumpur

Sugar refinery - Kuala Lumpur

Brewery - Petaling Jaya

Yarn spinning plant - Johore Bahru

Tyre factory - Petaling Jaya

Cement plant - Petating Jaya

Chemical plant - Klang

Paint factory- Petating Jaya

Oil refinery - Kuala Lumpur

Oil refinery - Port Dickson

Building materials plant - Kuala Lumpur

Asbestos cement pipes plant - Kuala Lumpur

Aluminium processing plant - Petaling Jaya

Window and door frame factory - Petaling Jaya

Battery factory - Kuala Lumpur

The only official Malaysian statistics available on investment by other countries in Malaysia also relate to pioneer companies. The main countries investing in pioneer companies in Malaysia as at 31st December 1970 were:

The Australian investment of $A 1.16m in pioneer industries ranked ninth in. the list of 33 investing countries with a total investment value of the equivalent of $ A 102m.

  1. Thailand

The only official Thai statistics available relate to investments for which promotion certificates have been granted, that is, investments which the Thai Board of Investment considers desirable and to which it has accorded certain incentives.

The total amount of registered capital of Australian origin for which promotion certificates have been granted amounted to $A62 1,500 at 3 1st December 1970. No official details are available of the projects involved.

Between 13th April 1959 and 31st December 1970, the value of foreign investment for which promotion certificates were granted by the Thai Board of Investment, by nationality of ownership and participation in joint ventures, was as follows:

  1. Philippines

The Philippines Government has not published any official figures on the volume of foreign investment in the Philippines.

Australians Travelling to New Zealand (Question No. 4298)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. ls it a fact that for more than 20 years after World War II succeeding New Zealand Governments refused to’ recognise the certificates of Australian citizenship granted to German, Greek, Italian, Dutch and other European-born residents of this country to the extent that any such person who visited New Zealand was required to report to the nearest police station weekly.
  2. ls ii also a fact that the late Mr Leo Buring, a distinguished Australian citizen who was naturalised on his father’s certificate when he was only 7 years old, was compelled by the New Zealand Immigration Department, when he visited that country about 12 years ago at the age of 70, to also suffer the indignity of having to report to a police station.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he arrange for the Department of Foreign Affairs to advise the New Zealand High Commissioner in Australia that Australia refuses to recognise any validity in the claim of the New Zealand Government that any Indian, Fijian, Samoan, Tongan, Cook Islander or Asian- who has been granted New Zealand citizenship has an automatic right to bs admitted to Australia in the same way as a European New Zealander or a Maori New Zealand citizen is automatically admitted if not debarred on health or security grounds, or because of a criminal record.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Under a reciprocal arrangement of many years standing between Australia and New Zealand, Australian citizens whether naturalised or bom here do. not require passports for travel to New Zealand. 1’he New Zealand authorities advised in 1955 that naturalised Australian citizens were not treated as aliens in New Zealand or required to register as such.- However until -October 1957 the New Zealand regulations required all naturalised Australian citizens to obtain prior permission to enter New Zealand. In October 1957, following representations by the Australian Government the permit requirement was waived for naturalised Australians for visits of less than three months and in December 1963 such persons were accorded unrestricted right of entry to New Zealand, subject to production of evidence of their citizenship.

The Department of Immigration made provision some lime ago for the issue of miniature certificates as evidence of Australian citizenship. These documents .may be obtained upon application without charge by any Australian citizen anc their availability was recently brought to the notice of. travel agents and carrier companies in Australia. (21 No record can be found of difficulties the late Mr _ Leo Buring may have experienced in New Zealand 12 years ago.

  1. The Australian Government recently considered the requirements for direct travel between New Zealand and Australia and decided that there should bc no change in the existing requirements whereby all persons, other than British subjects of European descent and Maoris, require prior permission to travel to Australia unless they are in transit through Australia to other- countries. The New Zealand Government is aware of these provisions.

Immigrants: Nationality (Question No. 4359)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Can he break down by (a) numbers and (b) percentages, the countries of origin of those people included in the figure of 107,816 .given in answer to question No. 2550 (Hansard, 16th September 1971, page 1496) showing the number of migrant arrivals in 1970.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

An estimated breakdown by nationality of the 107,816 settlers, quoted in the previous reply provided to you by the Minister for Health, is given in column (1) of the following table. These figures refer to the total number of unassisted settlers in - 1970, plus estimated numbers of beads of family groups (as .well as single persons travelling alone) amongst assisted settler arrivals for the same period. -

Column (2) of the table gives similar estimates for heads of family groups only amongst both assisted and unassisted settler arrivals.

Immigrants: Australian Citizenship (Question No. 4395)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons in each nationality were granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation in:

    1. Australia; and
    2. Papua New Guinea in 1970-71.
  2. How many persons over 16 years of age in each nationality were residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizenship in:

    1. Australia; and
    2. Papua New Guinea as at 30th June 1971 but had not done so.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The following tables show the number of persons in each nationality granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation in Australia and Papua New Guinea in 1970-71:
  1. (a) The following table shows the estimated number of persons over 16 years of age in each nationality who were residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizenship in Australia as at 30th June 1971, but had not done so:
  1. No figures are available as to the number of persons residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizenship in Papua New Guinea as at 30th June 1971 but who had not done so.

Aboriginals and Islanders: Housing (Question No. 2232)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

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

  1. What sums were provided in the Budgets of the (a) Commonwealth, (b) States, (c) Northern Territory and (d) Australian Capital Territory for the construction of houses for Aborigines and Islanders in the years 1969-70, 1970-71.
  2. How many houses were constructed (a) on Government settlements and missions, (b) to house Aborigines previously living in a fringe dwelling environment and (c) to house or rehouse Aborigines living in cities, towns or villages.
  3. How many Aborigines and Islanders live in substandard dwellings.
  4. How many houses would need to be built in the current financial year to keep pace with Aboriginal population growth.
  5. How many houses were actually built for Aborigines in the year 1969-70.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows. State authorities and the Department of the

Interior have provided information so that the answer could be compiled:

  1. Aboriginal housing is not usually separated into the categories asked in the question, and conditions in each State and the Northern Territory vary.

New South Wales -

  1. and (b), including 8 pensioner units at Woodenbong.
  2. 85 houses constructed in towns.

Victoria -

  1. 1
  2. 18
    1. In addition 47 Aborigines commenced purchase of their own houses through Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs finance.

Queensland -

  1. 74
  2. and (c) 172

South Australia -

  1. 12
  2. Nil
  3. 47

Western Australia - (a), (b) and (c) 221

Tasmania -

  1. 4

Northern Territory -

  1. 70 plus 14 nearing completion
  2. 4
  3. 20

Many Aborigines have been assisted under normal provision of housing in urban centres through the Housing Commission in each State and the Northern Territory.

  1. Figures are not available. The honourable member will appreciate, of course, that there are wide variations in the requirements of individual Aborigines and their families which must be related to levels of aspiration, sophistication and standard of living.
  2. New South Wales-

Not known

Victoria -

Approximate estimate 156

Queensland -

Not known

South Australia -

Exact figures are not known although it is estimated that a total of 240 houses are needed at present.

Western Australia -

110

Tasmania -

12

Northern Territory -

Approximately 74 houses each -to accommodate 5 persons.

  1. New South Wales- 99 purchased or constructed

Victoria - 2 built, 25 purchased

Queensland - 162 purchased or constructed

South Australia - 32 purchased on constructed

Western Australia - 144 purchased or built

Tasmania - 4 purchased

Northern Territory -

  1. In addition 23 houses were built by the Progress Association at Maningrida using timber provided free of cpst by the Government.

Everard Park: Purchase for Aboriginal Purposes (Question No. 3829)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: (1)Is the Office of Aboriginal Affairs negotiating with the owners of Everard Park in the north-west of South Australia to purchase this property for Aboriginal purposes.

  1. If so, (a) what stage have these negotiations reached and (b) when can it be anticipated that the matter will be finalised.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The vendors have agreed to a ceiling price, subject to an inspection of the properly.

    1. As soon as practicable.

Education: Servicemen’s Children In Richmond Area (Question No. 4510)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Has a survey been conducted in the Richmond area, as in the Puckapunyal-Seymour area (Hansard, 13th October 1971, page 2324), to ascertain the number of servicemen who have children of secondary school age and the categories of schools which their children attend.

Mr Holten:
CP

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

The Royal Australian Air Force has not had occasion to conduct a survey of this nature in the Richmond, New South Wales,area.

F111 Aircraft (Question No. 4613)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Is the F111 series aircraft being employed in the active inventory of the United States Air Force; if not, is there any doubt that it will be so employed.
  2. If it does not become employed in the active inventory, are there any reimbursement rightsfor predelivery outlays by the Australian Government.
  3. What amount paid so far on the aircraft would be lost in these circumstances.
Mr Holten:
CP

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

  1. F111 series aircraft are being employed in the active inventory of the United States Air Force both in the United States and in Europe.
  2. and (3) See answer to (1).

