House of Representatives
2 December 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 3969

PETITIONS

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, 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 10 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That the United Nations General Assembly

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

  1. That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. That honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed on their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

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

Thai the sales tax on all form* of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Excemptions and Classifications Aci I935-J967). Also that there is customs duly of up to 47+ 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 device* 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 duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker ai:d Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the community of the University of Western Australia respectfully sheweth:

Thai the increase in tertiary eduation fees for 1972 will cause increased hardship for a significant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to do so.

Thai the increase in tertiary fees for 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being further restricted to that minimal section of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be free including tertiary education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that rft* Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority.

Universal Commonwealth Scholarships

Commonwealth Scholarships onthe basis of need rather than academic ability.

Abolition of tertiary fees.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, 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 thecommunity of the University of Western Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the increase in tertiary education fees for “1972 will cause increased hardship for a signifi”cant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs “are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to do so.

That the increase in tertiary fees for. 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being further restricted to (hat minimal section of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be free including tertiary education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority

  1. Universal Commonwealth Scholarships .
  2. Commonwealth Scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability
  3. Abolition of tertiary fees

Andyour petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, 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 community of the University of Western Australia respectfully sheweth: that the increase in tertiary education fees for 1972 will cause increased hardship for a significant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to doso.

That the increase in tertiary fees for 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being further restricted to that minimal section of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be free including tertian education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority:

Universal Commonwealth Scholarships

Commonwealth Scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability

Abolition of tertiary fees

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-I present the fol lowing petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition, of citizens, of the community of the University of Western Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the increase in tertiary education fees for 1972 will cause increased hardship for a significant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to do so.

ThatThe increase in tertiary fees for 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being . further restricted to that minimal section, of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be. free including tertiary education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority:

Universal Commonwealth Scholarships

Commonwealth Scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability

Abolition of tertiary fees

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

That such housing must be supported by the appointment1 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.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

That there ls a need to phase out Native Reserves hi 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.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker! assistance in the ratio of 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.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to:

  1. increase, immediately, Australia’s contribution to the refugee appeal by 10 million dollars.
  2. press for a just solution to the conflict, so that the refugees may return to their homes.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.

As some twenty million refugees and dis placed persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutritionand child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to (heir assistance in a more sacrificial way.

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

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr McLEAY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees ‘hat have crossed the border into India. Alsothey are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worseoff 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 far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinetbe called to provide$10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the. refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children. Your petitioners most humbly pray thatthe House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediatesteps to

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That there is widespread oppositionto the National Service Act arising from the denial of basic human rights and liberties.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that: 1, The National Service Act be repealed.

  1. Amnesty be granted to all those charged, or liable to be charged, under the Act.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr KENNEDY:

– 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 grant 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 and read.

page 3974

QUESTION

STATISTICS: ELECTORAL AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– r ask the Treasurer a question about the absence of statistics revealed at question time Jas! Thursday. He will remember that last Thursday the Minister for the Interior told me that the Chief Electoral Officer had not yet obtained from the Commonwealth Statistician the census figures required before Western Australia can be given the additional electorate to which it is entitled and before any Stale can have electorates based on the current population. I ask him why the Statistican is taking so long to supply these figures after this years census. J ask him also, in the light of questions directed to him last Thursday by ‘he honourable member for Paterson and the honourable member for Bradfield about foreign investment, why the Statistician has discontinued or deferred the publication of his usual bulletins on overseas participation in the Australian mining industry and in Australia manufacturing.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– ! find m>-elf unable to answer either question. The best thing I can do is to have a conference with the Commonwealth Statistician. gel the answers and then provide .neill to the honourable gentlemen.

page 3974

QUESTION

DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall that on. Tuesday the Minister for Defence was asked whether the Government and the Opposition had reached a climate which might be described as bipartisan on defence and foreign policy. Can the Minister inform the House whether such a climate or such an environment has been reached regarding the ANZUS Treaty?

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

-I think that before the Commonwealth conference of the Australian Labor Party in June of this year it might have been possible to find points of correspondence between Labor’s policy on the ANZUS Treaty and that of the Government. Since that conference there has been a great divergence in the 2 policies. The ANZUS Treaty is essentially a military treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. In practice, close military co-operation exists continuously under it. We may regret the need for military arrangements. Some people may hope for the day when the United Nations will become an effective peace-keeping body. But the fact is that at the present time the United Nations is not an effective peacekeeping body and the Indian and Pacific Ocean area is emerging now, with the changing balances of power, as one of the danger areas for peace in the world. In these circumstances the Government regards the ANZUS Treaty as crucial.

At the conference of the Australian Labor Party in June two things occurred. Firstly, the Party changed its policy by deleting the word ‘crucial’ so that it is clear that it no longer regards the ANZUS Treaty as crucial in respect of Australia’s security. But further than that, the Party introduced words which indicated that it was going to seek to turn it into a kind of regional covenant for human rights. The Government is in favour of covenants and declarations of human right!! - Australia is a party to more than 10 of them - but what we would oppose is the twisting of the ANZUS Treaty into a regional covenant on human rights because this means that its military significance is to be removed. We would oppose the deletion or the downgrading of the military significance of ANZUS. Yet that has now become the policy of the Opposition. In these circumstances there is no bipartisan policy on this. There is a sharp divergence of opinion and I suggest that the current policy of the Opposition is one which is not in the best interests of the security of Australia.

page 3975

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTINENTAL SHELF BELL

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that delay in proceeding with the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill has been criticised by members of his own Party as a disgrace and a breach of an important policy promise to the electorate. Since he now proposes to raise with the Leader of the House the date on which the Government should proceed with the Bill, should the House understand that he will also immediately initiate the Party room and Cabinet discussion of it which he told the honourable member for Dawson on J 6th March would be held before anything further is done?

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

– J have not given consideration to this matter for the last few weeks, but 1 will do so shortly.

page 3975

QUESTION

SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS: DUTY

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I refer to a recent news report stating that the price of school text books will be doubled for the new school year, the reason being that the Department of Customs and Excise will be applying a 574 per cent duty on them. I ask the Minister: ls this correct? If so, why is such a heavy duty being applied to these text books?

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

– The 57* per cent duty is not applied by the Department of Customs and Excise; it is applied by this Parliament. This is the rate of duty passed by the Parliament for application to exercise books as distinct from text books. Text books are admitted duty free and those text books manufactured in Australia attract a bounty. On the other hand, exercise books carry a 57i per cent duty and do not attract a bounty. This situation was reported to my Department by members of the local publishing industry - those producing exercise books - which discovered that they were having the worst of 2 worlds, namely, that some competition from overseas was coming in duty free whilst some exercise books were not attracting a bounty for local manufacture.

I might explain that exercise books or text books are now not like they were when the honourable gentleman and I went to school. There are now books in which provision is made almost on every second line for writing in answers. Therefore it is a question of doubt as to whether they should be classified as text books or exercise books. In questions of doubt on classification, because Australia has regard to the Brussels tariff such questions are referred to the Nomenclature Committee of the Customs Co-operation Council and international body, and it has ruled unequivocally that this type of book is an exercise book and therefore must carry the 571 per cent duty. That is the factual situation. The Department of Customs and Excise has no alternative whatsoever other than to act. Redress is possible, as would be well known. Representations could be made to my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry for a possible reference to the Tariff Board, or other action might be taken. Because of the representations that have been made by the honourable member, the honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Moreton I have undertaken to discuss this matter with my colleague and to have a look at the problem.

page 3976

TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him by the honourable member for Blaxland. On Wednesday of last week I asked the right honourable gentleman about the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill which was, I think, about No. 70 on the notice paper on that day, and he told me by way of answer that he would have discussions with his colleague, the Leader of the House, and it would be in the hands of his colleague as to when the matter would be brought before the House for discussion. Are we to take it from the answer which the right honourable gentleman has just given to the honourable member for Blaxland that he has not in fact raised with the Leader of the House the possibility of the House debating this year this Bill which the Leader of the House read on behalf of the right honourable gentleman when he was Foreign Minister in April last year.

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– It is true that I said that I would have a discussion with the Leader of the House about this problem. The Leader of the House heard the question and also heard the answer. But I think the honourable gentleman would know that we have been pretty busy over the course of the last few days and I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the Leader of the House. I will attempt to do so today.

page 3976

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Recent reports indicate that the number of unemployed and job vacancies are in balance in capital cities whereas there are more than 3 unemployed to each vacancy in country districts. Does this not indicate that demand needs stimulating in the country but not in cities? Would not any stimulus to employment in the country be sufficient to mop up any emerging labour surplus in cities? Should not any stimulus applied prior to the next Budget aim at country areas in the first instance lest labour demand is overstimulated in cities with inevitable inflationary consequences? Would the following measures be appropriate: Long-term low interest loans to encourage wool growers to turn to beef with a 150 per cent tax depreciation on the necessary property improvements; a moratorium on local government rates in country areas with the Commonwealth footing the bill; urgent allocations for repairs and up-grading of major country roads to immediately absorb many unemployed; and, finally, the removal of excise on wine.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The recitation of fact before the questions which were asked was, I think, largely correct as I heard it. [n broad terms there has been a down-turn in the rural areas. As 1 said yesterday, this is a consequence of world trading conditions and commodity prices which have been worsened by financial problems throughout the world. The number of unemployed in country areas is, as the honourable gentleman said, relatively much higher than in metropolitan areas where there is roughly a balance between vacancies and registrants. I will give consideration to the proposals that the honourable gentleman has made about his particular brand of stimulating demand in the non-metropolitan area, the rural areas. I would not want him to think that one or two of them have much prospect of success, such as the first one. In regard to the removal of the wine tax, I remind the honourable gentleman that tho honourable member for Angas has been campaigning as strongly in this matter as has the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in relation to the gold subsidy. The best I can do is to indicate to the honourable gentleman that I will examine his question in detail and write him a letter about it.

page 3977

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Did the Prime Minister, before establishing a group of Ministers chaired by the Treasurer to handle the matter of the national film and television training school, advise the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Aru of his intention to do so?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I advised all Ministers at roughly the .same time. In other words, the decision to establish the committee was mine and, in accordance with normal Cabinet practice, I then advised the Ministers through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

page 3977

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Education and Science. I ask whether one of the problems involved in the operation of an Australian schools commission, such as has been proposed in certain quarters, is the allocation of resources between government schools and independent schools. Have recent statements on the independent school system made in the Parliament shown how an Australian schools commission could operate in practice?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I did see a statement made, I think, by the Leader of the Opposition in another place when he was seeking lo clarify the manner of operation of an Australian schools commission. According to the report that I saw he made it perfectly plain that the primary obligation of the commission would be to provide funds for government schools. The Commission would be obliged to establish government schools at the highest possible standard. Government schools, of course, are open to all. This would be an objective to he achieved before funds would go fo independent schools.

page 3977

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Prime Minister concerns the price of liquid petroleum gas. In order that the right honourable gentlemen may better understand my request for action I refer to a letter that I have received from the Town Clerk of the Lithgow City Council in which he states that bulk supplies of liquefied petroleum gas are to be increased in price by S7.25 a ton to a total price of $52 a ton whilst Victorian producers are selling the same product to Japan for SI 6 a ton.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is giving a great deal of information in relation to this question. I am prepared to allow a reasonable preface to a question but not an unduly long statement of fact.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– I have concluded my preface. [ ask the Prime Minister to investigate this serious complaint and to take such action as is necessary to protect Australian consumers in the use of their own resources. Finally, will the right honourable gentleman have regard to prices charged and profits gained by oil companies in any inquiries that be may make?

Mr McMahon:

– The Minister for National Development will answer the question.

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

– From memory I think that the honourable member did raise this matter in correspondence. I know that it has been raised on a few occasions and that an investigation has been made in relation to it. The position is thai quite often when comparisons are made - I have noted this publicly - they are between the relatively standardised price for natural gas and the variation in the price in distant country areas for liquefied petroleum gas. The main variation is, of course, related to freight costs and handling charges. Liquefied peteoleum gas is a refinery by-product and is produced fairly cheaply at the refinery. The cost at the refinery is relatively cheap hut the further an area is from the refinery the higher is the price.

This problem has been raised on a number of occasions because the price of liquefied petroleum gas in distant areas is quite different from the price in centres principally in the capital cities - where the main refineries are located. The matter has ben examined very carefully. There is no way in which this situation can be overcome. It would be extremely difficult to introduce an equalised pricing scheme for liquefied petroleum gas because of the low quantity that is now used throughout Australia. So, whilst up to the present an examination has been made, the problem is understood; it has been raised before by the honourable member and by other honourable members in this House. So far, (here has been no solution to the variation in price between the major capital city centres adjacent to refinery areas and the country centres, where freight and handling costs must be added to the price. However, in view of the fact that the honourable member has raised the matter again, I will certainly undertake to have another look at the situation.

The final point that he raised in relation to the oil industry itself is a matter that, if it were raised in any other context, would be given consideration. At present, it has not been taken into account in any specified way, but there is a overall check kept on the position and I can assure the honourable member that this matter is being carefully watched. However, after we have studied the matter further regarding liquefied petroleum gas, I will let him have another reply.

page 3978

QUESTION

ARMED SERVICES: HOME FINANCE

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Further to the statement made by the Leader of the House last Thursday night that a submission would be made to Cabinet on setting up a home finance scheme for members of the regular Services, will the Prime Minister assure me and the House that no undue delay will hold up this matter which has considerable importance for members of the Services?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I did have a discussion with the honourable gentleman one night last week and assured him that I would ask the Minister for Housing to put a submission to Cabinet as soon as practicable dealing with the problems of professional soldiers and their ability to obtain homes. The Minister for Housing has presented a submission and it will be considered by Cabinet today.

page 3978

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SCHEME

Mr WALLIS:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Services. Have he and his colleagues on numerous occasions in this House stated that the pensioner medical entitlement card and other fringe benefits have a value of $5 a week lor each pensioner? ls he aware that many age pensioners who are also in receipt of some Commonwealth superannuation recently received increases in their superannuation resulting in a reduction of their age pension entitlement and, in many cases, loss of their pensioner medical entitlement card? Is he aware that the loss of the pensioner medical entitlement card valued at $5 a week and the reduction in the age pension entitlement in many cases exceeded the amount of superannuation increase, resulting in many pensioners being disadvantaged financially, especially when they are now required to join a registered organisation to receive medical coverage? Does this not emphasise the need for the abolition of the means test, a promise made by the Liberal Party prior to the 1949 elections and a promise that has never been kept?

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

– I am aware of the facts quoted by the honourable gentleman. The anomaly has been receiving my attention. I can assure him that the matters of policy to .which he has referred are at present under consideration. I do not think that this is an appropriate time to be discussing these matters of major policy.

page 3978

QUESTION

CONCESSIONAL BULK POSTAGE

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I address my question to the Postmaster-General. Arc parent organisations associated with the public education system denied inclusion in the category A classification for concessional postage? Why are these groups denied this concession which is extended to similar groups associated with many wealthy schools?

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

– I am not aware of the assertions made by the honourable member. However, he will know that the categories attracting special postage concession relate to educational and scientific areas and that many of the journals which are published by parents and citizens associations are notices concerning meetings, social activities, etc., which could not be regarded by anybody as being related to the dissemination of educational material.

page 3978

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Treasurer aware of the financial difficulties being experienced by many local government authorities, particularly those in rural areas? If he is aware Of these difficulties, does the Government intend to take any action to assist in relieving them?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have constantly had drawn to my attention the difficulties which local government bodies in country areas are experiencing, again because of the down-turn in rural areas. But already the Commonwealth has made a significant contribution to local government bodies. When we turned over payroll tax to the States we agreed with the States that we, the Commonwealth, would finance the amount of payroll tax foregone by local government authorities, in that we would deduct less from the total States grants than would otherwise be the case. In this way local government authorities do not have to pay payroll tax on their non-business activities. If my memory is correct, the amount involved will be $6m in this financial year, and it will be $8m in a full financial year.

But the Commonwealth constantly has taken the view - and I believe it to be the right view- thai local government bodies are set up under State legislation and that within our Federal system it is the State governments’ responsibility to take care of the problems facing local government authorities. To do otherwise would be to change very significantly the Federal system. Therefore, we have pursued the policy of providing the State governments with adequate finance. In fact, if the honourable gentleman will cast his mind back to June 1970 when the States grants formula was revised, he will recall that there was a very sharp jump in the funds made available to the States. Since then, in March of this year, the Prime Minister called a Premiers Conference and $43m was given to the States to help them overcome their budgetary problems. Then at the Premiers Conference in June the States received an additional $40m, as well as the right to collect payroll tax, which gave them more than $22m. In other words, the amount of money received by the States in totality has jumped immensely, and this money has been provided in pursuance of our policy to ensure that the States shall receive enough money to take care of their responsibilities.

page 3979

QUESTION

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT SCHEME

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Acting Minister for Primary Industry aware that many soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island are shearing their neighbours’ sheep in order to get badly needed money? Is he also aware that the Australian Workers Union has declared black the wool shorn by these men if they are not members of the Union, which means that the settlers affected are facing grievous financial problems? If this dictatorial attitude brings about the bankruptcy of these soldier settlers, will the Minister assure me that he will treat their case with exceptional sympathy? Does the Minister realise that this kind of cruel and vindictive action on the pari of the Union makes the name of unionism hated throughout the countryside when it ought to be respected?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s question is far too long. The honourable member also has invited argument and comment in his question and I suggest that the Minister answer only the relevant parts of the question.

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

– I was unaware of the difficulties which have been facing soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island who have been shearing one another’s sheep. If I understood the question correctly, the honourable member is informing me that the Australian Workers Union is placing a ban on shearers who are not members of that Union.

Of course, this is more a question for the Minister for Labour and National Service, but in passing I must make the comment that it does seem to me to be a reversal of real democratic freedoms. I will say no more than that, not wishing to be provocative. We have seen this sort of dictatorial attitude on previous occasions. As Minister for Shipping and Transport I have been involved in difficulties over shipping strikes when certain executives of the trade unions have held the people of Tasmania to ransom, and in Sydney at the present time we are seeing a similar example of the irresponsible attitude of one of two union executives. The honourable member can rest assured that I will keep very closely in mind any difficulties that are created by the irresponsible attitude of the Australian Workers Union.

page 3980

QUESTION

NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the ‘Aeroplane Press’, a newspaper which circulates in his electorate and which on 24th November quoted the Minister for the Navy as saying:

As an Australian I am nol blind to the value of some Labor proposals. Some social-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that to quote from a newspaper is out of order. The right honourable gentleman should rephrase his question.

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a recent report in the ‘Aeroplane Press’, which circulates in his electorate, indicating that the Minister for the Navy supports the proposals of the Australian Labor Party for the removal of the means test and the development of a national superannuation policy, for which the Minister apparently constantly fights. Now that this Minister has openly joined the Minister for Social Services and the Federal Council of the Liberal Party in advocating Labor’s objectives for national superannuation, will the Prime Minister admit the error of his extravagant rejection of national superannuation during the 1969 election campaign? Do the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for the Navy make his life miserable and difficult on this matter as the honourable gentleman last weekend

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that is a matter with which the Prime Min:ster is concerned.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I hope that the Leader of the Opposition has seen the results of the latest gallup poll relating to popularity which were published in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Sun’. If he has he may realise why his popularity has declined so much; perhaps it is because of the kind of question that he has asked this morning.

I have not heard of the statement allegedly made by the Minister for the Navy but I will have a talk to him about it to find out exactly what he did say. I would be surprised if he made a statement that was exactly the same as that mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. What I can say to the House is that so far Cabinet has not had any proposals put before it relating to a national superannuation scheme but 1 have, on my own initiative, ensured that within the parliamentary Liberal Party and the Liberal Party generally we have the most detailed examination of all proposals for a superannuation scheme that we have read about. I believe we will as a result get an authoritative statement relating not only to systems in existence in other parts of the world but also their potential cost and application to Australia. The first report that I have received showed that the cost of a national superannuation scheme to the community would bc immediately somewhere about $440m a year.

page 3980

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Territories, ls he aware that the present educational system in the Territory of Papua New Guinea is such as would enable the cargo cult to open a school and qualify for financial aid? Is it correct that the present policy dictates that the Government will not establish a school if a religious’ group is already operating” one in the district? While recognising that the Christian churches have made a commendable, selfmotivated contribution in the past in the Territory of Papua New Guinea does the Minister foresee the danger of this policy leading to the creation of an intolerant nation divided on religious differences?

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

– I did not get the full purport of the honourable gentleman’s question because it was quite difficult to hear what he was saying. I would point out to him that the full authority for primary and secondary education in Papua New Guinea resides with the House of Assembly and the Administrator’s Executive Council. I will direct the honourable member’s question to the Ministerial Member for Education in the Territory and provide the honourable member with the answers.

page 3980

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Dr J. F. Cairns proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member is giving a good deal of information from a publication. I suggest that he ask his question. (Dr J. F. Cairns continuing) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise on a point of order, lt does noi seem to me that any standing order that 1 know would apply to anything I have said in my question and mean that the question was not admissible. ] would like your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to why my question is not admissible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question was out of order on 2 counts. Firstly, the honourable member referred to a document and invited argument. Secondly the last part of the question invited debate and therefore it was out of order.

page 3981

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to reports that the Government is seeking defence co-operation with Indonesia. The most recent of them appeared today and yesterday, and stated that plans for a major new programme are being made. Does the Government consider that such co-operation with our nearest neighbour is important and at what stage is any proposed planning?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– There is no intention of entering into a defence arrangement with the Government of Indonesia. I think it should be well known that the Indonesian Government has as a policy one of neutrality and that conforms to the principles of the Bandung Conference. In other words, if an approach were made, it would be quite certain that the Indonesian Government would indicate that it was not interested in any kind of defence arrangement. But of course we do have a close and cordial relationship with that Government. The House will remember that we decided some time ago to appropriate I believe $US60m over a period of 3 years to the Indonesian Government. We have a special system of what is called devisa kredit under which the Indonesian Government will have the funds appropriated and made available to it so that it can appropriate the money in its turn to Indonesians who can buy goods in Australia. We have also indicated a willingness in principle to provide I believe 16 Sabre aircraft to the Indonesian Government. Recently a team was sent to Indonesia - it has just returned - and it looked at the problem particularly as to whether the machines can be maintained and as to the degree of training that is required not only to fly the aircraft but to keep them in first class order. As is known to the House or should be known to it, we have also provided training to Indonesians at staff colleges in Australia and training of Indonesians in Australian training establishments.

Finally I should state that of my own knowledge we have now agreed to close relationships on a security and intelligence basis with the Indonesian authorities. In other words, as I said in a speech that I made in the House last week, we regard both Japan and Indonesia as countries that should receive the closest support in the Pacific theatre because they can make a real contribution to the security of the area, and they are both important from the point of view of the development of the economies of the Asian countries and the development of close relationships too. The last point I would like to make is that the Group of Five as they call themselves, who want to expand into a Group of Ten, of which Indonesia is one of the leading members, desires to have the Pacific theatre or the zone in which they live declared a zone of peace, neutrality and independence. We would want this objective to be achieved but we must accept the fact that it is a long term objective and we could not expect it to be achieved overnight.

page 3981

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMED FORCES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– 1 address my question to the Minister for Defence. We have just heard the Prime Minister tell us that we are developing close, cordial and friendly relations with Indonesia, of which we all would approve. What are the peculiar conditions of Australian defence which require 9 battalions of regular infantry and the consequent continuance of conscription when at the height of confrontation and all the uncertainty of it 10 or 11 years ago we needed only three or four?

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

– The Government assesses regularly, as a result of the strategic assessment of our future problems and difficulties in the defence area, what the size of the defence forces should be. lt has made an assessment that it can reduce slightly this year the size of the defence forces, or of the Army, and as a result it has reduced the period of national service from 2 years to 18 months. But the decisions which the Government makes are made in the light of a great many things which are going on in this area of the world. We know first of all that there has been a withdrawal of the British influence in the Malaysia-Singapore area. This has been reduced considerably. We know a:Sc that the United States is withdrawing its service personnel in large numbers from the Vietnam area. We have also seen a build-up in the Indian Ocean pf the Soviet presence. Li the light of all these things the Commonwealth Government makes its assessment. The Government has made its assessment and believes that it is a correct one.

page 3982

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Has the Prime Minister seen the alternative structure for the government of Australia recently proposed by the Leader of the Opposition? Does he share my concern that the 3 separate levels of assembly proposed - firstly for national and international affairs, secondly for the major cities, and thirdly for rural areas - appear to deny, among other things, the close inter-relationship which exists between rural and urban economies and between internal and external trade?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I agree with the statement that has just been made in the question asked by my friend. I have not had enough time since I have returned to be able to study the statement made by the honourable gentleman but I can assure the House that the problem of urban development is of great interest to the Government. Only last night it was discussed in a full committee comprising not only my parliamentary colleagues but also members of the organisation. The matter is receiving our closest attention.

page 3982

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– A couple of Ministers have misrepresented me during question time and I wish to make a personal explanation.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) said that my Party had downgraded the ANZUS Treaty at its last Federal Conference at Launceston in June. The term has been used once before in the House - 2 months ago, on 7th October, which the honourable gentleman will recall was 2 days after his speech to the American-Australian Association in New York. Since he was not in the House I give horn the benefit of believing that he is not acquainted with my explanation on that occasion. At’ that time I pointed out:

At the last Federal Conference of my Party in June, the brief reference to ANZUS in the Party’s platform was restated in a fuller form and in a more prominent position. It used to appear half way down the 2-page foreign affairs platform of the Party. It now appears in the fourth sentence under the overriding principles of foreign policy to which my Party subscribes. The fuller form now adopted is:

The Labor Party seeks close and continuing co-operation with the people of the United States and New Zealand to make the ANZUS Treaty an instrument for justice and peace and political, social and economic advancement in the Pacific area.

On the same occasion I pointed out that the ANZUS Treaty refers not only to peace but also, in its very first article, to justice. The Minister for Education and Science -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is going a little beyond the bounds of . a personal explanation. He is in effect giving an explanation of his Party’s policy.

Mr WHITLAM:

– There is a difficulty here.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I can understand the difficulty. I am not preventing the honourable member from doing so.

Mr WHITLAM:

– May I link it on this occasion with the fact that, as has been stated previously in the House, I moved the rephrasing and upgrading of the platform in this regard. I am certain that honourable members would have understood that the reflection was on me as the mover as well as on several of my colleagues who were at the Conference.

The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) similarly misrepresented my Party in an answer he gave to a question. Here again he was purporting to give an interpretation of a decision to which I was a party and in which I had a hand.

Accordingly, 1 would like to read or if permission is given, to incorporate in Hansard the precise words.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– What words?

Mr WHITLAM:

– - The words in the Australian Labor Party’s platform on the Australian schools commission. I am prepared to read it. 1 thought it would be shorter if I asked for leave to incorporate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 3983

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS COMMISSION

The Commonwealth to establish an Australian

Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in government and nongovernment primary, secondary and technical schools and recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to assist in meeting the requirements of all school-age children on the basis of needs and priorities.

In making recommendations for such grants to the States the Commission shall have regard to (i) the primary obligation of governments to provide and maintain government school systems of the highest standard open to all children;

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Minister purported to give the interpretation that the schools commission, for which the Labor Party has undertaken to establish, would give assistance to government schools before it gave any to non-government schools. It is plain from the reading of the document that the form of assistance will be on the basis ofthe investigations made by this expert body and reported to the Parliament and to the public. It may be that there are some non-government schools which fall furthershort of acceptable standards and have larger class sizes than government schools-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not think the Leader of the Opposition will be in order in debating the matter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will say one more sentence, ifI may. This at the moment cannot be ascertained because the 2 largest States have not tabled their sectors of the nation wide survey of educational needs which was produced in May last year, and the absence of this shows how necessary it is to have a continuing commission making regular public reports on these matters.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– (Wannon - Minister for Education and Science) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that 1 was givingan interpretation of what an Australian schools commission would do. Of course, I was not. I was reporting the interpretation given by Senator Murphy, who made it quite plain in the report that I saw that aid to independent schools would flow only after the position in government schools had been lifted to the standards which the Opposition might regard as desirable, and that can be interpreted in only one way: The report was a flat statement. Of course, if the Leader of the Opposition can achieve his will in this matter that might be one thing, but he may have an argument with Senator Murphy meanwhile.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I want to draw the attention of the House to the questionof personal explanations. Recently there has been a tendency on both sides of the House to make personal explanations which bring in questions of policy or endeavour to correct statements made by people outside this House. In some cases they are in relation to newspaper reports. Some of these explanations are in order but I would suggest that in personal explanations, in compliance with the Standing Orders, honourable members should state how they personally have been affected or misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition was indirectly or directly involved in the matter about which he made his personal explanation this morning and I understand the problem with which he was faced. Rut ] am taking this opportunity to mention to honourable members that personal explanations should state where the member himself has personally been misrepresented. Honourable members should not enter into debate on differences of opinion that they may have with other honourable members and in respect of which they claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa - Leaderof the Opposition) - May I seek your guidance on the samematter Mr Speaker? I believe it is in response to your own efforts to control the wanton replies to questions purportedly without notice that the technique has been developed of omitting the usual references to myself or some of my colleagues in these replies. Therefore it may be that we will find many instances of Ministers, in answering questions from Government supporters ostensibly without notice, making reference to the platform of the Party to which the present Opposition belongs. In these circumstances, might 1 urge that you certainly would have our support in restricting Ministers to expositions of Government policy. May I also seek your assistance on another matter. In making a personal explanation the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made no reference to any statement in which 1 had misrepresented him at all. He expatiated on a report. 1 have not seen the Hansard report of what was said in another place yesterday and I doubt whether he has seen it. This would certainly seem to be a matter calling for your attention. There are frequent references to me in the Senate. I do not take up the time of this House in answering them, and 1 would hope the new President would restrain some of those utterances. But if there is to be conduct such as the Minister for Education and Science wantonly displayed just now, it will be inevitable that members of this House will be explaining things said about them in the Senate and senators will be explaining things said about them here.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that if the Leader of the Opposition reads what I have said this morning he will see that I have covered most of the points that he raised. But this practice is becoming too prevalent in the House and I have taken this opportunity to state the position from the Chair.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– (WannonMinister for Education and Science) - Very briefly-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes.

Mr Whitlam:

– By whom?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Leader of the Opposition. The honourable gentleman, in seeking guidance from you, Mr Speaker, again returned to the same matter in indicating that what I was saying was inaccurate and invalid. I want to clear up the matter entirely by reading 4 lines from the Senate Hansard. A section from the platform is quoted by Senator Murphy -

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order. Nothing that 1 have said refers in any way to what has been said in the Senate. Any reference to the Senate was made by the Minister. ‘ He is the only person who has made representations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order. ;

Mr Reynolds:

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, I am quite perturbed by the necessity for personal explanations that take up so much of the debating time of the House and I wish to seek your guidance on the matter. Do your remarks this morning mean that in future we will not have Ministers answering questions about Opposition policies but rather answering questions in respect of their own responsibilities?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders do not give me that authority so I cannot enforce it.

page 3984

SUGAR AGREEMENT 1969

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– Pursuant to clause 8 of the Sugar Agreement 1969, I present the report on the operation of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for the period ended 30th June 1971, together with the Committee’s financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 3984

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1970, I present the fifteenth annual report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13th August 1971.

page 3984

METRIC CONVERSION ACT

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– - Pursuant to section 24(4.) of the Metric Conversion Act 1970-71, I present the report of the Metric Conversion Board for the period from the appointment of the Board in June 1970 to 30th June 1971. I also present a short report by the Minister, as also required by the Act.

page 3985

TOLUENE AND XYLENE

Tariff Board Report

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a Tariff Board report on toluene and xylene (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 7th September 1971.

page 3985

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

The Outcasts of Foolgarah’ - Australian Wool Industry - Taxation - Australian Economy: Newspaper Article - Telephone Services - Trade Promotion Officers - Political Parties - Charter Flights - Immigration - Overseas Companies in Australia - Papua New Guinea - Education - Television - Home Care Services.

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It is with some degree of reluctance that I raise the matter of what I believe all honourable members will regard as a scurrilous document. I want to refer to the book that is circulating in Australia titled ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’ which I have in my possession. This book, 1 understand, is in its second edition and has been circulating in this country. Twenty thousand copies or more have been sold. It is now being reprinted. It has received wide publicity in the Press. I want to make some reference to what was said in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’. In an article in the ‘Advertiser’ a journalist, Alan Roberts, wrote:

The $60,000 question is: Will Frank Hardy get away with it?

It’s my bet that he will. There’s been far too much dust kicked up in Canberra lately for even a politician to be stupid enough to make himself a laughing stock by slapping a writ on an author he may, think has defamed him.

For Frank Hardy has been litigated by experts and has survived to cock a snook at those who thought they had him by the ankles.

Not for him the ‘All characters are fictitious. Any resemblance to living persons. &c.’ lurk. No, he nails his colors to the mast.

In referring to ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’ he goes on to say:

Persons claiming to identify themselves wilh characters in this book do so at their own risk.’

Those whom it may concern, before they allow themselves to get uppity, should ponder this and remember the miasma that mushroomed up into a cloud when certain people didn’t like what Hardy said in his novel ‘Power Without Glory,’

Some years ago in this Parliament I offered my services to the Crown to act as a Crown witness in a prosecution against a man who had written scurrilous articles about members of Parliament. This was somewhere back in 1962 or 1963. The then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, instituted successful proceedings against the man who was ultimately sentenced to 12 months hard labour. That man was put in his right place. He had libelled mc in his book. I was prepared to testify but other honourable members, for some reason or another, were not. In regard to this book, “The Outcasts of Foolgarah’, the ‘Australian’ had this to say:

Thoroughly scurrilous, possibly libellous, defamatory and blasphemous, careless of the dangers of depraving, corrupting and disaffecting Her Majesty’s subjects . . .’

The ‘Sunday Review’ called this book, ‘a bawdy celebration of the end of the Gorton era’. By printing the words ‘persons claiming to identify themselves with characters in this book do so at their own risk’ the author is challenging certain characters. In the Senate a few weeks ago the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) was asked whether he would institute proceedings against the author of this book, The Outcasts of Foolgarah’, for criminal libel. I understand that the AttorneyGeneral said that he would look into the matter. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is referred to in the book as ‘Sir William Bigears’. He is advised to marry and to put his power behind a newspaper tycoon called ‘Sir Jasper Storeman’, who can readily be identified as Sir Frank Packer. Page 1 90 of this book reads:

But Sir William Bigears will have something to say at the right moment.

That’s Billy coming up the stairs now: once seen never forgotten, head on him like a tawdry turnip, lard-sculled and donkey-eared, aloof, mealy of mouth and mincey of step, dignified, a real fighter against inflation and a deflator of real wages, cool, an awful aorta.

In another part the book reads:

And wherever Sir William Bigears goes. Sir Jasper Storeman himself is apt to be hovering near as he is now: bluff and blustering, a master of the mass media, tall and lowering, not to be trusted wilh the newspaper you can trust, wild and wooly-headed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Whilst this is all very interesting, and this is a grievance debate, 1 think that the honourable member, even by inference, cannot reflect upon the intregrity or character of another honourable member.I would suggest that the honourable member has, to my mind, made no attempt - in fact he has done the opposite - to convey the impression that he is not referring to a member of this House. 1 do not think that the honourable member can defeat the Standing Orders by. in effect, not saying something directly but by quoting from a book. I would commend those remarks to the honourable gentleman.

Mr JAMES:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, 1 will accept your guidance. I amdenoucing the book because 20,000 copies have been circulated throughout Australia. This Parliament should do something to try to have it withdrawn from sale. I have already indicated what 1 did in 1962 or thereabouts in connection with another similar document. There seems to be nothing left to doubt about the identity of certain people referred to in this book. The ‘Sunday Review sold to its readers copies of this poster which 1 have in my hand. I understand that copies of it have been placed on Sydney buildings recently. The police should be alerted to have these posters removed as soon as possible from those buildings. The poster depicts a man who is obviously the Prime Minister. If members of this Parliament do not feel the same as I feel about this matter J will be utterly disappointed at their attitude. This book goes on to refer to ‘Sir William’, using the offensive term, and says he ‘plans a law and order election.’ The book states that to achieve this he decided to gaol union leaders who have been fined for illegal strikes and who have not paid up. We have heard that before. It has been referred to in this Parliament. Any primary school child would be able to identify the person referred to in those offensive remarks.It is coming to something when this kind of thing can be published with impunity. The author of the book admitted in the ‘Sunday Review’ last week that he had criminally libelled the Prime Minister.I just cannot recall the name of the person who was prosecuted by a former AttorneyGeneral.

There is also a reference in this book denigrating the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) who can obviously be identified. The book refers to a character called ‘Percival Snotton’ known as ‘Persil’ because of his determination to keep Australia white when he was the Minister for the Black, White and Brindle Policy. Snotton then becomes Minister for the Higher Productivity of Other People’s Labour and acts surprisingly like the Treasurer. Snotton is also described as a member of the Commonwealth Literary Scheme Committee -I suggest that could be the Common wealth Literary Fund - whose favorite reading is Lolita’, the ‘Kinsey Report’, ‘Noddy’ and that Indian book ‘Kama Sutra’. The author of the book ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’ stated in the Press last week that ‘Persil Snotton’ is none other than the Treasurer, the honourable Mr Snedden. That is what he said to the Press. But the character in the book who makes this Parliament look most ridiculous is a person referred to as the honourable member for Foolgarah who is called -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!I suggest to the honourable member that the manner in which he is putting his case at this stage in regard to some action possibly being taken against the author of this hook is, I feel, not in the best interests of this Parliament. I would suggest to the honourable member that he explain to the Parliament how he wants this House to take some action. At this stage I cannot see the connection very clearly.

Mr JAMES:

– I think that the Privileges Committee might give some consideration to this matter and I will seek advice in that connection. This book denounces the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), a man who generally has the respect of most honourable members on this side of the House. The book refers to the Minister as ‘Crazy Darcy Meanswell’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seal.

Mr JAMES:

– I say-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.I call the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr JAMES:

– Apparently this man has been allowed to con’inue and nothing has been said or done-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seal. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– lt is deplorable that the House has had to listen to this subtle, cunning, miserable attack on the people referred to. Before anyone brings this sort of muck into this House he should have perfectly clean hands. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) should recall his attitude and behaviour when he was in Uganda.

Mr James:

– I ask the honourable member to withdraw that. I ask him to say it outside the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hunter will restrain himself I. warn the honourable member for Mitchell in the same way as I warned the honourable member for Hunter that personal implications or accusations in regard to a member’s personal character or action is completely out of order in this House.

Mr IRWIN:

– Mr Speaker, I desire to speak about and give some advice on the unfortunate position of the Australian wool industry. This week I have had representations from the Villawood Textile Company of Riverstone, New South Wales. Since November of last year the company has been trying to purchase SOO to 1,000 bales of cross-lamb wool. It claims that it knows that the Australian Wool Commission has purchased this type of wool and has such wool in its possession, but the company feels that for some unknown reason the Woo) Commission is reluctant to deal with the company. The company is unable to ascertain the reason. I suggest that possibly the price factor may be the cause. Evidently the Wool Commission bought the wool at a higher price than the then prevailing price. I stress, for the benefit of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), that while 1,000 bales of wool remain in the stockpile they are not in the pipeline being manufactured into articles for export and, of course, such exports increase our earnings.

I receive hundreds of letters of advice from various people throughout Australia, all of whom are concerned with the wool situation. I have received a letter from a man named Peter Hauff who has had many years of experience in the wool industry. He was an executive of a wool buying house and he was responsible for buying wool with all the guarantees con cerning yields, quality, faults, content, length and regularity. He has been closely associated with the wool industry but he had great foresight and three or four years ago, when he realised the difficulties in which the wool industry would find itself he took up another executive position. He has made certain suggestions that may prove beneficial to the wool trade. I shall endeavour to state them as quickly as possible. He wrote:

May 1 suggest to consider a much simpler and cheaper method. Though its simplicity might be against its application! We have an excellent organisation in our wool selling brokers; they value their offerings very conscientiously before every auction sale. Instead of having an army of Commission appraisers, running parallel to the selling brokers’ work and wool buying trade, the Government should appoint five of the best experienced wool valuers from the buying trade and allocate these five experts to the selling brokers of the day. On Mondays they work, say with Dalgety’s and Farmers’ teams, on Tuesday they work with Winchcombe Carsons, and so on right through the week’s selling programme, As the selling brokers put a price on each lot, so would the Commission valuers, on the basis of the Commission’s table of limits.

In the afternoon, during the auction sale, when the formerly mentioned lot reaches 37c only, the Commission would not buy it in at 40c but the lot would be knocked down at 37c, the Commission augmenting to the grower his price by the difference of 3c. Thus the lot would go into consumption, it would not add to the costly stockpiling scheme; we would keep the wool flow alive and do away with the world wool trade’s antagonism against the ‘schoolteachers attitude’ of the Commission. When one considers the high price of the present buying-in by the Commission, plus all the accumulating overhead cost of a large staff, storage, shipping, interest and what not, the gamble to get a .higher price some fine day for the stockpile .wool, does not look attractive.

As I said before, the world does not depend so much on Australia’s supplies; the trade would like to buy them but only at a price at which it can place the wool amongst the topmakers, spinners and manufacturers. These consuming industries are holding the trump cards; if the Commission will not ‘play’ they find enough other sources of spinnable material without waiting for an allocation of an aged stockpile sometime in the future, may be. I do not advocate that wool should be got rid of at any price, enriched by the Commission’s subsidy. The valuers of the selling brokers, of the trade and of the Commission are quite aware of a lot’s merits and its market value of the day. If the bidding stops at an unreasonably low level, a lot can always be passed in and be available for further negotiation.

The Government has provided a considerable sum to assist the wool industry but the lime has arrived when we cannot continue with piecemeal methods. The time has arrived when there should be restructuring and rehabilitation not only of. farmers themselves but also of selected country towns which are becoming ghost towns. My desire has been, and always will be, to assist to rehabilitate the wool industry but the piecemeal methods which have been adopted will have cost the Government, by 30th June next when an accounting is made., nearer to S3 00m than $200m. At that lime we will be faced with a stockpile of 1.5 million bales of wool.