Aboriginal Peoples: Land Rights (Question No. 4673)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and. the Arts upon notice:

In relation to his answer to Question No. 3453 (Hansard, 4th November 1971) will he provide (a) full details, for inclusion in Hansard, of the land rights extended to Aboriginal peoples in (i) Canada and (ii) the United States of America as sought in the question and now being obtained by the Australian Embassies in Ottawa and Washington and (b) the details sought in part (3) of that question in respect of Queensland.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

Whent he details referred to come to hand, they will be incorporated in Hansard.

Industrial Agreements (Question No. 3533)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

How many Part X agreements, were certified in each of the last 10, years, and what was the nature of penalties incorporated in these agreements, for non-observance of the agreement.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I am advised that the number of agreements filed in each of the last 10 years pursuant to

Part X of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was:

The Industrial Registrar has given a certificate in respect of one of these agreements pursuant to section 175 of the Act.

I am advised that none of these agreements prescribed or prescribes a penalty for its nonobservance.

Industrial Orders and Awards (Question No. 3535)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

On how many occasions in each of the last 20 years has a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission directed an Arbitration Inspector to institute proceedings against an employer for breach of an order or an award of the Commission.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Department has no record of such a direction having been given to an Arbitration Inspector.

Labor Day: Northern Territory (Question No. 3563)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Why is it that Labor Day is not recognised as a paid holiday in the Northern Territory.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The equivalent of Labor Day in the Northern Territory is May Day which is a paid holiday. The Northern Territory has the same number of paid statutory holidays as the rest of Australia.

Workmen’s Compensation Ordinances (Question No. 3564)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What are the categories of employees excluded from Workmen’s Compensation Ordinances covering (a) the Australian Capital Territory and (b) the Northern Territory.
  2. Are any of these categories excluded from the provisions of all of the State laws dealing with Workmen’s Compensation; if so, what are the categories.
  3. If the categories are not excluded from the State laws, why are they excluded from the provisions of the Ordinances of the two Territories.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Workmen’s Compensation Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory define a ‘workman’ and exclude from that definition -

    1. an outworker
    2. a person employed in the service of the Commonwealth
    3. a member of the family of the employer unless the employer discloses personal particulars of the member at the time when the employment commences and whenever the insurance is renewed.

The A.C.T. Ordinance also excludes a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business.

  1. and (3) Only those in category (b) above, by virtue of their employment with the Commonwealth.

Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (Question No. 3565)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has any employer in (a) the Australian Capital Territory or (b) the Northern Territory been granted an exemption from the compulsory insurance provisions of the relevant Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance.
  2. If so, what are their names and how many employees are employed by each of them.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The employers granted exemption from the compulsory insurance provisions ofthe Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance of the A.C.T. are-

Bank of New South Wales; Electricity Commission of New South Wales; National Bank of Australasia; Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited.

Under the Ordinance exempt employers are not required to provide information on the number of employees and the Department does not have such information.

The employers granted an exemption from the compulsory insurance provisions of the N.T. Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance and the number of employees employed by each of them are:

South Pacific Aid Programme (Question No. 4468)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

  1. Is the sum of $1m included in the 1971-72 budget for the South Pacific aid programme; if so, what are the details of the proposed expenditure.
  2. Will he provide details of the expenditure of $542,992in 1970-71 for the same programme.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes. Preliminary estimates of the proposed expenditure are as follows:

Technical assistancein the form of experts and equipment will include continuing assistance to the British Solomon Islands beef industry and a transmitter for air traffic control; a mobile drilling rig, well head pumps, excavation equipment and assistance for the Navua Rice Scheme in Fiji; earthmoving equipment and workshop instructors for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; a radio transmitter and motor vehicles for the New Hebrides; road and airfield construction equipment, radio receivers, a mobile dental clinic and a science teacher for Tonga; and roadbuilding equipment for Western Samoa.

  1. Following are details of the 1970-71 South Pacific Aid Programme expenditure of $542,992:

The major items of equipment supplied were stud cattle to assist the British Solomon Islands beef industry, a mobile drilling rig and dragline excavator to Fiji; earthmoving equipment and heavy machinery for public works and airfield construction in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; trucks and other vehicles to the New Hebrides; a mobile dental clinic for Tonga (part payment); and heavy equipment for road and airfield constructionin Tonga and Western Samoa.

The main fields of training were education, agriculture, forestry and public administration. Australian experts serving under the programme in 1970-71 were mainly in the fields of teaching and agriculture.

Aid to the South Pacific is also provided under other items. Under the Food Aid Convention, Fiji was provided with wheat and sharps amountingin value to $608,000 in 1970-71 and a similar amount will be provided in 1971-72.

Assistance in education is provided to the South Pacific under the Commonwealth Co-operation in Education Scheme which is administered by the Department of Education and Science. Expenditure by Australia under the CCES in 1970-71 was about $190,800 and $207,500 is expected to be spent in 1971-72.

Australia is the largest contributor to the budget of the South Pacific Commission providing 31 per cent of all contributions by member governments of the Commission. Our contribution in 1970-71 was $276,000 and in 1971-72 will be $309,000.

Perth Airport Extensions: Acquisition of Land (Question No. 4487)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What are the criteria for a person to prove hardship in respect of the acquisition of land by his Department in the Newburn area for extensions to the Perth Airport?
  2. Are the length of residence, sickness, money owing to banks or mortgages outstanding taken into account?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2)It is impracticable to set criteria which would apply to all affected owners, although factors such as length of residence, health considerations and money owing to banks or mortgages would certainly be taken into account.

Owners who so wish have been invited to discuss their claims with the Chief Property Officer of the Department of the Interior in Perth. Each case will be considered on its merits consistent with the limited availability of cash this financial year and of course subject to agreement on price.

Naval Defence Act: Engineers (Question No. 4552)

Mr Enderby to ask the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many positions are established under section 42a of the Naval Defence Act for (a) each class of professional engineer and (b) engineers above class 5.
  2. How many of these positions are currently (a) unfilled and (b) filled by officers (i) on extended leave without pay, (ii) on extended sick leave (over one month’s absence) and (iii) whose qualifications do not entitle them to become Members of the Institution of Engineers,Australia. (3)Is it a fact that professional engineers in his Department are not employed under the Public Service Act as are professional engineers in other Commonwealth departments; if so, why.
  3. Do the conditions of employment of these officers bar them from first and second division positions in his Department.
Dr Mackay:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: (1)(a)

  1. One (1)

    1. (a) 159
  2. (i) 2

    1. Nil
  1. There are 44 officers whose formal academic qualifications do not appear to entitle them to become members . of the Institution of Engineers of Australia. These officers were either (a) permanently employed as Engineers when in 1961 the academic qualifications were made mandatory; and so were accepted as Engineers on the basis of a combination of partial qualifications and relevant experience or (b) undertaking a Diploma course in Naval Architecture at the Royal. Melbourne Institute of Technology as Departmental trainees at that time. This course was not recognised by the Institution of Engineers of Australia and no further Departmental trainee Naval Architects undertook the course.

It should be noted that it is open to these officers to seek membership of the Institution of Engineers of Australia; indeed, consideration for membership requires individual application.

  1. Yes. These officers are a small numerical part of nearly 4200 salaried personnel employed under the provisions of the Naval Defence. Act. This arrangement provides a degree of flexibility in organisational matters and in recruitment and personnel movements. Administrative and clerical officers are employed under the provisions of the Public Service Act.
  2. Yes as regards Second Division except as. follows:

    1. unless they also happen to be officers of the Commonwealth Public Service who have maintained continuity, in accordance with the Officers Rights Declaration Act 1928- 1969, between Commonwealth Public Service employment and appointment under the Naval Defence Act 1911-1971.
    2. the vacancy is open to applicants outside the Public Service.

Appointment to First Division positions is made by the Governor General and appointees may not necessarily have been officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Taxation Office, Perth (Question No. 4655)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. When was the decision taken for the Taxation Office to vacate in July 1970 its offices at the corner of Barrack and Murray Streets, Perth.
  2. When was a survey conducted to determine the minimum repairs or renovations necessary to put the building into a condition suitable for leasing.
  3. What was the estimated cost of the repairs or renovations.
  4. Have plans fora replacement building been completed or commissioned.

    1. What is the further minimum period during which the site can be expected to remain vacant. ; Mr Hunt - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
  5. The decision that the Taxation Office should vacate its offices at the corner of Barrack and Murray Streets, Perth was part of the proposal to erect new Commonwealth Offices in St. George’s Terrace, Perth. The proposal was agreed to by the Parliament on 9th December 196S.
  6. The Commonwealth Department of Works submitted a report on the repairs and renovations necessary to bring the building to a suitable condition for long-term occupancy by the Commonwealth on 7th December 1970.
  7. $1,140,000.
  8. No.
  9. It is anticipated that the building will remain vacant until a decision is taken as to the future use of the building. Consideration is being given to this at present and a decision can be expected shortly.

Embassies or Legations in Taipei (Question No. 4688)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

Can he say which countries still have embassies or legations in Taipei.

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

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

The following countries at present have embassies in Taipei:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Guatemala, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Malagasy Republic, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, U.S.A., Uruguay, Venezuela, Republic of Viet Nam, Republic of Zaire (formerly Congo (Kinshasa)).

The following countries have embassies to the Republic of China which are not resident in Taipei:

Bolivia, Central African Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Upper Volta.

There are no legations in Taipei. The Holy See maintains an Apostolic Nunciature in Taipei.

Nuclear Test: Amchitka Island . (Question No. 4689)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the- Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Australia protest against the United. States, underground nuclear test on Amchitka Island.
  2. Which countries are known to have made protests.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No. The answer to question No. 1510 in the Senate ‘ on 4th November 1971 (Hansard, page 1676) is also relevant to this question.
  2. Canada and Japan.

Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (Question No. 4717)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What further countries have (a) signed and (b) ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since his predecessor’s answer to me on 12th March 197Q, and when did each do so?

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

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

  1. Since the Treaty entered into force on 5th March 1970, the following countries adhered to it in one or more of the depositary capitals (London, Washington and Moscow) on the dates indicated: 1971 that it considered itself to ‘ be bound by virtue of the signature of the United Kingdom, which ratified the Treaty on 27th November 1968.)

Migrant Hostels’ (Question No. 4334)

Mr Whitlam:

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

At what centres and on- . what dates have migrant hostels been (a) closed down, (b) reconstructed or replaced, (c) constructed, or (d) placed on order since a former Minister’s answer on 27th September 1967 (Hansard, page 1440).

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. New South Wales- Berkeley, No. 1, 11th November 1967; Bunnerong, 24th June 1970; Unanderra, No. 1, 5th September 1970; Matraville, 3rd October 1970; Heathcote “Road, 19th December 1970; Bradfield Park, 21st August 1971; Dundas, 21st August 1971; Victoria-Brooklyn, 26th August 1970; Holmesglen, 23rd December 1970; Preston, 10th July 1971; Broadmeadows, 21st August 1971;

South Australia- Smithfield, 31st July 1971: Western Australia - Point Walter, 21st August 1971.

  1. and (c) Blocks of family accommodation were replaced progressively on existing sites as follows according to commencement date -

New South Wales- Villawood, 19th August 1968; Cabramatta, 13th August 1971;East Hills, 1st July 1968;

Victoria- Altona, Sth April 1968; Maribyrnong, 18th December 1968; Nunawading, 24th April

1968;

Queensland- Wacol, 22nd July 1968;

Western Australia - Graylands, 15th November 1967.

In addition, two complete hostels were constructed on newly acquired sites - at South Coogee in New South Wales on 6th January 1970, and at Springvale in Victoria on 29th October 1970.

  1. Blocks to replace outmoded family accommodation are on order for the current financial year at the Altona and Nunawading Migrant Hostels in Victoria and at the Graylands Migrant Hostel in Western Australia.

National Service (Question No. 4123)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Was the sending of notices relating to deferment from National Service delayed this year, at least in South Australia, so that young citizens received their notices 4 months later than in previous years.
  2. Has there been a change regarding deferments by placing a time limit on them irrespective of whether or not the course for which deferment was granted has been completed or not.
  3. Are those 6,000 or so younger citizens whose National Service has been deferred being called to medical examinations now; if so, why.
  4. Are those who are claiming avoidance of National Service on the grounds of conscientious objection being asked to undergo a medical examination before going to Court in the hope that they will be declared medically unfit.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Deferments for studies or training are granted subject to completion of the qualification sought in good time to enable a man to undertake the service for which he is liable. This has always been the case. Continuation of deferment is considered in relation to progress a man makes with his course. Deferments are accordingly reviewed annually and notices are sent out at the beginning of the year to those who have previously indicated their intention of continuing in order to obtain details of their progress and reenrolment. The grant of further deferment is notified progressively, as this advice is received. In 1971, notices were sent out about 2 months later than previously so that the young men concerned would not be asked to obtain the necessary information from education institutions while they were partly closed during the long vacation.
  2. No. Only those who have been granted deferment and who expect to complete their studies or iraining this year are being medically examined with a view to call-up in January next.
  3. Registrants seeking exemption from the liability to render military service on grounds of conscientious beliefs are normally advised that they, may, if they wish, complete any period of deferment for which they are eligible and have their fitness for service determined before their application is heard by a court. If a man does not meet the standards required for service and will not be called up there is no purpose in him taking his case for exemption through the courts.

Weekly Earnings (Question No. 4155)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What was the percentage of employees in each State who received the average weekly wage, or more, in each quarter during the last 10 years?

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

There are no official statistics that show the percentage of employees who received the average weekly wage or more- in each quarter during the last 10 years. However the results of the Commonwealth Statistician’s Survey of Weekly Earnings of adult male employees conducted for the pay-period which included 12th May 1971 gives statistics relevant to the question. The preliminary results were published on the 6th November 1971.

Included in the published results is information on the number of male managerial, executive, professional and higher supervisory staff and other full-time adult male employees in various total weekly earnings groups for each State and Australia. Also published for each State and Australia are average weekly total earnings for these employees.

The results are representative of 2,180,000 fulltime adult male employees whose normal hours of work are 30 or more a week and who were paid for their full normal hours of work for the payperiod which included 12th May 1971. The survey excluded employees of private employers not subject to pay-roll tax; employees in rural industry and private domestic service; employees of religious, benevolent and other similar organisations exempt from pay-roll tax; and waterside workers employed on a casual basis.

The estimated percentages of these full-time adult males, in each State, who earned the average weekly total earnings (as estimated in the Survey) or more in the pay-period which included 12th May 1971, are set out in the table below. The estimates are based on the assumption that, for the total weekly earnings group in which the average weekly total earnings figures for each

State falls, employees are evenly distributed in the relevant groups (consideration being given separately to managerial etc’ staff and to all other full-time adult males).

Automotive Trade Products (Question No. 3895)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Supply the following question, upon notice:

Have the Defence Standards Laboratories (a) prepared and (b) published reports on any automotive trade products since the report on Bardah (Hansard, 20th September 1960, page 1123 and 9th November 1960, page 2709); if so, on what products.

Mr Garland:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The Defence Standards Laboratories regularly test products to examine their suitability to meet various requirements of Government Departments, mainly of the Defence Group. A number of these products are manufactured or used by the automotive industry and. thus might be regarded as automotive trade products. In addition products are tested as representative of a type rather than of a particular manufacturer. Reports on such tests are prepared and distributed on a confidential basis to the requesting authorities only and in some instances, particularly on the latter type of tests, to other Government Departments. These reports are not printed nor are they published in open literature.

Naturalisation (Question No. 4303)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons eligible for naturalisation are not naturalised at this date.
  2. How many persons of each nationality are involved.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. It is estimated that at 30th June 1971, 228,700 aliens over the age of sixteen years were residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizenship, but had not done ‘so.
  2. The following table shows the estimated number of persons of the principal nationalities who have not applied for citizenship:

Drugs for Pensioners (Question No.. 3933)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. How many drugs (a) have been removed from and (b) were added to the list of drugs available free to pensioners in each 4 month period over the last 3 years.
  2. What was the price per maximum quantity prescription of each drug deleted.
  3. Where a new drug was listed as a replacement for a deleted drug. What was the price’ per maximum quantity prescription of the replacement drug.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) 163 ready prepared pharmaceutical benefit items, other than those available for use in approved hospitals only were deleted from the Schedule of Benefits during 1968, 1969 and 1970 as follows:

26 drugs available for use in extraporaneously prepared benefits were deleted from the Schedule of Benefits during 1968, 1969 and 1970 as follows:

In addition, on 1st April 1970,- 10 forms of extemporaneous benefits- - were deleted from the Schedule.

In general, items may be deleted from the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for the following reasons:

  1. On the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for therapeutic reasons, e.g. where in light of recent information and the addition of other drugs to the Schedule . of Benefits, an item is considered to be obsolete, obsolescent, ineffective or more toxic than other comparable benefits.

    1. Where ,he manufacture of a product has ceased.
    2. Where a product fails to conform to the relevant standards for potency, purity, sterility, etc.
    1. (b) 200 ready prepared pharmaceutical benefit items were added to the Schedule of Benefits during this period as follows:

ONE drug only was added to the list for extemporaneous dispensing during 1968-69-70. .This addition was effective from 1st April’ 1970.