The present situation creates confusion and doubts in the minds of those we depend upon to take our wool and pay us in return. This applies to the Japanese, to Continental buyers, to European buyers and lo English purchasers. They feel that because wool is being stockpiled they are inhibited from taking part in auction sales. This, more than any other reason, has been responsible for the low prices that have prevailed since about March 1970. I appeal to all those associated with the wool industry to get away from the piecemeal efforts that we have been making. We must get down to a consideration of reconstructing not. only the wool industry but also all primary industries, and we should give particular attention to country towns.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I have in my possession a copy of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-70 which occupies almost 500 pages and which deals with the taxation laws of this country. One would expect such a compendious document to virtually close any gateways for tax avoidance and what gently might be termed legitimate abuse of the taxation system. In fact, the Act fails rather badly in this respect. A few years ago Professor Downing and some of his colleagues wrote a work entitled The Case for Taxation Reform’ in which they pointed out that there are substantial financial advantages available for people who are, significantly, in the higher income groups and who are able legitimately to exploit what are called tax avoidance opportunities, as distinct from tax evasion which is illegal. Of course, the significance of these benefits - they are material things which are measured in financial gain - is that they are available only to the higher income groups. Because of the nature of these tax avoid ance measures, it is just not possible for people in the lower income group to benefit from them. So, this is une aspect of. the Income Tax Act which deserves a great deal more attention than it is given in this House. It represents a great deal of revenue foregone, which should have been provided from some sections of the community - again, significantly, sections which are better able to provide that sort of revenue than people in lower income groups. Of course, every $1 of tax revenue foregone because of some concession or some avoidance which is allowed to exist in the tax law must be made up by some other section of the community. The inequitability of this is that it is the people in the lower or the moderate income groups who must meet this sort of escape practice which is legitimately abused’ by the higher income group.

Today, I should like to take up another tack in relation to the opportunity to exploit taxation legislation for considerable financial advantage. 1 want to dscuss sections 23a, 23 (o) and 23 (p) of this Act. Section 23a provides for an exemption from tax of 20 per cent of the income derived from the production or sale of prescribed metals or minerals mined in Australia or Papua New Guinea. Dividends are exempt from tax when paid wholly and exclusively out of net exempt income. Additionally, section 23 (o) and section 23 (p) relating to income derived from gold mining and sale of rights to mine minerals respectively provide for total exemption from income tax. lt is interesting to note the figures for the past few years which relate to the taxation foregone because of the exemptions which are available under sections 23 (o) and 23 (p). In 1968-69 the taxation foregone was $8m. In the following year it had risen to $12m and in 1970-71 it was $l7.5m. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures available for the cost of exemptions allowed under section 23a of the Act. However, the figures I have just quoted in themselves have considerable impact. In 1970-71, the amount of taxation revenue foregone because of these exemptions was $17. 5m and this should have been paid by what are. generally speaking, very wealthy mineral organisations in our community. Yet that amount was only a fraction of the total amount which was foregone. Many larger organisations than those which would have benefited under sections 23 (o) and 23 (p) in fact were able to draw additionally on the benefits available under section 23a . Again - this is something which gives me some sense of outrage - the figures available indicate that the greatest proportion of these benefits is going to overseas controlled firms and therefore we are subsidising the profits which are going out of this country to those firms.

In his recent Budget Speech for 1971-72, in Statement 9, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) pointed out that it was probable that there would be further increases in the cost to revenue because of these sorts of concessions. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a long list of the types of minerals which are covered by the concessions which can be drawn on under section 23a of the Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– This very generous concesion was introduced in 1942 by the then Treasurer, Mr Chifley, who said:

The urgent demand for materials for the purpose at war has necessitated the Government giving constant and serious attention to the production of base metals and minerals in the general interests of the Allied cause.

He later went on to say:

Mine owners generally, at the request of the Government, have increased their production, but they are relying on the Government to ensure to them a reasonable return from the industry.

It is, therefore, proposed that 20 per cent of the profits from metalliferous mining operations should be exempt from taxation during the war period.

This was introduced as an incentive during the war period; it was a wartime emergency measure. 1 think it is time to review the need for these sorts of incentives. The figures show a dramatic increase in the output of various forms of minerals and these are the types of minerals from which the people owning the organisations extracting them can benefit under this scheme. Again I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of minerals covered by this section of the Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– Two questions arise in my mind, they are: Firstly, do we still need these incentives which are borne at public expense? Secondly, is it appropriate at this time to continue- -providing incentives to exploit our minerals at a hastening rate, because that is the nature of an incentive? In other words, should we be reassessing the practices and attitudes of this country towards its exhaustible mineral deposits? The first matter is whether we can give these cash incentives as such to these firms to encourage them to operate in Australia. Do they need this sort of substantial subsidy? The following table shows the net consolidated profit of various companies after tax but before any distribution has Men made for 1970:

All of these organisations are making substantial profits. The table which I incorporated in Hansard a few moments ago shows the tremendous upsurge which has occurred in the output of minerals in the period during which this benefit has been in operation. For instance, in 1944 the production of bauxite was 3,800 tons and and in 1970 it had risen to 9.2 million tons. Given that and given the sort of profits that companies like Comalco are able to make from the extraction and processing of bauxite, there can be no justification for these sorts of benefits to be provided. They are being met by the taxpayers in the community. When one realises that, for example, 84 per cent of the shares of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd are held by the United Kingdom parent company, Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Ltd, and that generally there is a substantially high proportion of overseas ownership of shares of mining operators in this country, one feels well justified, I repeat, in raising serious and challanging questions about the need to continue this sort of subsidy. As an example of the sort of ownership of many of these overseas mining companies, T seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables which were prepared by Mr Gibbons of the research section of the Parliamentary Library which indicates overseas ownership in Australian mining ventures.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– On the point of the exhaustibility of these resources, 1 have some provisional figures which are contained in the following table:

In other words there is not such a great life ahead for the reserves of Australian mineral resources. The 2 questions I have raised are important ones. Firstly, is there a need for a financial incentive to these organisations? Of course there is not. There are tremendous financial rewards available for them already. They are extracting the subsidy from the community; they do not need this subsidy at the taxpayers’ expense Secondly, because of the limited life or the exhaustible nature of our resources in this country, there must be a reassessment of our approach to the extraction of what are limited mineral resources in this country. I recommend that this benefit should be eliminated.

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

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

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I had intended this morning to deal wilh just 2 questions that I had asked in the House and enlarge on them. However, on picking up today’s issue of the Melbourne Sun’ 1 read the headlines in large letters: Biscuits, cakes to rise 10 per cent. Pie is safe*. The humble pie is safe. The article states:

Cakes, biscuits and most pastry goods will be up to 10 per cent dearer in Victoria in the new year.

From yesterday, the price of wheat went up, lifting the cost of flour by $4 a ton.

From reading this article it would appear that because the price of wheat has been increased by $4 a ton, the price of cakes, etc., will have to be increased by 10 per cent. Further on in the article, in small type, reference is made to one or two other alleged reasons why the price of cakes, etc., will have to be increased. It states:

And a wage rise in November went through the whole gamut.

What I point out, and what 1 grieve about in this grievance day debate, is that the heading and the sub-heading, which are in rather large print, to this article place the whole blame for the increase in the price of cakes, etc., on primary industry. This is quite wrong. 1 wish that the Melbourne Press would give more publicity to what members of the Australian Country Party and other members who represent country areas in this House say regarding primary industry. On a number of occasions I have found that something I have advocated in this House, which was for the benefit of rural areas and not in any way for the benefit of the other areas - the city interests - has not had a chance of receiving publicity in the metropolitan Press.

Because my time is very limited, I move on very quickly to deal with a question which 1 asked the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) on 14th September last. It was as follows:

Does he recall that last night in the House I advocated that all rural telephone subscribers bc granted the privilege of local call charge, where at present it does not apply . . .’ - (Quorum formed.) It is easy to see that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is not in sympathy with the case I am putting on behalf of primary industry and not city interests. As he represents interests in the city electorate of Hindmarsh in South Australia, he is on the side of those who support the conglomeration of population in metropolitan areas. When I referred to city interests one could see from the look on his face that he was infuriated, so he rose and called for a quorum in order to stop me from speaking further. I shall continue to quote the question which 1 asked the Postmaster-General. It continued:

. to their nearest centre where medical and general facilities are available . . . Does he know that this would give them only a fraction of the privilege now enjoyed by city subscribers in regard to telephonic communication?

I then asked the Postmaster-General whether he would look into the matter. He said that in some cases a distance of 100 miles would be involved. But the longer the distance the more urgent it is for people to obtain medical assistance from the nearest town. Therefore, it is not too much to ask that calls which are made to the nearest town in which a doctor is situated should be charged at the local call rates and not trunk line rates. I believe that this is one of the things that should be done. We are asking to have all sorts of concessions regarding telephone services in order to provide the same sort of service throughout Australia. Perhaps this is a good thing, but the question to which 1 have referred is urgent. If this privilege of being able to call a doctor at the local call charge were extended to rural areas it would give people in isolated areas a feeling of some security. I am not referring to people in areas such as the area in the city of Adelaide in which the honourable member for Hindmarsh lives. Dear rae, if his telephone was not working he would have to walk only a few hundred yards down the street to a public telephone. He has the audacity to try to stop me from putting this case for the country districts and for the country residents of Victoria and Australia.

The other matter I want to raise in the few moments I have left relates to a question which I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) regarding the appointment of 3 efficient and accredited salesmen of high integrity to move around the world selling our goods. They could take samples of our products with them if necessary. It was pointed out that our trade posts are doing this job. But we want some liaison between them. No business undertaking in Australia would last very long if it did not have efficient and accredited salesmen of high integrity. What is right for big business or small business is also right for the nation. I believe that if we had a man travelling around the world he would be able to find out what markets were available for Australian goods. He could carry small samples of our products, if he wished, to show to people overseas. He could get the trade posts working together instead of in isolation.

The fact that we have men at these trade posts does not mean that they are good salesmen. I have often complained that many of these men have been appointed because of their academic qualifications. When I refer to efficient and accredited salesmen, I am referring to men who know Australia, the products we sell and the quality of those products, and who could speak on them. They could call meetings in various areas to demonstrate the products and to make sales. I think that this should be done. Of course, the Minister in replying to my question - and I have asked a similar question on two or three occasions - said that the trade posts have very efficient people who are doing a wonderful job. In the final part of his answer he said:

It is a job for business itself to go out and try to sell, given all the support, help and advice that can be given from the Trade Commissioner Service.

We know that the Trade Commissioner Service provides valuable assistance to businessmen who are trying to sell their goods. But the position would be improved if the Government appointed representatives to sell our goods overseas. They could get all the information from the trade posts, put it together and then come to the conclusion that in certain countries there was a market for wool, wheat, dried fruits or the many other products which we send overseas. He could go directly to those countries in which there were likely buyers for some of our products. One of these 3 salesmen - if it was desired, only one would need to be appointed in the beginning - could go directly to a likely country, meet the representatives of the country and endeavour to make sales. How long does it take trade posts to realise that there is a market in some country? Perhaps there is no trade post in that country. Therefore a lot of time is lost. We have to take efficient and prompt action if we are to sell our goods. I believe that there are markets which we should exploit in the way I have mentioned. I also believe that we could make many sales which would be to the benefit not only of primary producers - I suppose we would be selling mainly primary products, although we could also sell secondary industry products - but also of the Commonwealth of Australia generally.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I have a few very important things to say, but before doing so I think I should refer to one of the rare speeches made by the honourable member for Malley (Mr Turnbull). It is significant to learn that age has not improved him. When he rose to speak he was the. only member of the Australian Country Party in the chamber but, quite frankly, I cannot blame the others.

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. I think I am entitled to take my time over this point of order in the same way as the honourable member for Hindmarsh. First I want to say that the honourable member for Grayndler tried to misrepresent me by saying that my speech this morning was one of my rare speeches.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! If the honourable member for Mallee claims he has been misrepresented he may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of the speech of the honourable member for Grayndler.

Mr DALY:

– I will give him a little more to go on. I mentioned that a quorum had to be called and that the Country Party members who came in disappeared from the House almost immediately thereafter. I congratulate them on their intelligence. (Quorum formed). I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his generosity in providing me with a first-class audience, although probably it is not one of the quality one would want. The honourable member was critical about Labor members of Parliament and people in city electorates because of their activities and because they choose to live in the cities. The honourable member for Mallee by calling is an auctioneer, and not a very good one, I understand, but he made in the depression years, 1 believe, a small fortune by being the fastest man with the gavel in the west. He is said to have been the fastest man with the hammer and sold as many farms as possible to the city slickers who stood before him. It is on record that on one occasion he sold a horse and buggy for 17s 3d to one city slicker because there was no time for other bidding. And when honourable members like the honourable member for Mallee with that sordid record criticise members of the Labor Party even you Mr Deputy Speaker, a member of the same party, in your just way will agree that I am entitled to respond.

I want to speak on the slate of the nation. There is a lot wrong with the nation at the moment. There is the economy; the rural industries are in ruin, thanks mainly to the Australian CountryParty; inflation has run riot and industrial unrest is rampant. But they are not all of the problems. The worst of the problems is the Government, and everybody in the nation knows it. We even had the Prime Minister saying when he was abroad that the former Prime Minister was a bigger b- nuisance out of Cabinet than he was in it. Today’s ‘Australian’ says that the Prime Minister might know where he is but he does not know where he is going. This is the situation in the nation. Then we find that there are more organisations now in the Government parties than there are probably in the universe at large. Why, they even have stirrers led by the honourable member for Moreton writing special articles - a nice group of them - in the Daily Mirror’. On the front page of that newspaper on 16th November 1971 there is a very distinguished photograph of the honourable member for Moreton talking to a very genial former Prime Minister. ‘Killen the Stirrer’, the headline says, ‘McMahon Needs Yes-Men’. It goes on to say:

Killen has reservations about McMahon’s performance as Prims Minister , . .

Quite a few of us have, to be frank. The honourable member for Moreton is on the ball. The article then quotes the honourable member as saying:

The greatest mistake Mr McMahon has made is to subscribe to the belief that the true test of loyalty is ready agreement.

You could say he has surrounded himself with yes-men.

This is one of the Government supporters saying this, one who is pledged to support the Prime Minister. This is followed up again by the stirrers, a very reputable name no doubt in the ranks of this once great Party. Then we see that there is a demand that the rebels - the stirrers, as they are called - be punished. The honourable member for Moreton had a rather quiet though undistinguished career as Minister for the Navy, but at no stage did he run into whales or get hit by his own guns. Then there is the latest headline: ‘Lib. Clash On Killen, Gorton.’ My word, the publicity for these two distinguished ex-Ministers is really amazing. As if that were not bad enough, there is a Get Gorton Back Committee. Peter Buff says it is not an impossible dream. He goes on to say in an article in the ‘News’:

And McMahon is trading our birthright for a mess of military pacts.

So to start with there are the stirrers, there is the Get Gorton Back Committee and to cap it all that magnificent brain, the former Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) has announced his resignation. He is going back to the courts. I thought we had saved the courts from that. There are a lot of people who will learn at very heavy expense that he was better in the Parliament, and a great deal cheaper. This is the situation today in this once great Party. So when I say that the main thing wrong with the country is its . Government there would have to be fairly general agreement. An article in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ states:

Mr Tom Hughes, QC. said tonight that he would remain loyal to Mr McMahon and the Liberal Party during the remainder of his time in Parliament.

At the expiration of that time there will be some mayhem. I thought as I saw him sitting in this chamber about midnight last night. He is getting better and more loyal as the night goes on. But that will wear off. The article continues:

Mr Hughes said that these ex Ministers were depicted as trying to bring down the Government.

This group would include the honourable member for Moreton and the former Prime Minister. The article reports Mr Hughes as saying that nothing is further from their thoughts and he dissociated himself from it. Strange as it may seem, I am sorry in a sad kind of way to see him go from the Parliament because, although I have said a few things about his legal capacity, inside his head is a reasonable amount of intelligence and this is something which has been singularly lacking on the Government side since he left the Ministry. So to that extent there is a certain regret that he is leaving us and it is not possible for use to have him with us longer.

But who can say the Government is not in ruins? There are a stirrers club and the Get Gorton Back Committee, the honourable member for Berowra is resigning and he had the Prime Minister abroad with a remarkable document depicting him as someone like Mandrake the Magician, that was handed to Nixon and Heath a few weeks ago. And if that is not bad enough, the Country Party reckons it has saved the country. Did honourable members ever hear anything worse? Take the honourable member for Mallee, he could not save himself. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), whom the honourable member for Mallee once described as an office boy who runs the messages, was reported in the ‘Gold Coast Bulletin* on 9th November 1 971 - he was up there for what was typically described at that time as a pub crawl to help the local candidate - under the headline ‘Survival, thanks to the CP’ as follows:

The Acting Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, has suggested that the Federal Government would not have survived the Gorton-McMahon leadership crises had it not been for the steadying influence of the Country Party . . .

Mr Anthony . . . said: . . .

I do give us a degree of credit in maintaining the Government over the last 12 months, when the Liberal Party has had unfortunate and sad circumstances eventuate.

We have sat on the sidelines and tried to give wise counsel.

If we had had the same difficulties in our Party, I am sure we would not have been able to contain our anti-socialist forces’.

So despite all that has been said, the Liberal Parly is hanging together only because the Country Party is supposed to have saved it. The fact of the matter is that it was a shotgun wedding, and it is now on the rocks. The honeymoon is over, the lovers have parted and the house will be sold next. That is the situation with the Liberal and Country Parties. It is a sordid story of what one could call a marital relationship, pre-marital to some extent at some stages. The shotgun wedding has lasted a long time and now it is over. The Country Party is claiming credit for having saved the Liberal Party, but no matter how bright the Country Party might be nobody could save the Liberal Party; it is beyond redemption and the world knows it. Government members should save their time and take a bit of advice from one who knows. They should look, after themselves, and when they are next thinking of unemployment benefits they should put them up because a lot of them will need them after the next election.

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

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Yes. When the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) was speaking he said that the honourable member for Mallee had just made one of his rare speeches. What the honourable member said could make one think that I seldom speak in this Parliament. I want to say that because I am always here, I have made more speeches and I have asked more questions in this Parliament than any man since Federation. I have never had a reputation for staying overseas for long periods and being called ‘dilly dally Daly.’

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Prior to the speech of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), we listened to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who indulged in what one might say a careless rapture. But it is a long time since he has had a careless rapture. It is appropriate to remind tha House that only recently the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr Whitlam) removed the honourable member for Grayndler from his position of shadow minister with responsibilities in conection with the handling of the Labor Party’s side of immigration. ] recall the Leader of the Opposition making the comment that the honourable member for Grayndler would be a lot happier looking after matters within the Electoral Act. Everybody in the House knows that the honourable member for Grayndler would like to look after the Electoral Act so that he could bring about a distribution which would wipe out the seat of the Leader of the Opposition. This is just a fact of life. The honourable member for Grayndler is laughing and has turned the other way because he has gone red with embarrassment. It is notable that every time the honourable member for Grayndler speaks in this House the Leader of the Opposition walks out, as does his staff. Every time the Leader of the Opposition speaks in this House the honourable member for Grayndler walks out. Yet this paragon of virtue stands in the House today and tries to present to the Australian people who had the misfortune to be listening to him a few minutes ago the impression that the Liberal Party is divided.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you as a member of the coalition Parties know as well as I do that the Libera) Party today stands united and with a common front. But we all know that the Australian Labor Party is split with rifts. One never knows who is its official spokesman for anything in this place these days. One can go to Adelaide, Brisbane and other capital cities to hear what is said by the Leader of the Opposition. But if one refers to what the Leader of the Opposition said in some place some other members of his Party say: ‘No, our policy was written in Launceston’, or talk about something which was written in caucus. The Labor Party is a farcical Party. After 22 years it is still unfit to rule. Next year the Labor Party will have lost .10 elections.

Already the Leader of the Opposition is covering his tracks. He is looking for friends because we all know that when Labor does not win the next election fearless Freddie will be back in favour steering the destiny of this nation insofar as he can as Labor’s spokesman on its immigration policy. But I have already wasted enough time talking about the alternative government because it may be many years before Labor becomes the Government.

I wish to refer to a matter which is of vital importance to Australia. 1 would like to express my congratulations to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) for his announcement earlier this week about the reduction of fares to Europe by Qantas Airways Ltd. Often Ministers of the Crown reply on departmental heads for advice, but on this occasion I think that Australia is extremely lucky that Senator Robert Cotton was appointed Minister for Civil Aviation. Without that senator I do not believe that Australia would have moved in the direction of expanding our charter flights or into other areas in which markets have been expanded. I believe that these changes have resulted from the Minister’s determination.

I must level some criticism on the subject of charter flights. The Minister has announced only recently that Qantas is to start charter flights to the United Kingdom. But the facts of life are that the great tourist market for Australia still lies in the United States. Tourists from the United States have the money to enable them to come to this country and they look with interest towards Australia when deciding on where to go for a holiday. Qantas has had a history in world aviation conferences of opposing every suggestion for a reduction in fares which would make it easier For people to fly throughout the world. My suggestion is that this policy, by discouraging tourists, has contributed in the long term to the loss of millions and millions of dollars for Australia, lt is appropriate that I remind the House that because of the stubbornness of the Department of Civil Aviation in respect of reaching a conclusion on charter flights we have completely lost this year the 15 charter flights that were to come from the United States. Next year we can expect none because it takes a lot of time to prepare charters and sell them to people. The applications for 19-73 - that sounds a long way away, particularly to some members of the Opposition who will be back in their old jobs at that time - have already been presented and the Australian Government or the Department is still dillydallying in coming to a decision. The

Department just cannot make up its mind. The deadline for receipt of permission for 1973 is next month. If we do not come up with a conclusion by next month we will be gone once again - but gone for good.

It is appropriate to compare our situation with that in New Zealand because New Zealand had stuck by Australia in the past. New Zealand has now realised that we were dragging it down with our outdated over-cautious policies. That country has now approved 15 charter flights from the United States. Yet we in Australia are just talking about a meeting at the end of next month which will be the beginning of a series of meetings to discuss this question. The charter operators in the United States have every reason to be disillusioned. I believe that they have lost faith with the treatment which has been meted out by the Australian Government. I do not believe that we have been far-sighted enough. I just say thank heavens for Australia that Senator Cotton was appointed as Minister for Civil Aviation. Senator Cotton, who has a background of business experience, is a man who is prepared to step forward and take a risk

We have had the announcement that Australia’s, new charter company is to be called Qantair. I would like to suggest that it is time Australia realised that the word Qantas really does not mean much throughout the world, although it means a lot to people in Australia. When we consider that Qantas attracts only 0.3 per cent of over 7 million passangers who travel on North Atlantic air routes it is obvious that we are not as well known as we could be. I believe that Australia is well known throughout the world. It is about time that we took a close look at the name we are using for our international airline. I suggest that it should be called something like Air Australia or Australian Air so that people throughout the world would get the message. Some people in Australia indulge in nostalgic feelings about how the name Qantas was derived from the old Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services. I admit that this means something to about one half of one percent of Australians but to the rest of the world it means nought. There are company names such as American Airlines, Japan Airlines, Air Thai, Air New Zealand and BOAC. These names actually mean something. But the words Qantas or Qantair mean absolutely nothing.

Our nation’s reputation is good enough to attract more business to our airline. Those of us who have been out of Australia and who face reality realise that when we see names such as Qantas in Los Angeles, the east coast of the United States or Jamaica it sounds like the airline comes from some South American banana republic. Again, I commend the Minister for Civil Aviation for his new approach to this subject.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I rise to speak on a matter which is of grave concern to many of my constituents. I have received a number of letters, telephone calls and personal calls from both concerned constituents and those people who have suffered. I speak of migrants. I have attempted to ask during question time whether the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) intends to rectify the situation, but to date I have been unable to obtain the call. We have a situation where many migrant families who have come to Australia, many of them large families, are suffering hardship through employment and housing difficulties.

Some of these people from countries such as Burma are destitute when- they arrive here due to their government’s policy of allowing them to bring here only $8 per person. My personal experience is that on occasions my office has had to organise child welfare assistance and the assistance of charitable bodies, and in fact we ourselves have provided furniture and money on occasions. Their plight is a disastrous one. We have found families sleeping on the floor, the man of the family without employment or money for fares to go and look for a position. It is up to the Government to ensure that all people coming here are housed and fed. These people to whom I have referred pay their own fares, often on hire purchase. Thus they are faced with problems when they come here. This situation must be stopped. Guarantees of employment should be offered provided that they do not involve the displacement of those who are already Australian citizens.

A recent report in an eastern States newspaper referred to our migration programme as the great Australian con trick and talked of Turkish families promised well paid jobs in their own profession. One man was a journalist yet he became a labourer on S47 a week. He was promised a housing commission home, yet he had to pay rent of S22.50 a week for a flat to be shared with other people. He was promised a crash course in English immediately on arrival, but he had to wait 16 months. He was promised low living costs and he was met with intiation and threatened unemployment. These are real problems which not only are causing damage to our international reputation but are creating a hard core of impoverished people within our own community. We have the pitiful situation where it is reported that one couple have had to send their children back to Turkey to be looked after because they could not afford to keep them here because of the circumstances. The truth about living costs here shocked them when they arrived. They were told in the official brochures before they came that bread cost 17c or 18c a loaf. They found it to be 24c when they arrived here. They were told that sugar cost 20c per lb. instead they found it to be 22c. They were told that cigarettes cost 38c a packet but found that they cost 44c. They were told that rent was from $10 to $15 a week instead of $20 to S30. These figures are quoted from the official brochures. The truth is a disgrace to us. Surely we do not need migrants so badly that wc have to deceive them.

Some of the people who have been concerned with the problems they are facing in Australia and who have contacted me have said that they could go home if they had not sold up, left their positions of employment, bringing qualifications to Australia which would be normally acceptable but because of the current economic trends they are unable to fit into the community and often place a heavy burden on the welfare services both official and voluntary. Lel the Minister make proper provision for these people, but more importantly let him make an immediate investigation into the situation. I often find it difficult to understand the decisions made in this field. For instance, the number of rejections of applications by people who have relatives in overseas countries and who wish to nominate these people as migrants are very high. On occasions the Minister has acted with compassion, and for this I thank him. However, this does not explain the other cases which moot with refusal. I instance the case of an English businessman in Rivervale. Western Australia, who wishes to sponsor his brother-in-law, wife and family so that they may come to Australia wilh guaranteed accommodation and employment. These people are refused permission to come to Australia on the grounds that their child has a serious medical disability. The disability of the child, whose appearance is that of a normal, healthy, funloving child, is that of being a slow learner. These people cannot come here even if they pay their own fare.

This businessman is denied family assistance in his business, the child is denied a happier future in Western Australia, and the slow learning children’s group in Western Australia, which has made excellent steps forward in educating these people, misses the opportunity of giving this child an education which would be perhaps better than it could receive in the country where it is now. lt is an incredible situation. T instance the case of a lady who was refused permission to come here to marry a gentleman who wished to sponsor her and a child. This lonely man who has worked to bring tip a family here and whose wife is- deceased must suffer . the consequence of the ministerial refusal in this case. The letters from the lady are loo heart-rending to read in public. However, 1 will make them available to the Minister. No doubt he will act with compassion. I feel that these are cases which should have been treated with common sense and compassion in the first place.

The Minister could maintain the quota by. allowing families to be united. If these cases that come to my attention are representative of what occurs in other electorates the heartbreak and bitterness must he compounded around Australia. I have records of sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, cousins and fiancees all of whom have been refused permission to be united in Australia. Some families have had to be permanently separated because one section of the family has nol been accepted here and has been accepted by such countries as Canada. The point I make about these people who have close relatives in Australia and who wish to come to Australia is that they would be able to fit into our community without being a burden on the social services system. They would not be ill-informed and would know what to expect on their arrival here. But it is a national disgrace that we permit people to come here to live as they are forced to live for the first few months here, with the danger, in a failing economy and an unfavourable employment situation, that their position of poverty will be perpetuated. The only other section of the community in respect of which the rest of the community and the Government tolerate these conditions is the Aboriginal section. On behalf of my constituents who are so concerned about the matter 1 have raised, I ask the Minister and the Government to take steps to ensure that all migrants permitted to come here have housing security and employment security and do not displace Australian workers or add to the employment difficulties of people already citizens of Australia.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– There are 2 matters that I want to place before the House for both of which honourable members should have both an individual and collective concern. The first one concerns the operations of American companies in this nation and some of the by-products that flow from their operations. I want to mention 2 companies. One is Delhi International Oil Corporation and the other is Santos, which is also associated with oil exploration and the laying of a pipeline from the gas fields in South Australia to Adelaide. I want to mention the result of the operations of these companies. Until recently the principal management of these companies was in the hands of Australians. Most of us would consider that that was a very desirable situation. But one of the situations that have developed as a result of some of our immigration policies is that a man can come here from America, take up a position in Australia with one of these companies and replace Australians. This is a matter in relation to which I hope the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) will give me an answer but I understand that such a person can receive tax free benefits for 4 years. I am not certain of this but this is the understanding that I have of the situation.

In this case the Australian who has been replaced is a master of business administrate with a good record in public employment and private employment. Suddenly, a few weeks ago he was advised that as from such-and-such a date his position with Delhi would no longer exist. He then went to the other company Santos, and he has just been advised by that company that his position will no longer exist after a certain time. As I understand it there is no suggestion that the person involved is not a highly competent, highly qualified and respected Australian who can get good references from anybody. The facts of life are that a takeover by the Americans means that they also take over the management. One of the interest.ng differences between, say, British management and American management in many of these matters is that the British enter into a partnership at this level with Australians - I presume they do so in other countries - but with the Americans it is a total takeover.

I am concerned that our immigration policy allows a person to come here in this situation, to replace a highly skilled Australian and to obtain special benefits in taxation and other things. I believe it is to the disadvantage of Australians, to the disadvantage of Australian industry and I suppose to the disadvantage of the Australian Treasury. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter. The company principally concerned in this is Delhi international Oil Corporation. The person who has come here and taken over the job - I quote this from a newspaper; 1 am not moving into private areas - is Mr R. R. Marmor, who has been appointed to the newly created Adelaide-based position of project development manager for Delhi International Oil Corporation. Before moving to Australia he was vice-president of Texas International Petroleum Corporation. The position that had been held by an Australian, a man whom I have known for a long while, was abolished. A new position was created for Mr Marmor, and another highly skilled Australian is now on the labour market. I believe that ought not to be tolerated. I suppose I am a bit of a free-wheeler on the question of migration. My inclination is to place as few restrictions as possible upon anybody who comes here. But in these cases the people are not only coming here but are also receiving special benefits.

I want to raise another matter because I know perfectly well that there will be no opportunity to do so at some other time. I have received a letter from a Mr Archer in New Guinea. He has written to me because a desperate situation has occurred on Wuvulu Island in the Wewak area of New Guinea. Mr Archer says:

The place is situated some 140 miles north of Wewak - an isolated island inhabited by some 500 odd Micronesian people - light skinned and straight-haired - very good and intelligent people whom I have known over the years.

He has been in the Territory for over 40 years.

Recently this island- of some 3.200 acres- has been sold by one absentee owner . . . to a newly, formed company - registered in Port Moresby- called Wuvulu Holdings Pty Ltd. It is supposed to be of Sydney businessmen mainly but, in reality we are told, is camouflage for some American money (more absentee owners). Of this 3,200 acres, some 2,800 acres is freehold land (under coconut palms) - and this area has been sold to the Wuvulu Holdings company - which leaves the natives with under 300 acres which consists of 2 areas at the extreme western end of the island. With a growing population this is not sufficient for their needs, and they require more land to enable them to spread out - have more garden areas and space to build good villages. Their numbers are increasing a lot now and with the sale taking place it was the duty of the Administration here to see that provision was made for them to have more land - by, purchase and with the help of the Development Bank. But, despite many representations by myself and others - and with much correspondence on their files - the Administration chose to ignore this need. They affirm thai the new owners had to comply with certain conditions for the betterment and future welfare of the natives but these benefits have not been defined and, in this remote area, may never com: lo anything. The company has appointed Burns Philp and Co. (Sydney) to act as their agents, we hear, and they, have never considered the welfare of natives - other than the work to be obtained from native labour. These natives are a quiet and shy people - much afraid of authority as vested in the Kiaps - and could easily be pressured into agreeing with what is noi in their best interests . . .

Now, Sir, this new company proposes to build cabins … on the island for well to do tourists to use. lt was published some time ago that it was to be an island paradise.

An airstrip is about completed now . . .

I believe that this is a serious abdication of our responsibility to the people of Papua New Guinea. This is a small island of 3,000-odd acres. We should have purchased the lot. It should have been made inalienable as far as local people are concerned. The result is that nine-tenths of the island is going into non-native hands. The people are going to feel the squeeze. There is going to be a continual flow of tourists into the area. The Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) ought to have the agreement rescinded. The land should be bought for the native people. We ought to place a stopper immediately upon any further alienation and transfer of leasehold land in Papua New Guinea to anybody other than the people of Papua New Guinea themselves.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– [ wish ‘o bring lo the attention of the House the inequality of opportunity for students from the far western suburbs of Sydney, as compared with those from the more affluent areas, in obtaining Commonwealth secondary school scholarships. I have compiled a table from information obtained from the New South Wales Minister for Education and Science on the one hand in respect of State bursaries, which are subject to a means test, and from the former Commonwealth Minis er for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen) in respect of Commonwealth secondary school scholarships. The table deals with 7 schools from the far western area of Sydney and 7 schools from the more affluent areas of metropolitan Sydney. It shows candidates who have obtained 6 A passes in the 1970 School Certificate examination, which is a very high pass and a good yardstick.

The table shows candidates who obtained State senior secondary bursaries and candidates who obtained Commonwealth secondary school scholarships. It can be seen that there is a big disparity. For example, under the State bursaries where there is a means test, a high percentage of candidates who obtained 6 A passes received a bursary, but where there is no means test, as in the case of secondary school scholarships, a very low percentage of candidates obtained such scholarships.I seek the leave of the House to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr ARMITAGE:

– In considering this table; the following points should be borne in mind. Firstly, State senior secondary bursaries are subject to a means test whereas Commonwealth secondary scholarships are not; hence the wide divergence in percentages outlined in columns C and E of that table. Where a means test applies, a far higher proportion of students from far western area schools with 6 A passes obtain a scholarship than in the case where a means test does not apply. By the same token, in the more affluent areas a far lower proportion of students with 6 A passes obtain a scholardhip where a means test applied and a far greater proportion obtain one where a means test does not apply-

Secondly, without doubt, a much smaller number of students obtain 6 A passes in the far western areas as compared with the more affluent areas. The reason for this is that a big proportion of the students in the far western areas leave school after third year and before completion of the fourth year of their secondary school course of 6 years. These include many bright students who would be capable of obtaining 6 As. The opposite applies in the case of pupils from the more affluent areas. The reasons for those pupils leaving the western area schools early are manifold - such as lack of encouragement by their parents to continue at school, a lack of desire on the part of pupils to continue,but particularly because of the economic incapacity of the parents to allow their sons and daughters to stay at school.

Another reason is the large shortage of teachers. Most western area secondary schools were grossly short of teachers at the beginning of the 1971 school year. Also, the standard of teachers is lower as compared with those in the more affluent areas because of a higher proportion of inexperienced and casual teachers, the higher tur nover rate of teachers serving in this area and the fact that a large proportion of the teachers themselves live in the more affluent areas and. accordingly, those with the greatest capacity are able to demand transfers nearer to home because of a threat or inference that they may leave the Department of Education if they do not obtain those transfers.

It should also be borne in mind that State bursaries are determined on the result of the State School Certificate examination whereas Commonwealth scholarships are determined on the basis of a separate examination set by the Commonwealth in 4 subjects, together with the State School Certificate examination assessments which are adjusted on the school’s overall performance in the School Certificate examination. The Commonwealth examination is of such a nature that it is biased towards those students whose parents have the time to sit around the dinner table at night discussing current affairs issues or where the mother does not work and accordingly can talk to her sons or daughters about such subjects or, again, w,here there is tertiary education in the household. Naturally, such an examination is to the advantage of students living in the more affluent areas as compared with those living in the far western areas where most mothers have to work and where, in a big proportion of cases, parents have to travel long distances to work and arrive home late because of a lack of local employment - hence tired parents who have not the time to discuss such matters with their sons and daughters. It is difficult to understand why Commonwealth scholarships should be assessed to a large extent on an examination different from the State School Certificate examination, as obviously this must act to the detriment of the pupils in the less affluent districts. 1 make the point that the purpose of a scholarship is to help those in financial need and not those in affluent circumstances. Accordingly I cannot understand why, under the present system, there is no means test applied to Commonwealth scholarships until such time as Labor’s policy of granting scholarships to all capable of completing secondary school comes into force. Such a policy can do nothing other than assist and give scholarships to those people in the affluent areas to the detriment of those who need them in the less affluent districts. There is a need for a means test for Commonwealth secondary school scholarships until such time as

Labor’s policy of scholarships for all those capable of completing secondary schooling comes into force. There is a very great need for financial assistance -by the Commonwealth in the form of a grant under section 96 of the Constitution to provide for incentives for teachers’ to serve in defined areas of extreme teacher shortage as this is the only way in which we can ensure that the less advantaged areas have the benefit not only of quantity of teachers but also of quality of teachers. This is really the only way to give what could be soundly and sincerely called equality of opportunity in education to all children.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I want to draw attention to one or two matters which I believe should be ventilated. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) has suggested equality of opportunity for all in education. I believe that one of the great needs in this field, if we are to provide equal opportunity for all, is to give’ further assistance to the children of parents in isolated areas. I want to congratulate the parents of those children who have travelled great distances to form what is known in Queensland and New South Wales as the Isolated Children’s Parents Association. A State branch was formed recently at Charleville in my electorate. There is a Federal body and I have had letters - I have quite a few of them here - from other Slates relating to this matter. I have mentioned it before. I know that the Federal body was formed at Bourke, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick). He suggested that I should join him in a deputation to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on behalf of those people. It is something that I feel is very necessary and something that those of us who represent isolated areas would support.

Many areas within the electorate of my friend and colleague the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) would fall into that category. A number of those areas will have branches of this very worthwhile organisation before long. There are some there already. This is one field to which I am pleased to give publicity on this occasion because it is a deserving organisation. One of the reasons for the formation of this organisation is that there has been severe drought in some areas - the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) last night mentioned that there has been drought for 13 successive years - and the people just do not have the finance to be able io provide the school fees that arc being charged. I am not complaining about the increases in school fees because these are necessary to meet rising costs. I have a list of them here but it is not necessary to give them. It is enough to say that the parents are not able to cope with the fees that are being charged. What are we going to do about this? lt is a responsibility that rests perhaps more heavily on the State governments and I hope that they will give, very sympathetic consideration to the claims of this Organisation. At the moment 1 am preparing a submission to the Minister for Education and Science and I understand that other submissions will be made. So the claims of the organisation are getting attention and they deserve to get attention.

The other matter that I would like to raise in this debate is the matter of television reception for people in isolated areas. I point out that when I speak on these matters I realise very fully that the measures I am asking for will not affect a great number of people, but they are a section of the community which is helping to promote the welfare of Australia generally, and they are utilising for the benefit of the community areas which are very difficult to utilise. If we are going to spend money on decentralisation, the need for which I have heard so often mentioned on both sides of the House, I suggest that the foundation of decentralisation is to maintain those people who are already in areas outside the metropolitan areas, more particularly in the wide open spaces. This is the fundamental base from which we might be able to build up a better programme of decentralisation. One of the things that the people in those areas miss most is television. They look for this with great enthusiasm and I compliment the Government on providing the programme which the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) has announced for an additional 38 translator stations, 10 of which are in my electorate. But I join with the honourable member for Kennedy in asking that this programme be expedited.

There is one other point that I want to make, it concerns an area not quite so far outside the metropolitan area and relates to Darling Downs Television Ltd. That company has made application for a translator station to be provided at Roma which is some 300 miles west of Brisbane. The station would serve a comparatively closely settled area by comparison with areas further inland and the company is prepared to put up this translator station. The application has been lodged for nearly 12 months. It has been examined by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board but there is difficulty in providing the channels because every translator station requires another channel. I recognise the problem that confronts the Broadcasting Control Board in providing the extra channels which this type of translator would require. As 1 mentioned. Roma is some 300 miles inland and almost 200 miles from the station for which the translator would be provided. But here again one can only wonder whether it could not reasonably be suggested that there should be some limitation of channels in those areas where people are already well provided with them in order to give some consideration to people who live in the great pastoral areas and also to those who live in the marginal pastoral and agricultural areas, as in this case.

With this kind of approach not only would we get the entertainment value that television provides but also the educational value.

I wish at times that the standards of debate in this House would be lifted a little so that the educational value to those people who listen to parliamentary broadcasts would be improved. Without referring to anyone in particular I think we should all take note that there is a need for us to lift the standard of parliamentary debates in this, the national Parliament. As I said, not only is there the entertainment value of television but also the educational value. 1 have pointed out on other occasions, and I want to stress this again, that we should try to do all that we can to help these children who are so much in need of education if we are genuine and sincere in our endeavours to provide equal opportunities for all children. The time that is lost in the early stages of a child’s education cannot be picked up later on when the child is in need of education, but television is one way of assisting in this direction. We must continue to try to provide children with a foundation in education which will enable them to take full advantage of the money which is being expended on education by both State governments and the Commonwealth Government. It is becoming more and more important to lift the standard of education of all Australians. 1 have tremendous sympathy for the people who live in outback areas. I have no personal complaint because 1 live at Miles, where we do get satisfactory television reception, and where we do get satisfactory broadcasting or radio reception. But there are areas that do not have these facilities.

It is my intention in this debate to draw attention to the needs of the people in these areas.I am asking the members of this Parliament to look beyond the needs of the people whom they individually represent in this place. It would not cost the general community a great deal to provide a translator station of the type I have spoken about in these areas where it is certainly needed. If we are to retain people in these areas we have to provide them with some modern amenities. The town of Bedourie, which is right on the border, is not even provided with telephone facilities. I know what a problem it is to provide telephones there, but I mention this to’ show how serious the situation is. The gap between the people who live in those areas and the people who live in more closely settled areas is widening. If we are going to have measures to promote decentralisation then let us begin by doing everything within our power to retain the population we already have in these areas which are the types of areas in which we want to promote decentralisation.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– In the two or three minutes available to me I will refer very quickly to the States Grants (Home Care) Act which was introduced in 1969 shortly before 1 entered this place. I noticed an answer given recently ‘o a question asked by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) detailing the amount of money that had been made available by the Commonwealth and the amount of money that the States had taken advantage of. In 1969-70 the amount of money made available for home care services was $500,000, of which only$31,000 was used. In 1970-71 the amount made available was $566,000, of which$3 17,802 was used. I am interested in the provision of senior citizens’ centres. I have gone around my electorate showing films, pleading and begging” with the community ‘o get going and provide senior citizens’ clubs, senior citizens* centres, retired persons’ centres or whatever you like to call them.

In my electorate of Robertson there are 14,000 pensioners. This is the highest number of pensioners in any electorate in Australia. I have a’ least a further 7.000 people who are in receipt of superannuation. That is a total of 21.000 retired persons. No other electorate in Australia, would have anything like that number of retired people. Yet there is not one senior citizens’ centre in he electorate of Robertson. There is not one senior citizens’ club. Shortly after I was elected as a member of this House my colleague the honourable member for Barton took me on a tour of his electorate. We went through the Rockdale area and found 7 senior citizens’ clubs. In 1969-70 the amount of money made available byt he Commonwealth was $100,000, of which $16.000-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! It is now 12.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 106 the debate is interrupted and I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 4005

SALARIESBILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November (vide page 3417), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to: That the Order of the Day be discharged.

page 4005

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

On 12th November 1971 I introduced the Salaries Bill (No. 2) 1971. The substance of that Bill is included in this Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill. Honourable members will recall that the firstmentioned Bill, which has now been withdrawn, was necessary because of the particular legislative provisions existing for certain statutory office holders appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Australian Wool Commission Act, the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act and the Criminology Research Act. The existing provisions, which have been included in the parent Acts over the last 2 years, have the effect that, for the present, the remuneration for the statutory office holders involved is prescribed in regulations but that from the beginning of 1972 the remuneration is to be determined by the Parliament. It will be noted that provision is being made for prescription by regulation of remuneration for deputies of members of the Australian Wool Commission. The regulations which will be made pursuant to that provision will provide that a deputy member is to be paid $35 for attendance at a meeting of not less than 3 hours duration or $20 where a meeting is less than 3 hours. These are standard daily sitting fees paid to a large number of members of Commonwealth bodies.

This Bil] will also provide for revision of salaries of certain statutory office holders.

It is customary for the salaries of full-time statutory office holders, where those salaries are less than those applying to Permanent Heads of Departments of State, to he reviewed by the Government subsequent to the application of increased salaries for Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Such a review has been undertaken following the determination by the Public Service Arbitrator of new salaries for Second Division officers, which took effect from 4th November 1971. Accordingly this Bill provides new salaries involving comparable increases for certain of the statutory office holders shown in the First Schedule to the Bill, for which existing legislative provisions require determination of salaries by the Parliament. In the case of various other comparable statutory office holders approval has been given for increases of the same order to be applied, subject to compliance with the requirements of relevant legislation. The Bill provides that, as in the Commonwealth Public Service, the increase will apply from 4th November 1971, the operative date of the Arbitration Determinations.

The salaries for the lay offices under th* Conciliation and Arbitration Act and offices of Deputy Public Service Arbitrator under the Public Service Arbitration Act have been reviewed separately in their own right, the existing salaries for these offices having been determined in June 1968. The Bill also provides for a date of effect of 4th November 1971 for these salaries. I have mentioned that these particular salaries have been reviewed independently, as in the past. The common date of effect for the 2 groups arises from the particular situation on this occasion when the 2 changes happen to occur concurrently. I have circulated an explanatory memorandum which sets out details in respect of each of the aspects of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition will support and vote for this Bill but I shall make some comment which I hope the Government will note because when another Bill is introduced next year, the year after or whenever it becomes necessary to readjust the salaries of these statutory offices the Opposition will, I hope, take the same note of what I think are shortcomings in the presentation of this Bill and will expect the government of the day, if it does not do it without prodding by the then Opposition, to see that a clear statement is given of the existing salaries compared with the proposed salaries so that the Parliament will have an idea of what actually has occurred. In this Bill, in some instances the proposed increased salaries are tied directly to one of the levels of the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service and it is easy to follow those increases but, on the other hand, it is not so easy to follow the reasoning and logic of the Gov.enment’s decision in fixing particular salary ranges. I take on example - I have not had time to do more than look at one, and it is not necessary to look at more than one - to make my point.

It is proposed to increase the salary of an ordinary conciliation commissioner appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act to SI 6,250. the present salary being SI 1,850. The proposed increase is considerably more than $4,000 a year. This breaks away from the general pattern of most other increases which range between 14 per cent and 15 per cent. The House should take note of what has happened to the salary range payable to conciliation commissioners. When the office of conciliation commissioner was established in 1947 it carried a salary of £1,500, the government of the day believing that the current parliamentary salary of f 1,500 was an appropriate salary for a conciliation commissioner. The government consciously tied the conciliation commissioner’s salary to the then parliamentary salary of £1,500, and the salary remained at that figure until 1950. It also happened, by coincidence, that in 1947 the lowest level officers of the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service were being paid a salary of £1,539. When the position of conciliation commissioner was introduced the salary payable for that position was virtually identical with the salary of a private member of the Parliament and with the salary paid to the lowest level of the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service.

On 4th May 1950 Second Division officers had their salary increased to £1,856 but the salary of the conciliation commissioner remained at £1,500, which meant that it was lagging by £356 when compared with the lowest level of the Second Division. In December 1950 when the conciliation commissioners had an increase of £300, bringing their salary to £1,800, officers on the lowest level of the Commonwealth Public Service Second Division were given a salary of £2,933. Here was an example of the Second Division officers leaping ahead of the conciliation commissioners by £1,133. On 7th June 1950, the conciliation commissioners were lifted to £3,000 and the Second Division officers received a small rise, bringing their total salary to £2,957. This gave them a salary less than that of the conciliation commissioners. In December 1956, the Second Division officers - when I refer to the Second Division, I will be talking about the lowest level of that Division - received an increase bringing their salary to £3,500. Nothing was done for the conciliation commissioners; they remained at £3,000 until 1960 when they received an increase of £875, giving them a salary of £3,875. This meant that the conciliation commissioners had leapt ahead of the Second Division officers by £375.

In December 1963 the Second Division officers received an increase bringing their new salary to £4,313. However, because the conciliation commissioners remained on £3,875, the Second Division officers were placed £438 ahead of the conciliation commissioners. So, on 25th June 1964 the conciliation commissioners received an increase, bringing their salary to £4,700. The Second Division officers received a small increase lifting their salary to £4,365 which meant that they were then £335 behind the conciliation commissioners. In December 1964 the conciliation commissioners found themselves with a salary that was still unchanged, as they had received previously in the same year an increase. However, the Second Division officers, ever alert to any changes that appeared tn put them .at a disadvantage with comparable levels, were able to convince the Arbitrator that the salary rate they should receive was £4,802, thus giving them £102 more than the conciliation commissioners. Then, on 6th July 1967, by which time we were in the dollar era, the Second Division officers received a further small increase to bring them to $9,657, while the conciliation commissioners were still receiving $9,400. On 7th November 1968 the salary of the conciliation commissioners was lifted to $11,850, which is their current rate. The Second Division officers’ salaries were increased to $9,728. On 14th January 1971 the Second Division when to $12,531 and, at present, it is proposed that they should move to $14,375. However, this time the conciliation commissioners are to have their salaries increased from $11,850 to $16,250.

I am not here attempting to identify where the error lies. I am not here attempting to identify the fault or to say whether, for example, the Second Division officers should have been paid more than the $14,375 or whether the conciliation commissioners should have been paid less than the §16,250 that it is now proposed to give them. All 1 want to say is that high ranking Public Service and statutory officers in the Commonwealth of Australia are no different from any other section of the community. When they see the wage structure being distorted by maladjustments - and that is what these must be - it is certain that they will demand a restoration of relativity, lt would surprise me greatly if the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association does not very shortly make an application to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator for an increase on the recent increase of 15 per cent to bring the salary of the lowest level Second Division officer from $14,375 to $16,250. If J were the Secretary of the ACOA, I would feel that ] had an answerable case for the salaries of the lowest level officers in the Second Division of the Public Service to be lifted to $ 1 6,250, because it is possible to go back as far as 1947 - 24 years ago - and follow through the rate which the Second Division officers received. It was always a little above or a very little below - usually a little above or sometimes well above - the salaries paid to the conciliation commissioners. They are entitled to feel that they have been badly treated by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator in that they received only a miserable 15 per cent increase, or something like $2,000, when the conciliation commissioners received an increase of $4,400.

The wage structure of Commonwealth Public Service officers cannot continue to be distorted vis-a-vis that of the statutory officers in this way. The Government will only buy trouble for itself. What is necessary is a Commonwealth Public Service Board review of all of the top echelon rates in the Public Service as against the rates applicable to the statutory officers. Where the Board finds that there is a distortion, as so obviously there is in the rates to which I have referred, it must be remedied. Unless this is done, the Government will buy for the Commonwealth Public Service and for itself a lot of trouble. I have had time to look at only one case. Perhaps it is the only one where such a distortion can be found. I shall say no more about this case but I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table from which I read so that it can be studied.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The figures that 1 quoted were not my own figures; they were supplied to me by the Legislative Research Service of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. The Research Service has always been meticulous in providing information that is absolutely correct. [ can only assume, therefore, that the figures I quoted are correct. They were not figures which I drew up myself, although if T had done it myself, naturally they also would be correct.

Whilst members of the Opposition commend the Bill to the House and will vole for it, we would like Government supporters to remember that when we are in Government next year and when we bring down a Bill in the following year that does not provide the full list of existing rates measured against the new rates, they would be lacking in their duty as members of Her Majesty’s Opposition if they did not draw our attention to the deficiency. This should be done. They would be lacking in their duties if they did not tell us where there was a distortion in the wage or salary structure, what the distortion was and make us do what I believe the Government should be doing. With those few well chosen remarks, I conclude, and I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4009

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT (FIJI) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr N. H. Bowen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year the Government of Fiji inquired of the Australian Government whether an Australian judge could be made available to succeed the retiring Chief Justice of Fiji, Sir Clifford Hammett. When I visited Fiji last September I was able to convey to the Prime Minister of Fiji the Australia Government’s agreement in principle to this request. It is with pleasure that in introducing the present Bill I am able to announce that Mr Justice John Angus Nimmo, a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, has agreed to accept appointment as Chief Justice of Fiji, and subject to the passing by the Parliament of Fiji of enabling legislation. His Honour will take up the appointment in the New Year. The appointment will be for 4 years.

Mr Justice Nimmo has had wide and distinguished judicial experience in Australia. In 1963 he served as an acting judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In 1964 he became a deputy president of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In 1969 he was appointed to his present office as a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. He holds, in addition, appointments as a judge of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and he has served extensively in those jurisdictions. He has also, since 1966, been a deputy president of the Trade Practices Tribunal.

I am sure that honourable members will welcome the opportunity that Australia has been afforded, through the initiative of the Government of Fiji, to co-operate with a Pacific neighbour with which Australia looks forward to having an increasingly close association. I am sure too that honourable members will be pleased that Mr Justice Nimmo has accepted the appointment. His judicial experience, his sense of public service and his well-known and respected human qualities ensure that he will carry out his new duties with skill, with dignity and with credit both to Fiji and to Australia.

In 1964 the Commonwealth Parliament opened the way, by an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, for a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court to accept appointment to a judicial office in any part of Her Majesty’s dominions outside the Commonwealth of Australia. Section 103 a of the Act makes provision for that purpose. The section makes clear in sub-section (1) that the acceptance of such an appointment does not affect the appointee’s office as a judge of the Court. In the present case, therefore, Mr Justice Nimmo will continue to hold office as a judge of the Industrial Court.

Sub-section (2) goes on to provide that a judge who accepts such an appointment shall be remunerated only with the salary and annual allowance that he receives as a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, together with such travelling allowance as the Governor-General determines. The provision in this sub-section is appropriate to what I think was contemplated at the time - namely, the seconding of a judge of the Court for a relatively short period. The provision is not suitable to the particular case now under consideration, having regard to the high judicial office in question and to the fact that the appointment will be for a period of years. The Bill now before the House has therefore the short purpose of excluding the application of sub-section (2) of section 103a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the case of Mr Justice Nimmo’s appointment as Chief Justice of Fiji. I am sure that the House will cordially welcome the appointment that it has been my pleasure to announce. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition supports the Bill.

It shares with all other Australians, I expect, the pleasure which we all feel at Fiji having made this request to our country and to a distinguished citizen of it. We applaud Mr Justice Nimmo’s accepting the appointment. It is an interesting reflection of how rapidly events are moving in our region that an amendment which the Parliament made only 7 years ago to cover the situation where judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court could take appointments in the Australian Territories should now be called in aid to cover the situation where judges are invited to accept appointments in other parts of Her Majesty’s dominions.

It will be noted that Fiji still retains a monarchical head of state; in fact, it shares the same monarchical head of state as Australia. Accordingly, the terms of the section inserted into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1964 are apt to this situation because Fiji is part of Her Majesty’s dominions. Australian judges have been invited to accept situations in Cyprus, Tonga and Nauru and, when Papua New Guinea achieves independence, they will undoubtedly be asked in many cases and for some years to accept appointments there, too. At its latest Federal Conference, in Launceston last June, my Party declared that it would second and support skilled personnel requested by Papua New Guinea and other islands of the Pacific.

The present appointment is a particularly happy one. Mr Justice Nimmo is a singularly well furnished judge. He has had the judicial appointments to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has referred. He has also, it will be remembered by honourable members, discharged with distinction within the terms available to him and his colleagues, the task of chairing the Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, which was appointed in April 1968 and which reported in March 1969. Mr Justice Nimmo assisted with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department’s studies of the criminal code for the Territories, the results of which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when Attorney-General tabled in May 1969. His Honour has had a long interest and involvement in the affairs of the Red Cross and has represented Aus tralia at Red Cross conferences to bring up to date the laws of war in the new circumstances where wars may not be declared and where they may have purely an internal or civil aspect. Above all, he is a man with a very great social conscience.

Fiji, like many parts of the British Commonwealth, has a redoubtable tradition of litigation. The legal profession prospers in Fiji not less than in other parts of Her Majesty’s dominions. There are certain to be disputes coming before the courts of Fiji. Some of these disputes will be between expatriates, including Australians, and indigenes; some will be between Fijians and Indians: some will raise a conflict between urban and rural interests. Above all, many of the civil and industrial disputes in our new partner in the Commonwealth will have racial overtones. In these circumstances it is fortunate indeed that Mr Justice Nimmo is a man who will be unspoiled by and indifferent to any colonial residues. All persons appearing before him or appealing to him can have the utmost confidence, as people in a variety of jurisdictions in Australia have had over many years, that he will not only dispense justice but also see that everybody knows that it is being dispensed. This is a very interesting Bill. It is a significant Bill not only for Australians but also for their neighbours. The Opposition supports the Bill and will give it a speedy passage through the Australian Parliament

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4010

RELIEF OF NON-METROPOLITAN UNEMPLOYMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I wish to inform the House that I have written to each of the State Premiers seeking agreement to the introduction as soon as possible of a scheme of Commonwealth grants to the States for employment-creating activities in non-metropolitan areas where such action

Is desirable for social and economic reasons. The Government has been con cerned, as t know the State governments nave been, at the difficulties confronting Some of our rural industries - wool, in particular - and the communities dependent on (hem. We are, of course, with the cooperation of the State governments, where appropriate, already providing massive assistance to the industries in question. Indeed, as the House will know. I have had correspondence recently with some of the Premiers on these matters and particularly on the problem of unemployment in non-metropolitan areas.

The Government is determined to meet and overcome the problems facing the rural industries that are in difficulty. But that will take time, and we believe that meanwhile there is a need to take temporary measures for the alleviation of unemployment in non-metropolitan areas, with the social problems associated with that. This is a particular aspect of the difficulties facing our rural populations and one which is of increasing concern to us.

Much of this non-metropolitan unemployment is of a structural kind and, therefore, requires particular rather than general economic measures to deal with it. As the health of the ,ural industries concerned improves, this will contribute over period to the alleviation of nonmetropolitan unemployment The current rural reconstruction scheme and the retraining programme and rehabilitation assistance associated with it will make a useful contribution. But all these measures will take time to become fully effective and, in the meantime, the stubborn economic and social problem of rural unemployment seems likely to continue unless specific Short term action is taken to deal with it.

Following my return from overseas the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) had discussions with me about this matter, and subsequently Cabinet has considered the problem and possible responses to it. A measure which we believe would have a quick and direct impact on the problem - but without significantly impeding the long term adjustments necessary to meet changing economic conditions in rural areas - is the provision of funds for employmentcreating activities in affected non-metropoli tan areas and 1 have written to the Premiers proposing a scheme of grants for this purpose.

The details of the scheme would, of course, be determined in consultation with the States. In broad terms, however, the Government envisages an arrangement providing for grants for employment-creating activities to be made to the States for the period up to 30th June 1973, subject to review after 30th June 1972 in the light of the then prevailing conditions.

The objective of the scheme would be to make a significant impact on the level of unemployment in non-metropolitan areas. Thus, grants would be made for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures on additional labour-intensive activities of a productive kind which might be undertaken by State, semi-government and local government authorities to provide employment for those unemployed in non-metropolitan areas. Recent grants made to some States under the drought relief arrangements to enable the employment of persons who were unemployed as a result of drought might be taken as a broad indication of the type of scheme the Government has in mind.

Obviously, since the details of the scheme remain to be settled with the Premiers, it is not possible at this time to put any precise figure on what the cost of the scheme might be in the balance of this financial year. Details will, of course, be given as soon as they can be worked out, and, on the assumption that the proposal will meet with the approval in principle of the Premiers, the Treasury will be moving speedily to arrange the necessary discussions between Commonwealth and State officials. The chief costs involved are, however likely to be wage costs, plus some lesser amount - perhaps up to 25 per cent of the total - for the purchase of materials and, perhaps, equipment. A figure of $2m a month or thereabouts might approximate the kind of broad order of cost we have in mind but having said that, 1 must add that there are numerous uncertainties about such a figure at this stage. Much will depend not only on our discussion of the details with the States but on the extent to, and the speed with, which they can give effect to the proposals. In this latter regard 1 may mention also that we would envisage the Department of Labour and National Service being closely associated with the scheme at the ground roots level. But, for all the reasons I have indicated, we do not, at this stage, have a closed mind on the question of the precise amount to be provided during the balance of this financial year even though we have in mind something of the order already mentioned.

On the assumption that these proposals will be acceptable in principle to the Premiers we s’-.all require to bring forward to the House early in the autumn session legislation to authorize the necessary grants to the States. Meanwhile, however, temporary arrangements will be made for the financing of the scheme in the interim. I believe that that would, in all the circumstances, meet with the approval of the House. This proposal, of course, demonstrates the Government’s read ness to respond to changing circumstances. Designed as it is to meet the emerging social and economic problem of unemployment in non-metropolitan areas the scheme will, I believe, be warmly welcomed by the House and by the community at large. I present the following paper:

Non-metropolitan Unemployment - Ministerial Statement, 2 December 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The first point to be made concerns the last part of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) when he said:

This proposal, of course, demonstrates the Government’s readiness to respond to changing circumstances.

This is a parallel lo the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) that the Government acts very quickly when action is needed. The Opposition completely and utterly refutes the statement by the Prime Minister that ‘he Government acts quickly.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Are you opposing this expenditure?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme) was called the minister for stamps yesterday. He should go back to his stamp office. If he stopped closing country post offices at the rate he has been closing them he might get more respect from the people of Australia. The point I was making was that the Government just does not act fast enough. For example, on 23rd November the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) asked the Prime Minister the following question on notice:

Did the Premier of New South Wales write to him on 25th June 1971 requesting special Commonwealth grants for works to relieve rural unemployment? Did he reject the request on 9th August 1971? Did the Premier make the request a second time on 26th August 1971?

When did he reject this second request, and has the Premier made the request a third time on the ground that, the New South Wales wheat crop has failed; if so, when?

These questions have not been answered. This gives honourable members an idea of how fast the Government works on the mat cr of rural unemployment. This problem should have been solved aud the action that has been taken now should have been taken at least 6 months ago.

The Prime Minister states, for example, that the massive amount of money paid to the wool growers has had a tremendous effect. Certainly the amount of money that has been received by the wool growers has had an effect, but that is quite a different kettle of fish from the amount paid in deficiency payments and through the Australian Wool Commission. Every honourable member who is aware of this problem knows that under the first lien provision of the Acf, the big finance companies, the hire purchase companies, the wool brokers and the pastoral houses have first call on that money if they so desire. Of course these groups have this priority and they are getting this money. A very large proportion of this money that is supposed to be going into rural areas is not even getting into them. It is staying, for example, in the pastoral houses and the finance companies themselves. There is little question about that. If members of the Australian Country Party have not had letters from their own constituents on this subject all I can say is that (hey are blatantly out of touch with the wool producers of Australia.

Mr Giles:

– Stick to the statement.

Mr Grassby - The honourable gentleman is interjecting. Call him to order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Giles:

– The honourable member for Riverina is out of his seat.

Mr Grassby:

– I will go back to my seat and interject from it. Make the honourable member come to order, Mr Deputy

Speaker. He is a humbug.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Corbel) - Order! The House will come to order. I warn the honourable member for Riverina that when the Deputy Speaker is on his feet there shall be no interjections. I want io inform the House that all interjections are out of order. This is not a matter of whether or not honourable members are in their seats. The only difference is that when a member interjects from a seat other than his own he aggravates the offence and is doubly out of order. I take the point that exchanges across the House are not helping this debate at all. I ask the House to come to order.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I point out that I have lost 21 minutes of my speaking time as a result of what has just taken place. I ask that I be granted 2i minutes extra time in which lo speak. I believe that when interjections of this type start the clock should be slopped. lt is important that the Government make a study of this distribution of Federal money in country areas because this is part and parcel of the argument put forward by the Prime Minister, lt is all right to say that ‘masses’ of money are being poured into rural areas through the wool funds but what we want lo know is how much money is actually staying in country areas. As I have pointed out a lot of this money is in fact going back to the head offices of big rural organisations in the cities. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, know full well as a primary producer that what I say is correct.

The Prime Minister also talked about the current reconstruction and retraining scheme that is operating in country areas. What he forgot to tell us is this: The scheme is so blatantly biased against the work force in the country that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) refuses to allow a statement on it to be debated in the House. The retraining programme applies only to farmers and those directly working on farms. In other words, my honourable friend from Moreton (Mr Killen), who is an ex wool classer, would not have received this assistance if he followed that occupation today. Also, people such as shearers, fencers, dam sinkers, men who work for the councils and so on are completely excluded from the Gov ernment’s retraining scheme. The scheme is blatantly biased against the work force in country areas.

The other point 1 want to make relates to the distribution of money. This is the most airy fairy sort of proposal that I have heard for many a day. One would think that plenty of experience has been gained of distributing funds via the States - provided, 1 assume, by way of section 96 of the Constitution - to local authorities and semi-government authorities. One would think that there would be at least some Federal guidelines with respect to this operation. But the Government has brought forward an airy fairy sort of proposition. The Opposition supports the proposition to the hilt provided the money went to the right people and authorities that have the utmost need of it. Anybody who has any experience in this type of Commonwealth-State relationship knows full well that a State always plays politics in order to give an impetus to councils, particularly those councils in areas in which members of the same party predominate. It is no good saying that a State does not, because anyone with any practical knowledge of this knows this to be the case. Firm guidelines completely free of politics should be laid down for the distribution of this money. In other words, the money should go to those areas which need it most. That is the basic principle of the Labor Party’s approach to this matter. We believe that the money should go to those wool producers, for example, who need it most.

What has the Government clone in regard to the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill? It provides money for those who do not necessarily need it most. I could quote organisations such as Dalgety and Elder Smith as being companies which will receive some of this money. There are members on the other side of the Parliament who are reputed to be millionaires and who will share in this financial payment.

Mr Foster:

– That is right, and ex members, too.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. Mr Cope- Is that right, Rex?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Well, I think the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) has told me so. Regional priorities in States arc most important with respect to this problem because if those priorities are not determined in a rat. ona I and non-political way this money will not go to the people who deserve it most. 1 want to emphasise that the good part about the proposal is this: 1 have always maintained that it is most unproductive to be paying unemployment benefits to people whether they be in the country or in the metropolitan areas when there is productive work to be done. All the Government is doing is simply paying out or transferring taxpayers’ funds to people who are not working. The money paid by way of unemployment benefit may bc productive in the second round but in the first round it is not productive. It is far better to make up the difference so that people can get at least the minimum wage. In this way we would ensure that the additional money can be profitably employed on productive works. This is a principle which I believe should be followed not only in times of crisis as there is now but at all times.

We have a problem, for example, in parts of Queensland in the meat and sugar industries where there is a high rate of seasonal unemployment year in and year out. Unless families move out of the areas and go fruit picking or whatever it may be, they remain on the dole for 6 or 7 months of the year and simply receive the unemployment benefit. This is a waste of resources. The great majority of men and women who receive the unemployment benefit want to work. One of the best ways of giving them work is to provide funds to local authorities or semi-government authorities which can supply employment for them. Most of these people are unskilled and they could be employed on road development, drainage, sewerage, bridging or maintenance, whatever it might be. If this were done these people would be doing something productive not only for the area in which they were working but for the nation.

I hope that the Government will take notice of this precedent and every year make money available to supplement the funds of local authorities because this is, as far as the net gain is concerned, beneficial to Australia. Such action would put unemployed resources to work and this is a basic economic principle which is good. 1 would like to refer to the distribution of unemployment in Australia. At present approximately 29,000 males and females are unemployed in non-metropolitan areas. Of that figure, 17,700 are males and 11,000 are females. This is a figure about which the Government should be greatly concerned because it is growing seriously. The thing I want to stress is that it will grow greatly in the next 2 months because that is when the school leavers will be looking for jobs. There is nothing more humiliating and degrading than for mothers and fathers to have to admit that after years of paying for the schooling of their children they cannot find a job for them.

This Government talks about education. Surely one of the most important priorities in this nation is the provision of sufficient jobs for boys and girls when they leave school after they have finished their formal schooling. I mentioned yesterday a case I struck in western Queensland of a girl who had just sat for and passed the senior public examination and could not get a job as a waitress in what used to be a viable and important town, Longreach. This situation is repeated in dozens, if not hundreds, of towns throughout Australia, and that is the sort of problem about which the Government should be doing something.

I do not think that any of this money will be made available to give these girls and boys the opportunities they so richly deserve to get jobs in these areas. It seems to me that this kind of proposition could be abused if it was not handled with some respect for priorities. Too frequently we have seen in the past in the States money going to areas for political reasons only and councils deserving of funds being excluded because they are not of the right political colour or because under the particular criteria which the responsible Minister in the State lays down it does not suit him to make money available to certain local authorities. One thing I hope the Commonwealth Government will do is to set down firm guidelines to which the States will have to adhere in the distribution of this money. The Commonwealth did that with the money it made available for drought relief and it has worked reasonably well. I hope it will do so with respect to this measure also. The Opposition supports the proposal. We believe it is a good and a sound proposal, lt will stimulate employment in rural areas. But we repeat again that this must not be abused and some guidelines must be laid down by the Government.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 1 want to speak. I made an arrangement with the Leader of the House.

Mr Foster:

– 1 take a point of order.

Mr Giles:

– I wish to move that ‘ the debate be now adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt has raised a point nf order.

Mr Foster:

– J will move for the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with the honourable member for Angas. My point of order is that the Prime Minister has made a statement in this House and yet copies of his speech have not yet been circulated. Why is it that the Prime Minister is denying this House a copy of the speech he has made?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is nol a point of order.

Dr Patterson:

– 1 raise a point of order. This is an important subject, lt affects the economic and financial lives of thousands pf children who will be leaving school shortly, lt affects the lives of thousands of families who have to find work. Surely the Govern ment has not the audacity to gag this debate at this point of time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Chipp:

– 1 give the House an assurance that I will discuss this matter with the Leader of the House and the Government to see whether debate can he resumed on this statement before the House rises.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 4015

STATES GRANTS BILL <No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 November (vide pa.se 3415), on motion by Mr Snedden:

Thu! iiic Bill be now read a second time.

House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions may of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore. Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to he discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– 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 bc followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– These 3 Bills cover a variety of Commonwealth-State financial relationships. One bill deals with capital assistance which the Commonwealth proposes to give to the States. The States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill, which is an annual one, provides for grants to the States of Tasmania and South Australia under the terms of section 96 of the Constitution. The Slates Grants Bill (No. 2) reorganises the formula for distribution of the amount which goes from the Commonwealth to the States under the uniform tax reimbursement arrangements and so on. The kinds of assistance that the Commonwealth gives to the States are set Out in the publication that comes down in association with the Budget described as Commonwealth Payments lo or for the States 1971-72’. 1 refer to the table on page 10 of the’ document which sets out Commonwealth payments to or for the States and Australian Loan Council borrowing programmes. In aggregate this year the Commonwealth will pay to the States an estimated sum of $3,480m. So 1 1 per cent or 1 2 per cent of the gross national product is distributed from the Commonwealth to the States from resources 01 an annual taxing kind and a capital kind that become available to the Commonwealth.

If one consults the rather voluminous statistics that are contained in the 38Hi report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission dated 1971 it will be seen that every State in Australia, including even New South Wales, is now more than half dependent - some are as much as two-thirds dependent - for total financial resources on what comes to them from the Commonwealth. I suppose this indicates the financial domination of the Commonwealth. I would regard the financial domination of the Commonwealth as an inevitable part of our functioning federal system at the moment. The Commonwealth is best placed to collect the principal tax, the income tax as it is levied on individuals and companies. The Commonwealth is the only level of Government that has any jurisdiction over the issuance of money, the flow of credit and the central banking or Reserve Bank powers. But what has not been satisfactorily worked out as yet, of course, are flexible arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. I want to include also a third level of government that operates in Australia - the important level of local government.

What we have not worked out is a flexible and equitable formula that will match finance and function as far as the proper operation of our federal arrangements are concerned. The fact that so many measures come before the Parliament each year shows the unsatisfactory nature of the piecemeal solutions at which we have arrived. I know it is very easy for those who do not have to raise money to suggest to somebody who does that they are not getting enough of it for the functions they have to perform, and it is no easy matter to secure an equitable solution. But nevertheless it seems that in this area as in many others, the Commonwealth Government is not as properly appraised as it ought to be of what the real problems are.

As I indicated earlier, I want to say something about what might bc described as the third level, or the poor relation, in the Commonwealth-State-local financial relationships. The poor relation is local government. One of the difficulties in this situation is to be able to find adequate, up-to-date statistical material that satisfactorily separates from the functioning of Commonwealth and States the activities of local authorities. A publication called ‘State, Territory and Local Government Authorities’ Finance and Government Securities’ comes out regularly from the Commonwealth Statistician. The latest one I have was issued in December 1969. I presume that there is a later one, but it does not make a great deal of difference to my argument. I shall quote from Bulletin No. 6 issued in December 1969. which relates to the year 1967-68, some 4 years ago. What is interesting is the high amount of indebtedness that local authorities have incurred and how much of the annual resources available to local authorities goes in servicing the debt that has been incurred over the years. For the most part they are restricted as far as revenues are concerned by what is known as the local rate or the rate assessed in relation to the value of property.

The total debt of the local authorities - this is extrapolated forward a bit from the last figure - would seem to aggregate something like $ 1,500m. I refer to local authorities as such. There is also a variety of other bodies, such as statutory authorities, State electricity undertakings and metropolitan boards of work, whose debt is much higher. As far as one can see, their aggregate debt is in the region of $5,000m. One can at least obtain later information about the overall debt of the Commonwealth and the States in the publication brought down with the Budget entitled ‘Government Securities on Issue’. The latest one, for 30th June 1971, shows that Government securities have aggregated something like S 12,000m of which over S9,000m, or about three-quarters, was attributable to the States and $2,700m, or a bit less than a quarter, was attributable to the Commonwealth.

Of course, it has been a bone of contention for some time that the Commonwealth has been able to pay for its public works out of revenue but the States have had to borrow, or have access to the loan market for, all the funds made available to them. In many cases they were paid out of the surplus revenues of the Commonwealth and not out of loan raisings at all. But even though, as the argument runs, these funds had been collected as taxes, they were loaned and interest was charged upon them. In many respects I have often believed this sort of thing to be in the nature of internal bookkeeping rather than as a substantial argument about proper allocation of functions. Nevertheless, it is certainly a real burden for the other level of government, the local authorities who do not have direct access to any revenue of their own except rates and who. if they engage in capital works, have to borrow as almost borrowers of last resort from such moneys as are left over after the Australian Loan Council has made its arrangements.

In many cases local authorities are forced to borrow at rates of interest well in excess of 7 per cent. Often they have to borrow from life insurance companies or to secure bank overdrafts at the rate of 8 per cent. Their finances are in quite a serious plight. The Government at least seems to have conceded the argument of the States about capital funds. One of the Bills before this House, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, is part of the recommendation made by the previous Prime Minister at a Premiers Conference held earlier this year when he said that over a period of years the Government would assume something like $ 1,000m of the States’ debt and pay the interest and sinking fund contributions on it and also that part of the funds made available to the Stales in future for capital works, as distinct from annual works, would be financed out of funds that would not bear an interest component. At least that relieves the surface picture for the States.

Let me refer to the item ‘Interest’ in the document ‘Public Authority Finance 1963- 64 to 1967-68’. I am sorry that the last available figures are only for 1967-68. There is a table in this document which lists the aggregate finances of State and local government authorities. On the one side are their receipts of a current kind and their capital receipts, and on the other side current outlay and capital outlay. Again, it does not separate the local authority from the State authority. But in 1967-68 the total receipts of State and local government authorities were $2,81 6m of which SI, 050m came from taxation which they raised themselves. That includes the local rates. An almost equal amount - $ 1.057m - came from grants from the Commonwealth Government. The other principal item was the gross operating surplus of public utilities, that is, electricity undertakings, gas. fuel, railways and so on. which had a gross operating surplus of $582m. They were the major components on the current receipts side.

But on the outlay side we find the item of interest. The aggregate amount of interest to be met out of those funds of $2,81 6m for 1967-68 was $59 1 m. Of course, this simply shows the very real difficulty that interest charges represent for the State governments and local authorities. They impact more viciously upon the local authorities than they do upon the State governments because the State governments do pick up some of it in the reimbursement arrangements, and there is some adjustment of it now in the second Bill. What the States were able to do so far as capital adjustment was concerned was mainly due to their successful agitation at various Premiers Conferences, but so far the local authorities have not been quite so successful. In my State of Victoria there is a body known as the Committee for More Federal Finance for Local Government. T have no doubt that most Victorian members know of it and I think there are like bodies ;n other States. This body has prepared a submission to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon; on the position of local government in Australia in 1971. but with particular reference to Victoria.

I want to make one or two quotations from the submission because they highlight the kind of difficulties that are facing local authorities. The document is very well prepared and I commend the Committee for its quality, lt gives a brief history of local government and indicates that its origins in Australia were similar to those of a like body in the United Kingdom ‘t has evolved to what it is from the middle of the 19th Century but modern society demands the assumption by local authorities of responsibilities that were not acceptable before. Many of them are in the nature of welfare services. They have the o’d traditional services, of course, of rating, fire brigade, waste disposal and sewerage services. Those are historical kinds of assumptions, but in later times more and more has it been expected of the local authorities that they should go into the fields of health and social welfare services. The document lists such responsibilities as family casework, family counselling, day care centres, home help services, care of the aged, low cost meals or meals on wheels as they are called in some areas, community centres, citizens advice bureaux, clubs for children, young people and the aged, and day camps and other holiday camps as well. All of these aggregate quite considerable sums of money and the document quotes a number of individual instances. The document mentions the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant).

For the year 1969 in Brunswick - these were figures given in a 1971 submission - out of a total expenditure by the Municipality of Brunswick of $1,420,000, an amount of 8165,000 - that is, close to 12 per cent of the available income of the Municipality of Brunswick - was spent on health and welfare. The document points out that costs are rising yearly. In Brunswick, for example, home help and elderly citizens charges rose from 0.67 per cent of the rate revenue in I960 to 4.32 per cent in 1970. The document also goes on to refer to a council in the electorate of the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock). The Kew City Council pointed out in its 1971 submission that whilst the cost of maintaining those services is subsidised by government, increased costs make the subsidy inadequate. The document reads:

In Kew. for example, infant welfare centres cost, the council in 1970 $18,276 wilh a government grant of $3,700, i.e. 31 per cent . . . Pre-school kindergartens cost the council in 1970 $34,400 with a government’ grant of ‘$20,900, i.e. 6f per cent . . . The provision of pre-school facilities for all is a prerequisite lo the development of education in Australia and the need to use manpower to its greatest efficiency.

The document goes on to describe such matters as meals on wheels, lt then lists a number of matters for which councils are now increasingly being asked to share responsibility, or even to take full responsibility for. The document mentions pollution, and states:

The control of the pollution of our environment has become a problem that concerns all mankind: and in this local authorities have a pari to play. To prevent pollution requires however adequate finance.

This is a national problem. The document then lists the other problem that is rather broadly described these days as urban renewal, facing up to the reality that in Australia the majority of our population lives within a 50-mile radius of the capital cities. If we were to take an area of about 50 miles around the centres of Melbourne and Sydney we would encompass something like 40 per cent of the population of Australia - certainly more than half of the population of New South Wales and Victoria. In the Commonwealth Giants Commission report there is a rather interesting table showing the degree of urbanisation in Australia. I think Victoria has 65 per cent of its population in metropolitan areas while New South Wales has something like 58 per cent. This simply highlights the fact that while the majority of people, who are the ultimate responsibilities of government, live in these metropolitan areas, the resources that the councils or (he local authorities have are quite inadequate to meet the new demands that are being thrust upon them. As well, there is the rising burden of the interest rate. A document that I have indicates that, again taking the City of Brunswick as an example, nearly one-fifth of that council’s rate revenue goes to service annual interest payments on its debts. The Brunswick City Council in its 1971 submission staled that loan liability had increased from $220,000 in 1950 to $1,436,000 in 1970- more than- 6 times the amount in 1950 - while the rate revenue, which is the source or funds to repay this debt, had increased only 3.8 times and the proportion of rate revenue required’ to service the debt has increased - from 12.6 per cent in 1950 to 18.1 per cent in 1970. lt is the belief of my Party - and this view has been expressed persistently and with eloquence by the Leader of the Aus- tralian Labor Party (Mr Whitlam) - that it is time it was acknowledged that (here is a need to make some separate reimbursements to these local authorities. I know that this would not be a very easy process to accomplish because in many ways sometimes the existing arrangements are not always the most satisfactory in handling some of these broader problems. But these, broader problems are being thrust upon the councils, as they are at present constituted, to be dealt with without any additional resources, lt is true that a number of piecemeal arrangements have been made, such as assistance for the mealsonwheels organisations and so on. Rut in the aggregate these arrangements are quite trivial. I do not mean that the functions of these organisations are trivial but the resources which go from the Federal Government to the local authorities are quite trivia! when we have in mind what is expected of them in 1971 and in the years ahead. We all talk about pollution. We talk about delinquency. We talk about the problems of cities. We talk about access roads and all sorts of things. It is pretty difficult to assign the ultimate cost of these things in any precise way to individuals merely because they live in this municipality rather than that municipality. As I said earlier, in many respects the local governing authority has become the poor relation in the system.

The organisation to which I referred, the Committee for More Federal Finance for Local Government, recently sought an interview with the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) but as he was away the Minister for Repatriation received the deputation in his absence. That deputation presented to the Minister this document from which I have quoted. The people on that Committee are very worthy people who so far have contributed funds out of their own finances to bring to the notice of the Government the kinds of problems which they feel exist and which they think there is no thought of remedying. I commend them for their zeal. But I hope that the Government in assessing the total constitutional pattern in Australia will give consideration to that Committee’s representations. There is no doubt that whilst the dominance of finance is here many of the functions that constitutionally have to be performed by governments still remain as part of the province of State and local authorities and to be carried out by them.

It is the problem of better matching function to finance that has become a critical problem in the State and local sphere. I hope that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) will draw to the attention of the Government the seriousness of this situation so that it may begin to grapple systematically with the problem.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– These 3 Bills in the aggregate cover such a wide field that they really impinge on the whole economy. The primary cause of our economic troubles at present is the excessive rise in wages and salaries and hence of costs, which has taken place throughout the economy except in the depressed rural sector. In the June quarter of 1970 average weekly earnings were 9 per cent above those of a year earlier. In the June quarter of 1971, the last available figure, the increase was 13.4 per cent above a year earlier. The main single factor responsible for this last increase was the 6 per cent increase in total wage awards operative from January 1971. In addition there were sizeable increases in other awards, determinations and registered agreements. This process has in turn inevitably brought about consequent increases in costs, which have gone into prices. Price increases stimulate still higher wage claims and each round of wage increases upsets the relativity of other groups, who in turn become restive and seek further increases.

There is a strict limit to the extent the economy can absorb this process without considerable disturbance. A number of firms and even whole industries are being progressively priced out of their markets. Unfortunately, still further wage increases are in the pipeline and when their effects are felt will bring about still further rises in prices and costs. So far there has been very little sign of this pressure abating. As long as it does persist we will be in a steadily worsening situation. Serious damage has already been done to the structure of industry. An increasing number of businesses are reporting a deteriorating profit situation. This in turn destroys confidence and inhibits investment.

The aggregate demand for increased salaries and incomes is running more and more in excess of available resources. As it does so, prices are forced progressively higher. The distortions produced in the economy become more and more unmanageable. It is quite impossible over a period of time to consume more than we produce, but the attempt to do so is dislocating a growing proportion of our economy. It is not surprising therefore that as more and more industry gets into trouble, unemployment appears. So far this has been only minimal. At the end of October only 1.11 per cent of the estimated labour force was registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service. This is an extraordinarily low figure for any industrial country, and exaggerated reports of small increases here and there, based on low aggregate figures, often for the purpose of creating panic and sensation, do not alter this fact. It would be a very timid country that took alarm at this low figure. Moreover, it could scarcely be said that Government financial operations have been responsible for the slowing down of the economy. Propaganda about Budget strategy cannot alter facts. The Commonwealth domestic budget deficit for the first 4 months of the financial year up to 3 1st October was $926m or $230m greater than for last year. In the September quarter the volume of money increased by $50lm or 3.2 per cent compared with a rise of $201 m or 1.4 per cent in the same period last year. The October Bulletin of the Reserve Bank gives a total volume of $16,352m in September as against only $1 5,038m in September 1970. The trading banks and financial institutions also are generally in a more liquid position than they were a year ago. Between July and December of this year private business expects to invest $1,761 m compared with $ 1,392m in the same period last year. In the September quarter it invested $841ni or 27.5 per cent more than in the September quarter last year. Expenditure on building and structures was 37 per cent higher and on other new capital equipment. 22 per cent higher. In part, of course, this has been a response to the need for investment to absorb the rapid increase in the work force.

Foreign capital has provided a very useful supplement, yet it has added little to the net income payable overseas. In the 5 years to 1968-69 this averaged only 1.7 per cent of the gross national product and 11.1 per cent of export receipts. What we are now experiencing is what could prove to be the end* of the longest continued cycle of expansion we have ever known in our economic history. It began in 1962. There have been some periods of hesitation and small bursts of slightly rising unemployment, but all these passing difficulties have been taken in our stride. The continued broad stream of expansion has carried us along and investment has grown steadily. Confidence in the future has been sustained. Our economy has continued to grow and the overseas estimates of our resources and prospects have kept growing investment resources flowing towards us.