Note - Each deleted item had been available free to pensioners and those added are available free to pensioners, although in some cases only for the treatment of . specified diseases or conditions. It should be appreciated that many of these items are also available as general benefits.

  1. The following are prices per maximum quantity prescription for each item deleted. Where the prices of various listed brands of an item differed and/or where both bulk-pack and minorpack prices obtained, a range of price is shown.
  1. In no instance was a new drug listed specifically as a replacement for a deleted drug.

Cigarettes - (Question Npi 4083)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Will the Minister consult with State Ministers for Health concerning legislation to prohibit

    1. sale of cigarettes to or through children, the penalty for default being loss of vending licences,
    2. cigarette vending machines accessible to children in public places and (c) advertising of tobacco without equal facilities, being provided for anti-smoking publicity.
  2. Will the Minister consider with State Ministers (a) encouraging and setting- an example to employer and employee organisations to campaign at work places against smoking and (b) giving incentives and assistance to Australia and New Guinea tobacco growers so that they will turn to other work as demand declines, while not forsaking protective tariffs and import restrictions.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Consultations with State Ministers for Health on- all aspects of cigarette smoking have been undertaken at Health Ministers’ Conferences over the past 4 years, lt is expected that the subject “will be discussed at future conferences.

The question raised in “relation -to incentives and assistance to Australian and New Guinea tobacco growers does not come within my jurisdiction as Minister for Health.

Dental Health (Question No. 4010)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Has any costing ‘ yet been undertaken on the proposals by the Australian Dental Association in August 1968 for:

a Division of Public Dental Health within bis Department;

forward planning, through the Universities Commission, for dental education; “and

dental services for pre-school and school children (Hansard, 19th August 1970. page 232).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

page 3768

No

Nursing Homes (Question No. . 40(16)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What steps have been taken, as recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs in its reports of 25th September 1969 and 2nd June 1970 (a) to make unmatched grants to the States for the construction or enlargement of State nursing homes and (b) to introduce nursing home insurance to provide cover over and above the existing arrangements (Hansard, 21st October 1970, page 2538).

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Government has not taken up the Senate Select Committee’s recommendation that unmatched grants be made to the States for the construction or enlargement of State nursing homes. However, following discussions with the States, the Stales Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969 was enacted. This legislation provides matching grants amounting in aggregate to $5m to the States in respect of approved expenditure for the construction or alteration of premises to be used for the purposes of an approved nursing home during the 5-year period ending 30th June 1974. To date, expenditure which could attract Commonwealth grants totalling $1,348,000 has been approved in three States.

The question of further grants- to the States for the construction or enlargement of public nursing homes - and the form of such assistance will be considered prior to the termination of the existing legislation.

  1. In his statement . to. the . House of. 5th October 1971, the Prime Minister indicated that the Government would continue its review of the nursing home benefits scheme with the aim of introducing new long’ term arrangements as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Medical Teaching Costs (Question No. 3052)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Did the Commonwealth Government Committee on the Medical Teaching Costs of Hospitals recommend in (a) 1961 and (b) more specifically in 1965 that universities have grants available to meet these. costs. :
  2. Is it a fact that the Committee reported in 1966, the year it disbanded, that the Commonwealth had directed that these costs be excluded from recurrent grants to be recommended except certain costs of a capital nature.
  3. If so, has the Universities Commission supported the recommendations of the Committee.
  4. Has the attention of the Minister been directed to a statement by the Chancellor of Melbourne University on 1st March 1971, that (a) the University cannot find the $370,000 required to pay 350 clinical teachers adequately and (b) he had received no help in response to repeated warnings to governments that clinical teachers had declared in June 1970 that they would strike on 1st March 1971 if pay increases were not made from 1st January 1971.
  5. Has the Minister given undertakings in this regard to the Victorian Government and the Universities Commission; if so what are they.
  6. Is the Minister able to say whether the correction nf this apparent anomaly will make it possible for some teaching staff to adhere to the most common fee for their private patients.
  7. Is it possible that clinical education will be permanently retarded and graduation delayed for students who will be dependent in some cases on the Commonwealth until graduation and whose skills are scarce in Australia if the present situation continues; if so, will the Government take steps to end the impasse.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Committee on Teaching Costs of Medical Hospitals recommended in 1961 and in 1965 the provision of grants related to costs directly attributable to the instruction of clinical students in teaching hospitals associated with universities which had medical schools.

    1. No. The Committee on Teaching Costs of Medical Hospitals made only two reports; the first in October1961 and the second in May 1965.
    2. and (4) Yes. The Minister for Education and Science has advised me that he has recently asked the Australian Universities Commission to examine again the ‘question of payments to Honorary clinical teachers for their teaching services.
    3. I am not aware of any such undertakings.
    4. In its Second Report. (May 1965) to the Australian Universities Commission, the Committee on Teaching Costs of Medical Hospitals emphasised that paymentto hospital visitingstaff for their clinical teaching of undergraduates was quite distinct from payment for patient care. It follows that such issues as increased payments for clinical teachers, or the introduction of payments for teaching by visiting medical staff who formerly taught in an honorary capacity, are matters separate and distinct from the question of charges made to private patients by such teachers. I am therefore not in a position to say what effect pay increases to clinical teachers would have on their fee charging practices in respect of private patients. (7)It is a fact that medical students require adequate clinical education to become qualified to practice medicine. As indicated above, the Minister for Education and Science has asked the Australian UniversitiesCommission to re-examine the question of payments to honoraries for their teaching services.

Aboriginals: Health Insurance (Question No. 4233)

Mr Kennedy:

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

What measures are taken to ensure that Aboriginals who are eligible for the subsidised health insurance scheme are (a) informed of their eligibility and (b) enrolled in a medical benefits fund.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Since the introduction of the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan, extensive publicity has been accorded ils operation, both in campaigns directed solely towards the workings of the Plan and by its inclusion in other Departmental literature. As from 1st November 1971 it is proposed to introduce a simplified application form for use by low income families when applying for assistance, and provision will be made on the form to enable a responsible person, such as a hospital secretary, to assist a person incapable of completing the official application form and in taking the necessary steps required in applying for the assistance available under the Plan and enrolling in a health insurance fund. In addition, I have instructed my Department to examine more effective means of inducing eligible persons to avail themselves of the assistance under the Plan and it is proposed that this examination will encompass greater utilisation of social workers, charitable organisations and other appropriate welfare groups in the community.

Citizen Military Forces: Personnel with National Service Obligations (Question No. 4720)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Have certain members serving in the Citizen Military Forces as an alternative to national service now completed their C.M.F. obligations as a result of amendments to the National Service Act reducing the period of service from 6 to 5 years.
  2. Did a number of members continue to serve beyond the obligatory period because they were not notified that the period of service had been reduced.
  3. If so, what was the cau.se of the delay in notification.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Prime Minister announced the reduction in the period of full-time national service on 18th August and at the same time that men who opt for service in the Citizen Forces as an alternative to full-time service would normally serve for 5 years. It was the Government’s decision that men serving in the Army and in the Citizen Forces at the date of the announcement should benefit from these changes. The release of those who have fulfilled their revised obligation, in the former case by discharge from the Army and in the latter by the grant of indefinite deferment of their national service liability, has been handled as expeditiously as possible bearing in mind the requirements for enabling legislation, to maintain equity among the men affected, and the necessity to obtain verification that a man’s individual obligation has been satisfactorily completed. On being notified that they have no further national service obligations men serving in the Citizen Force are bound only by the terms of their current engagement in those Forces.

Environmental Pollution (Question No. 4049)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What consideration has the Health Ministers’ Council given to aspects of environmental pollution.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

As the honourable member is aware information which may be divulged concerning the nature of discussions at Australian Health Ministers’ conferences is limited to the text of press releases authorised by the Health Ministers.

Press releases issued since 1967 by the Ministers relating to aspects of environmental pollution are as follows: -

I am informed that the honourable member has received copies of these press releases.

Subsidised Medical Scheme (Question No. 4235)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that under the subsidised medical scheme for low income earners, the means test for the Class A category is a gross weekly income of up to $46.50, for Class B $46.51 to $49.50 and for Class C $49.51 to $52.50.
  2. If so, how are these incomes of applicants determined, and over what period are they calculated.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. For the purposes of determining the eligibility of low income families, ‘income’ includes the income of the claimant and members of his family, other than child endowment and certain allowances specified in regulation 20A of the National Health Regulations.

In determining whether weekly income exceeds a particular amount, account is taken of the applicant’s past income and likely future income. The period on the basis of which weekly income is determined depends mainly on the nature of the applicant’s employment and the source of any income derived other than from employment. This period would not normally exceed twelve months.