Financial and economic management has seemed to be very successful in restraining excess and keeping the economy on an even keel, but perhaps public opinion has been induced to take too shallow and naive a view of its efficacy and to forget all about underlying cyclical factors. The idea has become established that the Commonwealth Government is responsible for almost every economic event and that it has only to go around with an economic oil can squirting oil here and there to keep the whole machinery of the economy working smoothly. Within fairly narrow limits economic management has been effective, but it is now being swamped by a tidal wave of wage demands and excessive material expectations. No Western country has yet coped with this phenomenon successfully. If it persists too long in Australia the value of the Australian dollar eventually will sink to abysmal depths. Our 2 society will suffer a deep and abiding wound and personal security gradually will disappear. Orthodox economic measures are not likely to do the trick. Somehow we have to find a means to bring the current fever to an end. Common sense and discipline in the wages and salaries sector have to be restored somehow. Monetary expansion without this, whatever temporary stimulus it may afford, will, in the end, only compound our problems.

We have learned what skilful economic and financial management can achieve. We are now confronted sharply with its limitations. If we think any government can correct the situation easily we are doomed to disappointment. This, of course, is what the Opposition throughout most of yesterday suggested was so easy. This leads me to point out in a practical way the economic implications of recent changes in fundamental Labor policy. For the last quarter century, the greatest expansion period in Australian history, the Australian Labor Party-

Mr Crean:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, so far I have hesitated to speak, but surely the House is discussing 3 States Grants Bills. With all respect to the honourable member for Wentworth, the speech he is making could well have been made yesterday in the debate on the economy. Surely the honourable member should conform to the rules of the House. We are discussing these Bills in a cognate debate, but up to the present the honourable member has made no mention of Commonwealth-State relationships, which surely is the subject matter of these Bills. Perhaps the honourable member was unable to make his speech yesterday when we were debating the economy, but this is scarcely the time or the place for him to make that speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I remind the honourable member for Wentworth that the House is debating 3 States Grants Bills and 1 ask him to confine his remarks to those Bills.

Mr BURY:

– Having given this background information, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was hoping to get around to these Bills. I thought 1 should point out the economic implications of fundamental changes which have been made in Labor Party policy. I was saying that for the last quarter century, the greatest expansion period in our history, the Labor Party has joined with the Government Parties in supporting a policy of increasing the numbers of Australians. On immigration the Labor Party’s federal platform read:

Convinced that increased population is vital to the future development of Australia, the Australian Labor Party will support and uphold a vigorous and expanding immigration programme administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance.

This year, however, the Federal Conference of the Labor Party dropped this key part of policy like a hot brick. It reversed a generation of united Australian endeavour. It now merely supports an immigration policy which is administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance, which shall include the avoidance of discrimination on any grounds of race or colour of skin or nationality. The Labor Party not only wants to cut immigration but also to limit the natural growth of the Australian population. According to a report by Mr Wallace Brown in the ‘Courier Mail’ of 25th June, it also decided to adopt as policy, free family planning clinics, free contraception, legal advertising of contraceptives, free child care centres and a public investigation to determine the best way to encourage small families.

Mr Crean:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to have to intervene in this way because, after all, 1 am very friendly with the honourable member for Wentworth; but I am also a member of this Parliament and I believe a member should confine his remarks to the subject matter under consideration. We are considering 3 States Grants Bills, which are being debated together to save the time of the House. You,

Mr Deputy Speaker should not allow to be intruded into this debate a speech that someone was prevented from making during a debate yesterday.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)Order! I ask the honourable member for Wentworth to confine his remarks to the Bills before the House.

Mr BURY:

– In response to the interruption of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, while we are considering States Grants Bills I might say that the Premier of South Australia was most prominent in supporting these factors which, in turn, have led to this complete change in and adoption of a type of stagnant population policy. One of the main factors which has affected Commonwealth relations with the States and for which Slate grants have been made, is the expansion which has been caused by the size of our immigration programme. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for Melbourne Ports insists on his point of order I must accept your direction. I agree that my remarks have been slightly adrift from the subject matter of the Bills we are now considering. I realise that, perhaps worse still, 1 have touched on a point which is one of acute sensitivity to members of the Opposition. The consequence of the Labor Party’s economic policy, if adopted, on the States, on the Federal economy and on our public finances would be most profound. I imagine that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is not opposing these 3 Bills. I did not gain the impression that he was. I. too. support all 3.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Much of the speech of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) did not relate to the subject before the House. I recognise his long service in this House and his great experience in this matter. However, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker that I will make every endeavour to keep my remarks relevant to the matter that is before the House. As the honourable member for Wentworth did make some comments, I think that one or two of them require an answer. As I recall, the last part of his speech dealt with the Australian Labor Party’s immigration policy. He tried to justify that by claiming that it had some sort of relevancy with a series of

Bills, one of which is the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill. The honourable member got off on his usual kick that only the profit makers in the community matter and that only the measure of profits determines the prosperity of the community. Of course, a logical follow-up was that wages and salary increases are the cause of the difficulties that now confront us. He then said that unemployment follows. I should think the honourable member, knows enough about economics to know that the whole capitalist system is beset with crises; it goes from boom to inflation to unemployment to depression to war. That has been the pattern and those who claim to Understand it cannot control it. He spoke Of the phenomenon in the Western world and its inability to solve this problem. Is he implying that countries that have socialist governments are not experiencing the same difficulties? He said that only the capitalist countries are experiencing what he calls this phenomenon.

However, to return to the matter which the House is now debating, I pay great credit to the speech which was delivered by my good friend, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), when he raised the question of local government. This seems to me to be. closely related to the Stares Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill because this Bin makes available to the various States the sum of $209. 8m on an interest free basis. That to me seems to be the attraction, lt throws info the melting pot the whole question of capital works performed by the States, but unfortunately completely ignores the serious difficulties which are being experienced by other statutory bodies. By that I mean local government and semi-government bodies. There needs to be a very clear understanding of what exactly is happening day to day throughout the length and breadth of this great continent of ours. Honourable members arc well aware that government is constructed at 3 levels - the Federal, the Slate and the local level - and each level in turn has its local or complementary statutory authorities and all these bodies are engaged in doing work, either capital or maintenance. To do this work, of course, primarily they require money. The Federal, State and local governments are equipped with taxing powers to raise most of the money required. Certain statutory authori ties also are equipped with these powers. For example, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is able to levy a rate on people living in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Others, such as the Country Roads Board in Victoria are financed directly by Government grant.

The advantages of financing capital works by interest free loans or grants are obvious. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is an example of a statutory authority which must go on to the loan market and compete with other borrowers. It is not so long ago that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works was offering to the public interest rates for its loans of about 3£ per cent or 4 per cent and investors who were looking for security of investment were attracted. This Liberal-Country Party Coalition Government, which is’ supported by less than half of the Australian electors, increased interest rates ostensibly to attract overseas investors. However all that it attracted were speculators. But the effect of this interest rate increase flowed through the community and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, as well as many other statutory authorities fell victim.

This Government’s invitation to the public to speculate also had its effect and now the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works as well as other like authorities has had to up the ante and, for its recent foray to raise funds from the public by loan, had to offer 7 per cent and. higher interest rates to attract loan funds. The effect of that sort of action must be patently obvious, lt has meant only that a larger amount of revenue must be used for debt servicing and this also has a dual effect. Firstly, it means that a lesser portion of moneys available is able to be used for positive purposes, such as capital works. Secondly there is an endeavour to raise more revenue by raising the rate. Indeed, both of these things are happening. On the most recent information available, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is now using something more than half of its revenue for debt servicing. The situation is really more serious than even that statement shows it to be because although 58c of each $1 of revenue is used for debt servicing,, there is precious little reduction of the capital indebtedness of the Board. In other words, more than half of its revenue is used for interest payments and loans are repaid by encouraging conversion by the lenders.

When the Board of Works sends out its rate notices, it also sends a little brochure to explain what it is doing. It is of such interest that I should like to read the words of the Chairman of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Mr A. H. Croxford. He said:

Everybody, including the Board is concerned that continual rising costs compel the Board to Increase rates.

I suppose it is fair enough to try to square off for a 12) per cent rate increase. He continued:

The increased rate the Board is forced to make this year will produce $10.5m. Additional wages will require $4m-

This is the interesting part:

  1. . and additional interest and redemption charges $5.8m.

He said that the Board pays award wages, is bound by various wage fixing tribunals, and there have been various increases in wages this year. He gives some of the percentage increases. He then poses the question:

Why is the interest bill so high? Among the major constructing authorities in the Commonweal*, the Federal Government is the only one which can produce enough income from revenue to finance capital works.

These are Mr Croxford’s words. He continued:

Therefore, the Board must borrow money to pay for its water, sewerage and drainage projects. This allows the capital cost of major works to be spread over several generations and repaid over some years.

At about the same time, on 15th November this year in the Melbourne Age’, Mr Croxford was a little more candid. The article stated:

Commonwealth Government refusal to take an interest in the urban problems of water supply, sewerage and drainage was limiting severely the States’ ability to provide suitable service. . . . This was resulting in more than $1 in every $2 of revenue being used to pay debt charges on loans floated to finance public works. Speaking on financing the board’s future works, Mr Croxford said that because the Commonwealth controlled the most lucrative forms of taxation, it should make funds available free of interest or at least highly subsidised.

Those are the words of the Chairman of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The article continued:

A successful loan-raising programme of $50m adds about $4. 25m to revenue requirements.

So honourable members can see from that, that a considerable amount of money that could be used for practical purposes is being paid out in interest charges.

The local government position collectively is almost as serious as the position of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works when it comes to debt servicing and this problem is not isolated to my own city of Broadmeadows or to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Indeed, it is not even isolated to my own home State of Victoria. An article in the ‘Australian Municipal Journal’ deals with what has been said on this question by Brisbane’s Lord Mayor, Alderman Jones. It states:

Alderman Jones noted that the problem of adequate finance for local authorities had been the subject of discussions for many years, and there was more activity now, at national and State levels: but, ‘this time the efforts of those who are concerned must be successful, since, as 1 understand it … we have now almost reached the end of the road’.

He was supported in this contention by the Professor of Public Administration at the University of Queensland, Professor K. W. Knight, who urged that a constitutional conference should be called to realign Australia’s Federal, State and local authorities financing, and he added that the responsibilities of financing at all 3 levels were completely out of phase’. One can see that the propositions being advanced by the Australian Labor Party are supported by many people in the community.

According to information available to me, the indebtedness of municipalities in Victoria has increased considerably during the 6th decade of the 20th century. In fact, in the whole of Victoria it has increased from a per capita debt of $32.60 during 1960-61 to $65.00 during 1968-69, an increase of 99 per cent, whilst for the metropolitan area - excluding the Melbourne City Council - a per capita debt of 5:21.5 existed in 1960-61, and this has increased in 10 years to the staggering sum of $51.00 per capita, an increase of 137 per cent. It must be pointed out that this per capita debt does not include borrowings by municipalities for private street schemes. The point I am coming to is that this indebtedness by local government authorities and semi-government authorities is used on capital works, such as the construction of buildings, the purchase of land for open space, and the provision of drainage, bridges, roads, freeways and other works of a capital nature. lt is my contention that all of these capital works are assets and are. in fact, the assets of the people of Australia. However, they are financed by perhaps the most inequitable method of public financing or revenue raising or taxation - whichever name one cares to give it. I refer, of course, to the rating system as used by councils and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The local government Act provides for 2 methods of raising this tax. One method is lo use as a base the net annual value of the property, which takes into account improvements, and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, along with some councils, use this system. The other method is to use the unimproved capital value, which is virtually the site value, and it discounts improvements. But whichever method is used, or even if the shandy system is used - that is combining the 2 methods - there is no way in the wide world that incomes can be assessed by these taxing authorities. There is no way by which those who can afford to pay more can be charged more. Conversely, of course, no automatic relief can be given to the needy in the community. Only the Commonwealth has that sort of authority. 1 want to make one point perfectly clear so that there will be no misunderstanding. Neither I nor any of my Australian Labor Party colleagues would say that anything can be provided for nothing. All things have to be paid for, and the people pay for them. But what we do say, and we have the greatest of supporting evidence in saying it, is that the emphasis of payment is wrong. Those who can least afford to pay are continuously called upon to pay the greatest share.

In pursuit of my contention that all capital works are national assets, and therefore assets of the people, let me give an illustration, again using municipalities and semi-government authorities as an example. Nobody of sound mind could ever say that capital works, such as roads, bridges, drainage and sewerage, are anything other than national assets. Yet in Victoria, so far as roads are concerned, municipalities are responsible for the maintenance and construction of 94.6 per cent of the total mileage of roads in that State. The Country Roads Board is responsible for 5.39 per cent of the total mileage of roads in that State. When we assess the expenditure on roads in Victoria we find that the municipalities bear the greatest burden, 73 per cent; the Country Roads Board meets 20 per cent of the burden; and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works bears 7 per cent of the burden. However, as the 7 per cent share of the burden which is borne by the Board of Works is raised from rale payers, these people bear 80 per cent of the cost of the maintenance and construction of roads in Victoria.

But there is hidden in this information a classic example of government buck passing. The revenue of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is raised from property owners who live within a 20-mile radius of the City of Melbourne, and these people pay 7 per cent of the total cost of road construction in the whole State. 1 repeat that nobody would ever dream thai we should say to outOItowners, such as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) and others: ‘You cannot use our freeway or bridge. You did not fully contribute towards their cost.’ Likewise, no municipality erects barriers in order to prevent people from outside that municipality from using its roads. Once again I must .say that these roads and bridges are national assets, free to be used by all. Therefore, they should be financed by all, but on a capacity to pay basis, not by the archaic rating system.

This Bill, to a limited extent, gives some relief in the debt servicing area, but thankful as everyone will no doubt be for this largess, it still does not go anywhere near far enough towards solving the enormous problems facing governments in other areas. It seems fairly clear to me that if a little imagination were shown by the Government in the financing arrangements of this country and if it showed willingness to use the fiscal measures available to it to meet the cost of providing national assets, the burden would be spread faT more equitably throughout the community. Surety this is the premise on which government -and the maintenance of equality in the community are based. Sadly it is a premise that has been ignored by this and preceding governments.

I have spoken only about the great difficulties facing local government and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works in the field of debt servicing. But these bodies are not the only authorities using public money to provide assets which are national in character. Would anyone disagree with the contention that school buildings are national assets? The Victorian Teachers Union recently published a booklet titled The SI 30m Problem’, lt is a guide to Melbourne’s inner suburban schools. This booklet deals very thoroughly with the problem of re-building certain schools in the inner suburbs of Melbourne. lt is claimed that it will cost Si 30m to rebuild some schools - only those within 3i miles of the Melbourne General Post Office - in only one of the cities of the Commonwealth. How much would the Ccs be to rebuild all of the schools that require reconstruction in Australia? The funds for this work must be found by the State. The Liberal Government of Victoria must share the blame for a sum as high as this being required to carry out this work. It has ignored the problem over the years, but the problem has caught up with it. But be that as it may. these school buildings, or national assets as I like to call them, urgently require reconstruction. There are 46 primary, 16 secondary and 5 technical schools involved in this consideration. Almost without exception, these buildings were erected over 70 years ago, and most of them are in fact more than a century old. They are inadequate and unsuitable and they are deteriorating. This problem must be solved. Funds must be made available by the Commonwealth out of money equitably raised and equitably disbursed.

I have designated roads, bridges and school buildings as national assets, and no less a national asset are the 2 transport systems throughout the Commonwealth. The suburban railway network in Melbourne is a parody of public transport. The system uses aged passenger rolling stock which was probably carrying passengers even before we became a Commonwealth. Here again there is a need for a large outlay of money to bring the system up to acceptable and needed standards. The work, once again, will obviously not be financed from revenue; loan funds will be used - that is, if the Liberal Party Government in Victoria has any intention to do the work. Again the humbug will be there. Interest will have to be paid on funds used on capital works. Only the Commonwealth Government has access to the powers which permit the book entries needed to relieve the State, local and semi-government bodies of the crushing burden of interest on borrowings. Only the Commonwealth Government has the necessary authority to assess incomes and determine capacity to pay. It has the power under the Constitution to better manage the financial affairs of the Commonwealth. If it was imaginative and courageous it would use (he powers it has. Until it does the interest burden will continue-

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– The Bills now before the House embody the new measures which are central to the new financial relationship between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments which evolved at the Premiers Conference in June this year. I want to discuss education not only because it is a matter that is primarily the concern of the States under our Constitution but also because the Commonwealth Government has claimed on a number of occasions that it is as a result of these new financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States that the State governments are now able to meet their commitments in education. I enter this debate to protest at the failure of the Commonwealth Government to make a specific commitment to education, apart from the circumscribed causes, such as libraries and science blocks, to which it gives money. It is now clear that the Commonwealth has shelved the findings of the national survey of educational needs. I would have thought that if the Commonwealth Government was sufficiently interested to find out by means of a survey what really are the educational needs of the States it would be concerned to see that the findings of the survey would be acted upon.

The findings of the survey are now well known - that under the CommonwealthState relationships which existed when the survey was carried out the State governments would have needed an extra $ 1,443m over and above what they could reasonably have expected to have found from their own sources of revenue. This $ 1,443m would have had to be found for the 5-year period 1971-75 to finance the reasonably anticipated educational needs of the States. Now through all the double talk the simple fact has finally emerged that the Commonwealth has no intention of acting on the findings. One could be excused for thinking that if there is a shortfall in State funds disclosed by the survey the Commonwealth would provide the necesasry funds to bridge the gap. Otherwise, why carry out the survey at all? But it is not to be. There is to be no specific allocation of funds for those educational needs. The history of stalling and gobbledegook since the survey was first launched strongly suggests that the Commonwealth Government never had any intention to implement the recommendations of the survey. Let us look at the recent history of this matter. When he was Minister for Education and Science, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) spoke at a well attended and publicised meeting in Adelaide on 16th June 1971 and said that all the Commonwealth Government was waiting on was further information on priorities from a couple of State governments. Let us contrast that with what the present Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in this House on 5th October 1971. He said:

In September 1970, the Commonwealth sought further information from State education departments on their capital needs. The collection of this information took some time - the last of it was forwarded to my predecessor in March this year - but it was brought together and considered by the Commonwealth before it met with the Premiers in June 1971.

It was considered before it met with the Premiers. So the present Minister said then that all the information was returned by March 1971. Yet his predecessor said in June, 3 months later, that there was still further information to come. It is quite apparent, therefore, that there was never any intention to act on the findings of the survey. Ministers just say anything that comes into their heads, anything to fob off the critics. It is a history of deceit. Of course, now the Commonwealth Government tries to forget the survey. The present Minister’s long statement in this House on 5th October contains no reference - I do not think I am being unfair to him, because I could not find any - to the figure of $l,443m mentioned in the findings of the survey.

Mr Peacock:

– I rise to order. I am reluctant to intervene in these circumstances but I believe that statements that Ministers are acting with deceit imply a degree of moral turpitude I cannot accept on behalf of myself or my colleagues. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order unless the honourable member for Kingston specified a Minister. That is the precedent which has been set by the Speaker.

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. I think the Minister is too sensitive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Dr GUN:

– All I can say is that the Minister at the table is nit picking. I am referring to a specific Minister now; I do not know whether I will be made to withdraw that remark. I was saying that in his speech in this House on 5th October the Minister for Education and Science made no reference to this figure of $ 1,443m which was mentioned in the findings of the survey of educational needs; I think he would like us to forget it.

There is yet another instance of double talk. The Minister now claims that with the Commonwealth-State financial relationship, which we are now debating, and the transfer of payroll taxing powers to the States, the Commonwealth Government has discharged its obligations to the States. This has been stated a number of times by the present Minister. As an example of this I will quote what the present Minister said in this House on 13th October this year. He said:

I think it is worth noting, as I have pointed out before, that there are two ways in which the Commonwealth can assist and is assisting the States in education. One is to have a direct programme of its own of specific grants for specific purposes . . .

These are such things as libraries and science blocks. He continued:

Secondly, there is a general method of geelong to build up the States’ own financial resources so that the States within the allocations they have, can make their own decisions about their own particular priorities.

Mr Peacock:

– Were you quoting the present Minister?

Dr GUN:

– Yes.

Mr Peacock:

– Were you before that quoting the previous Minister?

Dr GUN:

– No. The Minister can read it tomorrow in Hansard where I think it will -be fairly clear to him. He should listen with both ears next time.

He went on to explain how the States’ financial positions have improved under the new arrangements. In other words, be clearly regards the Commonwealth as having discharged its obligations in relation to the national survey. But the present Minister for Defence, when he was Minister for Education and Science, made no mention of the new financial arrangement. He said on 16th June that the Commonwealth was waiting only on further information from the States. He said this on the night of the Premiers Conference. Surely the Minister at the time must have had prior knowledge of what the Commonwealth was intending to offer the States. Once again this is clear evidence of Government double talk. The plain fact is that the Government does not intend to implement the survey.

Mr Peacock:

– I rise to order. I have now ascertained from the general thread of the honourable member’s remarks that quite clearly those earlier remarks to which I took exception related to the Minister for Education and Science once removed. Therefore, I ask that the earlier remarks relating to deceit, implying, as they do. moral turpitude, be withdrawn because they refer to a particular Minister in a manner which would bc objected to by any Minister sitting at the table.

Dr GUN:

– I withdraw anything I have said which has offended any Minister rather than have my time taken up with capricious points of order by the Minister, who obviously does not like any reference to the Government’s attitude on education. I can understand his embarrassment because quite clearly the present Government has no interest in education and has never had any interest in it. All that conservative governments have ever wanted is to have a servile, illiterate proletariat. I can well understand the attitude of the Minister.

Mr Peacock:

– I rise to order. I am only charged with the responsibility, Mr Deputy Speaker, of referring to you for your consideration the Standing Orders at times when I believe honourable members are in need of your protection, whether it is because they are being defamed or in any other way reflected upon. That is the only point I wish to make. Frankly the present contributions on education are hardly worth interrupting but the reflections upon the Minister were.

Dr GUN:

– It is quite obvious that the Commonwealth Government never intended to implement the findings of the survey. The survey was conceived in haste in response to proposals of the Australian Labor Party to establish an Australian schools commission. The Minister may try to argue that even though the Commonwealth has not provided the specific amount required it has enabled the States to find the funds from their own resources. But that is not so. Even the South Australian Minister for Education has declared that the Commonwealth must provide further funds. South Australia, I hasten to point out to the House, has provided for a greater expansion of educational expenditure this financial year than has any other State. The Commonwealth Minister, when talking about the South Australian expenditure, said:

The increase has been closer to 30 per cent than t7 per cent– which is the national average - which is a very significant increase in expenditure in one year.

Yet this is not nearly sufficient. These are not just the views of the South Australian Minister. If the Commonwealth Minister does not believe me, let him visit some of the schools in my electorate and speak to some of the teachers there. It is quite clear that the Minister is deceiving himself if he thinks that the States can implement the survey without special Commonwealth support. Once again I point out what the

Minister said on 13th October in reply to a question asked by the honourable member for Angas:

When the Survey of Needs was formulated, the Slate Ministers and the State departments made an assumption that the State recurrent funds would increase by 10 per cent a year. In fact since then they have increased at a much greater rate than that. To the extent that they have increased by a greater rate than that, the alleged shortfall in their statement of needs will be reduced.

But this is only half of the story. What the Minister did not say was that when the survey was taken a certain rate of inflation was assumed over the 5-year period. But that rate of inflation has been exceeded. So while it is no doubt true that the shortfall is reduced because of the greater increase in State funds, this reduction is at least partly offset by the rate of inflation being greater than that which was anticipated at the time the survey was taken.

Let us not forget that the goals of the educational survey were not grandiose. They were quite modest. In fact, as far as South Australia is concerned, we have had since the survey the Karmel Report which indicated an even higher level of expenditure being required. Remember also, for that matter, that the national survey did not include the needs of pre-schools or tertiary education. 1 shall curtail what I would otherwise say because the time that the Government has set for this debate is limited and other members wish to speak. I believe that the pronouncements of Commonwealth Ministers for Education over recent months have vindicated the policy of the Australian Labor Party in advocating the establishment of an Australian schools commission. Time and time again Commonwealth Ministers have said that we have not enough information on which to base decisions on the survey, that the criteria are not adequate and that the States criteria for education are different. Surely this is a vindication of our proposal. We believe (hat there should be a commission established whereby we could ascertain by means of a continuous, informed and ongoing survey the needs of all of the State governments in regard to education. Such a survey could be going on all the time and the commission could make from time to time recommendations to the Commonwealth Government as to the sort of expenditure that is required. Such an arrangement would not involve any loss of autonomy by the State governments; it would not involve any loss of autonomy necessarily on the part of the schools. In fact, we would like the schools to have a greater degree of autonomy. I am sure that this will come about as certainly as it has come about in South Australia where we have a Labor government.

The Labor Party would want only to lay down broad priorities in regard to national education policies. For instance, it would want to see the inequalities of education wiped out. It would not want to see people discriminated against because they have a limited income. Similarly the Labor Party does not want people to suffer because of their physical or mental handicaps. At the moment there is a very great degree of discrimination in that area. The Commonwealth will provide limited assistance to people who are handicapped but only if they are being helped by a voluntary agency. If the assistance is being provided by a State educational authority the Commonwealth does not provide specific assistance. These are the sorts of national goals that the Labor Party would look towards in implementing its education policy.

I point out to the people of Australia that only a Labor government will give education its correct priority. Look at the example of the Labor Government in South Australia which, as I have said, has already increased its expenditure on education to a greater extent than any other State of Australia. I also point to the reply which was given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) during the programme ‘Monday Conference’ some weeks ago when he was asked what the first priority of a Federal Labor government would be. He said: ‘To set up an Australian schools commission’. That is where we stand.

Finally, as evidence of the seriousness of the Liberal Government towards education, I would like to refer to a delegation which South Australian members of the Federal Parliament received from the South Australian Association of State School Organisations some weeks ago. Many members from South Australia were present but they were all Opposition members. Government supporters were invited but none of them saw fit to attend. 1 felt rather sorry for one member of the delegation who has been a Liberal Party candidate in the past. 1 think that perhaps she has not woken up to the fact that her Party is not fundamentally interested in education. I thought the attendance that day was symptomatic of the attitude of this Government on education.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– These 3 pieces of legislation are part of the complex fabric of Commonwealth assistance to the States. I want to concentrate my remarks on the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill. This is designed >o authorise payment in the present financial year of S7m to South Australia and S7.8m to Tasmania, in recent years there has been quite a remarkable about-turn in the application of this special assistance. When the 1968 Bill was put to the House, emphasis was put on the end of Western Australia’s dependence on the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It. seemed then that Tasmania would be the only remaining claimant State for special assistance.

On all the indications available it seemed that the Grants Commission was coming to the end of its period of useful life. With Tasmania the only claimant State, it hardly seemed necessary to retain the Grants Commission. Since ‘hen South Australia has elected to return to the protection of the Grants Commission as a claimant Stale. This is reflected in the legislation before the House which provides special assistance to South Australia which had relinquished its claimant State status in 1959-60. Now Queensland has approached the Grants Commission for special assistance, although the approach was too late for implementation in this legislation. It seems that there is still a role for the Grants Commission, that despite pride in sovereignty and States rights there are still advantages in retaining the despised mendicant status.

In its 37th report published in 1970, the Grants Commission dealt in considerable detail with public finance and fiscal policy in Tasmania. In its latest report, the Commission treats the problems of CommonwealthState relations in a rather broader perspective. It is disappointing that some of the specific issues affecting budgetary pOliCy in Tasmania raised in the previous report have not been followed through in the latest report. Perhaps this was inevitable with the return of two of the claimant States to the fold. The Commission recommended payment of a special grant to Tasmania for 1972 of $7. 8m. This was composed of an advance grant of Slim based on the estimate of a deficit of $15,878,000 in 1971-72. However, this grant of Slim is subject to subtraction of the complete grant for the previous year.

Adjustment to the State budget based on the standard derived from New South Wales and Victoria have produced a negative completion grant of S3. 2m. This completion grant was considerably augmented by the special payment of SI. 5m in 1969- 70 by the Commonwealth to Tasmania to help that State finance its expected revenue debt. Undoubtedly Tasmania has been treated according to the strict letter of practice and precedent. The calculation of the special assistance is impeccable; it is in accordance with carefully prescribed and observed procedures. What is open to grave doubt is the wisdom of this .scrupulous observance in a period of very grave financial peril for Tasmania. For this reason it is disappointing that the special assistance the Commonwealth thought warranted by the State Budget projections should be chopped by 30 per cent by the completion grant formula. This prompts the feeling that the whole machinery is too inflexible, that the objectives of fiscal adjustment would be better served by adopting a broader framework and a less rigid time scale.

In this debate last year I referred to these questions, and the case I put forward then has been substantiated by the results contained in the latest report of the Grants Commission and implemented in this Bill. Whatever the merits of the present structure, it is not providing long term financial planning for the State. Economic growth in the State has proceeded in an extremely erratic pattern. Part of the reason for these fluctuations in growth is the susceptibility of the Tasmanian economy to natural disasters such as flood and fire. But it must be realised that a major cause is uncertainty and timidity in budgetary policy. The State Government is left in considerable uncertainty about future planning because it is dependent on the calculations of the Grants Commission. The Budget always has a concealed element in the incidence of the completion grants formula. Depending on the modified budget results in New South Wales and Victoria, the Tasmanian Government may get an unexpected windfall or it may have potential revenue drastically cut back. This machinery brings short term benefits to Tasmania in effective accounting and scrutiny of the day to day operations of the economy. It has the disadvantage of hindering long term economic planning in the State. The impact of the Commonwealth through the overwhelming influence of the Grants Commission on the State Budget has limited the opportunities for enlightened fiscal policy.

Undoubtedly the Tasmanian Budget is the most closely constrained in Australia. There are strong grounds for relaxing this structure and adopting more flexible techniques of fiscal planning for the State under the guidance of the Grants Commission. Again in this debate last year, 1 recommended that the Grants Commission should be asked to develop a system of programme budgeting which would allow spending to be analysed and incorporated into an overall budgetary framework projected up to 5 years ahead. Unless revenue and expenditure flow can be projected in the framework of programme budgeting, there is little possibility of achieving effective planning for Tasmania. Certainly no State in the Commonwealth needs long term planning more. It is difficult to look at the future of Tasmania with any degree of optimism. The State has been hit particularly hard by the present recession in economic activity deliberately induced by Commonwealth Government policy. This shows up in the employment figures. The pleasant surprise promised by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) for the October figures certainly did not show up in the State breakdown for Tasmania. Before the attack on demand initiated by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in this year’s Federal Budget, pockets of severe economic stagnation already existed in Tasmania. The policies of the Commonwealth Government have produced further unemployment and hardship. This was an inevitable result of policies aimed to suppress demand across the board rather than concentrating correc tive action on the sectors of the economy where powerful inflationary forces existed. Inflationary forces have not run unbridled in Tasmania, yet Commonwealth policy has dealt the State a particularly savage blow. According to Commonwealth Employment Service statistics for Tasmania, the proportion of unemployed in October was 1.71 per cent, the highest in Australia. So much for pleasant surprises.

In the debate on the no confidence motion yesterday the Government spokesmen did not refer to a widely publicised scheme to make S20m available to the States for emergency grants to country councils in areas with serious unemployment. Now the Prime Minister has waited until the last possible moment before disclosing the scheme to the House. The only reason for keeping back such a project seems to have been that the Government did not want to give the impression of being goaded to act by Opposition pressures. This is illogical because a scheme of this nature is primarily a welfare measure. It should be regarded not as an overall stimulus to the economy but as a relief measure linked to the reconstruction of rural industries which is ostensibly part of Government policy. It is a measure which should have been introduced at least 2 budgets ago when the deterioration in rural employment become apparent. The effect of such emergency grants on aggregate demand and the restoration of the national economy will be relatively unimportant. But as a selective measure aimed at reviving economic activity in depressed sectors of the economy, this proposal has merits. If the Government is seriously intending to introduce such a scheme, then I urge that consideration be given to those pockets of economic stagnation and unemployment which show up in the economic indicators for Tasmania. The Government is cutting it pretty fine if it intends to get an emergency grants scheme into operation before the Parliament rises. Even if the first grants were made tomorrow, it would be some months before any real benefit would be felt in the local government areas assisted. It seems that the New South Wales Premier, Mr Askin, announced in the State Parliament this morning that the Commonwealth would make these grants available. Apparently this was done with the authority of the Prime Minister after the inevitable telephone call. At the same time Mr Ask in was announcing the measure as established fact, the Federal Treasurer (Mr Snedden) was stonewalling questions on it in this House. He managed to convey the impression that the Commonwealth did not favour making additional grants to the States. It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should delegate to a St;,te Premier the announcement of such an important policy matter at a time when the Commonwealth Parliament was in session.

Reverting to the broader picture of the Tasmanian economy, it is obvious that Tasmania”* economic growth depends on the maintenance of comparative advantage of its industries in the internal Australian market and in the export trade. This comparative advantage has been eroded in the past few years. Cost advantages which industry based in Tasmania once enjoyed through cheaper power and other concessions have been whittled away. There has been little movement of new industry from mainland States to Tasmania; a reverse flow has gained ground with a number of prominent industries moving back to the mainland. Heavy increases in shipping freights have accentuated this trend. The deterioration of the internal transport structure, in particular the railways, has assisted the loss of comparative advantage by Tasmania. Coupled with this loss of comparative advantage has been a relatively low rate of public and private investment. This problem of sagging investment was studied by the Hunter River Foundation in its report on Tasmania’s economic growth. Unfortunately the last estimate given by the report is for 1967-68. but there is no sign that the trend has changed in the subsequent years. In 1967-68 the Foundation estimated that Tasmania’s gross regional product was S659m. Using this as a yardstick, the Foundation estimated that the Stale needed n flow of investment from government and private enterprise amounting to more than Si 80m a year to sustain an adequate regional growth rate, lt is difficult to give even a rough estimate of the present level of investment in Tasmania, but there is no reason to believe it is anywhere near this base figure of SI 80m a year. On the information available in Grants Commission reports, Budget papers and other sources it is unlikely that investment is running anywhere near a level sufficient to maintain ait adequate growth rate.

The Commonwealth must accept some of the responsibility for this apathetic investment rate. An example is the deadlock which seems to have arisen over the provision of Commonwealth assistance fur the upgrading of Tasmanian main line railways. Commonwealth support for litis major project has been recommended “bv a Senate standing committee and the takPoy report. The Minister for Slipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) has indicated that the Commonwealth is willing to consider u request for assistance from the State Government. For some inexplicable reason Mr Bethune and his colleagues have delayed in making the request. I do not blame the Minister for this. Quite clearly he reg«’-ds it as his prerogative to wail on the Tasmanian Government’s request for as islance. But. there is an absence on either side of the sort of dynamism needed to find the investment funds to lift Tasmania’s ailing economy.

I referred earlier in my address to the serious unemployment situation in Tasmania. I regret that, because time is limited in this debate, I will not he able to develop this matter and other related matters to the extent that 1 would like. The plain fact is that, despite the special grunt that has been accorded to Tasmania tis a result of this legislation, there is a deterioration in the economic situation in that State. 1 believe that this has been recognised to a certain extent by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, lt has been recognised that South Australia, too. has special difficulties. That is one of >he reasons why South Australia has elected to apply for assistance through the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

But above all the Commonwealth still has a responsibility to recognise that a Slate has a disadvantage in relation to New South Wales and Victoria in terms of transport, industrial development and all of those matters that help to develop he economy of the smaller States. As a result of the decision of the Commonwealth Giants Commission additional finance will- he provided for Tasmania. But I believe ‘hal if the problems of that State and the other smaller Stales are to be arrested the Commonwealth will have to acknowledge that it has a greater responsibility, which should not be left only to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in relation to matters which are so important if the economy is to be satisfactorily adjusted.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I am the fourth Opposition member in succession who has risen to speak on this group of States Grants Bills. In case anybody things that I am now going to criticise Government members because of this, 1 hasten lo say that this is not so. The fact is that the Government feels happy because these measures have increased the amount of funds available to the States. To the extent that this is so, 1 congratulate the Government. There is no doubt that the money made available in these 3 Bills is a great improvement on what was made available in the past. Although there has been no collusion between Opposition members, let me hasten to say - inasmuch as we have not got together to prepare what we have to say - all of us are coming out wilh one theme: There should not be complacency, there is a little bit too much smugness and there are tremendous problems still left in the States. The Opposition is looking ahead at these problems and at the way they can be overcome.

First of all I want to deal with the 3 Bills separately. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who led for the Opposition, said, the first 2 arose out of the Premiers Conference and Australian Loan Council meetings in June 1971. I am extremely disappointed that these Premiers Conferences are not open to the public. I took the trouble to come from Adelaide on the occasion of a Premiers Conference in 1970 in order to attend a conference which was particularly vital for my State. Because I feel that there is a necessity for Commonwealth politicians like myself to have greater co-operation with the State parliaments, I took the trouble during a parliamentary recess to come to Canberra with the Premier of South Australia in order to better acquaint myself with South Australia’s problems. I arrived at the door of the Senate chamber just as it was being closed in my face. The States with Liberal and Country Party governments voted with the then Prime Minister for the whole proceedings to be in camera. I object to this. I am glad that the Premier of South Australia and the Labor Premier of Western Australia have objected to this. These sorts of deliberations should be in public so that the whole of the community may know what is going on at these most important conferences.

The second point I want to make about these Premiers Conferences is, whether they take place in February, April or June, we are ricocheting from one crisis in Commonwealth-State financial relations to another. I want to reiterate what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) for the second year in succession. He made the point so well, that we need long term planning in this matter of Commonwealth-State relations. The smugness and the complacency of the Government seems to arise from a belief that, because it dragged $43m out of the air in April 1970 as extra grants to the States and another $22.4m as it has done in one of these Bills, the extra money will cure the problems. This is not the cure for Commonwealth-State relations problems. The challenge for us all, and the challenge which we in the Australian Labor Party are prepared to meet, is for what I would like to call and what some of my colleagues have already called co-operative federalism - getting down together and discussing the problems, not just of where the money will be obtained but the sort of problems that the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) raised so ably in his contribution to this debate this afternoon. One of these is the great problem of education.

We should be discussing the sort of problem that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) brought to this chamber earlier this afternoon when he announced the grant to the States which we expect to debate in the autumn session but which we hope we will have a chance to debate in the next few days before the Parliament rises for the Christmas recess. The Prime Minister brought down a paper this afternoon relating to the grants designed to overcome the shocking unemployment problem which is prevalent particularly in country districts. I wonder just what cooperation there was before that paper was brought down, between the Commonwealth and State governments and between the Commonwealth Public Service and the State Public Services on the real needs. I do not think it is- satisfactory for us as politicians - although this is one of our duties and certainly one we must continue to observe as federal politicians - to bring these problems to this Parliament. It is not satisfactory for it to be done in isolation from the States and the structures that exist in the States.

So I come back to co-operative federalism. I hope to come back time and again when 1 have the opportunity in this House, to a discussion of a new era in the management of this country, an era when Commonwealth parliamentarians, State parliamentarians, the Commonwealth Public Service and the State Public Services gel together not just on occasions as they do at the moment for ministerial conferences but at all levels so that each will understand far more clearly the others’ problems. We have a Government at the moment which is chopping and changing from one Premiers Conference to another.

As 1 have said already, at least the first Bill, which deals with revenue arrangements - the States Grants Bill (No. 2)- has meant more revenue for the States. The next one, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, has meant more of the loan funds for the States. 1 would also” like to say something about the third Bill, the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill, which was the subject of the speech of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). Of course, this Bill and the second reading speech of the Minister should be studied only in conjunction with a study of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, a study which has been done extremely well by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, particularly in relation to his own State.

Let me say in relation to South Australia that we are still getting only interim grants. In the first year that we found it necessary, due to discrimination by the then Prime Minister Gorton against our State, to go to the Commonwealth Grants Commission we got an amount of S5m. As yet the detailed accounts of South Australia have not been studied in depth for the year ended 30th June 1971 to know whether S5m was the correct amount. I believe that it will be found to have been insufficient. I believe that as soon as this study has been done we will find that South Australia is entitled to more than the $5m it has got to date; similarly with the S7m that has been granted as an interim amount relating to the current financial year. From all the inquiries I have made in South Australian Government circles this also will be insufficient when the formula is applied to the South Australian budget. So to an extent we in South Australia are working at a disadvantage at the moment in relation to the amounts allocated under this special assistance Bill. However, there are some aspects of the report which I do welcome.

I want to emphasise again that I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than there is too much of a short term nature in the whole way that the amounts are worked out. But I do at least feel satisfaction that the old argument that has gone on in the past as to whether the basis upon which the calculation is made for the special assistance for the claimant States should be New South Wales and Victoria alone or whether it should be the 4 nonclaimant States, seems now to have ceased and that those responsible have made up their minds that it should be New South Wales and Victoria. At the same time I say on behalf of either New South Wales or Victoria that nobody is doing the necessary study to enable us to know whether one of those 2 States is disadvantaged in relation to the other. There ought to be far more work of the sort that is done by the Commonwealth Grants Commission being done in relation to all the State budgets. That is another aspect of the concept that 1 have when I think of cooperative federalism.

Mr Barnard:

– lt would be much fairer if they could deal with the Commonwealth and State relations as a whole.

Mr HURFORD:

– It certainly would. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he says that, and I think that he will agree with me when I say that this is the concept that we have in CommonwealthState relations - of looking at the whole . area, nol only those areas which are the States’- responsibilities but also those areas which are the Commonwealth’s responsibilities so that the State governments will understand our responsibilities as well. When we apply Australian Labor Party ideas of indicative planning - the sort of planning that is carried out in Japan - we will, of course, involve not only the government sector but also the private sector as is done in Japan and in most other countries which apply indicative planning. But with a federalism such as ours we shall, of course, include the State governments and we will all be in agreement on the targets of where we are going and not be working in competition with each other to the extent that we are al the present time.

Mr Peacock:

– Will you coerce the States to meet your standards?

Mr HURFORD:

– We certainly will not need to coerce the States to do anything of the sort, just as we will not have to coerce the private sector to do this because the private sector at this time, through its elected industry and commerce representatives, is talking in the same terms as we are of the need for overall plans and a target. If the Minister looks at this country objectively at the moment the only people who seem to be so wooden that they do nol see the need for this indicative planning are the people who are charged with the task of governing this country and who are doing it so badly. There is much more that I would like to have said about planning in our community, but I know there are others who want to enter this debate. In fact, one of them has just put a note on my desk to say that my allocated time hits expired, so I will leave it there.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– 1 thank the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for his kindness. 1 would not have put that note on his desk had I known at the time that the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) had graciously extended our time till 5.30 p.m. so that both the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I will be able to speak. 1 tried to speak on this subject during the Grievance Day debate, but unfortunately I was gagged after about 2 minutes. I want to raise the question of the States Grants (Home Care) Act. What particularly interested me recently was an answer received by my colleague the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) ou Thursday, J. 1th November, from the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) to a question he asked about the amount of money that had been made available and expended under this Act during the years 1969 and 1970. I have left a copy with the Minister and I would appreciate it if it was incorporated in Hansard.

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

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

Home Care Services - Senior Citizens’ Centres (Question No. 45021

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister fur Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been (a) available and (b) granted for (i) home care services, (ii) senior citizens’ centres and (iii) welfare officers at senior citizens’ centres under the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 to each of the Stales in ea-h of the last 2 years.
  2. What Stales have indicated preparedness to participate in each of these schemes.
Mr Wentworth:

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

Mr COHEN:

– The answer is divided into 3 sections. The first relates to home care services, the second to senior citizens centres and the third to welfare officers. In the year 1969-70 an amount of §500,000 was made available for home care services but only $31,413 of this was used. In the year 1970-71 an amount of $566,000 was made available and $317,802 was used. 1 want to refer mainly, however, to the question of senior citizens centres, something which has been of great interest to me in my electorate because in 1969-70 for the whole of Australia an amount of $100,000 was made available and only $16,000 was used and in 1970-71 $200,000 was made available and $84,137 was used. What concerns me is that in those 2 years a total of $130,000 was made available in New South Wales for the building of senior citizens centres and only $34,449 was taken up. I think I am right in saying that that is about a quarter of the amount made available.

I think that people in New South Wales who know the electorate of Robertson well will know just how many senior people in our community go there to retire.

They will know that it is made up of communities such as Gosford, Woy Woy, Ettalong, Umina, the Empire Bay area which includes Terrigal and Avoca Beach, Long Jetty, The Entrance, Toukley, Budgewoi, Wyong, and in the north near Newcastle, Swansea. When I went to see the Minister recently he showed me a report enclosed in reply to a letter that I had written to him showing that officially there were 14,000 pensioners living in my electorate. That does not include probably as least half as many people again who are not eligible for the pension but who are retired. I think it is pretty well recognised in this Parliament that the electorate of Robertson is the area in which there are more retired persons than in any other electorate in Australia. There are 21,000, which is about one-third the number of electors, and I do not think any other electorate would match that number.

There is not one senior citizens club, retired persons club or pensioners club in the whole of my electorate. When 1 say there is not a club I mean that there is not a centre where people can go and hold functions and activities as they can in a senior citizens club. There are clubs and branches of clubs which meet in church halls and in Progress Association halls but -there are no senior citizens centres as wc know them, that is a club that is open 7 days a week and which has a different type of activity every day such as hobbies, handicrafts, meetings, dances, parties, indoor bowls, television, libraries and so on. I will not go into the detail of what goes on in these centres or clubs as I think that honourable members will be aware of the nature of their activities.

Shortly after 1 was elected to this House I went to my colleague, the honourable member for Barton, together with a number of constituents, people interested in senior citizens centres, including a councillor, on a tour of the electorate of Barton. We visited a number of these clubs. One was at Allawah, one at Rockdale and one at Kogarah. We were amazed to learn that despite the fact that the electorate of Barton has about half the number of pensioners and retired persons as has the electorate of Robertson there were 7 of these centres in the Barton electorate. In my electorate there are 21,000 retired people but there is not one senior citizens centre in operation.

What disturbs me is this: When the money is made available the Government announces that it has a big scheme to cover home care services, senior citizens centres or social welfare workers and a lot of publicity is given to the announcement. The Government says: ‘Look at what we are doing. We have provided a total of $l.Sm.’ But the Government does not say 12 months later that only a small amount of that money has been used. I do not say that this is entirely the fault of the Government. The State governments have been extremely irresponsible in this matter. This money was made available on a matching grant basis. That is, the Commonwealth would provide one-third of the money, the States one-third and the community, made up of perhaps Service organisations, shire councils, senior citizens and pensioners themselves, would make up the balance, the other one-third.

I have referred mainly to my own State of New South Wales. The New South Wales Premier. Mr Askin, did not accept the Commonwealth offer until just prior to the election held this year and therefore none of that money was expended in the first year, 1969-70. The money was just not used, and so the advantage was lost. After the election he took up the offer. He stated that he would accept the Commonwealth offer but he would not agree to a matching grant. This meant that the rest of the community then had to provide two-thirds of the money. But even worse than this is the fact that of the $90,000 made available for senior citizens centres and the $40,000 made available for social workers, practically none has been used. The Commonwealth has a responsibility, in my view, to take some initiative in this field. If the States will not get off their backsides and do something about it there is nothing to stop the Commonwealth sending its officers into these areas where it knows there is a dire need for these centres.

I have spoken with the Minister for Social Services time and time again. That Minister recognises the very great need for the provision of these centres in the electorate of Robertson. I am not here today making a parochial speech on behalf of my electorate. There is a desperate need for these centres. When the money is available and the States will not get off their backsides and do something about it it is up to the Government to step in and take action. It is of no use saying ‘Well, we have made the money available but the States have not done anything about it’. That is not good enough. This Government should show some initiative by sending into these areas departmental officers who could then say: ‘We could do with a centre here and we could do with a centre there’. 1 could easily do with 14 of these centres in my electorate. Every one of those towns I mentioned earlier is entitled to have one of these centres.

I would now like to refer to the sort of frustration that I have experienced in this matter. Immediately after I was elected to this House I called a public meeting and explained to the people that there was a desperate need to provide these centres. I have campaigned on this; I have been to and spoken at umpteen Apex and Rotary club meetings. I have also been to the Gosford and Wyong shire councils in regard to this matter. I have attended luncheons and dinners at which I have pleaded with and begged people to become involved. There are 2 groups in this community which have substantial amounts of money available to meet their proportion of a matching grant. I will deal with one in particular. It is the Brisbane Waters Senior Citizens’ Club. The president is a gentleman by the name of Alex Clark. The club is quite a dynamic one. lt has about 450 members. It holds weekly meetings at which never fewer than 250 attend. The last time J spoke to Mr Clark the Club had abo it $6,500 or $7,000 in its building fund. This is not money which has been obtained from Service organisations. This is money that this Club has raised through lucky envelope competitions and card afternoons. Unfortunately there is now an impasse between the Club and the local council.

I had reached the stage where I had an agreement with the local council that it would go ahead and provide land for this Club. When the land was made available we would have been able to approach the State Government which in turn could approach the Commonwealth, thereby attracting the grant. By attending, dinners and luncheons with councillors I convinced them, after showing a film provided by the New South Wales Council on Aid for Senior Citizens’ Centres, of the need for these centres, and they all agreed with me. The matter was reported in the local paper. However, just after this there was a council election and 8 of the 9 councillors were removed from office. This meant that only one councillor in the Gosford Shire Council had been in the previous Council.

So 1 had to start all over again. I had a dinner with these new councillors not so long ago and I stressed the need at least to proceed wilh the setting aside of land for the Brisbane Waters Senior Citizens Club. Later on I went to the Wyong Shire Council and showed the film at the Shire’s Council Chambers. That Council agreed that the Clubs were necessary. The Council agreed thai it was necessary to build 5 of these clubs, one in The Entrance-Long Jetty area, one in Toukley, one in Budgewoi and one in Wyong. However, another election was held and the council was removed from office almost in toto. Not one member of the previous council was returned to office.

There is a limited amount that a Federal member can do. In order that we might be able to utilise the money that has been made available by the Commonwealth I ask the Minister for his assistance and the assistance of his Department in sending departmental officers to the electorate of Robertson so that they may sit down and have a talk with the Slate Parliamentary representative, the members of the Gosford and Wyong shire councils, the members of the community service clubs and also the pensioner and senior citizens organisations, so that we can get a programme under way. 1 point out also that there is provision in this Act for social welfare officers. In 1969-70 the Commonwealth made available $60,000 for social welfare workers. I think 1 am correct in saying that that amount of $60,000 was a matching grant with the local community. 1 do not want honourable members to think that it required a matching grant from the State. That amount of $60,000 was made available for the State of New South Wales for social welfare workers but not one cent of it has been used. In 1970-71 the amount for this purpose was reduced to $40,000 but not one cent of it was used. I find it quite incredible, living in a community such as the one in which I live where there is so much social need, so much deprivation, so many underprivileged people and so many pensioners that $100,000 for social workers should go begging with nobody bothering to do anything about it. If the initiative does not come from the community it should come from the Commonwealth Government.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This is a most important Bill in terms of the magnitude of finance provided to or for the States. In regard to the actual payments to or for the States on works and ho,,sing programmes the amount involved in 1969- 70 was $2.41 6m. Tn 1970-71 the amount was $2,843m. For 1971-72 the amount has been estimated at $2,93 lm. These are extremely large amounts of money. I want to speak principally with respect to certain projects such as works programmes in relation to Commonwealth-State financial agreements. One thing I do believe is that a needle or some stimulant should be given to the Government or to some of the departments for which the Government is always ranking excuses. Time and time again I have asked questions in this Parliament concerning the progress of particular projects - they may be concerned with roads, Water, power or land development - and every time 1 get the answer ‘lt is under investigation’. Obviously considerable time must be spent in investigations. I would be the first to admit that. 1 would expect adequate investigations, particularly in the scientific and technical fields, to determine the proper allocation of scarce resources, but one becomes tired of the type of answer that one receives all the time, especially when one knows that analyses have been completed. I speak, in this regard, particularly of water development projects. It would seem that in most instances the Government plays politics, lt watts for the most opportune lime before advising the States, through Cabinet, on water development projects. This results in undue hardship in many areas of Australia to those people who are waiting for State or Commonwealth decisions relative to their particular problems.

The beef roads programme has been a major project year in and vear out. This programme is a 5-yearly programme but, as has been pointed out many times in this House by myself and other honourable members, there is need for an early decision before the completion of a 5-yearly programme. It is obvious that roads must be completed. It is also obvious, from undertakings being given by the Government, that the beef roads scheme will continue. It is essential that some announcement to this effect should be made by the Government. The Government should indicate to the States what roads are to be constructed and what money will be available for those roads. If this were done it would minimise losses which could be brought about by plant being moved from one location and then having to be moved back. The same arguments apply to water conservation projects. 1 have not been able to ascertain accurately how long it had been since the Government has made a decision under the water development programme. It certainly has been a considerable time - well over 12 months. In my home State of Queensland, for example, people in the Burdekin area have been waiting since 1949 for a decision from this Government on the Burdekin Basin. Who will forget the famous election words of Sir Arthur Fadden, the then Leader of the Country Party, in 1949 when he said: ‘We will build the Burdekin dam’? Not $1 of Commonwealth money has been spent on this project. A lot of promises have been made, there has been buck passing and the Queensland Government has been blamed, but no Commonwealth money has been made available. I refer also to the North Eton project, This area is intensively settled, agriculturally, but it is susceptible to drought, experiencing on an average one drought every 3i years, lt is ait area in which there is every justification for tho expenditure of Commonwealth money on water conservation, lt would be a sound economic project as long as the Government delays making a decision economic and financial hardship will be caused to the people there. Most of the land in the potential catchment area is frozen. No improvements can be made because one makes improvements al one’s own risk and most farmers are not prepared to take that risk. The Government should make an early decision one way or another. It should not procrastinate and make excuses, lt should not say that the matter is under investigation or keep on blaming the relevant departments. In most cases the departments have forwarded reports which, frequently, are in the hands of interdepartmental committees. Those who have served on interdepartmental committees know that these committees are a most iniquitous means of stalling decisions.

I turn now to matters associated with the Postmaster-General’s Department, although I appreciate that strictly this is not a State matter. However, the States are concerned if the Commonwealth Government cannot find the time or the money necessary to increase the efficiency of this Department. In my own area, and in other areas of Australia, there is a 12 months delay in securing the provision of multi-coin telephone boxes. I am quite certain that the 2 Ministers who are present in the chamber now - the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) and the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) - would not know of this situation. Australia is a nation with vast unemployed resources, yet there is this delay in securing multi-con telephone boxes. In my own electorate there are 7 applicants for this facility. All applicants are good in the sense that the provision of this facility would actually show a profit to the Commonwealth Government. One applicant is the Returned Services League Club in Mackay, which has 1,200 active members who patronise the club exceptionally well, as anyone familiar with the club will know. That club has been told that it will be 14 months before it can get a multi-coin telephone box. This is an incredible situation. Why cannot Australian resources be used to make available this facility or ordinary public telephone boxes for that matter? This may be only a minor point but it illustrates that if the Commonwealth is seeking revenue there are avenues available to it.

Another factor which greatly disturbs Federal and State members of Parliament concerns the closing of country post offices. lt is extremely difficult to get any information on this matter. Suddenly, out of the night, comes an order and a post office is closed, and then all hell breaks loose. Every farmer and every worker in the area concerned protests to his Federal or State member. Why cannot we get advanced information on the closing of post offices? Why cannot the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) tell Federal members that a certain post office will be closed so that, if necessary, they can organise activity to try to prevent its closure? However, that is not done, and frequently a member is overseas or elsewhere when the post office is closed. This is a type of fly by night tactic with which most honourable members, particularly those in rural areas, have to contend. I think it is wrong, because no investigation is made upon which we can argue. The decision is simply a departmental decision.

All people who live or work in country areas know that the local post office is virtually the heart of an area. Many country post offices have served their districts for over 50 years, and served them well. Not only are they the heart of an area, they also are the social centre of an area, and to suddenly see them closed by a policy decision is a retrograde step. I hope that before this Parliament goes into recess the Country Party will side with the Opposition to stop the Postmaster-General from taking the dictatorial action of closing down country post offices. This matter may not be important to the Postmaster-General’s

Department but it is extremely important to the Australian public. If money is nol available for post office facilities, a thorough look should be had by members of the Cabinet at priorities.

Recently a policy was announced of giving country people a higher priority with respect to the provision of telephones, but every district engineer throughout the nation regards this as a joke. It is all very well to formulate a policy but unless additional money is made available the people will be no better off. The announcement of such a policy causes heartaches for people who race into the local post offices or district telephone offices complaining that they are not being provided with telephones within a certain time. I have had to tell people that they might get it by the year 2000 if they are lucky because, in some areas, it is not possible to get an estimate under 10 years. What sort of a policy is this? It is essential that something should be done.

I should like to say - I point out to the Minister that he was 2 minutes late in starting the debate - to the Minister and to those officers who are in attendance and who can convey this back to their respective departments that it is high time that we received progress reports in this Parliament on the projects that have been financed by the Commonwealth. We make available, say, $10Om for a project and that is the last we ever hear of it in the Parliament. 1 have no doubt that officers of the department concerned see progress reports but, as I have stated time and time again in this House to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), we are entitled to know how efficiently this money is being spent. For example, is there efficient use of finance on the Ord River project, the beef road, the brigalow area and the various irrigation and power projects throughout the southern States of Australia? We in the Parliament want to know how efficiently that money is being spent and whether mistakes have been made, so that these mistakes can be rectified in the future. I think that this is important from the point of view of a Federal Parliament which, after all, debates at length and passes a Bill, or whatever it might be. on the recommendations of the Government and that is the last we as a Parliament ever hear of it. So, it is essential that we do receive progress reports.

I conclude by saying that there must be more co-operation with the States and more money made available with priority given to the most urgent development projects. Will the Government or the Government departments responsible, for goodness sake, put a needle or some sort of a stimulant into themselves so that we may have quicker answers to our questions? I do not want continually to be asking the Minister for National Development how the Burdekin project is going. I have been asking him for 6 years now and I am still receiving the same answer - that is under investigation. We have asked how particular road projects are going and again we are always told that they are under investigation. Tt is high time that we made a positive decision ip fairness to people in the metropolitan and country areas who are actually waiting for a decision.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Peacock) read a third lime.

page 4040

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 30 September (vide page 1738), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4040

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed front 28 October (vide page 2698), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4040

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 September (vide page 1749), on motion by Mr Howson:

That the Bill be now read a second lim*.

Mr BEAZLEY (Fremantle) (5.321-1 move:

That ali words after ‘that’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the House, while not refusing a second reading to the Bill, regrets the failure of the Government to assume the responsibilities accorded to it by the Referendum of May 1967, and in particular deplores the evasion of full Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal housing. Aboriginal employment and training for employment, for Aboriginal education at all levels, for the reduction of Aboriginal neo-natal, infant and child mortality, and for Aboriginal health generally, especially for the elimination of leprosy and tuberculosis from the Aboriginal people.

In May 1967 the Australian electorate did not run true to form. The Australian electorate is highly resistant to referendum proposals and highly resistant to changes in the Constitution. But there was one change in the Constitution which the Australian people supported in quite an amazing fashion. It was a referendum which in some States was carried by over 90 per cent of the vote and it was a referendum in which the affirmative vote swept into practically every polling booth in the country. It eliminated the prohibition on legislation for

Aborigines which existed in the Commonwealth Constitution where at section 51 (xxvi.) it formerly said:

The people of any race other than the Aboriginal race in any State for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

There was struck from the Constitution the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ so that the Commonwealth had power to legislate for Aborigines.

However, the willingness of the Commonwealth Government to propose this referendum had been in doubt. Sir Robert Menzies made perfectly clear in the House that he was opposed to any constitutional change in relation to Aborigines excepting the change in section 128 of the Constitution which provided that they were not counted in the census. He was willing that they be counted in the census. That of course is hardly an amendment of substance although it is a necessary amendment. In the earlier stages of his prime ministership Mr Holt took the same view, but at a later stage he changed his view and felt that the Commonwealth should assume responsibility and agreed to the referendum. Acceptance of the proposal was unanimous in this House and it was, I think, unanimous in the Senate. The proposal was put to the people by a unanimous Parliament and it was a proposal which gained that great affirmative vote. Unhappily, with Mr Holt’s death, the referendum may just as well never have been carried and never have been proposed because Commonwealth action, as the very title of the Bill that we are debating today suggests, proceeds on precisely the same assumptions as before the constitutional amendment, namely that the Commonwealth is a grant-making body with no direct responsibility except in its own Territories and, therefore, it makes grants to the States for Aboriginal purposes. But even if one accepts that viewpoint, one would expect the Commonwealth to use its powers more extensively than it does.

We on the Labor side of the House, long to see a new approach adopted towards Aborigines. There have been too many easy formulae in connection with Aborigines. I am glad to say that the great pseudo-objective of assimilation is no longer declared to be our target. T am perfectly well aware that this word assimilation’ was given a thoroughly creditable meaning by Mr Hasluck, as he then was, when he had responsibility for the Northern Territory, and that meaning was that Aborigines should live at the same standards as Europeans. But those of us who were on the Select Committee on Aboriginal Voting Rights very soon found that in its popular usage the word did not have that meaning at all. It was a conveniently vague objective. I have said in this House previously that if one asked an administrator: ‘What have you done to assimilate Aborigines to date?’ he could not give an intelligible answer because assimilation as an objective does not put the Administration under the discipline of practical achievement.If, on the other hand, the Commonwealth assumes responsibility for Aboriginal housing, for training Aborigines for employment for Aboriginal education - and the Commonwealth has begun to work a transformation in Aboriginal education by providing allowances to teenage Aborigines - and for reducing Aboriginal neo-natal infant and child mortality, then we would have measurable objectives for the Administration. It has either attained those objectives or it has not. We either reduce Aboriginal infant mortality or we do not. Mortality is measurable. So a discipline to achieve is put upon the Administration.

I believe that so long as there is a division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States, or so long as the Commonwealth is reluctant to grasp certain nettles like housing firmly, then we can bemuse the Australian public. Any dispute between the Commonwealth and the States over finances leaves the Australian people bemused. It has been so often a matter of crying wolf. Everybody expects the State Premiers to ask for more than they will get. Everybody expects the State Premiers to go away critical, except in an election year when those State Premiers who belong to the same party as that comprising the Federal Government will profess to be more satisfied than usually. This gavotte has been going on for years.If a State government seriously says that it needs a large sum of money for housing and gets about one-tenth of what it needs from the Commonwealth all of this is dismissed if there is any complaint as the usual argy-bargy. If the Commonwealth organisation assumed responsibility for the housing of Aborigines in various places, one would soon see a much larger allocation made, if the Commonwealth were acting on the advice of its own officers instead of upon the requests of the States.

We say the same thing, of course, in respect of education, and we are told that this is not a Commonwealth matter. But one cannot argue that Aborigines are not a Commonwealth matter. If they are not. why did the Government sponsor the referendum of May 1967 to give itself a complete legislative status? It achieved the power of this Parliament to legislate for the Aboriginal people. So our amendment states that we regret the failure of the Government to assume the responsibilities accorded to it by the referendum of May 1967. I suppose what one key target to concentrate upon is Aboriginal child mortality, because the answer to Aboriginal child mortality lies in the income and training of the parents and in seeing that the family of the child is properly housed.

We have a tragedy in Western Australia. The Princess Margaret Hospital, which is a hospital for children, is constantly tending Aboriginal infants and young children. They come down from the north, or from country areas, with gastro-enteritis and all sens of other diseases and afflictions. They are nursed back into a state of full health by the care that they receive in the hospital, and then they return to conditions where there has not been a basic attempt made, or where there is not the staff to make an adequate attempt to educate the parents. There is no plan for housing the parents. There is not adequate money for the State welfare departments. People may have good plans but they cannot carry them out. The child simply returns to unsatisfactory conditions. The focus of our minds is so little on this problem that very great achievements can go unnoticed.

Aboriginal children some years ago suffered from trachoma, a disease which can cause blindness. There is a former member of the staff of the Medical School of the University of Western Australia, a woman, Professor Ida Mann. She has written an entertaining book titled The Cockney and the Crocodile’. She came to Australia from England to take up an appointment at the University. She investigated this whole question of trachoma. By her medical discoveries and the action which she organised, she virtually eliminated trachoma from the Aboriginal population, and from other people who were suffering from the disease, in Western Australia. Had that achievement been made in the European community, Professor Ida Mann without any question at all would have been made a Dame Grand Cross of the British Empire. She had as good a claim to such a title for such an achievement - and her achievement was recognised all over the world and her discoveries were used all over the world - as have, shall we say, various lady senators who have been given that title. She has retired into private life from her university career, and there has been no acknowledgment of this great achievement. I do not campaign for a title for the lady. I merely say that the omission demonstrates that we so rarely value any achievement in service of the Aboriginal community.

When Sir Earle Page was Minister for Health, this Government set out to eliminate tuberculosis, and it succeeded in almost totally eliminating it from the European community. To do that the Government had to think of many things besides medical attention. It had to think of paying a man a living wage not to work so that he could leave the industry for total attention. It had to think of the environment that he went home to. A complete tuberculosis plan went into operation, and tuberculosis was almost totally eliminated from the European community. I want to see the same passion behind a Commonwealth offensive to eliminate tuberculosis from the Aboriginal community. The only sufferers from tuberculosis in Australia today are Aborigines. I want to see the same passion behind a Commonwealth offensive to eliminate leprosy, yaws and hookworm. I want to see the same passion and plan to reduce Aboriginal child and infant and neo-natal mortalities to the European levels. In the areas where the rate is measured at the moment it is found that Aboriginal infant mortality rates are as great as 10 times the mortality rates among European infants.

Of course, to do this the Commonwealth will have to think, as it had to think in connection with eliminating tuberculosis from the European community, beyond the mere question of medical treatment to the economic status of a man and his family. A man with tuberculosis was paid a living wage while he was in hospital so that he would not be worrying about the desperate condition of his family, which would have been one factor in preventing his recovery. So his family was supported while he was being treated. I feel that the same repressive logic and perception have to be mobilised for the benefit of the Australian Aboriginal community. The Commonwealth Government can do it. There are mcn in the Government - and 1- would like to give all credit to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) - who have the passion and the interest to do it. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who formerly administered the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, had the passion and interest to do it. But there needs to bc a wider recognition in this House, especially on the Government benches, that there is a total Commonwealth responsibility for this subject as a result of the referendum of May 1967. The amendment that has been moved says:

The House, while not refusing u second reading to the Bill, regrets the failure of the Government to assume the responsibilities accorded lo it by the Referendum of May I9S7. and in particular deplores the evasion of full Commonwealth responsibility for . Aboriginal housing. Aboriginal employment and training for employment, for Aboriginal education at all levels . . .

I want to conclude on that las! note. 1 know there will always be many disappointments in the area of Aboriginal policy. lt is noi very easy to legislate for another race, and it has been a very difficult task lo persuade any statistical authorities in Australia to abstract the statistics concerning the Aboriginal community from those for the general community. The policy has been to keep the statistics for Aborigines lost in the statistics for the general community. For instance, after the former Government in Western Australia began keeping separate statistics for Aborigines, whereas before that the Aboriginal child and infant mortality rale and so on had never been extracted and identified separately, the Slate Government began to take steps to reduce the appalling death rates that were revealed. We have only begun to look at this problem; we have only begun to look at the Aborigines as a distinctive people. We have been very smug. We are not apartheid-minded we claimed and therefore we did not look at the Aborigines separately from the European community. But, unfortunately, when there is a distinctive community so underprivileged as are Aborigines and so much the prey of ill health as they are, with so much suffering through inadequate social conditions, then the statistics for that community have lo be abstracted and the Aboriginal community has to be treated as confronting special problems because the problems of the Aborigines are separate and distinct from those of the general Australian community.

As the Minister for Social Services used to say when he was Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aborigines need to be discriminated for. There is too much nonsense about this word ‘discrimination’. We have to discriminate for ex-servicemen who arc wounded. We have to discriminate for all sorts of categories of people in the community who need special assistance, and the Aborigines in general need discrimination. Of course, it is the aim of all policy on Aborigines that they should move from the position where they need such discrimination.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– 1 have never doubted the interest and good will of the Minister since I served with him on a select committee that went among the Aborigines. This amendment which has been moved is a necessary reminder that the Commonwealth was accorded full power on this subject, and the Opposition is anxious that the Commonwealth Government should assume full power, lt has not launched this as an attack on the Government, but I am sure that the amendment will be so interpreted by many honourable members who arc yet to speak, lt is a reminder thai there was :i referendum and that all of us in this House from all political parties were united on this issue. The referendum did accord new powers and the amendment is a plea for the new powers to be used.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– ls the amendment seconded?

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– [ second the amendment. This Bill outlines assistance to be given by the Commonwealth for Aboriginal advancement in 1971-72. J want to refer to one part of this spending designed to cover Aboriginal people in all States. This is the amount to be spent on people of Cape Barren Island extraction. I do this because as far as I am aware - although I have from time to time made representations in this Parliament on matters concerning the welfare of these people - the peculiar problems which apply to a very small section of the community but, nevertheless, a very important one have never been placed on record.

Their history and evolution of these people have been most extensively studied from their origins among sealing communities in the Bass Strait islands in the 1830s and 1840s down to the present. The great majority of people of Cape Barren Island descent are honest and honourable people, as I can testify from many years of close contact with them. Many of the island people who have migrated to the Tasmanian mainland have been completely assimilated and have proved to be industrious and responsible. Their response in both world wars emphasised their Australian patriotism and their pride in a distinctive race. But there are substantial welfare problems flowing from the existence of this unique people. The first is the future of the hard-core island people who make their home on Cape Barren Island and will not leave it despite the lack of employment opportunities. These are the people who have become part of Australian folklore because of their traditional association with the mutton bird industry. The number of families on Cape Barren Island varies from month to month because of regular movement between the island and Tasmania. They go back to Cape Barren to see relatives or take part in the mutton bird season. But there is a hard core of about 60 men, women and children who could be described as permanent dwellers on Cape Barren Island.

These people have the assets of living their own lives on an Island of great natural beauty with an abundance of fish and wildlife. Balanced against this are less attractive elements of life on Cape Barren such as poor housing, inadequate nutrition and lack of employment opportunities. There have been many suggested solutions to this problem, ranging from mass transplantation to the establishment of kibbutzes on the island. The future of these island people remains extremely uncertain and in many ways precarious. The forced movement of the settlement on Cape Barren to the mainland has been suggested by people with irreproachable motives who see it as the only way of preventing serious social problems such as further inbreeding among younger island people. Granted there are problems but it seems to me that mass transplantation cannot bc seriously considered as a solution. These are the only remaining people with traces of Tasmanian Aboriginal blood still in their veins; they are the only link we have with a race that was exterminated. This genocide should not be compounded by rudely forcing these people from their traditional home.

In addition there are practical reasons why an involuntary movement of the islanders from Cape Barren Island would not be feasible. A second course has been the application of more subtle pressures to get the islanders off Cape Barren. These can take the form of implied threats to deny welfare benefits or other assistance to islanders unless they leave Cape Barren and go to Tasmania. This in essence is the tacit attitude of the present Tasmanian State Government. In saying this 1 do not criticise the efforts of State Government employees who look after the health, education and social welfare of the islanders. An example of the sort of insidious pressures that can be applied is the use by the State Government of Commonwealth grants for housing.

These grants are not earmarked in any way, yet the State Government has applied them consistently to buy homes for island people living in Hobart or Launceston. None of this money has been spent on housing for Cape Barren itself, although the Commonwealth has put no conditions on the use of these housing grants. Indeed, on one occasion I wrote to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who was at that time Minister in charge of this Department, and asked him to give an interpretation of the attitude of the Commonwealth in relation to people who live on Cape Barren Island. He made it abundantly clear that if the people wished to remain on the island it was their prerogative to do so. But there has been a movement in a way which leaves the people of Cape Barren island with no alternative to leaving the island if they want to attract decent accommodation. I invite the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), who is sitting at the table, to study and consider the way in which the money has been allocated, particularly in respect of how much has been Spent on Cape Barren Island. As I have already indicated, the grants are not earmarked in any way and I give the Government full credit for its direction in this respect. However, none of the money has been spent on housing for Cape Barren Island.

Despite this sort of passive discouragement there are people who do not want to leave the island and who will not be dragooned or seduced into leaving it. The drift from the island may continue but a nucleus of permanent residents will remain; they will resist all pressures to get them to leave their homes. The islanders who have settled in Tasmania represent a completely different set of problems. These are problems similar in many ways to those encountered by Aboriginal people in other parts of Australia - problems of housing, social welfare, education and employment. Against this background I want to have a look at assistance given to Tasmanian Aboriginal people by the Commonwealth Government. On a per capita basis the islanders are not badly treated; a total of S62,000 is allocated to Tasmania out of a total budget of $9.2m for 1971- 72. Commonwealth assistance has grown from $25,000 in 1968-69 to $39,000 in 1969-70, $54,000 in 1970-7.1 and $62,000 in the year under consideration. Given that the total allocation of funds for Aboriginal people is inadequate, the Cape Barren islanders have been treated fairly by what is now the Office of Aboriginal Affairs.

The individual officers of the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs have approached the peculiar problems of these people with sympathy and imagination. The fault lies, not with the Office, but with the inadequate resources available. In respect of the $62,000 allocated to Tasmania there are some notable omissions. Allocations to the States are made under 6 headings: Housing, education, health, employment, special works projects and regional projects. Tasmania is the only State which does not get any money for employment and vocational training. It is difficult to comprehend the reason for this omission because there is a real need for this sort of assistance. Perhaps the Minister will be able to examine this matter for me and give me some indication or some reasons why employment and vocational training do not come into the categories normally allocated by his Department in this way.

There is no provision for regional projects although Cape Barren would seem an obvious area for this sort of grant. A comparatively modest allocation under this heading would do much to establish a viable fishing industry on Cape Barren, an industry which would create jobs and bring revenue to the island people. Alternatively a grant could be made to establish the mutton bird industry as a co-operative venture to be controlled and worked by the islanders. At the moment the industry is controlled predominantly by outside interests with the islanders providing seasonal labour. It is wrong that revenue from this industry should go to Tasmania and Victoria.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr BARNARD:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was referring to Cape Barren Island and the problem of those who have lived on this island and who regard it as their home. I was referring to that part of the problem concerning a basic industry of the islanders, an industry in which they have been engaged for a great many years, the mutton bird industry. I had pointed out that despite the fact that the industry had been initiated by the islanders themselves it was very largely controlled by interests outside Cape Barren Island, that is. in Victoria and Tasmania. I had made the point that I believe the industry is one that ought to be developed, probably on a co-operative basis, by the islanders themselves. I believe it is wrong that revenue from this industry should go to Tasmania and Victoria. It could and should sustain the people who live on Cape Barren Island and work the mutton bird islands each year.

This year’s allocation provides $35,000 for housing. It will provide 4 homes in Tasmania. This does something to eliminate the problem of Aboriginal people in substandard housing in Hobart and Launceston. It does not provide housing on Cape Barren Island, although the Commonwealth Office has made it plain that this money is provided without strings. If the Tasmanian Government wants to put money into homes on the island, there is nothing to stop it. Unfortunately, the State Government does not look at Commonwealth assistance for housing in this way. I understand the Commonwealth Office has considered the acquisition of houses from hydro-electric estates in Tasmania and their transportation in knocked-down form for re-erection on the island. This would do something to provide cheap and adequate housing for the island people on Cape Barren. As the Minister points out in his speech, this has been done in New South Wales with the purchase, removal and re-erection of Snowy Mountains Authority houses by the Shoalhaven Shire Council.

The allocation for health is rather misleading. As the tables attached to the Ministers speech make clear, a sum of $7,000 is provided to pay salary and expenses for a community development adviser for Cape Barren and Flinders Islands. This officer is a competent and dedicated man, but it is not appropriate that he should be regarded as providing health services. His work is social welfare work; it does not give any medical cover to people on Cape Barren Island. In every other State, the allocation for health provides public health and nursing services; in some States it provides dental services. There is a makeshift hospital on Cape Barren Island but there have been no nursing services even of an itinerant nature for some years. The families who live on the island are reliant for medical services on Flinders Island. This involves dependence on transport services often disrupted by bad weather.

Assistance given for education is just as disappointing. In particular there is no provision for assistance to provide pre-school facilities in the grant of $7,000 for education. The final form of assistance is an allocation of $5,000 for special work projects. I am not clear what this assistance provides; presumably it is to be applied to public works on the island, for example, drainage of the airstrip and control of noxious weeds. This gives employment at pretty meagre rates to some people on Cape Barren. I would like to refer briefly to the annual report of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises tabled in the Parliament today. This Fund provides’ loans to Aboriginal Australians for business” enterprises. Assistance from the Fund has been given to Cape Barren islanders, although there is no breakdown on a StatetoState basis in the report. 1 hope that the activities of this Fund will be expanded, that more Aboriginal people will be given loans, and that more courses in business management will be conducted by the fund.

I have concentrated on this aspect of Aboriginal advancement because it has received little attention in the Parliament. The tables appended to the Minister’s second reading speech show the scope and imagination of the work of the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs, lt is no fault of the Office that the surface has hardly been skimmed.

I hope that in future Budgets it will be possible for provision to be made to expand the Office to its proper departmental status and provide greater resources for its valuable work. The Minister also referred to the grants for a wide range of purposes to non-governmental organisations. According to the list contained in attachment B, a total of $1,628,699 has been distributed over the past 3 years to organisations administering Aboriginal welfare. Tasmania’s share of this is $1,390 made up of $250 for the restoration of an historical chapel on Flinders Island $140 for a cricket tour, and $1,000 for the Flinders Island Council for operating expenses. Looking at the wide range of grants made to welfare, social and sporting clubs and to individuals for welfare assistance to Aboriginals, it is disappointing that Tasmanian Aboriginal people should be neglected. There is a very strong case for making a grant under these provisions to Abschol, which has initiated a number of assistance projects and organised a conference of Aboriginal people in Launceston earlier this year. Commonwealth assistance should be given to put this conference on a regular basis and to finance periodic meetings of an administrative council elected by the conference.

In summary, I have dealt at length with the problems of Tasmanian Aboriginal people because they are unfamiliar, as I have already pointed out, to the Parliament and even to many Australians who are committed to Aboriginal advancement. There are disappointing features of Commonwealth assistance which should be corrected. I have referred to a number of them - the question of education on the island and the question of health services. I acknowledge at once that the Government and the successive Ministers have at least provided a measure of assistance to a group of people who may be classified in this category but who previously had received no assistance at all. 1 suppose the responsible Minister is entitled to whatever recommendation should be given in this respect. Some improvement has been effected, but in relation to housing, education and health services, to which I have referred. I believe a great deal more can be done.

Finally. I hope that the Minister will understand that the whole theme of the speech that I have made in relation to the people on Cape Barren Island is that the principle should be acceded to and accepted by all governments, not only the Commonwealth Government but by the State governments as well, that an island which these people regard as being their home should be accepted as such. The people should not be forced oft the island merely because the Government thinks they should leave. In this instance I am referring particularly to the State Government of Tasmania because if cannot be claimed that the Commonwealth Government has adopted this attitude. Certainly it has not been the attitude of the Minister’s immediate predecessor. The island is the traditional home of these people. If there are social problems involved in keeping the people on Cape Barren Island which arise from the fact that the number of people Who arc left on this island is small, these problems ought to be dealt with in a way thatI am sure the Minister’s Department can approach them. They ought to be dealt with sympathetically. They ought to be : alt with on the basis that these people have for some generations regarded Cape B arren Island traditionally as their home, believe they are entitled to Cape Barren as future home, and I hope that this will be th e attitude of the new Minister as it was the attitude of his predecessor.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (8.10)- It is a strange feeling to stand up as the third speaker for the Opposition in this debate and not to have any arguments to reply to. I hope that this does not mean that Government supporters are not interested in the problem of Aboriginal advancement. I know that many of them have Aboriginal populations in their electorates. One would think that they would show a bit of concern by speaking on this Bill. When glamour Bills are before the House if one walks within 10 feet of the Whip one is frowned upon because so many honourable members are lining up to get on the list of speakers. But it seems a bit odd that at this stage no-one from the Government side has spoken.

However, regardless of that, I feelI have many reasons for speaking on this question of Aboriginal advancement. A large proportion of the Aboriginal population of. New South Wales resides in my electorate. I spend a good deal of time discussing the problems confronting Aborigines both with the Aborigines and with the people who are concerned with their welfare, such as welfare workers and child welfare officers.. I am also a member of the Labor Party’s aboriginal committee. I can assure the House that the committee has spent many hoursdiscussing these problems as well as travelling many thousands of miles to investigate the situation at first hand. This does not make me an expert on this matter. I think we all agree that it is a pretty complex problem. However, it is some satisfaction to know that the legislation provides for an increase of 31 per cent in the grants to the States or $9.2m for 1971-72 as compared with $7m for 1970-71.

The Minister for the Environment; Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) made mention in his second reading speech of the fact that direct national expenditure on Aboriginal advancement for 1971-72 will be $44m for an estimated Aboriginal population of 140,000.It could be said that the Government has shown some consideration for the Aboriginal problem on that score alone. However, we cannot let it rest there. We have to ask ourselves: What advancement are we making to solve the problem? Are we leading the main body of the Aborigines out of their predicament or are we just skimming the cream off the top of the problem and making things much more comfortable only for those Aborigines who have really advanced? In my electorate one can go around to various homes; particularly in Walgett, and see some great advancement. The homes that the Aborigines are living in are well kept and the gardens look better than those of the Europeans next door.

However, if one goes out to the reserves or settlements one will find poverty, suffering and problems. There seem to be just as many people in this predicament as there were the year before and the year before that. So one wonders whether we are really getting hold of the main problem of our Aborigines. In this regard I feel that an important part of the Bill is the allocation to the States under the 6 headings of housing, education, health, employment, special work projects and regional projects. In my opinion, it is here that we have our priorities out of order. On reading the table incorporated in the Minister’s second reading speech - sometimes I think these tables are meant to confuse people - it would appear to me that in New South Wales we are granting $1,500,000 for housing and only $12,000 for employment. I think that this is a lopsided way of spending this money.

T have been told of Aborigines in my electorate moving info homes and after a short period they become unemployed and they move out again. T went along with one welfare officer who had a talk to an Aborigine living on the river bank. He asked him why he moved out. The welfare officer said: ‘You will probably get a bit more work later on’. He said: ‘Why should I live in that home there and struggle to live up to the people around me just to please you?’ The tragic part about it is that the children have to move out with them, and this becomes an educational problem. They do not have the facilities or. as a school teacher called it, the environmental stimulus in the shack on the river bank that they would have in the town where they would have some form of radio, television and lighting to help them do their homework. A teacher illustrated the problem. They were talking in class about geography and the teacher mentioned a mountain. A little Aborigine said: ‘Sir, how big is a mountain? Is it bigger than the levee bank?’ Of course, this was in flat country. This would indicate some of the problems that must be faced.

Another important factor in lifting the Aborigines up as group and having them all working was the drought relief work for the western division of New South Wales up around Bourke, Brewarrina and Walgett. When they were all working on drought relief it was noticeable that the drunkenness amongst the Aborigines reduced, absenteeism was just about nil and their general health standard rose. I think that we must concentrate more on finding more regular employment for Aborigines. The system of handouts that we have is very damaging. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

Another point worthy of mention is that, because of the nature of the programmes to which these finances arc devoted, most of the funds are applied to the advancement of the younger generation of Aboriginal Australians. I believe that it is here that the greatest opportunities exist. . . .

At first glance one would feel inclined to agree with that statement. But I want to. point out that there too we could be causing some opposition to the assimilation of the Aboriginal population. Today the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) made mention of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association. Many people in these isolated areas are finding it very bard io educate their children and they arc conscious of the assistance being given to the Aborigines. So we have to be very careful how we give them this assistance, lt will not assist the assimilation of the Aborigines if we cause some kind of hard feeling amongst the people in the area. T am told that money is made available to the students. If the teachers think that they have a certain amount of equipment some of this money finds its way back into the home for other purposes. It is allocated to a student regardless of whether he is trying to advance with his education or whether he is just filling in time at school.

I think that more attention should be given to this feeling that exists between one section of the community and the other. We have heard a fair amount of talk in this House at various times about the problems of the Aborigines, but I think we have to agree that there is a great need to concen-tra te a little more on the education of Aborigines. We should also be concentrating on educating the Europeans about the Aboriginal problem because I feel that it is in this area that a lot of harm has been done to the Aborigines. There is an urgent need for our educators to attack the ignorance of the average Australian about the Aborigines. School curricula should include sections which explain how the Aborigines lived before the European invasion. They should give some idea of the difficulties that Aborigines are facing in adapting to our technological environment. This is something that the average person does not really understand. it is well known that a good percentage of Aborigines leave school at an early age. People go so far as to say that we will never make a great deal of progress in educating tha Aborigines. I find this very hard to believe. As a matter of fact, I think that except for the racists and the so-called snobs in the Australian community the average Australian accepts the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation statement on race which points out that according to present knowledge there is no proof that groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics or in respect of their intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities of all ethnic groups is much the same. Therefore, if the Aborigines are not making progress as a group we have to look to our own faults. One of these faults was our treatment of the Aborigines shortly after we came to this country. Aboriginal students are often considered drop-outs, but I believe they could be more realistically termed kick-outs because of the fact that they are unable to adjust to the conformist, egocentric type of education that we have in this country.