Medical Practitioners: Common Fee (Question No. 4539)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. What is the common fee accepted by the Department of Health for (a) a surgery consultation and (b) ahome visit by a general practitioner in each State and Territory.
  2. What amount is paid to a general practitioner for (a) a surgeryconsultation and (b) a home visit in the case of a person holding a pensioner medical service entitlement, and what percentage of common fees do these figures represent.
  3. On what date did the Commonwealth increase the reimbursement to general practitioners treating pensioners.
  4. What amount was reimbursed to general practitioners prior to the increase in 1971, and what percentage of common fees did this reimbursement represent in 1970 and 1971.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The common fees for an attendance by a general practitioner are:
  1. The fees payable to a medical practitioner for services to pensioners under the Pensioner Medical Service are $2.50 for a surgery consultation and $3.60 for a home visit. The relationship of these fees to the common fee in each State is:
  1. The present Pensioner Medical Service fees have been in operation since 1st July 1971.
  2. The Pensioner Medical Service fees before that increase were $1.85 for a surgery consultation and $2.35 for a home visit. These represented the following proportions of the common fees in operation in each State in 1970:

Dwellings for Aged Pensioners (Question No. 4503)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been (a) available, (b) approved and (c) granted under the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 in respect of each State in 1970 and 1971.
  2. What is the location of each project, and how many self-contained dwellings does each contain.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) The States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 provides for an amount of $25 million to be made available to the States during the five years 1969-70 to 1973-74. An amount equal to one-fifth of the $25 million is available to the States for expenditure each year and any amount available but not advanced during a year is available for expenditure in succeeding years within the five year period. The amount available to each State, tin a pro-rata basis, in each of the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 was:
  1. and (c) Building schemes are submitted by the States for approval in accordance with the Act. When approval is given for a building scheme an amount of grant is determined that will be payable to a State in respect of that scheme. Grant payments are made quarterly in accordance with progress made on construction of the approved building schemes. Grants approved and grants paid in each of the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were as follows:
  1. This information is contained in the Second Annual Statement on the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners Act) 1969 tabled on 6th October 1971, a copy of which has been sent to the honourable member.

Homes Savings Grants (Question N«. 4133)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the - Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. Are purchasers of homes built by State housing authorities, with money provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, ineligible, for a grant under the Homes Savings Grant Act because, these .homes are subsidised.

    1. Will these people be eligible for the grant under the new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.
    2. Will the States be making this housing finance available at a reduced interest rate
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Homes Savings Grant Act precludes the payment of a home savings grant in respect of a dwelling house built by or for a State authority with money provided under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement if it is purchased ‘ from the authority, or from another person with the assistance of a loan of money provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

Purchasers of subsidised homes built by the Stales with funds provided under the Agreement are excluded from the payment of a home savings grant because they already receive a significant benefit from the interest concession, and to ensure as far as possible that these homes are reserved for those with, very small means and on low incomes.

  1. and (3) The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement under which housing advances were made by the Commonwealth to the States at concessional interest rates is not being renewed. Instead, the Commonwealth will make direct grants to help the Slates continue to provide housing for lower income groups. For reasons explained in the Second Reading Speech on the Homes Savings Grants Bill 1971 purchasers of homes built by State housing authorities who receive the benefit of the new form of Commonwealth housing assistance will not be eligible for a home savings grant.

Electoral (Question No. 46491

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

On what date (a) was the last proposal to redistribute electoral boundaries for the House of Representatives announced, (b) were the reports of the Commissioners presented to the House and (c) was the next General Election following the redistribution.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. In a Ministerial Statement relating to Referendum Proposals the Prime Minister on 23rd February 1967 (Hansard, Page 115) said:

Whatever may be the fate of the referendum we are resolved that there shall be a redistribution of electoral boundaries during the life of this. Parliament.’

  1. 19th September 1968. ‘
  2. 25th October 1969.

Electoral (Question No. 4589)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for the Inferior, upon notice: lt preliminary census figures for State populations are confirmed, what resultant alterations will be necesary in the number of Commonwealth electoral divisions in each State.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

If the preliminary census figures -for State populations issued on ,25(h October 1971 are confirmed, the only alteration to the number of Commonwealth, electoral Divisions in the States will be that the number in Western Australia will increase from 9 to 10.

Electoral: Redistribution (Question No. 4564)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

On what date was the most recent proposal to’ redistribute electoral boundaries fa) announced to the Parliament and (b) adopted.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. In a Ministerial Statement relating to Referendum’ Proposals the Prime Minister on 23rd February 1967 (Hansard, page 115) said:

Whatever may be the fate of the referendum we are resolved that there shall be a redistribution of electoral boundaries during the life of this Parliament.’

  1. The most recent proposals to redistribute electoral boundaries were approved - by the House of Representatives on 25th September 1968, 26th September 1968 and 26th November 1968. —– by the- Senate on 9th October 1968. 10th

October 1968 and 28th November 1968.

Land. Rights - (Question No. 4698)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney:General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 27th April 1971 in Milirrpum and others v. Nabalco Pty Ltd and The Commonwealth of Australia (the Gove Land Rights Case).
  2. Has the Attorney-General’s attention also been drawn to the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the case of Era Taoro Land in May 1971.
  3. If so, is there an apparent conflict between the two decisions; if not, can he say why not in language which can be understood by persons without legal training.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) I am aware of the two decisions.
  2. The judgment and Order of the Full Court of be Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in die case of Era Taoro Land (Daera Guba and others v. The Administration of the Territory , of Papua and New Guinea) insofar as it reversed , an earlier judgment and order in favour of The Administration of the Territory , of Papua and New Guinea is presently the subject of an appeal to the High Court , of Australia. In the circumstances 1 consider that I should not answer the, question.