Aboriginal children are like many nonAboriginal children who live under disadvantageous circumstances. They become painfully aware that opportunities for economic and social advancement are more illusory than they are real. 1 believe that for those who are working in the field of Aboriginal advancement the next step should be to discuss these problems with the Aboriginal people themselves. Too any non-Aboriginal Australians believe that they can solve the problems of the Aboriginal without giving consideration to what the Aboriginal himself thinks. No-one will solve the Aboriginal problem unless he harnesses his efforts to assist the Aboriginal people to solve the problem themselves. It seems to me that one of the main barriers to Aboriginal advancement is the arrogance of the European people, especially those sometimes well-meaning people who think they know all the answers. I believe that the statement made by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that separate statistics for Aborigines were hard to find is true. On one occasion when I was touring with the Labor Party’s Aboriginal committee we were informed by the Aborigines in a particular area that a large percentage of them were arrested each day for drunkenness. We went along to the police station to find out whether this was true. We said to the policemen: ‘Have you got any figures? Can you tell us how many whites and how many Aborigines were arrested?’ They said: ‘No, we do not keep separate statistics. They are all in together.’ We said: ‘Do you mind if we go through the charge sheets?’ They were not very helpful but I would not say they hindered us to a great extent. They gave the charge sheets to us. On examining them we could not tell which was an Aboriginal name and which was not, but on asking someone who did know the area we found that they were all Aborigines. No Europeans had been arrested. We said to the police: ‘Don’t the whiles get drunk in this area? You would think there would be one or two.’ We were informed by the police that they did get drunk but when they were spoken to by the police they would go home but the Aborigines gave a bit of check and were arrested. I am not a knocker of the police because in a good many areas they have to be very considerate people, but I think that point clearly illustrates what is happening to the Aborigines. If we could have an inspector or someone who could give them a bit of advice and let them know their rights this would make a great deal of difference. Something along these lines should be done and it would not cost the Government very much, it might make a great deal of difference to the lot of the Aborigines.

It seems to me that the Aborigines are crying out for guidance. We should assist them to identify their problems. This will be achieved only by a consideration of the Aborigines’ own thoughts and desires in the matter. We have to find a way to get to know the Aborigines and to get the Aborigines themselves to take positive action to cope with the situation. It- seems to me that we have to build in the Aborigines some- vision and some hope for the future. If one .goes along to a big Aboriginal settlement to see what is there and to. talk to the people one can- feel the hopelessness of the place. .In there one finds sick people, old people, mental cases and people .who are quite, normal. These people are anxious to do something for themselves. If one asks them what they think about living in an Aboriginal settlement they will say: Wish we could get out of it.’ You say: ‘What is wrong?’ They say: Too many fights and too many something else.’ They are just normal people. They have religious pictures hanging on the walls of their homes. They have well-kept homes and one can sit down and have a good chat and be as comfortable as in one’s own home. But the environment is not the same. Some of the people who surround them are alcoholics and even early in the morning one can find people with bottles of plonk and so forth. But one does find decent people in this environment. 1 think wc have to do something about this problem, lt has been admitted that when there was employment for everyone in Bourke and other places a lot of this sort of thing disappeared. In my opinion, no matter what we do we will achieve nothing unless we find some form of permanent employment for them. This is the major problem. The first thing we must do is find work for them. The idea of a handout is doing no good whatsoever. The Minister should take into consideration that many people are concerning themselves With the problems of Aborigines. I think that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) particularly would realise this. I have written several letters mentioning Aboriginal problems to him. But the thing that concerns me is that there can be a conference of officials of the State Department of Aboriginal Welfare in my area and 1 will know nothing about it. Surely we should get together and pool our know ledge or our thoughts on this matter. I think that this is the only way that we can come up with a reasonably firm answer to this question.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– -I would like to endorse fully the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). Part of that amendment reads:

  1. . . white not refusing a second reading to the Bill, regrets the failure of the Government, the responsibilities accorded to it by the Referendum of May 1967 …”

At “present there seem to be 2 parallel ways of approaching Aboriginal problems. One is the States approach and the other is the Commonwealth approach. To my way of thinking on many occasions they come into conflict with one another. Because there is this conflict I feel that we should take heed of the decision made by the Australian people in 1967. 1 feel that the Commonwealth should take over a greater responsibility in this field than it has in the past. According to the figures made available by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) there has been an increase from $3,650,000 in 1968-69 to $9,200,000 for this year. Whilst we can talk about percentage increases - there is a 31. per cent increase this year - it seems that when we kicked off we did not know where we were going and wc have just been giving percentage increases ever since that time. But those people who move around the areas where there are Aborigines will know that this is certainly not enough because not a great deal of progress is being made. We can see that progress has been made in some areas but not to the extent that it should be in view of the decision of the Australian people in 1967. 1 am well aware that there are many areas in which problems cannot bc solved overnight. Anybody who has been involved with Aboriginal problems will realise that these problems cannot be solved in a short time. But I feel that by providing more finance the Commonwealth Government can at least make a start towards solving Aboriginal problems. Reference is made in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle to the problem of Aboriginal housing. I suppose that housing is one of the 4 major items of concern with respect to Aborigines. The other 3 are education, health and employment. In referring to housing 1 might perhaps refer to my own electorate. Like the electorate of the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) the electorate of Grey has quite a number of Aboriginal people in it. Some of these Aborigines are still in a tribal state. They live around the settlements, reserves, missions and so forth. In the southern part of South Australia the Aborigines, particularly in the towns, are sometimes quite sophisticated.

Aboriginal housing needs could perhaps be divided into 3 areas. To begin with I will commence with the areas around the north west reserve where most Aboriginals still live in wiltjas which are cluttered around settlements and reserves. Perhaps we should start with what is required in these areas. The Aboriginals in the areas are living in the type of habitat in which they have lived for years, but in earlier times they lived a nomadic life. They were accustomed to moving on after a period and building anew at another location. They used to move around. But unfortunately they now come around the settlements that have been established supposedly in some cases for their benefit. In these settlements there are a few buildings which in most cases are occupied by Europeans and cluttered around these houses are the wiltjas in which the Aborigines live. I know that there are a few anthropologists who say that these dwellings are hygienic because they are dark and they keep out flies, they are airy, and so on. But whilst not being an expert on this I would say that these dwellings probably create a health hazard. Previously when the Aborigines were on the move they did not create an unhealthy situation. But now that they are not on the move but clustered around the settlements a health hazard arises. The Aborigines have got away from their natural foods. They have possibly lost some of their natural instincts for hunting, mainly because they rely more on the European type foods and I think to a great extent possibly the wrong type of European type food.

Whereas previously the Aborigines used to hunt on foot, now one sees quite a few motor cars around these camps and the Aborigines use them to go out after kangaroos. The Aborigines augment their diet with the food they buy from the reserves. This is one of the problems. I understand that the Commonwealth Government has set up some prototype dwellings for Aborigines at Finke in the lower part of the Northern Territory. This type of dwelling combines some European aspects with some features favoured by the Aborigines themselves. From the photograph I saw of this type of dwelling there appear to be open rooms at both ends of the dwelling so that people can sleep out if they want to or they can cook out in the open if they so wish. I feel that there should be some research into this matter in order to work out what would be a suitable type of dwelling which could be used by these people so that they can get away from the health hazards which are at present created, while at the same time retaining some of their own ways of life, which of course they would not want to lose.

I will now deal with the situation in some of the towns in the southern part of the State where there are fringe dwellings on the edges of the towns. I will refer to Port Augusta. The fringe dwellings there would not be the kind of dwellings one finds along the banks of the Darling River. There is a reserve just outside the town of Port Augusta which has some Aboriginal housing, although it is not really good housing. However, it is housing that can be used more or less as transitionary housing for Aborigines. In Port Augusta many Aborigines are able to get employment with the Commonwealth Railways, possibly the local town council, the Electricity Trust of South Australia and so on. The employment opportunities are there to a certain extent but these, towns do not provide all the employment opportunities that we would hope would be available to Aborigines. In these areas there are now many more Aboriginal children at school than there were in former years. When these children leave school there is a gap in providing employment for them until such time as they become adults and are able to move on and get jobs in other areas.

By looking at the figures that were given by the Minister it will be seen that : $330,000 was made available for Aboriginal housing in South Australia. This amount of money which has been allocated to overcome the housing problem is only scratching the surface. 1 am aware that the Housing Trust of South Australia does allot a certain number of houses to Aborigines, but the Trust vets them pretty closely and it puts the screws on if the houses are not kept up to scratch. The Commonwealth contribution of $330,000 would provide only 33 houses in South Australia at a cost of $10,000 each. This number of houses goes nowhere near to solving the housing problem. It is a fact that there are employment opportunities in a number of these places but it is frequently found that no houses are available for Aborigines and they have to wait for accommodation. They have to wait until they are allocated a house by the Trust. I realise that at the present time the employment position in Whyalla is not really good but it is a fact that in this town some’ time ago there were opportunities for employment but there was a . problem in providing housing. This meant in many cases that although the employment could be arranged the Aborigines were not able to take up the employment because of the shortage of housing.

According to the figures supplied by the Minister in regard to the number of Commonwealth houses, 30 homes were built in South Australia but of that number very few were built in areas where employment existed for Aborigines. One of the amazing things to me is that in Port Augusta where there is a population of between 500 and 600 Aborigines no homes have been built for them for 2 years. I feel that if we are going to solve the employment problem we Will have to make a greater effort to solve the housing problem. I know that this is connected with other points but I do feel that we will have to make much greater efforts to solve this particular problem than we are doing now.

Last week I attended a forum at the Adelaide University. The topic was ‘Housing for Aborigines in South Australia*. At that forum one of the speakers was the Secretary of the Aboriginal Cultural Centre in Adelaide. Another speaker was a minister from a Methodist church in the Port Adelaide area. Both of these people spoke of the bad conditions that apply in respect of Aborigines in the cities. The first point they made was that a great many of these Aborigines are receiving unemployment benefits and that a great many are deserted wives. These people are not in a position to afford to rent a decent home. It was pointed out that frequently some of these people get together, pool their resources and rent a home, but when this happens the problem of overcrowding arises. I am sure that if honourable members opposite had heard what was said at this forum they would understand why the Opposition believes that the Commonwealth Government must take a greater interest in this problem and ensure that finance is available to enable a first class effort to be made to solve the problem.

The Commonwealth should involve itself in many of the other problems which confront Aborigines. Perhaps I should mention a few of these problems. The South Australian Education Department has established schools in the North West Aboriginal Reserve but in some instances those schools are unsatisfactory. At Indulcna, for instance, the school consists of a brushwood fence with a brush roof at one end. The South Australian Government plans to construct a proper school in that locality but there are no houses for Aborigines there. They continue to live in wilchas. The teachers who have been appointed to those schools - I have spoken to several of them - are young and dedicated and have a genuine interest in Aborigines. We are lucky to have such people in these remote areas. When I visited the Indulcna area one teacher said that the teachers found themselves inhibited because, through the isolation of the area, they were not able to take the children on tours. It was suggested to me that perhaps the Commonwealth Government could come to the party and provide buses for this and similar schools so that the teachers could take the children on tours, possibly to the south but at least to areas where the children could see something different. It was suggested that this would help their education. The South Australian Education Department provides buses, but only to take children to and from school. The suggestion was made that the Commonwealth Government might provide buses to be used for educational tours. I realise that other honourable members wish to speak during this debate so I shall conclude on this point, fully supporting the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– As a member of the Australian Labor Party 1 also indicate my enthusiastic support for the amendment moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), which calls on the Commonwealth Government to assume a much greater role in solving the problems of the Aboriginal people of Australia and of the Torres Strait Islanders. During this debate I have been happy to hear honourable members from different States expressing local problems. Members from Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia have spoken, but many of the things that I will say must be seen against the background of the Queensland situation. We all realise that circumstances are different throughout the Commonwealth and that programmes which might work effectively in one area may be complete failures in another area. So much depends on the background of the Aborigines. One can compare people who have lived in completely dependent circumstances all of their lives and who find it difficult to make decisions with people like the Aborigines in Yirrkala where, under the guidance of the Methodist Mission for something of the order of a generation without any attempt to break down the Aboriginal culture, they enjoy the best of both worlds, as it were. These Aborigines are able to stand up for themselves and to express opinions. One gains from them a great respect for the Aboriginal people as they were before what one of my colleagues referred to as the white invasion.

The legislation before us shows an increasing Commonwealth expenditure. Of course, this is a good thing. I suppose that any Minister who can say that his legislation shows an increase in expenditure of 31. per cent over the previous year is entitled to say ‘That is a pretty handsome increase’. However, when we were debating other legislation earlier today, one of my South Australian colleagues said that the South Australian Government this year had increased its expenditure on education by 30 per cent, and that was a handsome amount. I put it to the House that the rules that apply to other areas do not apply to the field of Aboriginal advancement because this is a new field of Commonwealth involvement and it is a field in which the Commonwealth Government will have to provide vastly increased sums if the problems are to be solved. I have the utmost praise for the work that is being done by the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs. The officers of that Office look at the problems fairly and I am sure that the recommendations that they make to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) are well balanced and represent a much broader approach to the problems than is the case with many of the State administrations because the State administrations are tied down with their own administrative problems in settlements and reserves. Whatever else we may have done, and however much the Minister or anyone else here may congratulate themselves on the increased expenditure, the hard, cold facts of life are that whatever we are doing is not keeping pace with the rising expectations of Australia’s Aboriginal population.

The 1967 referendum raised the hopes of Aborigines that they might have a new future in Australia - a future of equality, noi in the never never but in their own lifetimes. One of the reasons why we are running into problems today, why there is so much frustration and why the newspapers are focusing some deal of attention on a small, hut probably newsworthy. Black Power movement is that we are not keeping pace with Aboriginal expectations. I agree with the decision of the Commonwealth Government to work through the State administrations. The problems are so widespread that fairly flexible programmes must be devised to work through State government departments, local government bodies and councils in order that all of the resources might be brought to bear on the problems of the advancement of the Abor.iginal people. We are confronted wilh problems of geographic isolation

In Queensland the failure to meet rising Aboriginal expectations must be seen against the depressed state of the rural economy and of the pastoral industry. Many of the young Aboriginal men and women - particularly the young men who normally would have been employed in the pastoral industry - are now coming to the large cities of Queensland and the capital city of Brisbane seeking work. This has added a new dimension to the problem. There are 3 environments, and I propose to deal briefly with each. The situation in none of them is satisfactory. The first concerns settlements and communities. Of course, this has been the long term responsibility of State Governments. Queensland has new legislation which was brought in late one week and rushed through the Parliament early the following week against the background of a demonstration by a number of unemployed Aborigines who were led by officers of the Aborigines and Islanders Tribal Council. It is a sad thing that this legislation was not brought down in circumstances which would have enabled the whole range of people interested in Aboriginal welfare - no less the Aborigines themselves - to express their views on the legislation in order that whatever emerged from the Queensland Parliament might be the best possible legislation. But that did not happen. The legislation is an improvement in many ways, but in other ways it does not go far enough. The problems cannot be solved merely by changes in legislation. There have been improvements in the physical environment on the settlements. For example, houses are much better than they used to be. Other facilities such as hospitals, some of them wilh Commonwealth assistance, are much better than they were. The teaching staffs in the schools are better than they were because they are officers of the Queensland Department of Education. However, there is still an almost complete lack of proper pre-school education. In one or two places there are pre-schools or kindergartens but, to the best of my knowledge, in only one of these schools - ! think that is at Yarrabah - is there a school teacher who meets the requirements of proper training as a pre-school teacher. Many of the others have done a kindercraft course and the organisations that they run would be more properly described as child minding centres than as pre-schools.

There is a deteriorating relationship between the staff and the Aborigines. This has been mainly brought about, as I said earlier, by the rising expectations of the Aborigines and our failure to meet them. There is an insufficient involvement of Aborigines in staff and technical positions. There has been no solution to the problem of land rights. Aborigines know that por tions of their reserves can be cut off at the whim of a Cabinet or by the GovernorinCouncil if some of that land happens to contain bauxite, valuable timber or some other mineral resource which could be exploited. There is a complete lack of social workers in the settlements to train housewives in budgeting and the like so that those who choose to do so might make an orderly transition to the broader Australian community. The policy of the Queensland Government is one of assimilation but, until a short tune ago. these people lived in a position of ration handouts and complete dependency. It is . just too difficult a task for young people or middle aged people who have spent almost all their lives in a position of dependency to be thrown from their society into the highly competitive community that we have been used to all our lives or, al least, certainly since we left school, and expected to make a success of it in 1 or 2 years. We need more trained people. It might be argued that these are State matters. My thesis is that these problems will be solved only with Commonwealth money assisting the States in what they should be doing.

There is a problem in getting an effective voice for the Aborigines. The Queensland legislation has set up a system of Aboriginal councils but of course, on these reserves, most of the permanent residents are employees of the Department of Abor.iginal and Island Affairs. For example, in Woorabinda, which our Committee visited, the president of the council was the hygiene man and the secretary was the fellow who drove the school bus. People are appointed to the council by the local superintendent. So although on the face of it the Aboriginal council may appear to be an independent agent of the Aborigines, in effect it is actually too closely dependent upon the Department. There is no easy solution to that problem because in some of these areas the more enterprising young Aborigines have gone into the outside community looking for work in the pastoral industry and the like and the people who are left behind often do not have a great deal of leadership capacity.

There has been a failure to train staff in all the positions they occupy on these reserves, whether they be policemen, justices of the peace or the lass working in the maternal and child welfare centre. Only one in dozens of these people is properly trained. This is the legacy of past dependency and handouts. I am sure that the shortage of social workers could be made up by the training of Aboriginal liaison officers. They would not need to be trained in all the ramifications of social work that are met in the broad outside community. We really need on the settlements people who are independent of the administration. I am not saying thai there are not some fine people in the administration on these settlements in Queensland: there certainly are. However, there is a problem of alienation between the Aborigines and the administration. What is needed is an advisory level in these places which is not connected with the administration.

In my office in Brisbane I receive a lot of work from places like Cherbourg. Aborigines come down and ask me to explain some social service problem, some technicality about an unemployment benefit or a tuberculosis allowance that should have been explained to them on the settlement. I would probably receive only a handful of the many problems that exist in a place like that and which are never picked up because of the alienation between the Aborigines and the administration. J mentioned that there were many capable people working in this field, some of them working for the Queensland Government. The sad part about this is that they are all prisoners of the system. They ate all living in the past and this is just pari of the hard, cold facts of life.

I now wish to refer to problems with regard to Aboriginal fringe dwellers. These are the people for whom we have not yet developed satisfactory programmes. We have programmes that meet the people on the settlements; we have programmes such as secondary school scholarships for Aborigines whose families are assimilated in our community. However, we have no effective programmes in the broad to cater for the Aborigines who live in a fringe dwelling environment. There is a problem of alienation and a need for decent housing. Some of these problems are being met by Commonwealth assistance. I am happy to see that Queensland is to get one-third of the money and I am happy to see where the houses are being built. I think that the Queensland Department is running this scheme in a very responsible and effective manner, but it is still only a drop in the bucket. The houses are still going to the larger country centres of population. I am pleased to see that in this year’s programme, for the first time they are reaching into some of the smaller rural centres.

There also exists the problem of children who start school late and leave early. Because of malnutrition they are so small that, although they may be 7 or 8 years of age, they look as though they are only 5 years and because they are Aboriginal children, nobody rounds them up to chase them along to school. In pastoral areas of Queensland, many children including white children leave school before the minimum permissible leaving age because they intend to work on their family’s pastoral properties. However, if the Aboriginal children leave school at 12 years of age. or whatever age they may leave, no-one chases them up m the same way that they would be if they were white children. I am associated in a modest way with a hardworking team of people in the Save the Children Fund in Queensland who have established a kindergarten at Eidsvold. This is a very interesting experiment and, at the end of its first year, we can say that it has certainly done a lot to draw that Aboriginal community together. I think that we need to build on to projects of this kind with some form of community centre, around which a range of programmes could be established

Finally - I apologise to the Minister for having taken longer than I promised - I want to deal with the urban Aboriginal because I am the member for an inner city electorate. Let us examine the way money provided bv the Commonwealth has been spent on Aboriginal housing in Queensland. One house was bought in Brisbane in rather special circumstances. Great numbers of Aboriginal families are going into the inner parts of Brisbane, crowding into houses and paying high rents because the Queensland Government has abolished any kind of rent control. They are living in very undesirable circumstances and are creating social tensions between themselves and their neighbours. We need an effective urban housing programme. The problem of housing for Aborigines in the cities cannot be left to the housing commissions alone because very often Aborigines, because they lack training or because they may occupy labouring positions, may go from job to job and they do not have the basic requirements which would give them a priority in the system of the housing- commissions. There is need for a special housing programme for urban Aborigines. This will be created by Government money alone.

I recently received an answer from the Minister to the oldest question on the notice paper. When this debate took place a little over a year ago, I asked the then Minister, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), how much money was being spent on Aboriginal housing. I said that $llm was the take-off point. He assured me, I am sure quite honestly, in his speech that at least that amount would be spent. I tried to go through the spider web of figures in the State and Federal reports. Now that the question has been answered, we find that this year half that amount of money actually was spent by the Commonwealth and by the States on Aboriginal housing. The Government is spending $60m a year on war service homes and it will need to spend this sort of money on Aboriginal housing. No less than $30m a year over a period of time must be spent to overtake the problem. We want to solve the housing problem in a fairly short space of time. We have a problem in accommodating young people who come from the country seeking work, until such time as they qualify for unemployment benefits or obtain employment. I am happy that the Minister and his officers are looking very closely at this problem which has arisen in Brisbane, and I give them full credit for doing so.

We have a problem with Aboriginal organisations. The Commonwealth has handed out a certain amount of money to Aboriginal organisations. Not all of the money has been spent as v/ell as it might have been, and I have no criticism for that. I think that this is an inevitable part of the acceptance of responsibility by Aborigines. I think that perhaps some of the training that we are providing is at too high a level. In these various places we need to provide fundamental training to the officers of Aboriginal organisations in (how to run meetings, how a secretary should keep a set of minute books and how a treasurer should keep a set of account books. Tn other words, I think that probably we have got to evolve a system which starts off at a lower level than we have previously envisaged. It does not follow that people can do some of these things without training. I think that we have to look at this matter.

Finally, a great deal of attention has been focussed by the Press on the Black Power movement in Australia. There is a very small Black Power movement, lt is led mainly by frustrated people. In Brisbane most of its membership would comprise very young Aboriginal boys who have come from the country and who have nol yet been placed in employment.

Mr James:

– Kath Walker is opposed to it.

Mr CROSS:

– I believe it is inevitable that we will have more trouble and more violence in this regard. But I believe that it will be counter-productive, because there is a lot of goodwill around the place. Many people criticise these things, and I am one of those people, along with others, who does criticise this trend. I was happy to hear the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) refer to Mrs Walker. She has been a prominent Aboriginal leader and in recent days she has gone on record as expressing her opposition to the Black Power movement’s use of violence. But I think that we have to realise that it is not enough for us to criticise these things. We have to meet these situations. We have to realise that notwithstanding the increased activity in Aboriginal affairs in which the Commonwealth is engaged, we are not yet doing enough. Until we extend our programmes to meet the needs, then unfortunately these counter-productive things will happen.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I agree with the sentiments which my friend, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), has expressed, but I think he is being a little too kind to the Government in this situation. I believe that this Bill, which is designed to grant financial assistance to the States in connection with the welfare and advancement of the Aboriginal people of Australia, is an anachronism in anybody’s language. I refer to a discussion which took place in this House backin 1944. It dealt with a referendum which was being conducted at that time. Dr Evatt said:

The inclusion of this paragraph of the Bill - and he was referring to paragraph (xiv) in the referendum which was designed to give the Commonwealth power to do something for the people of the Aboriginal race - is necessary only because of what has become a complete anomaly in paragraph (xxxvi) of section 51 of the Constitution. That paragraph gives to this Parliament power to make laws with respect to ‘the people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’. The paragraph in the Bill will have the same effect as an amendment suspending that exception for 5 years. I do not think that any objection has been raised to this paragraph.

The paragraph was agreed to without division or dissent, and there were some notable revolutionaries in this chamber at that time. There was Mr Menzies - now Sir Robert Menzies - and there were others. There was the Liberal Party and there was the Country Party - so bless me. Of course, at that time the Country Party bad not achieved the distinction which is given to it today by the honourable member for Mallee (“Mr Turnbull). However the right honourable member for Fisher(Sir Charles Adermann) was a member of this Parliament at that time and he agreed to this paragraph. But now, 27 years later, we are still pottering with the principle. Thirty sessions ago we had a discussion on a definite matter of urgent public importance which was raised by the honourable member for Wills - so bless me. The terms of that definite matter of urgent public importance were as follows:

The failure of the Government to care for the well-being of persons of Aboriginal and part Aboriginal blood by not providing State Governments with sufficient funds and not extending the payment of social service benefits to or on behalf of these persons. A substantial debate ensued. The present Governor-General responded. He was at his best at that stage. He had this to say: I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) for the studied, non-partisan way in which he has broached this question.

Following that speech Dr Evatt and Mr Makin spoke on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Freeth spoke from the Government side. There was general agreement that something must be done for the

Aboriginal race. But then, of course, we did not really understand the Aboriginal situation. People like myself who live down in the southern States did not really know what the situation was. Now, 30 sessions later, we are still pottering with the problem.

I do not consider that what is proposed in this Bill is any kind of an answer to the problem. I do not believe that the Slates will find an answer andI disagree with my friend the honourable member for Brisbane in that regard. I think that he expects a little more from State administrations in this matter than we are ever likely to get. I am not an absolute centralist in this matter. There are ways and means of helping Aborigines. But unless we accept the direct responsibility for them, we will not get the response that we require. As I have said, I believe that this Bill is an anachronism. That is why we have moved an amendment which asks the Parliament and the Commonwealth Government to take the initiative in every field.

The amount of $9,200,000 provided under this Bill is equivalent to the cost of one F111 aircraft, or, perhaps one F111 less its wings. We are dealing with 100,000 Australians who represent nearly 1 per cent of the population. They comprise some of the most deprived and depressed people in the world. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) shakes his head, but we get the normal amount of no sound. We want something done about Aboriginal housing. The Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) has to do it directly himself. He may deal through some of the State organisations because perhaps that is the way it is done. But we have a Minister for Housing in this place a man who handles or mishandles war service homes. Honourable members opposite in this chamber the other night were giving themselves dislocated shoulders by patting themselves on the back for what they had done for Australian servicemen. They said that they had provided 240.000 war service homes at the most favourable rate of interest that could be obtained. When are we going to tackle the problem concerning Australian Aborigines with the same vigour?

Then there is the question of Aboriginal unemployment. Last year members of the

Labor Party’s Aboriginal committee, accompanied by the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), visited the electorate of Darling. I pay a tribute to the Labor members who take some interest in the Aboriginal citizens in their electorates. My friends the honourable members for Darling, Grey (Mr Wallis) and Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) have taken an active interest in the Labor Party’s Aboriginal committee, as has the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton). Two of them have spoken in the debate tonight. But where are the members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party? They are as silent as the grave.

Tonight we learnt something about unemployment. Because drought conditions were being experienced along the Darling River, in the towns of Bourke, Brewarrina and so on, the Commonwealth supplied drought relief money to local councils to assist them to overcome unemployment problems. The local councils were able to employ Aborigines, so Aborigines had full employment for the first time, so far as one can tell. This had a remarkable effect not only on the morale of the Aborigines but also upon the towns themselves. Tt seemed to me that here was a simple solution to the problems being experienced in many areas which we have continuously overlooked. We will not achieve anything until we treat each Aborigine as an individual, in the same way as we treat other people in Australia. We have the administrative competence to do so. Goodness me. we have had enough experience in dealing with individuals as such. The Commissioner of Taxation can pursue every Australian to the outermost parts of the word in order to get his pound of flesh. He has no difficulty in finding an individual. Honourable members opposite use all their power to pursue any young man who evades national service. But they do not adopt this attitude in trying to solve the problems confronting the Aboriginal people. There are problems concerning Aboriginal training and Aboriginal employment. But the greatest tragedy of all is the situation facing babies and expectant mothers, which has been outlined in this House ad nauseam.

I do not propose to take my full 20 minutes this evening, not because I have lost interest in the problems facing Aborigines and not because I have lost my verve or my desire to do something about them. Bui in this particular situation most of the direct problems have been outlined by my colleagues, and I am utterly astonished at the absolute silence of honourable members opposite. I would like to know what their constituents will say about this silence. We have to attack all these problems with the utmost vigour. One of the great inflictions upon the Aboriginal people is the Queeusland system. No matter how much it is tinkered with they get nowhere. The system adopted by the Queensland Government and its relevant department departs from the general principles that we must apply to the situation. Therefore, we can do nothing with it and the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts who is now at the table can use all his charm; he has quite a deal of charm. It must be charm that brings him here because it is certainly not a real sensitivity for the problem. I have known the Minister for the 16 or 17 years that we have been members of this House and 1 know that he has taken a continuous interest in Aboriginal affairs. But he has to use all the powers available to the Commonwealth if he wishes to get action. 1 do not fall for the story that the Commonwealth cannot do it or that seeing that the problem in the Cape York peninsula is solved is beyond the wit and skill of a Commonwealth instrumentality. Something like the repatriation system should be developed in this field, and I have said that here often enough before. Somebody might ask: ‘Why say it again?’ Of course, when one is dealing with slow learners one just has to keep repeating oneself. We will get nowhere unless we take note of the lessons we have learned through the repatriation system. We have to use the State instrumentalities wherever appropriate as we do, for instance, in the soldiers’ children education scheme. There are some aspects which no education authority in Australia has attempted to handle. We are facing in the large Aboriginal population problems which the State and non-State authorities have never faced up to, problems such as introducing a new culture, a new way of life, a new way of thought and new approaches to people of a different race. We have done very little in the field of research to overcome these difficulties.

Deeply involved in the psychology of the situation is the question ot land rights. We could debate this at great length, but not one of use can say with certainty exactly what the machinery is by which we could implement such rights. We have rules in our Labor Party platform to which we have given great consideration hut we have to accept the fact that land to the Aborigine^ is more than material possession. The Aborigines are not particularly concerned with ownership in the sense that we use the word. 1 do noi think that view is alien to ali of us. There is a continuous outcry throughout the country about the assaults o.t the public domain by miners, governments, authorities and all sorts of people doing this, that and the other, to destroy something which we think, belongs to us. Our environment does not depend solely on ownership. There is something spiritual about one s attitude to land and this applies particularly to the Aboriginal people. Surely it is possible for us to apply ourselves to the concept with spirit and sensitivity rather than with a materialist view of ownership, wilh our Torrens titles, freehold ownership, leasehold and all the rest of it. Why can we not produce some new concept?

The Minister has Vo use ail hi.s authority, power, charm and whatever else he has and tackle the States. He has to confront them if necessary. The things that are happening to the Aboriginal people are happening now, and one has to only visit western Queenland, New South Wales and other States to find people living in miserable poverty, hardship and deprivation. But poverty is not always the worst of it. It is the utter hopelessness of the situation. I come from the south, but in the 16 or 17 years that I have been a member of this Parliament I have travelled, attended conferences, visited missions and settlements, lived with and talked to people from one end of the continent to the other and 1 know that we have not touched upon the problem at all. Every member of this Parliament has to accept this responsibility. This evening honourable members have agreed to speak for a lesser time than the Standing Orders permit because there is other business to come before the House. We will surrender to this procedure on this occasion. But there is .nothing more important before the House than the heartbreak which the Aboriginal situation is causing throughout Australia. I offer (he Minister all the assistance that we on this side of the House can give. 1 offer bini the assistance of the organisations with which I am involved. I know he will accept, and we have established friendly relationships. But as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) has pointed out, we have to get closer to the people who are working voluntarily on these problems. 1 have been an active member of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders since its inception, f attended its inaugural meeting in Adelaide 13 years ago. But this organisation is operating on a shoestring; in fact, it has hardly even got shoes. The Council is grateful for the assistance that the Minister has given us on occasions and for his acknowledgement of the work it is doing. I am confident there springs a reasonableness, sympathy and understanding in the community that neither organisations such as this nor the Government have tapped. Let us hope that this is the last of this kind of legislation and that in the next session of this Parliament we will be able to introduce legislation which will bring the whole responsibility for Aboriginal problems into this Parliament. That does not mean that we will stop the States from being active in this field: of course it does nol. lt means that when honourable members travel and find problems of hardship and deprivation they can bring them to this House directly and get direct action. We live in a world of politics which is capable of direct action, and we can get direct action only if the Commonwealth accepts the responsibility that the House has a.greed, without dissent, that it should accept. Unfortunately we had to wait for a referendum in 1944. and in 1967 the people gave almost unanimous consent. Let us gel on with the job.

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

– in reply - 1 agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) as to the importance of the Bill that we arc now discussing. Among the many task that 1 have as a Minister, at the present time there is nothing more important than the welfare of the Aboriginal people. 1 want to speak to the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) which deals with the Government’s responsibilities accorded to it at the referendum of May 1967. The record is quite clear that since 1967 the Government has to a very great extent shouldered the responsibilities that were handed to it by the people of Australia. Let rn: deal first of all with the matter of financial support. This is not the only aspect that is important, but it is one which needs to be highlighted. When the Government took over these responsibilities in 1967-68 the amount of money which the States were then spending on Aboriginal affairs was $1 Im; the Commonwealth in its Territories was spending $8.9m. This is a total of just under $20m being spent on the Aboriginal people in that year. This year the States have raised their expenditure from Slim to ?13m while the Commonwealth has raised its expenditure in its Territories from $8.9m to $ 16.33m. It has increased its allocation to the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to nearly $15m. So this year a total of over $44m is being spent on 140,000 Aboriginal people. I do not say that this is anything like the amount that is needed to shoulder all the tasks that need to be done. There has been a tremendous increase in activity and welfare devoted towards Aboriginal people throughout the whole of Australia, and I believe that this Government has taken a tremendous interest in these problems. My predecessor has done so much over the years to improve the welfare of these people, for whom we must have great care.

Mr James:

– Not enough.

Mr HOWSON:

– I have already said that, and made it quite clear. The matter must be seen in perspective, and honourable members must remember what has been done, what is being done and how this effort is being increased year after year.

The second thing that has been mentioned during this debate is the role of the States. I want to remind the House again of what the former Prime Minister, the Right

Honourable Harold Holt, said immediately after the referendum had taken place:

I would stress at this point that, while the

Commonwealth Parliament is now in a position to make laws and to prevail should a conflict arise with the States, the Commonwealth does not seek to intrude unnecessarily in this field, or into areas of activity currently being dealt with by the States. There is a big variation in circumstances and the needs of Aboriginals in (he different Stales, as all honourable members who have made a study of this matter will readily agree. For this reason, administration has to be on u regional - or State - basis if it is to bo effective, litis is the only practical way of ensuring that Aboriginals receive direct attention and assistance.

This matter was also referred to by my predecessor, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in a speech that he made in this House in 1969. 1 want to ask honourable members opposite this question: In this year in which a total amount of over $44m is being spent on behalf of the Aboriginal people, would (his amount be used more effectively if it was administered entirely by the Com,monwealth or if it was administered, as we propose, partly by the State governments and partly by the Commonwealth? I believe that a co-operative effort between the Slates and the Commonwealth in the long run produces a more effective way of administering these funds than if we tried to lake all this matter over and run it ourselves, lt is for these reasons that I refute the implication that the Commonwealth has not assumed and honoured its responsibilities.

A number of very useful points have bs-m raised during the course of this debate. I would like to deal with some of them. 1 agree with the honourable member for Fremantle on the importance o!’ housing. Over the last 4 years we have aided the States to the tune of over Sl 5m. This assistance has not only been in the field of housing. The Commonwealth also has given some importance to the need lor hostels for students, apprentices, trainees and workers. In the first 3 years the Commonwealth provided, in addition, 1,000 houses. This year, we hope, at. least another 500 houses will be built. We must remember that these houses will be completely in addition to what is being done by the States.

We arc trying to arrange this year, in conjunction with the Royal Australian

Institute of Architects, a seminar which will deal with the design of low-cost, selfhelp housing in central- and northern Australia. We think that we should encourage Aboriginals to take part in the building of their own homes. Also we hope to encourage the formation of housing societies which, again, is a development which is most important.

The honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) raised the question of housing mobility. He pointed to the fact that Aboriginals were moving from one place to another apparently due to employment prospects and to the general pull of Aboriginal people towards the big cities. This is a problem with which we are contending all of the lime. However, we face a problem in that whereas last year one might have carried out a survey as to where houses were required, in the next year the needs might be completely different. Some form of temporary or mobile housing may be necessary as well as the provision of hostels to which I have already referred. I talked to the honourable member for Brisbase (Mr Cross) about the question of hostels ‘ for people coming into the cities from country areas. This is one of the matters to which I am giving a great deal of attention and I think that the honourable member knows this.

I would now like to deal with education. I believe that, again, there has been an increase in the number of study grants awarded in 1971. Secondary grants for school leavers and people beyond school leaving age have increased from 2,379 in 1970 to an expected 5,700 in 1972. Therefore, the Commonwealth is doing much more than has been done before to encourage Aboriginal children to stay at school much longer than they have in the past. Of importance also is the question of pie-schooling, which was raised by the honourable member for Fremantle. By direct grants and grants to the States a total of S.5m for Aboriginal pre-schooling, including capital funds for new buildings and extensions and for special equipment has been made available this year. I wonder whether I could seek permission to include in Hansard a table showing how this aspect was dealt with?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr HOWSON:

– The Commonwealth is doing a fair amount of research into experimental pre-school work and we are hoping to conduct several research studies and hold a major ‘workshop conference’ later this year at the University of Queensland. I hope that the results of these studies also will be made available to honourable members in due course.

I now come to the question of health. Here again the Commonwealth has already done a great deal to encourage expenditure of matters concerning the health of Aboriginal children. The first year in which the Commonwealth took over a responsibility in this field a total of $500,000 was spent. That amount has risen this year to over $1,300,000. Further, it must not be thought that we are dealing with only the general question of improved health and medical services and facilities for Aboriginals, particularly in the remote areas. As the honourable member for Fremantle has said, there is a particular need to deal with special diseases. Trachoma has been mentioned as one disease suffered by Aboriginals. Here, I pay tribute to Dr Ira Mann, a former president of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. The hospital co-operated with Dr Mann for many years in her research work and we know of the tremendous advances which have been made as a result of knowledge gained about that scourge which affected so many Aboriginal children throughout this country. Much has been done in the fields of tuberculosis and leprosy. Campaigns for the control and eradication of these scourges are being continued and developed in the States and the Northern Territory. The payment of special allowances to TB patients is under active consideration by the departments concerned. This is the first time I have been able to make this announcement. I hope to be able to announce that we shall be able to take this a stage further. The honourable member for Fremantle raised this matter this evening.

I also want to say something on the subject of infant mortality. Not only must we look at matters which have been raised by the honourable member for Fremantle; we must look also at the possible need for family planning so that Aboriginal mothers will be able to space their children in a way that is available to European mothers in Australia. Our aim, above all, is to develop preventive health measures as opposed to curative sources which have been reasonably satisfactory. The really important task is to take preventive health measures to the remote parts of Australia.

A number of most interesting matters have been raised during the course of this debate. I assure the honourable members for Darling and Grey (Mr Wallis) that I have taken not of some of the matters which they have raised. For instance, 1 have taken particular note of the request made concerning legal assistance to Aboriginals who come before the courts. I believe that much work is being done in Sydney in this regard. I hope that honourable members themselves will take an interest and help their own constituents who may get into strife and need legal assistance. We shall take into account these and other matters in the months to come.

To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) I say that we have taken account of the needs of Cape Barren Islanders. The honourable member referred particularly to the need to assist by way of capital grant co-operatives which wished to adopt new ventures. That is not a matter which is the subject of this Bill. As honourable members know, this is the subject of the capital enterprises fund. If there are any co-operatives on Cape Barren Island which wish to make application for a grant from that fund I hope they will know how to do so. I refute the charges made by the Opposition in moving this amendment. Although we appreciate the views and the motives that have led the Opposition to move this amendment, honourable members on this side of the House also appreciate what has already been done by the Government over the years. We feel we are moving in the right direction even though at times we would like to move more rapidly. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment that has been moved.

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 P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 52

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

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

page 4063

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November (vide page 3035), on motion by Mr Barnes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The Opposition will propose an amendment to clause 10 of this Bill. In general the Opposition supports the legislation. We do not believe that what is evolving in Papua New Guinea is an ideal constitution but most of the proposals which the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) has put before us are proposals which the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly accepted from the Select Committee on Constitutional Development. It therefore is not our intention to quarrel with anything which the House of Assembly has endorsed from the recommendations of the Select Committee. However, in a certain passage in the Minister’s second reading speech he referred to clause 10 and then said:

The Select Committee report was silent on the method of choosing the Ministers to sit on the Administrator’s Executive Council, with the exception of the Deputy Chairman. The Bill provides that this will be a matter for the Minister for External Territories to determine on the advice of the Administrator, who will consult the Deputy Chairman.

There will be 17 Ministers. Ten of those Ministers will go on to the Administrator’s Executive Council. The Government, following the recommendation of the Select Committee and the House of Assembly, has provided that the Ministers will select the Deputy Chairman. But because no recommendation was made as to how the other- 9 members of the Administrator’s Executive Council were to be selected, the legislation proposed by the Government reverts to a consultation between the Minister for External Territories and the Administrator, and between the Administrator and the Deputy Chairman. This appears to us to be a reversion to a very much earlier situation. We believe that at this stage of history the Minister for External Territories in Canberra should not be nominatingmembers of the Administrator’s Executive’ Council. If the Ministry can be trusted to elect its first member, the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council, it can be trusted to elect the other nine.

The provision that those appointments be confirmed by the House of Assembly takes away all idea of selection by the Administrator and the Minister in this place. We believe that it is an important step in responsible government for all the Executive Council to be selected by the Ministry and confirmed by the House of Assembly. Accordingly, in the Committee stage of this Bill I will move the following amendment:

Clause 10, page 4, line 19 to 21, omit paragraph (c), insert the following paragraph:

nine other Ministers of the House of Assembly appointed by the Ministers of the House of Assembly, but such appointments shall not become effective unless and until the House of Assembly has, by resolution, approved the appointments; and’.

That wording follows the wording of the method by which the Ministers choose the Deputy Chairman, whose choice is confirmed by the House of Assembly. It is important at this stage to make one or two other comments on the whole constitutional situation. I would like to make a personal suggestion. This is not a suggest tion of the Australian Labor Party, although I do not doubt for one minute that the Labor Party would endorse it. It would be a good gesture if we were to give to the people of Papua New Guinea an adequate Parliament House as a gift from the people of Australia, because the present Parliament House is most inadequate.

Dr Klugman:

– Give them this one.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– My distinguished friend suggests that we should give them this one. It is an American habit to take buildings brick by brick from one place to another. But I do not think that this would meet my specifications of an adequate Parliament House. Besides, this one has in it a second chamber, and we do not want to suggest the establishment of a second chamber in Papua New Guinea. However, that is another matter. I think it would also be a good thing if we were to give them as a gift a national library and archives. Government in Papua New Guinea is crippled by the absence of an adequate national library and adequate national archives.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Give them Gough Whitlam, too.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I think that if they had the gift of the Leader of the Opposition as a political leader up there they might do very much worse in hastening the sort of constitutional changes that are necessary. While the Leader of the Opposition has been very much criticised for some of the things that he said in Papua New Guinea, I would like to suggest that some of his criticisms of some of the subordinate courts in Papua New Guinea were thoroughly confirmed later by the Supreme Court. But we will not go into that question.

What I feel is the most necessary thing in Papua New Guinea is some effort at indoctrination - it is an ugly word - in national unity, because national unity in Papua New Guinea is just not growing like Topsy. There have been 2 occasions on which I have seen a definite indoctrination in national unity. It is one of the paradoxes of the history of Papua New Guinea that when Mr Ward was the Minister for External Territories he used to be attacked by the ‘Pacific Islands Monthly’ for trying to establish in Papua New Guinea what Robinson of the ‘Pacific Islands Monthly* called Mr Ward’s socialist empire. The curious thing about Papua New Guinea and Mr Ward’s government of Papua New Guinea was that Mr Ward governed entirely on military plans. There was a reason for this. During the war when ANGAU - the Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit of the Australian Army - was established in Papua New Guinea it set up a research body in Sydney which became ASOPA, the Australian School of Pacific Administration, to look at the problems of Papua New Guinea as a nation.

Before the war Australia spent very little on its administration of both Papua and New Guinea. I know that there are all sorts of reasons for that. But historically, as a fact, only about £40,000 a year was spent on Papua New Guinea. The place, especially New Guinea, was very often thought of in terms of a reserve in plantation labour for a minority of the native people, and the majority of the native people continued their lives in contact with missions and from time to time in contact with patrol officers, but very largely undisturbed. The impact of the Japanese invasion changed all that, and the military had to look at the people of Papua New Guinea as a nation whose support was to be won for Australia. All sorts of plans were evolved. In the post-war period, Mr Chifley indicated to Mr Ward that Colonel Murray, who had been the Chairman of the research section of ASOPA, should be made the Governor of Papua New Guinea and the plans that had been evolved should be put into operation in Papua New Guinea. Swiftly Australia’s expenditure in Papua New Guinea rose to £3m, which was about 75 times as much as to was pre-war. The Hasluck era consisted of an expansion of that foundation.

There is no particular virtue in the Military putting forward a plan - some people might be expected to be prejudiced against a military plan - for the development of a country. But the point about it was that it was the first time that any significant authorities in Australia had looked at the people of Papua New Guinea as a nation. I am disturbed at the fact that today the most conscious effort to develop national unity in Papua New Guinea is still coming from the military. There is a concentration, and rightly so, on indoctrinating the Pacific Islands Regiment with the sentiments of national unity. Some have accused it of becoming a separate tribe, but this ignores the effort to indoctrinate it with a sense of national service. There is an intelligent effort to imbue it with a sentiment of allegiance to the Government of Papua New Guinea, the the House of Assembly and to the Administrator’s Executive Council and their successors in the future.

I have noted quite a deal of criticism of the Army from personalities in the Administration whenever 1 have been in Papua New Guinea, but 1 would say that the Administration in Papua New Guinea should make an equal effort to indoctrinate the people of Papua New Guinea in the sentiments of national unity because Papua New Guinea in its whole historical background is not a nation. The people of Bougainville had nothing to do with the people of the Highlands, nor did the people of New Ireland, New Britain or Mans, and if that be true of the people of the outlying islands it is equally true of the people on the mainland, lt is disturbing to think that the accidental boundary between Papua and New Guinea, which was drawn due to the fact that once the northern part was a German colony and the southern a British COlOny. is now beginning to bc treated as something real. We have members of the House of Assembly saying that Papua will or will not tolerate a particular policy, that Papua will secede, that Papua will form a seventh State, that the Papuans are Australian citizens and that the New Guineans are not. This border, which we tend to regard as imaginary, seems to be exercising a real force in the minds of too many of the people there. Constitutions perfect on paper will work only if there is a consensus of agreement surrounding them in the community. The constitution of the United Kingdom works because there is a disciplined and restrained community. The constitution that we are enacting tonight will work if there is a real sentiment of mutual respect for one another in the langauge groups in the community. I have said before that I feel that the greatest threat to that national unity - the one spark which may cause an explosion - is the fear that exists in some areas that the central government in Port Moresby will sweep away their land rights.

There is a very good reason for having an Administrator’s Executive Council elected by the Ministers who are themselves selected, by a Parliamentary process of selection, by a committee of the House of Assembly which is elected by the House of Assembly, and that that election should be subject to the confirmation of the House of Assembly. I suppose one can say that the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council is the nearest approach to a Prime Minister that Papua New Guinea has yet had. But prime ministerial and. presidential characters in emerging countries have tended to become dictators in the first phase. In the second phase there is a military coup d’etat. Ghana has gone through the third phase and has reverted to parliamentary democracy, but other parts of Africa are followed through the other phases. Nigeria is in the second phase of military dictatorship, Uganda is in the second phase of military dictatorship, and so on. While there is a charismatic leader in Kenya the situation there seems stable, but there is a sense of fear and insecurity about what will happen after Kenyatta dies.

Anything we can do to create in the House of Assembly the character of a collegium, which includes the effective responsibility of the Ministers to the House and the effective power of the House over the Ministry while there is a rudimentary party system we should do. The powers in the Swiss Parliament; power to choose the Ministers and a close identity of the Ministers with the House, offer security against the emergence of dictators in Papua New Guinea. I do not feel that at the present time the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea can have the luxury of the kind of acrimonius divisions we have in this House. I know that we cannot create unity in the voting in the Parliament, but there should not be an Opposition excluded from power and influence - a group apart. Perhaps this could be the fate of the Pangu Party and some expatriates want that. They should not be on the outer with the Ministers not obliged to have anything to do with them. It would be disastrous if it became the convention for Ministers to jump up and snub the Opposition at every possible opportunity. That brainless convention can be endured in Australia because the basic sentiments of the community are so united; this is a nation. But it cannot be endured where national unity is precarious - the attachment of Bougainville or the attachment of the Gazelle Peninsula to the whole of Papua New Guinea is so insecure.

The gleeful process of scoring off Oscar Tammur which takes place in the House of Assembly from time to time may be regarded by us as the normal to and fro of party politics, but in my view it is seriously weakening the attachment of the people of the Gazelle Peninsula to remaining within Papua New Guinea. I am not commending everything that Oscar Tammur has said or done, nor do I endorse the actions of the Mataungans, but I say that this planned hostility constituted a threat to unity. It is the antithesis of a conscious effort to build national unity in Papua New Guinea. The military aim at unity within the military framework, and 1 would like to see the Administration strive for the same unity in the civil structure of Papua New Guinea - the House, local government, the civil service.

Mr Reynolds:

– They are doing it in tertiary education institutions.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– The honourable member feels that they are doing it in tertiary education institutions. I had no doubt that that was the case in the Administrative College but I was not equally sure that that was the case with some of the staff of the University of Papua New Guinea. But perhaps I am wrong. In any event, it is unwise to do anything to play off any elements of Papua New Guinea against the others. It is unwise to try to mobilise the highlanders as a majority. The highlands have special needs. We should be prepared to make special grants to the highlands. Their grievances do not arise because anybody discriminated against them. Their problem is that the area was so lately developed. It was quite inevitable, for instance, that the first place that would get education, the English language and advantages for the people was the Milne Bay aTea because in the days before air traffic all sea traffic went round the eastern end of the island of New Guinea. Ships stopped at Samarai. It was there that the first European contact took place and it was there that there developed the early work of missions. It was inevitable that the Tolai people of the Gazelle Peninsula would get education earlier and faster than others. The German missionaries came there in the 1 880s. The German Government came there. The Gazelle easily accessible and outside ideas came to the Tolai early.

The highlanders are regarded as conservative. They may be conservative relative to some of the people from the coastal plain, but actually nobody in Papua New Guinea is what I would call socially conservative. They are deeply attached to their land and they will not adopt European ideas of land tenure. They are resistant to change in that respect, but the speed with which they have abandoned head hunting and cannibalism and the speed with which they have accepted education and outside ideas is quite remarkable. There are many of them who never had the chance to display this - and these include the highlanders, you might say - until after 1945. When 1 was first elected to this Parliament, 26 years ago, very large parts of the map of the highlands of Papua New Guinea were simply blank. There had been no patrols into them. The areas were really quite unknown. Now those areas are returning members to the House of Assembly, lt is really quite unfair to speak of the inhabitants of those areas as conservatives. They are people who are deeply conscious of their need for more education, more health, the influx of more ideas from outside. They do feel that they are at a disadvantage, that they are backward, that they need the special opening up of their country and that they need special advantages. It may well be that, come independence, and before independence, the Government ought to make a special earmarked grants to bring the Highlands into the general flow of development.

To put it all more concretely, the people of Bougainville have 80 per cent or more of the children of school age in schools. The people of the highlands have 15 per cent of the children of school age in schools, and they feel this very deeply. The fact that they feel this very deeply shows how unjust is the charge of conservatism against them. At the same time, because they have special resentments it is most unwise for the Administration or for planters or for anybody in the European community to seek to manipulate them.

In the main, in the past Papua New Guinea has had a very good cross section of expatriates in the country. It has had a very high quality mission effort, lt has had a very high quality of administrative staff. It has had good teachers. It has had many dedicated people who have really given their lives to the country. Unfortunately with the development of mining and the get-rich-quick possibilities that mining offers, and the whole nature of the mining industry, there tends to be less responsibility towards the people than perhaps was taken in the past. I do not romanticise the planters of the past or the present, but a lot of those Were men or thorough responsibility towards their people, and some are today. Some of them were not. Some of the great companies of Australia, Burns Philp in particular, had a past in Papua New Guinea and right throughout the Pacific that was extremely harsh. But when Sir Paul

Hasluck as the Minister for External Territories started removing adverse discriminations some of these people died hard. Generally speaking the conduct of expatriates in the past was good. If today there is a tendency for the position to be deteriorating that is dangerous. 1 think that the reality of the powers of the Minister for Immigration in Papua New Guinea may answer this. One great advantage the Army has, and one that the Army exercised quite ruthlessly, was the power to ensure that any Australian officer or non-commissioned officer who was a morally harmful or arrogant element, an exacerbating element, an abrasive element - and there were some of them in Papua New Guinea; some of them helped to produce mutinies - was promptly put on the next plane south. It is not so easy for other elements in the community to put people on the next plane south. But there are people in Papua New Guinea who ought to be on the next plane south, and the native people will tell you so. I hope that the Minister for Immigration would have as a reality in his hands, without it being an arbitary or damaging power, the right to allow or disallow continued residence because this is important for the maintenance of good race relations.

Basically the transition of New Guinea to stable independence is a question of race relations. There are people who are trying to engender bad race relations. There are people who perhaps provoke racial division. It is a difficult situation, let us face il, because the European community is affluent and large numbers of the native community are not. Do not let us disguise from ourselves that this provokes jealousies, lt is inevitable that if you bring in to Papua New Guinea, for instance, an excellent standard of housing for expatriate civil servants the mere presence of the building constitutes a new idea. The native people of Papua New Guinea made very beautiful houses out of indigenous materials. In native villages you will see churches built in the native style, made of native materials, grasses and cane, hospitals and other places that have a very great dignity. But there is a great tendency on the part of the people of Papua New Guinea to refer to these as’ bushy’ and ‘Kanaka’. There is greater prestige in having something that looks like a ben house made out of corrugated iron because the corrugated iron has the prestige of being imported material. Where you see a school really well built in the native style it looks much better than a school built in the Australian style, in my view. That may be a romantic view but I regret the tendency to regard the imported thing as superior.

Superior expatriate housing undoubtedly provokes jealousy and resentment, lt is very important that the Administration should rapidly improve the housing of civil servants, the police and others who are employed. This improvement has been effected by the Army. There has been a great deal of criticism of the Army by the civil administration in Papua New Guinea because its standard of housing is high. But here again the Army is realistic. It has recognised that the presence of European style housing has created new ambitions and the Army has tried to satisfy them for its men. The same thing, I believe, needs to be done by the Administration.

We are proposing this amendment, not because it is captious opposition to what the Government is doing, but we take and apply the principle the Government itself has adopted from the Select Committee in the manner in which the Deputy Chairman is chosen, and we propose that the 9 Ministers who are on the Administrator’s Executive Council be chosen in just the same way. The amendment will help democracy in Papua New Guinea to be more able. Though the Select Committee was silent on this procedure I do not believe lor one moment that the House of Assembly would be opposed to it. They would welcome Ministers choosing the 9 who will sit on the Administrator’s Council in the same Way as they choose the Deputy Chairman. We advance this amendment, not to express opposition but to express an idea Which we believe would make the legislation better.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– In rising to support this Bill I would first like to point out that the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development and agreed to by the House. I think that when we look at the terms of the amendment we want to be very careful. This Committee was set up by the House of Assembly with a membership of 14, 10 being indigenes. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Paulus Arek, MHA, is an indigene. The Committee made its recommendations. I think we should be very careful in giving directions. This is something which sometimes the Opposition is prone to do, to direct the people of New Guinea as to what they should do. I can assure honourable members that they know this. As a result of the recommendations of this Select Committee on Constitutional Development the Government is preparing to grant full internal selfgovernment during the period 1972-76. This will depend largely on the attitude of the new House of Assembly which will be selected in February.

It is interesting to note that provision is made for an increased membership of the House of Assembly - in the open electorates from 69 members to 82 and in the regional electorates from IS to 18. Provision is made to change the name from the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to Papua New Guinea. The membership of the Administrator’s Executive Council, as recommended by the Committee, will comprise the Administrator, 10 Ministers and 3 official members. There will be 17 Ministers in the House to replace those members who previously were called ministerial members or assistant ministerial members. They will have the authority that they have been exercising actually since about August 1970. There will be 18 regional members elected by the people, 82 open electorate members also elected by the people, 3 members nominated by the House of Assembly for special purposes and 4 official members appointed by the Governor-General on the Administrator’s nomination. Because the Australian Government will remain responsible in certain areas, such as defence, it is important that there should be members who understand the position and who can watch it not only in our interests but also in the interests of the people of Papua New Guinea. It will be imperative that any nominated member has been resident in Papua New Guinea for at least 5 years so that he understands the local position. As I have said, the Bill gives effect to the change of name in all legal documents.

This Bill marks a dramatic forward move in the development of Papua New Guinea towards nationhood and it is as the result of the remarkable progress that has taken place over the last 30 years. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) referred to the tremendous changes that have taken place. It is almost 30 years since I first knew Papua New Guinea and it is unbelievable what has happened during those years. It is even more remarkable how that development has accelerated in the last 8 years or so. On a recent visit to New Guinea 1 visited a number of areas in the Gulf country where there has not been as much development as there has been in other localities. The Gulf country possibly does not have the natural resources that are present in the highlands. The Gulf country is backward but recently has been developed by outside sources, but it has noi made much progress because the inhabitants feel that they do not have natural advantages. However there is tremendous potential. The people of Papua feel that in many respects they have been left on the way. They believe it is necessary that they should reach a higher state of economic development before complete independence is achieved. There is potential for fishing in the area and a considerable quantity of fish is being air-freighted from the area at the moment. Many local people are taking part in this enterprise. There is potential for the development of a cattle industry and for the breeding of pigs. There is potential for rubber production. Help is definitely needed in the Gulf area where this potential exists. In that area is one of the greatest reserves of natural gas in the world and some day this must be of tremendous benefit in securing export earnings. Oil research is proceeding, as is copper research. I visited Kennicott’s copper deposit. The ore there is much richer than the ore on Bougainville but it is difficult to get at. There is potential for timber and for the production of wood chips. Palm oil is being produced at Cape Hoskins and in other areas.

In the Highlands tea, coffee and cocoa are grown successfully by the indigenes and there is potential for quick development and the indigenes are making full use of it. I believe that there is a tremendous need for extension offices in Papua New Guinea.

Even in Australia great difficulty is experienced in getting across to the man in the field the findings of o.ir scientists and our officers in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and Agriculture Departments, but there is a far greater need for such a service in Papua New Guinea. There are experts in Pap-ia New Guinea but there is a dearth of people who can falk to the farmers in their own language and assist them with the marketing of their produce. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) and I visited Tapini where vegetable!, are grown. The indigenes could get these to Port Moresby at quite reasonable air freight rates if they could only organise themselves, but they seem incapable of doing this. Freight planes arrive with cheap freight rates provided but can get only half a load. We need experienced officers to help these people. Over the years a number of nien experienced farmers who have set their families up, have come to me saying that they would like to give service somewhere but they cannot get appointments because they do not have the necessary qualifications, yet some youngster, who has come out of university with no idea of practical problems, secures a position. The practical men could have been used to apply scientific findings in helping the people of Papua New Guinea.

The Papua New Guinea Development Bank is performing a tremendous service. Also of considerable benefit are vocational centres. The honourable member for North Sydney and I saw a number of these centres which are doing a worthwhile job. A number of children who have finished their primary education cannot be accommodated in secondary schools and they tend to get into trouble. They are easy meat for the troublemakers, and there are troublemakers in Papua New Guinea just as there are in every community. There are more than 3,000 vocational centres and they are serving a worthwhile purpose. When I was returning from New Guinea I travelled with an American educational officer who had spent some time examining these vocational centres. He was high in praise of them and said that nowhere in the Pacific was there anything to match them. He was returning to the Pacific and said that he would tell his Government that it should study what Australia was doing in these vocational centres to help young people, for whom there were not the right kind of jobs, to do something worth while. Once a lad has been educated he does not want to return to his village to plant sweet potatoes; he wants to do something that makes demands on him. The vocational centres are helping in this regard. Throughout the Gulf country are people with outboard motors half of which are out of action because no-one knows how to repair them. Some of these young people could be trained as mechanics to repair and keep motors operating.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the honourable member that this is a Bill to give legislative effect to the request of the House- of Assembly of New Guinea for changes in the constitutional framework of Papua New Guinea. I think the honourable member is getting a little away from the subject matter and I would ask him to return lo it.

Mr PETTITT:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is all part of the development of Papua New Guinea because the Speaker of the House of Assembly said to the honourable member for North Sydney and myself: ‘You cannot have political development without social and economic development’. He rather irreverently called it ‘the Holy Trinity’. If there is to be political development, which is what this Bill is about, there must be social and economic development and this is the matter with which 1 was dealing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Whilst 1 agree with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Hume, nevertheless this Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development, lt does not relate to agriculture, trade or anything of that nature and the honourable member is getting away from the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr PETTITT:

– 1 will be guided by you, Mr Speaker, but I think the ramifications are far wider than that. They must be. When I arrived in New Guinea I was mct by 3 parliamentarians and given the warmest of welcomes because they believed that Australia was interested in the consti tutional and political development of their nation. They expressed great appreciation of the interest that Australians were showing in the development of New Guinea. I could not help but notice that even since I had been there in March there had been a growing sense of responsibility and a growing maturity in those people who will administer Papua New Guinea under the new powers that will be granted for this constitutional development. 1 believe they have had a sudden realisation of the tremendous responsibilities that go with it. They are aware of the need for good government: they are aware of the need for stable government and for a peaceful transition during this period when they are taking more and more responsibilities for their own government, their own constitutional development and the broadening of their responsibilities in 10 those that are so important in a new nation.

I was impressed with the growing stature not only of the Ministers but also of many members of the House of Assembly. 1 was impressed by the emphasis given by members - again not only by Ministers but also by men like Michael Somare - to the need for good government, for law and order and loyalty to their own Ministers, their own people and their own local governments, wherever they might be. I heard a speech made by the Assistant Treasurer, Mr 0ala Oala-Rarua, at the opening of a Lysaght factory in which he said that if this nation is to develop and to get the support of outside nations that is necessary for their development, they must have stable government, peace and stability at home.

These people do not give their confidences easily but when they feel they can trust people, they are very loyal indeed. At this time when they are moving into great responsibility given by this Bill and by the development of their own constitutional government, it is important that we stand with them, that wc understand them and give them the sympathy that they need, lt would be tragic if anybody from this country did anything to destroy that confidence or to disrupt the progress that they are making towards selfgovernment. As part of their development, they have set up an investment corporation and this is a great forward step. However, during this transitional period there is still a good deal of unrest in the Public Service of Papua New Guinea. This is something that we cannot afford to ignore. I was told in some places that morale was extremely low. I did not find that to be quite true. It is very low in some places, not so low in other places and quite high in others.

I believe that during this transition period we should make every effort to retain the better types of experienced expatriate officers who are in Papua New Guinea standing alongside those who are being trained to take over responsible positions, lt is important that we do everything we can to retain these men who have given so much and who so thoroughly understand the position; they should be kept in the field. Their knowledge and experience could not be replaced. I do not think it can bc valued in dollars. As I have said before in this House, we should look upon anything we spend to satisfy the really able and dedicated men as an investment in the future public relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea, lt must be realised that Australia’s responsibility in Papua New Guinea is a very real one indeed, lt is of vital importance to us for many reasons. It is important to us because we have been given a sacred trust and responsibility by the United Nations to bring these people along the road. Australia has done a tremendously good job; do not let anybody say that this is not so. It is important from a defence point of view - not only for our defence but s.’so for the defence of Papua New Guinea. That country is on our very doorstep. It is also important from a trade point of view for both countries that we maintain our interest. I believe that it is important because the whole of Asia is watching how Australia and the people of Papua New Guinea handle this transition period as they develop their own responsibility and their own nationhood.

This is a primitive people and there are many thousands of them who are still primitive. There are some very able men amongst the Papuans and New Guineans but they are in the minority. Anything Australia does must be understanding and done with the greatest sympathy. We must give our guidance and our assistance. We should not spoil the job that has been done; we should not spoil the ship for a penn’orth of tar. If we err at all 1 think we should err on the side of over-generosity. We might look at what Britain did in the transition period in West Samoa or in Fiji or in parts of Africa. Papua New Guinea is an emerging nation whose future is important to both Australia and to Papua New Guinea. So far we have travelled successfully along the road to ultimate selfgovernment and independence. Do not let us spoil the job that we have done or betray the very worth while work that has been done by many dedicated Australians as well as by many dedicated Papuans and New Guineans. If we do it could be to the great detriment of both nations. I believe that what we do in the next 12 months or perhaps even in the next few months will have a great bearing on the future of both nations.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) pressed on with a fine flow of irrelevancies despite the Standing Orders and your gentle admonitions. However, I do not suppose we should worry unduly because, unfortunately, like the rest of us, the honourable member for Hume has been given few opportunities by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes! to debate the question of Papua New Guinea. Certainly we have not been able to do so as often it is necessary. The Minister has been remarkably diffident in bringing Bills before the House and allowing statements adequately to be debated. I regret this, f agree with the honourable member for Hume that we are launching or assisting to launch a new nation which will be very important to Australia. I believe thai Papua New Guinea will be just as important to us as is New Zealand and our relationships with Papua New Guinea must be of the same depth and sensitivity as those we have with New Zealand.

One of the things that surprised me was to hear a member of the Austraiian Country Party talking about anybody as being primitive or backward. How can a member of a political party which believes in hanging and flogging and plural voting, which has produced Bjelke-Petersen and which has rigged the electoral boundaries in order to retain its positions in Parliaments talk about anybody else being primitive or backward? WhatI want to talk about is the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Wills that the matter to which he has just referred also is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr BRYANT:

– Mr Speaker, with some diffidence of course, 1 place before you that we are discussing constitutional questions and the honourable member for Hume spoke rather disparagingly about the 2.5 million people of Papua New Guinea. I do not like the use of the terms ‘bnckward’ and ‘primitive’. That is all.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not pressing this point. The honourable member for Wills mentioned the Premier of Queensland, among other things.

Mr BRYANT:

– You are quite right, Mr Speaker. I am quite sure that the Premier of Queensland is quite irrelevant to any decent constitutional system and so 1 will not talk about that.

We are discussing the opportunity that has been offered to Australia to help launch Papua New Guinea into a completely new era. We are changing the ministerial system. The House of Assembly has just been dissolved for a new set of elections and from that, we hope, will develop a more self-reliant or independent governmental system. The relationships of that country with Australia will be close. I should like to discuss the matters which were raised by my friend, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), on the question of Ministers, ministerial positions and our own relations with them. 1 come to the vexed question of a parliament choosing its executive. I believe we have a long way to go in this Parliament. We have allowed ourselves to be afflicted with a system which flowed down the centuries and we have not really taken up the question of how Parliament should manage a country. I am not going to be critical about this because the people of Papua New Guinea have developed the system themselves. They made the recommendations and we are fulfilling their ov/n requirements, except in one matter where the position was left open. On that point we have, 1 believe, chosen a restrictive approach.

I should like to discuss the question of Ministers and the executive authority that this Government will vest in one section of the Parliament. I have a good deal of faith in the parliamentary sy.stem as we operate it -that is. that the executive is a part of the Parliament and it responds to it and is responsive from it. The parliamentary system that we have and the executive part of the system, in the sense that we use the term ‘Westminster system’, is, I think, operating as well in Australia as in any other part of the world. I know that the question of a presidential system has been raised on many occasions, but as my friend the honourable member for Fremantle has pointed out, it is very difficult to find one which has not gone the way of all dictatorships.

The launching of the new parliamentary or governmental system is a delicate matter. But the point we raise refers to the residual powers that will lie with the Minister for External Territories. I do not believe that all these powers are desirable, nor do I believe they are necessary. This matter concerns the choosing of Ministers in Papua New Guinea. My friend the Minister for External Territories will say: But of course we will take the advice of the Administrator who will take the advice of some of the authorities there’. ButI do not think that is good enough. We have to develop a system in Papua New Goinea in which the ministerial system becomes a part of the Parliament itself and not an authority flowing from some external force. This is why we have chosen to challenge clause 10 of the Bill.

As has been pointed out, the Bill is actually the product of the request of the members of the House of Assembly. But I see in this small area the last shred of feudalism with which we are inflicted in this place. That is, the Government is in fact an appointed body. Eventually the members of the Government are appointed from the House by some outside body. There is the ancient fiction of the Crown and so on. I am not anti-monarchistic in this matter, but there is this view that the Government is something which is different from the Parliament itself, and I do not agree with it. I believe that it belongs to the past.

It is true that Papua New Guinea will have a fair step to go in its Parliament to end up with the same level of administrative competence as one might expect in a Parliament such as this one. But, as I say, I see here some of the last shreds of feudalism, or some of the habits which we have developed ourselves. I do not believe that we ought to inflict the people of Papua New Guinea with the same attitudes that we ourselves hold. Here we have this one group of 10 Ministers out of a total of 17 Ministers comprising the Administrator’s Executive Council. There is this question of the selection of the Ministers. Again, I do not think that we ought to accept the view, nor should we inflict upon the people of Papua New Guinea the view, that these Ministers ought to be nominated by some outside body or even nominated by somebody else who speaks on the advice of one particular area.

I concede that there are great difficulties in this question of the selection of Ministers. In Switzerland, as I understand it, the house of parliament in fact elects its 7 Ministers of State - on the last occasion on which I looked it up there were 7 major Ministers of State - but Switzerland has a totally different society so far as numbers are concerned. There is so much decentralisation of its authority through the cantons and so on that probably 7 Ministers of State are an adequate number in that country. Why have we chosen 10 Ministers out of a total of 17 Ministers in Papua New Guinea to comprise the Administration’s Executive Council? Have we examined the position thoroughly and the managerial task which those Ministers will have to face? Are 17 Ministers sufficient to face up to the task of administering a country the size of New Zealand? Is the inner group structured in such a way that it will be able to perform both its functions as a vital policy-making apparatus and its ministerial functions?

One of the problems, as I see it, in Papua New Guinea stems from the tremendous difficulties created by geography, by lack of communications and by the incapacity of people to operate an administrative system because they are not literate in the language of the Administration, and so on. I am not sure that we have applied enough science, one might say, or study to this question of the actual administrative set-up operating outside the Parliament in Papua New Guinea. I understand that the people of the Solomon Islands have developed a system of executive committees, and that may well be a better operative system in Papua New Guinea. I am not sure that the question has been thoroughly examined.

I have read some of the findings of the House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development. I think that the Committee went about its business as thoroughly as anybody is likely to do in this situation. But we may well be handing on to the people of Papua New Guinea some sorts of petrified parliamentary attitudes which are terribly difficult to change. We only have to look inside our own system to see how difficult it is to change anything. Even the simple meeting hours of this Parliament are very difficult to change. Therefore, I hope that we will not inflict upon the people of Papua New Guinea certain attitudes just because we have developed those attitudes or just because, back in the early 1950s, a former Prime Minister said: ‘We will have 2 groups, the Cabinet and the Ministry’.

Are we going to inflict upon the people of Papua New Guinea a set of people who comprise 2 levels of authority - a kind of hierarchical structure? I hope that we can somehow write into the system of Papua New Guinea an ease of change of the system. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give us some information in this regard. Perhaps it is almost moving beyond our competence now to do some of these things. These are the matters that concern me.

Therefore, this evening we propose to move an amendment to clause 10 of the Bill. One of the matters that interests me is the number of members of the House of Assembly who will comprise a quorum. I notice that 36 members will comprise a quorum, which will be a fraction more than one-third of the total number of members of the House. Yet in this House, against my strong objections, an attempt is being made to reduce the size of the quorum. I believe in high quorums for legislative bodies. Another thing which I think we ought to discourage - and there will be all sorts of disagreements about the statement I am about to make - is the development of a 2-party system; the idea that inevitably there must be one lot of people who have that view and another lot of people - approximately an equal number - who have another view, and that there is an inevitable difference of opinion in this sort of situation.

The 2-party system has become so embedded in our system that it is difficult to imagine anything other than it. But I cannot see that inside the society in Papua New Guinea there is any need to develop the kind of conflicts and differences which exist between us here. The economy of Papua New Guinea is not such as to produce very deep divisions between the people on that ground. Of course, there is always the chance that they will be developed on a regional or some other basis. Therefore, a lot of advantages could flow from some kind of party relationship across the board which has a relation to some kind of philosophy. Probably the Pangu Party is the one Party which is getting closest to what I am suggesting.

It might well be possible to develop a system in Papua New Guinea in which there is a basic unity of political thought throughout the whole country. Therefore, all we can do tonight, I expect, is to make whatever amendments we think are necessary in this matter and give our blessing to the people of Papua New Guinea on the venture upon which they are embarking. They start with more difficulties than were experienced by many other countries which have made a mess of things. But they start, I agree, with some of the machinery laid down, and as the honourable member for Hume has pointed out, in a better position, perhaps, than other countries have enjoyed.

Before I resume my seat I want to make one point quite clear. The honourable member for Hume accused the honourable member for Fremantle and other honourable members on this side of the House of paternalism because we had said we are setting out some pattern of ministerial selection for the people of Papua New Guinea. What we are doing is offering an alternative pattern of ministerial section to the one which the Minister for External Territories has chosen. The Minister, as is the way of Ministers in this Parliament, has chosen a pattern which he himself runs. We are offering the people of Papua New Guinea the opportunity to make the selection themselves. I think it is very important that we make sure that the authority of the Parliament lies firmly in the House of Assembly; that the House of Assembly has control over its ministry, that it looks as though it has control over it and that it believes that it has control over it and that the Ministers themselves accept this relationship.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– I agree completely with those honourable members who have preceded me in this debate that this is an extraordinarily important question. We are now near the point in time when our relationship with this Territory of Papua New Guinea will be affirmed for all time. Perhaps one should illustrate how important this is in another sense. In a newspaper article only this week Colin Clark drew attention to a test that was carried out among third year international law students. It showed that 25 per cent of them thought that Papua was a province of Indonesia. Even though they were only law students they were students of international law, and it would seem that there is a great deal of room, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has suggested, for the ventilation of this subject both inside and outside this Parliament.

Mr Hurford:

– What university did they come from?

Dr SOLOMON:

– I forget. Adelaide, I think. What we have before us is a proposition which we discussed in part earlier this year when it was more tentative. The proposal was that there be 18 regional members of the Papua New Guinea Parliament - there are now 15 and there were 10 in 1964. And it was proposed that there be 82 members for open electorates; there are 69 now and there were 44 in 1964 for the then reserve electorates. It was further proposed that there be 4 official members appointed by the Administrator; there are now 10 and there were 10 in 1964. And finally that there be up to 3 members nominated by the House of Assembly for special purposes or for groups to be represented.

It is interesting that the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has dropped his previous opposition earlier this year to the regional members, although in making that criticism, I believe he is being completely consistent because if one turns to the debates on the establishment of the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea in 1963 one finds that the honourable member and his Party were opposed to the reserve electorates and wanted a proliferation of the open electorates which then numbered forty-four. So there is complete consistency in his attitude. But the Opposition now focuses its attention on the manner in which the Ministerial representation on the Administrator’s Executive Council shall get there. It is entirely proper that the Opposition should do this and, at the risk of becoming over-flowery, I would compliment the honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Wills on the high level of responsibility they have shown in this debate. Not that they are unused to showing that degree of responsibility in debates of this kind but it indicates their high level of interest in the subject, not to mention their familiarity with it, and this is particularly so of the honourable member for Fremantle.

Nevertheless, there is a danger that both honourable members may find themselves throwing dust at the wheels of policy as they roll past, because it is impossible for them - and particularly for me because I do not claim the familiarity with the area that they have, although at the same time one can read and make judgments from comparative situations - to know with any certitude that the system which is proposed by the Territorians is inferior to any alternative proposed by the Opposition.

Mr Beazley:

– They did not propose it on this. It is a silent void which the Minister fills one way and we propose to fill another way.

Dr SOLOMON:

– That is correct, but the very fact that the silence was there and noted can only really be taken to suggest that there was no very strong feeling to the contrary. I have not been in Papua New Guinea since March. My colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) who has spoken very well on the subject on other occasions and again tonight, has recently been in close contact with people there as, of course, has the Minister. There is little doubt that there is a genuine wish in Papua New Guinea to retain this link with the Administration as it is now, roughly speaking, in appointing Ministerial representatives in the way which is suggested. I do not suggest that I am absolutely right about this because I have no way of knowing. But I also have no way of knowing, and assume to the contrary, that there is any undue pressure being placed upon those people who have either left a vacuum because of the silence or who have promoted and proposed otherthings. I do not see that this is a poor proposition; I do not see that it is necessarily a dangerous proposition. And I certainly do not see that it represents the last vestiges of feudalism, as the honourable member for Wills said.

Nevertheless, I believe that honourable members are justified in questioning the proposition. What I question is that they can with any certainty believe that their amendment is any more effective or representative of what we want for those people and what they want for themselves than is the proposition which has been put forward. I really believe that we have to leave the matter at that and, sympathetic as I am to what motivates them - it is not a question this time of Party politics but of a belief in a particular subject - I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence for me to agree to the amendment. As far as the whole structure of representatives, open electorates, and regional electorates and so on is concerned, the most minor of these categories gives me some little concern - it is only little - and that is the provision for special groups. I am’ always a little wary of special groups being catered for, whether they be women, experts or any other type of person. It seems to me to be strange that given 100 or so members, these people could be so out of touch with their wives, relatives, constituents or anybody else that they need these areas of expertise. Incidentally, that figure is very close to the figure first thought of nearly 10 years ago by the United Nations committee, followed quite closely by the thinking of the honourable member for Fremantle. Nevertheless, that may be so and again one is in a difficult position to say with any certainty that the provision is useless, obnoxious, irrelevant or dangerous. So I suppose we can hardly oppose it on any strong grounds. I draw attention to it and wonder whether there is any necessity for it, even though it does not specify a particular number but only a maximum number of three.

I do not think that you, Mr Speaker, would allow me to range as widely over related matters in Papua New Guinea as did the honourable member for Fremantle who has a great deal of experience in this matter and, if I might say so, left me lamenting, apart from his amendment, on exactly where we were supposed to go. This is not because anything he said was imprecise but because he said so much. He still favours the Swiss Cantonal Parliamentary system for Papua New Guinea. I wish I knew enough about it to agree or disagree strongly with him. He suggests that the balance of forces therein would work against dictatorship. That may be so, although it is difficult to see how under the present structure, and given its reasonable continuity, it would be conducive to any forms: of dictatorship in emerging countries. One would not think the whole modus operandi, not to mention the modus vivendi, of the relationship between Australia and its trust Territory would give rise to anything approaching an inclination to dictatorship in Papua New Guinea; but I suppose it is wise to take account of any possible contingency.

The honourable member for Fremantle also draws attention appropriately to the contrast between the highland and lowland areas of Papua New Guinea. I do not believe that it is within our capacity, or for the moment the capacity of the Territorians, to make a great impact on this. It may well be that we should think in terms of special provisions for the highland population, whether or not they are socially conservative. We know from the survey of the constitutional committee that they are relatively conservative compared with their lowland counterparts. But this is something which will really be in the hands or within the province of the people who run Papua New Guinea from now on. I believe there is nothing very much that we can do to implement anything very effective in this regard. That may be a little pessimistic, it may be opting out a little bit soon, and I suppose that, seeing we are still footing the bill to a considerable extent for the trust Territory, the point may well be taken up at another time. Certainly I agree with the honourable member on what appears to be a minor point but which is a striking one when one visits the Territory, and more especially, I think, for the first time. I refer here to the question of the rather inverted sense of values in relation to building materials and the like. It seems almost nothing short of criminal - certainly aesthetically - to find second rate imported materials being used in the dwelling places of the territorians in lieu of the very suitable materials which tone in exactly with the environment. The physical environment - the almost primaeval environment - is so close at hand in most cases that in fact it is more than a little affront to the senses to see the matter which the honourable member previously raised.

I have no intention of taking up my full time merely for the sake of doing so, but I would like to draw attention to one point which I made earlier and in doing so was somewhat critical perhaps of the honourable member for Fremantle. I refer to the question of open and regional membership. I draw attention, for example, to one of the number of cogent points made by the honourable member for Fremantle inthe 1963 debate where, for instance, he said: . . it should be a Parliament which will produce a sense of nat’onal unity in a geographically and linguistically fragmented country.

I do not think there is much to debate about that point. The country certainly is both things - geographically and linguistically fragmented. However, I believe that one way in which to minimise the fragmentation is to have this - I was going to say a 2-level; I suppose it is - integrated system of overriding or containing regional electorates and a greater number of open electorates - roughly speaking, 5 open electorates to each regional electorate. To me that is a system which should - I cannot vouch for the fact thatit does - minimise the fragmentary character of the character of the populations in the areas of this Territory. I think that only experience will show whether the development which takes place makes that anachronistic. Certainly at the moment I do not know of any evidence which suggests that this is something working contrary to the honourable member for Fremantle’s aspiration of some eight or so years ago. So I think this is probably a good thing. I hope that it works in that way.

The increase in the number obviously gives a slightly wider range of representation, and while the number of open electorates has never quite approached the greatest number wished for by some of the Territory’s well-wishers, nevertheless it is now around the figure which the United Nations thought up first, on some basis oi other, nearly 10 years ago. I think that in this regard we probably have gone, and the Territory has gone, a very considerable way towards achieving what Mr Hasluck, as he then was, wished for the Territory in the 1963 debate which I think is of no little relevance to the situation now.

I would like to close what I have to say tonight by quoting part of what he said then:

  1. . I should like to say that this step is regarded by the Government as opening new opportunities for co-operation in the common task between the Territory and Australia, with the Territory in a better position than ever before to be active in its own interests.

Whatever our disagreements on points of detail, I do not really think that in the potential for the execution of that particular vision there is any notable variance whatsoever between those members who have spoken in this debate across the chamber, nor for that matter members on either side of the chamber.

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

– I understand that I have only a few minutes in which to indicate what I think are some of the more important aspects of this piece of legislation. I want to take the opportunity to refer to the Estimates debate during which the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) was patronising enough to suggest that I may not know enough about New Guinea. I am not suggesting that I do, but at least I went there and spent 2 days with people in the Gazelle Peninsula. At that time I endeavoured to indicate what I thought were the troubles. If one looks for the real, personal problems of the Gazelle one can see that they exist. One does not have to be there for 2 years in order to find out that fact.

I had a lot of difficulty in meeting Mr Tammur because I appeared to be coming from the Canberra Parliament. While I understand that the Minister is a very splendid gentleman and I have no disagreement with him, I remind myself that we are discussing a report which I very much doubt any other member or interested person has looked at. I refer to the report of the Constitutional Committee. While the report is mentioned in a ministerial statement it is available only if one asks for it. The report has never been tabled. Honourable members, perhaps, should not be so critical of those university students who thought that Papua was a province of Indonesia because we might not be so much better informed. It is no good raising as a political issue the point that one does not know enough about the subject. Perhaps that thought could be right about the lot of us, the Minister included.

Matters concerning Papua New Guinea have become somewhat a province of the Australian Country Party. I say that in all honesty. The Liberal Government does not seem to take much interest in New Guinea and its problems at the moment, which we are anxious to look at, are the problems of Australia. The Australian nation is contributing a lot of money to the development of Papua New Guinea, yet we have very little good will there. We might ask ourselves why this is. The reason could well be found in political connivance - trying to organise parties up there and sending in organisers on a Country Party basis just to create the impression that the Australian Labor Party might be trying to. take over. This is completely wrong.

Listening to the discussion that has taken place here one could think that the report had been approved unanimously in the New Guinea Parliament in March. But the approval was far from unanimous. In fact, at least 2 members of the Committee disapproved of the recommendations. These facts should be put before this Parliament and emphasis should be given to what the members of the House of Assembly think. Mr Tammur - not that I am holding any brief for him - raised at a later stage the point that he was not able to discuss this particular report. These are serious matters. Talking to Mr Tammur and to Mr To Liman, one finds that there is not much disagreement between them and that they are anxious to get a solution on the basis of what they think is in the be9t interests of the people they represent. As a nation we should be able to say to the world that we have done something by way of a legislative programme that is acceptable to these people.