Telephones: Applications and Installations (Question No. 4016)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of the total telephone applications in Australia was, and how many applications were, received in 1970-71 from (a) the metropolitan . and (b) the country areas of each State.
  2. What percentage of the. total telephone installations . in Australia was, and how many installations were, made in 1970-71 in (a) the metropolitan and (b) the country areas of each State.
  3. What percentage of the total applications in Australia was, and how many, applications were, deferred at 30 June 1971 In (a) the metropolitan and (,b) the country areas of each State.
  4. What percentage of the total applications in Australia, and how many applications, has his Department estimated that it ‘ will receive in 1971-72 from (a) the metropolitan and (b) the country areas in each State.
  5. What percentage of the total installations in Australia, and how many installations, has his Department estimated that it will ma*e in 1971-72 in (a) the metropolitan and (b) ‘ the country areas in each State.
  6. What percentage of the to;ai applications in Australia, and how many applications, has his Department estimated will still be deferred at” 30 June 1972 in (a) the metropolitan and <b) the country areas of each State.
  7. What percentage of the total amount spent in Australia was, and what amounts were, spent in installing telephones in 1970-71 in (a) the metropolitan and (b) the country areas of each Stale.
  8. What percentage of the total amount to be spent in Australia, and what amounts, will be spent in installing telephones in 1971-72 in (a) the metropolitan and (b) the country areas of each State.
  9. By what date is it estimated that deferred applications will be no more numerous in any metropolitan area than in any other metropolitan area in proportion to population.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Demand for telephone services involving the provisions for new lines or equipment in 1970-71 after allowing for withdrawn applications which numbered 43,672 was as fallows: -
In addition, throughout the Commonwealth, 180,743 applications were received for services utilising lines and equipment already in place as follows : - Since provision of services utilising lines and equipment already in place involves work only in the local exchange, each of these applications was satisfied with little or no delay. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Service Connections involving the provision of new lines or equipment in 1970/71 were - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Demand for telephone services is expected to be lower in 1971-72: The number of applications for telephone services, involving new lines or equipment being estimated as follows: Separate forecasts are not made in respect of metropolitan and. country areas. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The Commonwealth target for service connections involving the provision of new lines or equipment in 1971-72 has been set at 265,000 and the individual targets for each State are detailed In the following table: Each State will distribute its installation effort between metropolitan and country areas according to the relative incidence of demand and physical capacity to meet that demand. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. With connections involving new lines or equipment for the year set at a level of 20,000 above estimated demand, the likely level of unsatisfied demand for telephone services at 30th June next should be about 46,600 compared to 66,617 at. 30th June 1971. Unsatisfied demand consists of four components. Deferred applications (those on which service cannot be offered pending - major extensions of cable and/or exchange equipment), applications under engineering investigation, quotations with the public and connections of service proceeding. It is not practicable to give any precise estimates of the likely levels of deferred applications at 30th June 1972, because we have no way of determining how many of the applications which will be received in 1971-72 will come from areas where, at the time, spare cable and/or exchange equipment may not be available. Every effort will of course, be made to keep deferred applications to a minimum. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. Capital investment on the installation of telephones in the metropolitan and country areas of each State during 1970-71, and the percentages of the Commonwealth total these represented in each case, were: The figures (how the expenditure involved in providing local cabling, telephone exchange equipment, switchboards and subscriber instruments. They do not include expenditures on sites, buildings trunk facilities and engineering and general administrative costs. The cost structure is, therefore, in keeping with the information, furnished twelve months ago for the 1969-70 financial year. {: type="1" start="8"} 0. The level of capital investment on telephone services planned for each State in 1971-72, together with percentages of the Commonwealth total, is: The cost information is as defined in the answer to Question 7. The division of this expenditure between metropolitan and country areas will depend to some extent on the incidence of demand, but it is expected to follow a similar pattern to that for 1970-71. {:#subdebate-45-13} #### Tullamarine Airport: International and Domestic Schedules (Question No. 4401) {: #subdebate-45-13-s0 .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many international passenger flights (a) terminate at and (b) commence from Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport each week: 1. How many (a) international passenger, (b) domestic passenger and (c) domestic freight flights are made from the airport each week between the hours of11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 2. Are schedules planned to operate between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. If so, will they comprise passenger or freight flights. {: #subdebate-45-13-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Thirty-nine regular international passenger flights terminate at Tullamarine each week whilst forty commence from Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport in the same period. Additionally, there are on the average nine passenger charter flight arrivals at and eight departures from Tullamarine each week. 1. The following aircraft flights are made at Tullamarine each week between the hours of 11. p.m. and 6 a.m.: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Regular international passenger flights - six arrivals, seven departures; 1. regular domestic passenger flights- twentysix arrivals, three departures; 2. domestic freight flights - seventeen arrivals, thirty-seven departures. 2. Yes. A total of nine arrivals and eight departures with Electra freighter aircraft are planned to operate at Tullamarinebetweenthe hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. when all Electra aircraft have been converted to thefreighterversion. This should be by September 1972. {:#subdebate-45-14} #### Restrictive Trade Practices (Question No. 4551) {: #subdebate-45-14-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to the 1st March 1971 issue of the periodical produced by the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia and distributed by the United States Embassy in Canberra which states that Australian Government experiencein dealing with restrictive trade practices is still in its infancy; if so, what is the Government's attitude to this statement. 1. Is it a fact that restrictive trade practices have been known to exist in Australia for many years and have been criticised for many years as being harmful to the Australian Commonwealth. 2. Is the Government's experience in this field still in its infancy. 3. If so, does this result from Australia having no effective legislation to deal with restrictive trade practices and also from the refusal of the Government to gain experience by attempting to control many of the practices. {: #subdebate-45-14-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1)-(4) I have seen the issue of the periodical to which the question refers, and have noted with interest the context in which the statement referred to by the honourable member appears. The statement appears under the heading 'Areas to Watch' and is followed by sentences which point out that several test cases are in progress and warn that price maintenance practices, in particular, may be targets for action, particularly if the threat of inflation is sustained. Since the date of publication of the issue, 1st March 1971, legislation to control resale price maintenance has in fact been enacted and brought into operation. Two important cases have also been decided. I refer in this connection to the decision of the Trade Practices Tribunal that an agreement relating to frozen vegetables was contrary to the public interest and to the important decision of the High Court in the Concrete Pipes' case. A holding Bill to overcome the legal defects that the High Court held existed in the present Trade Practices Act has been introduced and the Government has announced that it is currently reviewing the legislation with a view to strengthening it as soon as possible. Naval Defence Act: Civil Administrative or Clerical Work (Question No. 4553) {: #subdebate-45-14-s2 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice: >Whatwork hasbeen declared, by notice published in the Commonwealth Gazette, to be of a civiladministrative or civilclerical nature forthe purposes of Section 42of the NavalDefence Act? {: #subdebate-45-14-s3 .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr Mackay:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >There has not as yet been any work declared by notice published in the Gazette of a civil administrative or civil clerical nature for the purposes of section 42 of the Naval Defence Act. The Department has under examination a possible form of notice for the purpose of section 42 of the Naval Defence Act. When the form of the notice has been determined it will be necessary for the Public Service Board to take action for gazettal. {:#subdebate-45-15} #### Civil Aviation: Connair Pty Ltd (Question No. 4580) {: #subdebate-45-15-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the Commonwealth Government subsidy to Connair Pty Ltd (Connellan Airways 1939-70) during (a) 1969-70 and (b) 1970-71. 1. Who are the Directors of Connair Pty Ltd, at this date. 2. Is he able to say who were the Directors of Connellan Airways at 30th June in (a) 1963, (b) 1965, (c) 1968 and (d) 1969. {: #subdebate-45-15-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Subsidy paid to Connair Pty Ltd was $447,739 in 1969-70 and $838,620 in 1970-71; $100,000 due in respect of the company's financial year ended 30th September 1970 was included in the 1970-71 payment. 1. Present Directors are- Edward John Connellan Ronald Neville Damien Miller George H. Crowther Reginald Harris Paul Everingham Bennett Benjamin Webb Basil Quilty Associate Directors- George Alexander Taylor William Carr Poison Eric Julius Kreig M. Childs {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Directors in previous years were - 1963- Edward John Connellan Ronald Neville Damien Miller Bennett Benjamin Webb Stephen E. Calder Bernard S. Kilgariff Leslie Fox John L. Goddard George Alexander Taylor 1965 - Edward John Connellan George H. Crowther Ronald Neville Damien Miller Stephen E. Calder Bernard S. Kilgariff Leslie Cox John L. Goddard George Alexander Taylor Bennett Benjamin Webb 1968 and 1969- Edward John Connellan George H. Crowther Ronald Neville Damien Miller Leslie Cox Bennett Benjamin Webb John L. Goddard Associate Directors - Michael Owen Hughes William Carr Poison George Alexander Taylor {:#subdebate-45-16} #### Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 4594) {: #subdebate-45-16-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Where and when have there been meetings of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General since I placed question No. 3617 on the Notice Paper on 17th August 1971. 1. What matters were considered at each meeting. 2. What stage has now been reached in the attempt to secure uniform laws on the matters listed in the answer by a former Attorney-General on 30th October 1970 (Hansard, page 3156). {: #subdebate-45-16-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Hobart, 28th and 29tb October 1971. 1. See the answer to Question No. 3617. 2. See the answer to Question No. 2466. {:#subdebate-45-17} #### Sydney's Second Airport (Question No. 4692) {: #subdebate-45-17-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: >What are the names and positions of the members of the Commonwealth-New South Wales Committee established to consider the site for Sydney's second airport. {: #subdebate-45-17-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: > **Mr J.** H. Harper, First Assistant DirectorGeneral (Operations), Department of Civil Aviation - Chairman. > > **Mr R.** S. Gilbert, Assistant Secretary (Transport and Communications), Department of the Treasury. > > **Mr E.** S. Keehn, First Assistant Secretary (Property), Department of the Interior. > > **Mr H.** C. Williams, Assistant DirectorGeneral (Roads and Aerodromes), Department of Works. > > **Mr N.** A. W. Ashton, The Chairman of the State Planning Authority of New South Wales. > > **Mr N.** W. McCusker, the Commissioner for Railways. > > **Mr R.** J. S. Thomas, the Commissioner for Main Roads. > > **Mr A.** A. Hillier, Chief Executive Officer, Defence Facilities Branch, Department of Defence, will also attend meetings as an observer. > >Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral (Question No. 2466) {: #subdebate-45-17-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister represeniing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What matters were considered at themeeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General in Canberra on 4th and 5th February 1971. 1. What stage has now been reached in the attempt to secure uniform laws on the matters listed in his answer on 30tb October 1970 (Hansard p. 3156). 2. At which meetings and with what result has the Committee discussed the Companies Commission recommended by the Company Law Advisory Committee under **Mr Justice** Eggleston. 3. Why was information omitted from earlier answers on the Committee's consideration ofthe Merchant Shipping Act (Hansard, 26tb August 1970, p. 566) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Hansard, 29th September 1970, p. 1844) and the Australian Capital Territory Companies (Life Insurance Holding Companies) Ordinance (Hansard, 16th February 1971, page 79), and what stage has now been reached on these matters. {: #subdebate-45-17-s3 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The proceedings of the Standing Committee are confidential. However, I am at liberty to disclose that the following matters were considered at the meeting of the Committee on 4th and 5th February 1971: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Fifth Interim Report of the Company Law Advisory Committee relating to the control of fund raising, share capital and debentures. 1. Recommendation by the Company Law Advisory Committee that a Companies Commission be established. 2. Proposal that a company incorporated in an Australian State or Territory he permitted to carry on business in any other State or Territory without the need to register as a foreign company. 3. Report of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University on theLaw of Domicile. 4. Regulation of the provision of unsolicited goods and services. 1. The present position of the matters mentioned in the answer given by the then Attorney-General on 30th October 1970 (other than matters appearing from that answerto have been completed or removed from the agenda) is shown in the list set out below. Money Lenders and Consumer Protection- Present position: A draft of legislationrelating to unsolicited goods and services is being prepared for consideration. Amendments of Uniform Companies Acts - Present position: The Company Law Advisory Committee has submitted the following six interim reports: No. 1, relating to Accounts and Audit; No. 2, relating to Substantial Shareholdings and Takeovers; No. 3, relating to Investigations; No. 4, relating to Share and Option Dealings by Directors and Officers of Companies: No. 5, relating to Control of Fund Raising, Share Capital and Debentures; and No. 6, relatingto Share Hawking. The Standing Committee has accepted mostof the recommendations in the reports, and legislative action as indicated below has been taken: Queensland - An Act with respect to the matters dealt with in the first four reports has been passed but has not yet been brought into operation. New South Wales, Victoria, South AustraliaBills with respect to the matters dealt with in the first four reports have been introduced. Australian Capital Territory - An Ordinance with respect to the matters dealt with in the second report has been made but has not yet been brought into operation. Control of Stock Exchanges and Sharebrokers - Present position: Legislation has been enacted in New South Wales, Victoria. Queensland and Western Australia. Unit Trusts- Present position: The Company Law Advisory Committee which, as indicated in the answer to Question No. 1468 (Hansard 30th October1970, p. 3156). was to examine and report on the question of appropriate legislation with respect to unit trusts, has intimated that it will be unable to do this for some time. The Standing Committee has appointed a sub-committee to formulate proposals for the establishment of a body to consider the need for legislation relating to unit trusts, mutual funds and syndication. The subcommittee, which consists of the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth. New South Wales and Victoria, will make recommendations to the Standing Committee on the nature of the body that might be established and its terms of reference. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Standing Committee discussed the Company Law Advisory Committee's proposal for a Companies Commission at its meetings held in Perth on 1st November 1968, in Hobart on 8th March 1969 and Canberra on 4th February 1971. The Standing Committee has deferred reaching a decision on this proposal. For the time being, it has agreed to confer upon the Commissioners for Corporate Affairs and the Registrars of Companies of the States and Territories power to grant dispensations from some of the more stringent accounting requirements that will flow from the amendments of the uniform companies legislation now in progress. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Merchant Shipping Act. The earlier answers were to questions which sought information only in respect of matters considered in the attempt to secure uniform laws, and no such laws were involved in the proposals for amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This matter has not been considered at a meeting of the Standing Committee. The advice to the Attorney-General's colleagues on the Standing Committee to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred in his answer on 29th September 1970 was given by letter. Companies (Life Insurance Holding Companies) Ordinance 1968. There was no consideration of this, matter by the Standing Committee. As pointed out by the then Prime Minister in his answer on 16th February 1971, the then Attorney-General merely used the occasion of a Standing Committee meeting to inform his State colleagues of the specific action the Commonwealth intended to take. {:#subdebate-45-18} #### Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Question No. 3617) {: #subdebate-45-18-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Where and when have there been meetings of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and Stale Attorney-General since February 1971. 1. What matters were considered at each meeting. 2. What stage has now been reached in the attempt to secure uniform laws on the matters listed in the answer by the Attorney-General before last on 30th October 1970 (Hansard, page 3156). {: #subdebate-45-18-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Melbourne, 5th and 6th July 1971; Hobart, 28th and 29th October 1971. 1. The proceedings of the Standing Committee are confidential. However, I am at liberty to disclose that the following matters were considered at the two meetings referred to in Part 1 of this answer: At Melbourne on 5th and 6th July 1971 - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Regulation of the provision of unsolicited goods and services. 1. Proposals by The Law Council of Australia that the Commonwealth and Stale Governments participate in a feasibility study of the possible use of computers as an aid to the administration of the law. 2. Regulation of the establishment and use of data banks. 3. Interstate enforcement of .fines against com- . panics. 4. Recognition of custody orders made in other countries, particularly New Zealand. 5. Sixth Interim. Report of the Company Law Advisory Commitee relating to share hawking. 6. Proposal by the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral that he ask the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake a complete review of the fundamental principles of company law. 7. Accounts and audit provisions of the companies legislation with particular reference to directors' responsibilities. 8. Definition of an interest in shares in the amending companies legislation. 9. Increase in fees payable under the companies legislation. 10. Proposal that a company incorporated in an Australian State or Territory be permitted to carry on business in any other State or Territory without the need to register as a foreign company. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Fifth Interim Report of the Company Law Advisory Committee relating to the control of fund raising, share capital and debentures. At Hobart on 28th and 29lh October 1971- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The practice of pyramid selling. 1. The admission in evidence of information stored in computers in the ordinary course of business. 2. Fifth Interim Report of the Company Law Advisory Committee relating to the control of fund raising, share capital and debentures. 3. The establishment of a body lo consider the need for legislation relating to unit trusts, mutual funds and syndications. 4. Proposal that a company incorporated in an Australian Stale or Territory be permitted to carry on business in any other State or Territory without the need to register as a foreign company. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. See the answer to Question No. 2466. {:#subdebate-45-19} #### British Migrants (Question No. 4333) {: #subdebate-45-19-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: What (a) number and (b) . percentage of migrants from Britain who in each of the last 5 years have permanently returned to Britain had received assisted passages after (i) direct application in Britain or (ii) nomination from Australia. {: #subdebate-45-19-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth Statistician does not. dis- .tinguish between permanent departures of assisted and unassisted settlers and consequently the figures requested by the honourable member are- not available. Therefore it is not possible to - distinguish between those former settler departures who made, direct application for assisted, passage in Britain and those who were assisted following nomination in Australia. However statistics of total settler departures suggest that about one half of the former assisted settlers from Britain who leave Australia, do so between two and three years after their arrival, that is, within twelve months of completing their undertaking to remain here for at least two years. The two year undertaking is required to ensure that the Commonwealth receives a reasonable return for the grant of assisted passages. {:#subdebate-45-20} #### Butterfat and Vegetable Oil Spread (Question No. 4638) {: #subdebate-45-20-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In what States are the consumer reaction tests on a butterfat and vegetable oil spread being carried out under the administration of the Australian Dairy Produce Board (Hansard, 27th October 1971, page 2656). 1. Has the new spread been manufactured in Australia from Australian materials. 2. Will he seek the fullest co-operation of the States to ensure the success of this commendable example of enterprise by the Australian Dairy Produce Board. {: #subdebate-45-20-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. South Australia and Victoria. 1. Two experimental products have been used. The first was a softer butter made by the addition of a quantity of softer fractions of butter to normal butter and the second was a mixture of butterfat and vegetable oils. The butterfat used in both experimental products was of Australian origin. The vegetable oils used in the second experimental product were purchased on the retail market. 2. At this stage the tests being conducted under the dairy research programme are purely exploratory and are mainly concerned with the question of spreadability. The results of the tests so far have indicated that the housewives have found the experimental products (the fractionated butter and the butterfat vegetable oil mixture) more spreadable but still preferred ordinary butter overall because of its superior flavour. The extent to which further research should be undertaken and bow and where it should be conducted is a matter for decision by the Australian Dairy Produce Board which is responsible for the administration of the dairy research programme. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (Question No. 4518) {: #subdebate-45-20-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When did Australia become a member of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage established in 1950. 1. Who has represented Australia at the triennial congresses of the Commission. 2. Where and when have there been meetings of the Australian national committee. 3. What departments and authorities are represented on the committee. {: #subdebate-45-20-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage is not an inter-governmental body and the Australian National' Committee for this organisation is therefore not responsible to any Minister of the Crown. I would suggest that if any information is desired, it might be obtained by writing direct to the Secretary, Australian National Committee, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, 7th Floor, T &G Building, Hobart Place, Canberra City, A.C.T. Rail Freights (Question No. 4459) {: #subdebate-45-20-s4 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the rail freight on general freight between (a) Coffs Harbour and Brisbane, (b) Coffs Harbour and Sydney, (c) Mildura and Melbourne, (d) Mildura and Adelaide, (e) Mount Gambier and Adelaide and (f) Mount Gambier and Melbourne. 1. What is the distance by rail in each case. {: #subdebate-45-20-s5 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) For railway rating purposes the various kinds and classes of goods are grouped into classifications, each of which attracts a particular rate per ton. There are variations between the railways systems in the allocation of goods to particular classifications. However, a uniform approach to classification is applied for rating for the intersystem (Railways of Australia) movement of goods. Full details df the classifications adopted by each of the railway systems are given intheir rates books. The following table sets out the freights per lon for each of the main classifications between the places indicated in part 1 of the question. Distances by rail requested in part 2 of the question are also shown. {:#subdebate-45-21} #### Perth Airport: Freighter Flights (Question No. 4280) {: #subdebate-45-21-s0 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr Bennett: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many freighter flights have utilised Perth Airport during each of the last 5 years, and to which company did these flights belong. 1. How many of the flights arrived between the hours of (a) 6 a.m. and midnight and (b) midnight and 6 a.m. 2. How many international flights utilised Perth Airport over the last 5 years between the hours of (a) 6 a.m. and midnight and (b) midnight and 6 a.m. 3. What were the countries of origin of the international flights. 4. Which of these countries exercise curfew hours in their national territory. 5. How many domestic passenger flights utilised Perth Airport over each of the last 5 years between the hours of (a) 6 a.m. and midnight and (b) midnight and 6 a.m. 6. How many of these flights were (a) interstate and (b) intrastate in each case. {: #subdebate-45-21-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No analysis has been maintained which permits this question to be answered for the full period. The majority of freight is carried in scheduled passenger flights. Enquiries indicate that for at least the last three months at Perth: No jet freighter movements have been made by AAA, TAA or international airlines; Only a very occasional non-jet freighter operation has been made by AAA or TAA, and none by international airlines; MMA operated a non-jet F27 incurring 8 movements per week, all between 6 a.m. and midnight; none between midnight and 6 a.m. Current AAA, TAA and international airline schedules do not include any exclusively freighter services for Perth. Note that one movement is counted for each landing or take-off. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Refer to answer to (1). 1. Analysis of actual traffic does not encompass a count of international movements separately from others. International airline movements at Perth Airport over the past five calendar years were scheduled to be as follows: A special analysis of data for the period 18th May 1971 to 30th May 1971 inclusive indicates the proportion of total international movements which occurred between midnight and 6 a.m. was 46 per cent. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Operators of international movements scheduled as above were as follows: {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The following States, where the headquarters of some of these international airlines are located,have introduced curfews at certain of their airports: >India > >United Kingdom > >Hong Kong > >West Germany > >Malaysia > >South Africa > >As already indicated, analysis of actual traffic movements does not encompass a count of domestic airline movements separately from other movements. Domestic airline movements at Perth Airport over the past five calendar years were scheduled to be as follows: A special analysis of data for the period 18th May 1971 to 30th May 1971 inclusive indicates that the proportion of domestic airline movements which occurred between midnight and 6 a.m. was 14 per cent. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. Domestic movements at Perth were scheduled as follows: Note that MMA movements include those to/from Darwin (interstate) but which have intermediate stops in Western Australia. The analysis of data for theperiod18th May 1971 to 30th May 1971 inclusive indicates the proportion of domestic airline movements occurring between midnight and 6 a.m. were: TAA/AAA combined- 26 per cent of total TAA/AAA MMA - 6 per cent of total MMA. Forestry (Question No. 3803) {: #subdebate-45-21-s2 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How much control over forestry operations and associated conservation problems can the Commonwealth Government exercise through its powers to control exports. 1. To what extent is the Government prepared to exercise these or other powers to ensure that projects for export chipped or pulped wood are planned and executed so as to best conserve the national environment. {: #subdebate-45-21-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Under theAustralian Constitution the States are responsible for the utilisation ofnatural resources within their own boundaries; in forestry they grant franchises for forestry utilisation based on crown land forests. The role of the Commonwealth is to encourage development and assist in protecting the national interest. Through its export control powers the Commonwealth no doubt could exert some control over forestry operations and associated conservation problems to the extent that it could refuse approval to export wood chips to any company whose wood procurement operations were considered likely to be incompatible with the best interests of the community. However, as a matter of policy control over the manner in whichfield activities are conducted from day to day is outside the ambit of the present export control and is a matter more appropriate to the various State and Commonwealth. Authorities whose function is the investigation, control and management' of land based resources. 1. The Commonwealth is anxious that the utilisation of natural resources should be in the national interest and every application for approval to export wood chips is judged on its merit having particular regard to price, provision for further processing in Australia and reforestation. On crownland, responsibility for reforestation rests with the appropriate State or Commonwealth Authority. The approval granted to Northern Woodchips Pty Ltd to export wood chips obtained from privately owned timber resources, was subject to the company undertaking an annual reforestation programme, of no less than 5,000 acres by 1975. Before any export approval is granted, the appropriate State Government is consulted in judging whether the project is in the best interests of the community irrespective of whether it is based on private or crown land resources but save as indicated above the Commonwealth does not seek to intervene in the State Government responsibility for environmental aspects of woodchip projects. The Commonwealth does not exercise control over the export of pulped wood. {:#subdebate-45-22} #### Project N Light Utility Aircraft (Question No. 4386) {: #subdebate-45-22-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Ministerfor Supply the following question, upon notice: >Has the Australian designed Project N light utility aircraft met all specifications within budgetary and time limits. {: #subdebate-45-22-s1 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The design, development and production of Project N has been planned in 3 separate phases. Phase1 covers the basic design of the aircraft, manufacture of 2 flying prototypes and one structural test airframe and the test flying of the prototypes. Phase2 covers activities required to bridge the gap between the prototype phase and the commencement of production (Phase 3). The aircraft is still in phase1 but certain activities have also commenced under Phase 2. The timing achieved to date has been very satisfactory. To date (22nd November) the first prototype has successfully completed 47 hours 35 minutes of test flying in 45 flights. The second prototype is now being prepared for flight. Although the complete flight test envelope has not yet been covered the results indicate that the aircraft will achieve better than design expectations. It is expected that the cost of authorised work on this project, when adjusted for escalation in wages and materials costs, will be within the approved figure. {:#subdebate-45-23} #### Building Societies: Interest Rates (Question No. 4066) {: #subdebate-45-23-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the interest rate charged by permanent building societies for loans made available in 1964 when the Home Savings Grant Scheme was introduced. 1. What interest rate is now charged by permanent building societies. 2. What is the total interest payable on a $14,000 loan from a permanent building society, repaid over 25 years, if the loan was negotiated in 1964. 3. What is the total interest payable on a $14,000 loan from a permanent building society, repaid over 25 years, if the loan was. negotiated on existing interest rates. {: #subdebate-45-23-s1 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The rate of interest charged to borrowers by permanent building societies varies from society to society, and one society may charge different rates for various classes of loans. Available information does not allow an average to be calculated of the interest rates charged by all societies to borrowers. However, as at August 1964, the interest rates charged by most permanent building societies in Australia fell within the range of 6½ per cent per annum to 74 per cent per annum. 1. The latest review showed that in October 1971 most building societies in Australia were charging between 7½ per cent per annum and8½ per cent per annum. 2. and (4)It is impracticable to calculate the total interest payable on a long term loan from a permanent building society. This is because: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. interest rates are not normally fixed for the whole period of a loan - they are usually subject to variation according to the rules of the society; 1. interest rates vary among societies and the societies apply different rest periods in calculating interest. {:#subdebate-45-24} #### Social Services (Question No. 4687) {: #subdebate-45-24-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a de facto wife any claim to a widow's pension if she is (a) deserted or (b) widowed; if so, under what conditions is the pension provided. 1. Underwhat circumstances would a woman in these circumstances have an entitlement to a dependent child's allowance. 2. Does a widow who conceives an illegitimate child after widowhood have any right to a widow's' pension and any right to a dependent child's allowance. 3. Does a woman in receipt of an invalid pension who bears an illegitimate child have any right to a dependent child's allowance; if so is there any limit on the numberof illegitimate children for whom she can obtain this allowance. {: #subdebate-45-24-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) No. A deserted de facto wife is not included in the definition of widow prescribed by section 59 of the Social Services Act 1947-1971. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Yes. Under the conditions prescribed in Divisions 2 and 3 of Part IV of the Act. 1. Where a widow pensioner has custody, care and control of a child as defined by section 59 or 59a of the Act. 2. Not in respect of the illegitimate child but she could have a right to a Class A widow's pension through other children or, by age, to a Class B widow's pension. 3. Where an invalid pensioner has custody, care and control of a chid or chidren under the age of 16 years (including a student deemed under section 18a of the Act, to be a child under the age of 16 years) additional pension is payable in respect of each such child. {:#subdebate-45-25} #### Heads of State: Inaugurations (Question No. 4716) {: #subdebate-45-25-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >At which inauguration of Heads of State in the last 5 years has Australia been represented by (a) a Minister, and (b) a diplomat. {: #subdebate-45-25-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have taken the honourable member's question to mean inaugurations of Heads of State attended by a representative of the Australian Government, involving an invitation to attend and,if necessary, special accreditation. In other instances, where other than national attendance is desired, it is normal practice for the Foreign Ministry of the country concerned to issue a general invitation to all accredited Heads of Mission. As this is part of The following are the inauguration ceremonies the normal diplomatic function, the records in my of Heads *of* State attended by an Australian Department would not necessarily indicate this. representative:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711125_reps_27_hor75/>.