What they object to in the main is the question ot regional electorates. Some of the regional electorate members have been inarticulate throughout the period they have been elected. There has been a lot of trouble in the areas which they represent. They have left their functions to others, and the Minister knows that. That is one of the basic troubles in some of the areas now. It should not be thought because one is establishing a whole system of regional electorates that one will be successful. The Government is expanding the number of electorates by means of this Bill from IS to 18. I have had a look at the Hansard of the New Guinea House of Assembly and I found in the March debate that at least a dozen members objected to the regional position, and they were quite influential members. Some of them were members of the committee. Surely that fact ought to make us ask ourselves whether this is the worth while approach?

We could bring forward a valuable Bill here if we looked at this matter from the standpoint of regions. We have the basic principle, which has been ignored, that if from a region representatives had been elected to the national assembly there would be a very cohesive parliament. But if highlanders are to vote for what they think is in their best interests - and they are entitled to think that - but say that self-government will not be given to other areas until they are ready for it, then the Government has a real crisis on its hands. This is indicated in the report; it is not mentioned by the Minister but it is mentioned by the people who prepared the report. So members drawn from the Rabaul Peninsula, the Gazelle Peninsula, Manus and Bougainville will say that there are strong pressures now for selfgovernment in 1972. Why does not a responsible Parliament do something about that? Measures could readily be taken. In 1972 regional representation could be established on a new concept with which the people of the Territory and all others would agree. They could have their regional area elections for the control of the region only, and from among the representatives of the region members could be chosen to be sent to the national Parliament. Instead we have this archaic system under which there are open electorates and, based on that, a regional grouping that will not function.

Why does not the Government let us look at the evidence and the amendment that was moved by Mr Maloat that regional areas be done away with? Admittedly the amendment was not carried but it had substantial support. The language of the House of Assembly is rather strong. It feels that regional electorates belong to the expatriates because a member representing such an electorate requires an educational standard of an intermediate class. They feel that they are just as good as anybody else from the point of view of experience, and want to know why they should be denied an opportunity to stand for election to represent these areas. I think this is pretty important. We ought to give these people a lot of credit for their own ability.

As they will tell you in the Gazelle Peninsula, both To Liman and Tammur have had enough of our western civilisation. The people have bad it for 80 years. They have had German occupation, Japanese occupation and ours, and they feel that they can still do a mighty job themselves. They say though that they need the expert advice of our Administration officers. They want the opportunity to come back to us should they not be able to succeed by themselves. So these people should be given the opportunity now to be elected on a regional basis. For example, Angmai Bilas in Madang is capable of running his area. I noticed the Prime Minister race in here last Thursday night and make a statement about how he was successful in getting satisfactory guarantees about the Territory’s exports to countries of the European Common Market. The incredible part is that Bilas made a statement in the House of Assembly in March this year that in November last year he received advice from Rippon that the Territory’s case for consideration of its exports was acceptable and that Britain would put it up to the Common Market countries. He then went personally to Schumann of France and to the German representative and said: ‘You have occupied my country. Give me help’. He got the indication then that New Guinea exports would be admitted to

Common Market countries. He did that himself last November. Our Prime Minister came into the House this November and said that he had done something for the Territory a few weeks ago. If that gets back to New Guinea on the basis of who did what, I think Bilas would be a bit upset about the situation because it was not until he got to the Germans and indicated to them that they had occupied his country as invaders that they began to think they should do something for him.

These are very intelligent men and they want the opportunity, I would say, to run their own regions. I will not run through the list of names. I am on a commitment to speak for only a few minutes and I will close. If I say that a man by the name of Yuwi, a member of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development, opposed the Committee’s report I am right. If I say that Mr Oala-rRarua objected to it I am right. If I say Mr Maloat moved an amendment I am right. Honourable members here know nothing about these matters because they were not mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister. Why not look at the problems of the Territory and at the people? The people have different dialects, different ethnic groups and different problems. The Government can solve the problems and it would be to its credit if it did so as the people want it done. Talk to To Liman and Tammur together and see whether they would not agree. That is the solution for their problems.

Mr Graham:

– You must be joking. Tammur would not agree with anything.

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

-I am not joking. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman has ever spoken to Tammur. I do not know whether he has ever been to the plantation where he is. If Tammur thought the honourable member was from the Administration he would not see him. He would have a lot of difficulty in getting to see Tammur. He would have a problem when that happened. To Liman and Tammur agree on the solution. It has appeared recently in the House of Assembly debates that they feel something should be done. They are from the same team and if we split them on a party basis one of them will be beaten in the next election. That would be a great danger to the Govern- ment. It could happen. I am committed to speak for only 8 minutes. From the point of view of regional representation I would like to think that the Minister is trying to do a job and I want to think that he could succeed. But the Opposition’s amendment is more to the point. We believe that the people themselves should put their members in the Parliament. The solution, in my view, is to get back to the regional concept, and from the elected regional members get the national Parliament.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I must have certain qualities that I have never recognised, because I was able to talk to Mr To Liman for some 2 hours in Port Moresby without any trouble. I also had the opportunity to talk with Mr Tammur on a flight to Lae. That talk lasted a couple of hours. So perhaps I have been a privileged Liberal in that respect. When we are discussing the Papua New Guinea Bill tonight I think it is appropriate to recall that Australia’s involvement in this part of the world has been intense only in recent years. Just prior to the Second World War, only 500 children were in administration schools and about 90,000 in the mission schools. Today, there are some 223,000 children of the 359,000 children in the 7 to 12 year age group attending primary schools. Still, 60 per cent are unable to obtain a place in secondary schools. Honourable members may recall that today I addressed a question to the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes). Part of the question was:

Is it correct that the present policy-

I was speaking in relation to education - . . dictates that the Government will not establish a school if a religious group is already, operating in the district?

I went on to ask:

While recognising that the Christian churches have made a commendable, self-motivated contribution in the past in the Territory of Papua New Guinea, does the Minister foresee the danger of this policy leading to the creation of an intolerant nation divided on religious differences?

Quite properly, the Minister reminded me and the House that this was more a matter for consideration of the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea and he assured me that he would refer the question to the House and eventually pass the answer on to me. I wish to make it quite plain in the House tonight that this is not the first time I have raised this issue. On 26th October this year, at about this hour of the evening, I made a speech on this matter. I believe with great sincerity that the policy which has existed in the past and which has contributed to increasing the educational opportunities is outmoded. Under the present system, as I pointed out in the question, if there is a school established in an area the Government refrains from establishing a school and the children in the area only have the opportunity of attending a school run by either the Methodist church, the Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church or quite a number of other religious groups.

The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), who is sitting at the table, spoke earlier tonight. I believe that, with the exception of a few sentences, he made quite a good and thoughtful contribution on the question of national unity. I would like to state my belief: I do not believe that the educational programme that presently is being followed in the Territory is contributing to the establishment of national unity. It is interesting to note the comments that I made in the House 2 months ago when I said:

The missions have tended generally to operate at the purely local level and hence are more village oriented than are schools in the Administration network. Village pressures have tended to cause missions to expand their facilities horizontally rather than vertically. Mission policy has been aimed at preparing the majority of pupils for village life.

Then I referred to the fact that Alan Randall’s ‘Reorganisation of Education in Papua New Guinea’ covered this matter quite clearly. I made known the fact that he is an officer of the United Church. I went on to say:

This emphasis upon the village has worked against the building up of a national character and national attitudes in the indigenous population. In particular, political education has suffered. This was emphasised recently by the United Nations mission which visited the Territory earlier this year.

I assured the Deputy Government Whip that I would curtail this speech tonight. However in that speech 2 months ago I went on to mention Mr Daniel Kunert who is a man of the New Guinea Lutheran Mission-Missouri Synod. I referred to his paper. I said:

In the paper to which I have referred Mr Kunert said that schools have also been used by various missions to cause divisions within the country, setting denomination against denomination. While this has been true only to a limited extent, it is something which a country preparing for unity and independence cannot afford to tolerate.

I agree with the system of giving people a choice of the types of education available for their children. I firmly believe that one of the by-products of this system in Australia is the creation of divisions within our community. But the advantages of the dual education system are such that they more than submerge the disadvantages. There is a difference between our dual education system in Australia and that of the Territory of Papua New Guinea. The people up there hardly have a choice. I really believe that in the long term it will be to that country’s detriment. Fulfilling my undertaking to the Deputy Whip, I will resume my seat.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– in reply - I am grateful to honourable members from both sides of the House for the wideranging discussion and the interest they have shown in Papua New Guinea. The point that was made generally, and I think it has been accepted, is that we have come a long way. The Government’s policy has been the step by step advancement in political development according to the wishes of the people. The report of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development has been accepted - not unanimously; I agree with the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I think it would be remarkable to find a committee or a House of Assembly completely unanimous in its views on a subject. The important thing is that the report has been accepted by the House of Assembly.

We have reached the stage today where I suppose one could say the country is practically self-governing. All the areas of concern, such as primary and secondary education, health, local government and the land situation, are there for the decision of the elected members of the House of Assembly. We have set them up in the Westminster system of Parliament. This has been a success with us and it has been a success in the English speaking countries in which it has prevailed. It is up to the people themselves if later on, after independence or self-government, they want a change. The Government has accepted the appointment by the House of Assembly of a select committee to consider constitutional change. I have no doubt that the new House, with which this Bill deals, will opt for the same measure, for a select committee to go further to see if any change is wished for.

I am glad to see that there has been general agreement on the Bill, with the exception of the proposed amendment to clause 10. Generally speaking this is accounted for by the difference of philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition’s choice of an executive differs completely from that of the Government. Our Leader, the Prime Minister, chooses his executive whereas I believe - I am not an expert on the Opposition’s structure - that Caucus chooses its executive. This is a difference of philosophy.

Mr Bryant:

– How would you face up to a vote?

Mr BARNES:

– Pretty well, I hope. We believe that the decision implemented by clause 10 is in the spirit of the report of the Select Committee.

Mr Beazley:

– The Country Party chooses its Ministers, does it not?

Mr BARNES:

– Within the same system as the Liberal Party does. The Party does not choose the Ministers. The method of appointment of Ministers reveals basically a difference of philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. We believe that our system has worked very well. 1 do not want to rub this in, but we have been in government for a considerable time. We do not know what the structure of the new House of Assembly will be. It may be. a Party structure. This could throw a completely different light on the structure of the Executive. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. As the hour is late I do not intend to detain the House any longer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 9 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10.

Sections 20 and 21 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - 20.- (1.) Subject to this section, the Council shall consist of -

  1. the Administrator;
  2. a Deputy Chairman of the Council, being a Minister of the House of Assembly, appointed in accordance with the next succeeding sub-section;
  3. nine other Ministers of the Houseof Assembly appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator, being a nomination made after consulting the Deputy Chairman; and
  4. three official members of the House A Assembly appointed by the Ministerof the nomination of the Administrator.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– A move:

Omit paragraph (c), insert the following paragraph:

nine other Ministers of the House of Assembly appointed by the Ministers of the House of Assembly, but such appointments shall not become effective unless and until the House of Assembly has, by resolution, approved the appointments; and’

Let us be perfectly clear. What the Government is proposing is neither the Opposition’s philosophy not the Government’s philosophy. The Government has arranged a system whereby the 17 Ministers of the House of Assembly will chose what obviously will be the most important Minister, the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council - in effect, an incipient Prime Minister. If the Government were following its philosophy the Deputy Chairman would choose his inner Cabinet. The Minister would say, quite rightly, that under the Government’s system the Prime Minister chooses his Cabinet. But the Government does not provide that in the House of Assembly the key Minister, the Deputy Chairman, will choose the Executive Council. It provides that the Minister for External Territories, in consultation with the Administrator who will consult with the Deputy Chairman, will chose the members of the Executive Council. That is not providing for the Government’s philosophy for selecting the Cabinet.

We are not asking for the Opposition’s philosophy for selecting the Cabinet. The Council will be chosen by the Minister for

External Territories. There will be 17 Ministers. We ask that those 17 Ministers choose the inner Executive - the Administrator’s Executive Council. That is not our system; the Labor Party does not have provision for a Ministry choosing an inner Cabinet. Our Ministry would be elected by the whole parliamentary Party. What we are asking for is not our system. We are asking that, where the Select Committee on Constitutional Development and the House of Assembly are silent, the Government adopt the same system of selection as that specifically recommended for the selection of the Deputy Chairman. The Select Committee recommended that the 17 Ministers should appoint the Deputy Chairman. The Select Committee was silent on the selection of the other Ministers; it probably overlooked that. We ask that the 17 Ministers who are fit to choose the Deputy Chairman choose the other 9 Ministers. Following the recommendations of the Select Committee and the House of Assembly, the Government has provided that the House of Assembly shall approve, the appointment of the Deputy Chairman. We say that the House of Assembly should approve the appointment of the other 9 Ministers.

The honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) gave to the Government’s proposal the status of something that had been recommended by the Select Committee and the House of Assembly. I again draw his attention to the Minister’s statement. The Minister stated:

The Select Committee report was silent on the method of choosing the Minister to sit on the Administrator’s Executive Council.

We cannot be validly accused, as we were of ignoring what the Select Committee has recommended. There is a silence, a void, which the Minister proposes to fill in one way and we propose to fill in another. Our method of filling it is analogous to their recommendations for the Deputy Chairman. I believe that their responsible action in choosing their own Administrator’s Executive Council is a unifying thing.

There was a great undercurrent of bitterness that I experienced in conversations with members of the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea about the method by which Executive Council Ministers were chosen. Let me give 2 specific examples. Mr Oala Oala-Rarua had devoted, I suppose, more than a decade to the problems of labour in Papua New Guinea. He had organised certain unions. He had spoken publicly on all sorts of labour questions. There was an expectation that he would be chosen as the Ministerial Member for Labour, instead of which he was given another portfolio. Mr Toua Kapena was chosen as Ministerial Member for Labour. I do not want to be seeming to criticise Mr Toua Kapena, but it is simply an historic fact that he had never said a thing on labour, on the conditions of workers, just terms of wages or employment conditions in the whole of his career. The belief was that he was chosen for this position simply because he would not be a nuisance. Some of the members of the House of Assembly believe that he was chosen as a Ministerial Member for Labour precisely because he had no philosophy of labour. I do not want to make that accusation; I merely say that if expatriate officials - the expatriate Administrator and the Minister for External Territories - are to choose who is to be on the inner executive the charge will inevitably be made that they were chosen because they were acceptable - tame, if you like-

Mr Hurford:

– Yes-men.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– And put into the Cabinet. I do not believe that the Minister would choose yes-men. I am not sure that he would choose some of his major critics, but I do not believe that he would choose yes-men. But in any event I feel that at this stage of history he should not be choosing at all. There are 17 Ministers who are perfectly capable of choosing their most significant member as Deputy Chairman. If the Government followed its own philosophy the Deputy Chairman would then choose his nine colleagues as the Prime Minister does. But the Government does not follow that philosophy. The Government has the Administrator as an expatriate figure doing it in conjunction with the Minister for External Territories. This is retaining, at a stage of history when we do not feel it is necessary to retain it, the authority of the Canberra Government in the selection of personnel in another Cabinet, the Administrator’s inner council. Neither I nor the Minister can claim in what we are proposing the authority of the Select Committee. Neither of us can claim in what we are proposing the authority of the House of Assembly. The Government has left <this point as a silence. We therefore believe it is wiser, in choosing the other 9 members, to use the system that they themselves have indicated in choosing the Deputy Chairman. I put forward the amendment accordingly.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). As I see it, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) cannot possibly undertake the nomination of Ministers. First of all, I do not like the principle. I do not like the idea of nominations of this sort with one individual having power over another, particularly in an elective system which is basically a system of equality in which all the people elected to the place are basically equal with equal responsibilities. I do not even think that the Minister is acting in this situation as if he were prime minister. He is acting as if he were the Crown itself thousands of miles away handing down the clay tablets or whatever it is he is handing down, and saying ‘There it is’.

How can the Minister possibly make this selection? If the Minister is not to make the selection, who is to make it? In all probability it will be the Administrator. I have no objection to the Administrator except that he is not qualified to select between members of Parliament. The Minister may say that it will be the Chairman of the Council; if it is to be the ViceChairman, we will nominate him. I would object to that. We must be able to do better than this. We do not live any longer in a world of nominations. The Minister might stand and say that it is difference of philosophy. What nonsense! There is a different look at the world between what he wants to operate and what we propose.

There are other ways of solving the problem than the ones we suggest, but at least we propose that the responsibility should lie with the members of the House of Assembly itself. Any departure from that principle is a breach of our trust with the people of Papua New Guinea and particularly the House of Assembly. I was particularly disappointed with the Minister’s answer. The other thing that I cannot sea is how the original 17 Ministers are to be selected. Are they to be nominated? ?

Mr Barnes:

– Yes, by the House of Assembly.

Mr BRYANT:

– They are actually selected by election of the House of Assembly. I think that ‘that is an advance. It is one which we ought to introduce into this Parliament. That stopped the Minister in his tracks. This is an interesting thing, actually. I have been here for some 32 or 33 sessions. I have seen these operations going on in Papua New Guinea with regard to the Holy Writ that we apply there or perhaps to the Legislative Council in the Northern Territory. We are likely to run things a little more democratically in some respects in Papua New Guinea. For instance the voting age in municipal council elections is 18. The electoral system designed in the first instance foi Papua New Guinea is much more democratic than the one inflicted upon us here. Perish the thought’, says the Minister to the idea of a ministry elected by the members of the Parliament. He would not have a bar of it here.

Mr Barnes:

– It is a difference of philosophy.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is not philosophy; it is simply bad habit that the Government has got into. How on earth can the Minister call this a philosophy when he is the bloke choosing them?

Mr Hurford:

– Ask Jim Killen.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. The Minister might claim this is a leadership principle like the fuehrerprinzip of unhappy memory that was buried in the bunkers of Berlin. It is not even that. What are the Minister’s qualifications to make this kind of choice?

Mr Giles:

– He is very good.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. He has a number of qualifications. He is very good at choosing horses. But we are concerned with people. The suggestion is that because of a long series of accidents - his selection as the candidate for Mcpherson; his election to this Parliament; and his selection, by whatever method, for the Ministry - he if suddenly endowed with the kind of wisdom that allows him to select from unknown people 2,000 miles away. Much as I respect and admire the honourable gentleman, conservative as he is - he is not quite my favourite reactionary, but I put him in the list - 1 believe that he just is not fitted to do this. So his advisers will do it. Who are his advisers? To whom do they answer directly? To nobody. I do not believe that it is a simple difference of philosophy. I think it is a failure to apply ourselves to the principles to which we ought to be applying ourselves and allowing the writ of free decision, equality and parliamentary responsibility to run in Papua New Guinea. Even if it does not run here yet, we will fix that after the next election.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– As I mentioned before, I oppose this amendment. I believe that the provisions in this Bill are quite fair and in keeping with the spirit of the report. As I pointed out to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the 17 members are chosen by the House of Assembly. The 9 who make up the Administrator’s Executive Council will be chosen by the Minister for External Territories on the advice of the Administrator after consultation with the Deputy Chairman who has been chosen by the Ministers. I believe this is perfectly fair. I would point out that the people of Papua New Guinea are quite reluctant to move into an area of greater responsibility without their choosing.

When these measures were introduced last July by the then Prime Minister it was a matter of great concern. There was a motion in the House of Assembly that no further constitutional changes would take place without its authority. I must remind honourable members opposite that we are sensitive to the views of the elected members of the House of Assembly, and I must point out that this is not the attitude of honourable members opposite because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said: ‘You will have self-government in 1972. You will have independence in 1975 and the decision will be made in Canberra, not in Port Moresby.’ That is the difference. It is quite extraordinary, this sort of sensitivity. The Government opposes the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Another point I would like to make is in regard to this idea of the inner 10. I take it that is referred to in the report. Why is it that the Committee or someone has decided that the 17 should not operate as a Cabinet, if we are to inflict such a thing upon them? Why is it that we must have this inner group? If this is in the report what are the reasons for this recommendation? Why should not the 17 operate in the sense of which we are thinking, not exactly a cabinet but basically under a cabinet system? Why must we have the inner and the outer?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) asked the Minister whether it was in the report of the Select Committee that there should be an inner ministry, that is, the Administrator’s Executive Council. The Minister has picked up the point of the Australian Labor Party’s policy of independence for Papua New Guinea. The maintenance of the link betwen Australia and New Guinea is not a matter for New Guinea to decide alone. There are 2 nations involved in this. There is therefore no analogy between a question of maintaining the link and the question of how the ministry is selected. We are consistent and not inconsistent as the Minister suggests, because if you believe in the early independence of Papua New Guinea you also believe in the early selection of members of the Administrator’s Executive Council as a step on the way. In other words, believing in early independence for Papua New Guinea, we do not want the Minister for External Territories to be choosing the inner ministry.

I agree that he has a case whenever he can say that this is what the House of Assembly wants, but he himself has specifically said on this matter that the House of Assembly and its Select Committee were silent, and he fills the silence with himself. He chooses the ministry in conjunction with the Administrator. Now, that is all right, but neither of us can claim on the specific matter which we are now discussing, the amendment, the authority of the House of Assembly. We are consistent in believing in early independence, and also in believing in early responsibility, that the 17 Ministers should choose their inner cabinet rather than the Administrator and the Minister. There is no point in labouring this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to the question asked by the honourable member for Wills. Was it a request of the House of Assembly that instead of just a Cabinet of 17 Ministers there should also be an inner Cabinet of the Administrator’s Executive Council?

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– This was part of the report which was adopted.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 47

NOES: 42

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4085

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 October (vide page 2682), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure onthis legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill 1971 as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill of 1971 is one more Bill by which an important industry in Australia will have the benefit of a stabilisation scheme. The objective of this Bill is to implement a scheme for the stabilisation of the incomes of dried vine fruit producers for a period of 5 years commencing with the 1971 crop. Honourable members will recall that this scheme was introduced after proposals were put to the industry and after the industry had voted upon these proposals.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

Order! Again I would ask the House to come to order and have the courtesy to give the honourable member who is speaking a chance to be heard.

Dr PATTERSON:

– There was an overwhelming support for the referendum by the dried vines fruits growers. The House will recall that previously a referendum was held on this same matter and, although there was a substantial majority in favour of stabilisation, the criteria laid down by the Government with respect to eligible voters were not met and in actual fact the proposals were rejected by the Government because of the criteria not being fulfilled.

I believe that the history of this legislation is just one more example of a policy which I have never hesitated to criticise in this House, particularly the part played by the Australian Country Party. I have always believed that a responsible government that believed an industry required a particular line of action should take that action and should not go to the industry itself. Frequently, an industry is divided by internal wrangling and undue bias. To illustrate my point, the first referendum was defeated and within a matter of weeks after this defeat the international market looked like collapsing. I agree with industry leaders who maintain that if that same referendum had been put to the same growers a few weeks after the first vote was taken, there would have been an overwhelming vote in favour of stabilisation.

The same problem has existed with respect to wool and the same principle that I am trying to elaborate applies. If the Government had acted in 1964, the problem would have been overcome. I believe that the great majority of members of the Country Party, if not all of them, believed in the reserve price scheme 7 years go. I have given credit to the right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann). I believe that it was one of the most important achievements that he was able to get through Cabinet at that time. Unfortunately, because of a divided and fragmented wool industry at that time, the industry was confused and the referendum proposal put forward was defeated. This was a great tragedy for the wool industry and similarly, the defeat of the referendum on the dried vines fruits stabilisation scheme was also a tragedy for the dried vines fruit growers at that time. It was pleasing to see that when they went back to the next referendum they made no mistake about it. I forget the actual figures, but well over 90 per cent voted in favour of the referendum proposal.

The provisions of the stabilisation scheme are along the accepted principles of orderly marketing or stabilisation of incomes when a variety of commodities or fruits is involved. Separate funds are maintained in this instance for currants, sultanas and raisins. A base price has been fixed and there is also a relationship between that base price and the actual prices received for the season. If the actual prices received are in excess of a certain figure, of course, it is up to the growers themselves within the provisions of the Act to contribute to the stabilisation fund the amount of money required. Similarly, if the amount of money received per ton is significantly lower than the base price the Government has, under the provisions of this legislation, to put a certain amount of money into the stabilisation fund. Certain limitations are imposed in this legislation with respect to the maxima and minima. The liability of the Commonwealth is protected. At the same time there is a limit to what the grower will have to contribute per ton as compared with the relationship of the base price to what he actually receives. That is in accordance with the accepted principles of stabilisation. A similar type of formula was included recently in the apple and pear industry stabilisation scheme.

A comparison of this stabilisation scheme with the previous one will show that they are quite different in several respects. In my opinion the scheme itself has been greatly improved. I refer specifically to the ceiling whereby the maximum rate of bounty of $23 per ton is applicable if a Commonwealth contribution is involved. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said in his second reading speech, this provision did not in fact form part of the initial stabilisation scheme. Another improvement is the provision under which, where the bounty is payable in respect of a season’s transactions, the Government will make an advanced payment against the industry’s bounty entitlement. I think that is an excellent move. I believe that advance payments should be part and parcel of all stabilisation schemes. After all, there is a lag between when a producer actually sends his fruit to, as in this case, the packing house and when he finally receives his equalised or final return. A considerable period elapses. The making of advance payments is a step in the right direction. Tonnage limitations on currants, sultanas and raisins are another basic provision of stabilisation schemes. I do not want at this hour of the night to go into all the details of the stabilisation scheme. One can question whether the base price is a good one. One can question whether it is high enough. One can question whether the limits are sufficient. But, in all fairness, I do not think one can argue against this scheme being of great benefit to the-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order!

Dr PATTERSON:

– If the Ministers who are at the table want to have a little meeting they should have it in the back of the chamber. It is quite difficult for me to concentrate while they are talking at the table.

Mr Chipp:

– We are tired of hearing you.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Chipp:

– Does the honourable member regard it as offensive?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I do.

Mr Chipp:

– As he takes offence, I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Why don’t you grow up.

Mr Chipp:

– I ask that that remark be withdrawn, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I withdraw it. If the Minister was making a speech and 3 of my colleagues were carrying on a conversation close to him, I am sure that he would take objection to it. I will let it drop at that. The point I was making is that the basic elements of this stabilisation scheme are sound. The Opposition supports the principles of stabilisation and orderly marketing. I personally have very little criticism to offer of the scheme itself. The only criticism I have to offer is that it took so long to get the machinery in action to conduct the referendum. It is possible that I could put forward arguments for the creation of a statutory authority in preference to a stabilisation scheme as such. But as this question is not under discussion tonight, it does not necessarily need to be debated now.

One of the matters which we have to recognise about dried vine fruit production is that it always faces a precarious future in terms of production. There are adverse seasons with respect to harvesting. Production is vulnerable to hail. During the budding and growing periods in September and October the industry is also susceptible to frost and hail. The vines themselves are susceptible to disease, and during the months of February, March and April when the fruit is on the vines there are also the problems with the seasons. After the harvesting there is the drying of the fruit. So there is a long period of production and harvesting of the finished farm product, which is quite different from the position with most other commodities. The dried vine fruits industry itself is susceptible to a great degree of risk.

I note that the prices of dried vine fruits will be varied in accordance with movements in indices of the cash costs of production. One point which I raise for consideration by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) relates to the method of the variance of these costs. One of the great problems confronting this small farm industry is the problem of the allocation of costs between dried vine fruits production and other enterprises on the farm. There may be citrus fruits, some canning varieties of fruits and other types of grapes, particularly in the dual purpose areas. There is a problem concerning the allocation of costs, and I would like to know what is to be the Government formula regarding the allocation of cash costs of production. One recognised formula is the application of price indices based on price relatives which are formulated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I would assume that the same practice would apply in the dried vine fruits industry.

I should like to refer to another matter in passing. Quite frequently when I go into the fruit growing areas of Victoria, New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, South Australia, the question is raised about the price of sugar. This is not so relevant to the dried vine fruits industry, but it is relevant to some vine fruits producers, particularly those producers who have a sideline production of fruit for canning. The Minister for Shipping and Transport and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) know what I mean. I refer to the operation of the sugar rebate and sugar concession system as it applies to the canning of fruit or to the export of particular processed fruits. But I should like to make this point: I think that there has to be some type of educational programme about the price of sugar introduced for fruit growers in these areas, because the favourite criticism is to take the world price of sugar and to compare it with the Australian domestic price of sugar. Anybody who knows the economics of the sugar industry is fully aware that this is a most fallacious and wrong argument, because, although the domestic price of sugar in Australia is high relative to the so-called free world parity price under which the International Sugar Agreement operates, the fact of the matter is that only about 8 million to 9 million tons of sugar are sold on the residual market. All the world’s major sugar producers and importers work on agreements - bilateral agreements and special agreements such as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Only the balance of production and imports are put on this market.

As the Minister well knows, there can be violent fluctuations in the price of sugar. Only 5 years ago the price was over £stgl00 a ton, and it came down to £stgl2 a ton. The fruit producers in southern Australia should realise that this is not a world parity price in the accepted sense of the word because only a very small proportion of the sugar crop goes on the market. I will expand on that situation later. It is important to know this, because frequently we see in the newspapers jam producers, canning fruit producers and particularly the growers putting forward arguments and criticising the sugar industry or the Government because they say they are paying too high a price for sugar. If these persons really knew the facts they would know that they are not paying a high price, because one basic fact remains - in Australia the price of sugar is one of the lowest prices in the world. In view of the lateness of the night I do not want to say anything more on that point.

I give notice that the Opposition will move 2 amendments at the Committee stage. These 2 amendments are similar to amendments which the Opposition has moved in relation to various other rural matters. One amendment relates to the averment, that is, the penalty clause. The other amendment relates to the time within which proceedings will commence if a person has to face a charge. From memory, a prosecution in relation to the apple and pear industry was to commence within 5 years, but this period was reduced to 3 years because the Senate compromised. The period provided in this Bill is 3 years. We will move an amendment to provide for a period of 12 months. The arguments in relation to the 2 amendments are well known to the Government. We believe that the present provisions are objectionable. I have nothing more to say on the Bill. One could debate all the technical points at some length. We on this side of the House have no serious argument against the Bill. We believe in the principles of orderly marketing and stabilisation. Our basic point is that we would like to have seen this stabilisation scheme introduced at least 2 years prior to this date.

Friday. 3 December 1971

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech said:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement a scheme for the stabilisation of returns to dried vine fruit growers for a period of 5 years com- mencing with the 1971 crop.

As approximately 70 per cent of the Australian dried vine fruit pack is grown in the Mallee electorate, which I represent. 1

I am delighted that this Bill is before the House. I am also delighted that the Opposition is not opposing it. I believe that this Bill is necessary for the dried fruits industry. On so many occasions I have said that any primary industry which is not stabilised is out of touch with reality. I believe that the dried fruits industry is one of the most precarious primary industries.

So many things happen. The dried fruits industry has to put up with frost, hail, rain, black spot and vinegar fly, and it has to have good drying weather to dry the fruit. By the time one gets the fruit into the packing shed it has had to overcome so many difficulties that one is fortunate to get it in in good condition. Once it is in the packing shed the world price can fluctuate adversely very suddenly. That is why stabilisation is so necessary for this industry. The industry was stabilised from 1964 to 1968 and I had the pleasure in 1964 of travelling through Sunraysia and other places with the right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann) who was then the Minister for Primary Industry. He spoke with the growers who at that stage voted in favour of the stabilisation scheme. We then had another referendum in March 1970, the previous stabilisation scheme having expired in 1968. Of 3,745 growers of sultanas, raisins and currants who registered to vote, only 2,437 voted. Of these, 1,578 voted yes and 859 voted no. Of those voting, 65 per cent favoured the plan, but since the criterion for acceptance of the plan was that there should be a majority of those eligible to vote in favour of it and because those who voted yes represented only 42 per cent of all eligible voters, no mandate for the plan was given to the Government. Had the plan been approved it would have had retrospective application to embrace the 1969 season and there would have been continuity of the stabilisation of this important industry. But as things worked out, the industry was not stabilised for the 1969 crop.

Just recently another stabilisation vote has been taken and early in August this year over 350 growers from Sunraysia and the Riverland area heard the Minister for Primary Industry, whom I invited to visit Mildura, explain that the plan was the best arrangement within the funds available. The Minister urged all growers eligible to vote at the referendum on the plan. The growers co-operated and the 1971 referendum on a 5-year stabilisation plan commencing with the 1971 crop showed the degree of rank and file support. Of the 5,004 growers enrolled, 4,616 or 92 per cent cast their votes and of this number 4,560 or 98 per cent voted in favour of the scheme offered by the Government. Honourable members will notice that the number of growers registered to vote increased tremendously. Due to factors such as the threat of the collapse of the International Sultana Agreement, the growers decided that they wanted stabilisation although it had been rejected not so very long before. The vote in favour of the scheme was such a good one that the Government is now implementing the scheme. The dried fruits industry is very pleased with the explanations of the Bill and with the general conditions contained in it. As the hour is late, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard of part of an article setting out the main points of the plan and headed Best Arrangement for Dried Fruits’, and 2 paragraphs of an article by Mr W. R. Denbow, promotion officer for the Murray Valley Development League, from the Murray Valley Development League journal, the ‘Riverlander’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

Best Arrangement’ for Dried Fruits

The main points in the plan, from 1971 to 1975, are:

Base price set each season according to cash costs movements for sultanas, raisins and currants.

Base price for 1971: Sultanas $273 a ton; currants $313 a ton; raisins $243 a ton.

If average return exceeds $10 a ton over base price, grower pays into funds to maximum of $20 a ton.

If return more than $10 a ton below base price, payments from funds to growers.

Government guarantees bounty payments with maximum payment of $23 a ton if Government money involved.

Tonnage limitations apply. No contributions are paid when production is less than 8,000 tons for currants, 60,000 tons for sultanas and 6,000 tons for raisins.

No bounty is paid from a fund on more than 13,500 tons for currants, 75,000 tons for sultanas and 11,000 tons for raisins.

An important feature was that in a year when bounty was payable, 90 per cent of the bounty, estimated on statistics available on 25th February following .the crop, would be paid soon after that date. The remaining 10 per cent would be paid soon after.

The meeting was organised by the Australian Dried Fruits Association and the Member for Mallee, Mr Winton Turnbull. The League’s Development and Promotion Officer, Mr W. R. Denbow, attended with South Australian growers.

Extract from article by

Mr W. R. Denbow

The Aborigines called it place of red rock - Mildura. In 1887, George and William Chaffey established their ‘irrigation colony’ in a ‘Sahara of hissing, hot winds and red driving sand’ as the sceptics described it. Today that colony covers over 50,000 acres of irrigated vines and citrus amid a population of 35,000 people. They call it Sunraysia, a name which conjures up a land of sunshine. Indeed it is, boasting more hours of sunshine during the year than famed Surfers Paradise.

To the visitor impressions are great expanses of vine plantings, a striking highway plantation clothed with green lawns and trees splashed with beds of floral colour, a clean city with wide streets and inviting stores - a refreshing contrast to the surrounding country.

In the irrigation areas the fruit industry activities are absorbing and educational. Inspections can be made of the great Red Cliffs pumping station, the largest in Australia with a daily capacity of 640 million gallons; the dried fruits and citrus .packing houses, very much automated in their operations; and the Mildara Winery at Merbein, established at Irymple originally by W. B. Chaffey. For those who have not seen the operations of a fruit block, two vine and’ citrus orchards conduct inspections and slide screenings to show what goes on.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I want to pay a compliment to the Australian Dried Fruits Association and all those people who are dedicated to getting the best possible deal for the dried fruits industry. They have come to Canberra on many occasions over the years and consulted the Minister for Primary Industry and other Ministers also on this subject. I believe they have done a very good job for the industry.

I would like to recite some of the history of Sunraysia and Robinvale, the 2 places where most of the vine fruits are grown in Australia. The Chaffey brothers came to Mildura from the United States of America and started an irrigation scheme. They were greatly assisted by Mr Alfred Deakin who had great faith in irrigation. Soldiers who returned from the 1914-18 war went to the area and helped to deve lop it and settled in Sunraysia which became the most successful soldier settlement primary industry scheme in Australia. Much the same thing happened after the Second World War when there were plantings at Robinvale which is now a thriving vine fruit centre.

Not much more can be said about this Bill. The Opposition favours it. I am delighted with it. The Government saw fit to bring it forward and I hope it has a swift passage through the House and that the dried vine fruit growers will get great benefit from it.

This industry has been hit probably harder than any other industry and it should be assisted at every opportunity. On 9th February next I will have represented that area for 26 years and I realise the need for the best possible legislation to assist it. On one occasion after heavy rain had done a lot of damage the Government granted £300,000 to the industry which helped it a lot at that time. That does not seem to be a lot of money now but that was a good few years ago; from memory it was about 1956. The industry requires a lot of work. In the main, the blocks are from 16 acres to 24 acres. There are some larger blocks but they are not big assets such as the wheat and wool farms were in the past. I support the Bill and hope that by it the dried fruit growers will gain a new prosperity which is urgently needed in their industry.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The House is dealing tonight with a measure which affects an industry which has, I think, more small people, more struggling people in it than any other primary industry of which I know. It is an industry in which trouble is endemic although I must say that most of the trouble is due to climatic conditions. The industry has been encouraged by State and Federal governments. It came into being and it has given birth to communities. The industry has made a contribution to the community internally and to our export position, and the people engaged in it work hard and well. They are efficient within the limitations of the industry, the weather and federal trade policy.

It has been said that this Bill will not be opposed by honourable members on this side of the House. That is true. The Government made the position very clear when it bluntly said that it would put forward a scheme for study by the growers and that they may adopt it or reject it. Let us be quite clear that we are talking about an offer made by the Government and this is its only and final offer. I accept what was said by the absent Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who made the second reading speech on this Bill, when he made this statement in that speech:

The degree of rank and file support is evidenced by the voting figures. Of the 5,004 growers enrolled 4,616 or 92 per cent cast their votes; and of these 4,560 or 98 per cent voted in favour of the scheme offered by the Government.

That is exactly true. The scheme offered by the Government was the only one offering. The growers had either to accept or reject the scheme. They very wisely accepted it because the alternative was nothing. On that basis, of course, they accepted it. But this is not to mean that what was offered represented all of thenhopes and aspirations or that this was exactly what they wanted because this is not so. Any pretence that this is the case is quite inaccurate. What people in the industry wanted was some improvement on this scheme. When we come to the detail of the scheme we see the great problem that is inherent in it. My good friend the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), who represents the neighbouring dried fruits area to the electorate of Riverina, will perhaps expound on this point.

The maximum tonnage limitation that has been placed on sultanas is 75,000 tons. I have no doubt that when this scheme was first mooted this was perhaps a reasonable figure. But since that time the Government has introduced a crippling excise on wine. It may come as a surprise to some honourable members that the wine industry and wine excise could have an effect on the dried fruits industry. Perhaps I should refer to this effect. Sultanas are a dual purpose grape. They are grown for the production of dried fruits and they are grown also to be utilised within the wine industry. As was pointed out by honourable members from both sides of the House just recently, the wine industry faces a real crisis next year, with the next vintage. It has been suggested that perhaps 100,000 tons of grapes will not have a home. Therefore we have to look at that situation against the figure of 75,000 tons which was mentioned by the absent Minister for Primary Industry in his second reading speech. This figure will not in fact cover the situation at all. The appreciation of the industry is that at least 100,000 tons will have to be covered. As I have pointed out, the size of this tonnage has been brought about partly as a result of the difficulties being experienced in the wine industry which have arisen as a result of the savage excise that was imposed by the Federal Government a year ago. No matter what is provided in the legislation the problem of the size of the crop will still arise. Therefore I draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it will most likely find that 25,000 tons to 30,000 tons of sultanas will not have a home. This eventuality is not covered by this piece of stability or legislation.

The next point that should be made is one which was brought up by the Minister for Primary Industry in his second reading speech. He said:

However, I think it is fair comment to say that the dried vine fruits industry is being particularly hard hit by the ill winds of adversity. A huge question mark hangs over what the future holds for this industry; the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement has collapsed. . . .

It is quite true that the Agreement has collapsed. Of course, we are all anxious to see international stability in commodity trading. But at the same time the Government has a responsibility to Australian industries which were established by Government encouragement; it has a responsibility to look after our industries and the people in those industries in circumstances where a temporary difficulty is brought about by international trading conditions. Now there is a question mark. li we question the existence of an industry every time there is an international trade question mark we will have the most chaotic rural economy that could be conceived. We already have it in many respects. I suggest that there is a very serious principle at stake here. We have an industry. There is a need to engage in negotiations, if not multilaterally then bilaterally, to preserve the existence not only of the industry but also the communities on which it is based - communities which have been brought into being by Government encouragement and Government sponsorship of this industry.

There are 3 points that I must make tonight. The first is that the stabilisation scheme in relation to its fixation of this tonnage limitation is unreal. It will not meet the situation in the new year unless there is specific Government action, particularly in relation to the wine industry. That is the point that must be made now. The second point is that it is not good enough for the Federal Government through its Minister to say that there is a question mark over this industry. I would accept that we do face an international marketing situation and the breakdown of the international agreement. If this is so, the responsibility is clearly with the national administration to say bilaterally: We must fix this and we must cover it’. In the long term this may not be possible, but in the short term it must be possible, because we cannot write off entire communities every time an international trading difficulty faces our country. So I make that point also. The third point that should be made tonight is that any stabilisation plan for the dried fruits industry that does not take into account the fact that weather problems are endemic in this industry to a degree greater than any other primary industry of which I know is unreal.

In fact, we must move towards the implementation, in conjunction with stabilisation, of a national crop insurance scheme. We must do this in the same way as it has been done in countries like Canada. It must be done in the same way as it has been done by other administrations in other continents. It must be done to bring a real degree of stabilisation. It is our commitment to do this. But I would suggest to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), who is acting on behalf of his absent colleague, that it is important that he note these 3 major points, becuase it is just not good enough to leave a question mark over this industry. I refer to the question mark posed by the absent Minister for Primary Industry when he made his second reading speech. Of course, we support industry stabilisation. My distinguished colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patter son) has made that abundantly clear. We support this scheme because it is the only one that has been offered. It is either this or nothing, so we accept it and hope that we can improve on it. But I direct the Minister’s attention to the 3 points that I have raised on behalf of the people who happen to be in this industry, who happen to be in the Riverina, who happen to be in Darling and who happen to be in other parts of Australia. I will conclude my case on that basis at this stage. I am sure this is only the first of a series of debates that we will have to have in this Parliament on this industry to bring it to real stability. I think this will be only one of the measures that we will have to have before us before we have achieved the stability which this industry deserves and needs at this time.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I also support this Bill, as I have supported similar Bills in the past. It is not a good hour to be debating what I regard as an extremely complicated piece of legislation. Three major alterations are proposed to be made to the previous stabilisation scheme due to many representations from certain sections of the dried vine fruit industry over the last 2 years. The first stabilisation scheme, to which the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has referred, was the 1964-68 stabilisation scheme. I think that one point which has not come out in this debate but which should have come out is that at no stage did the growers during that scheme do other than pay into the stabilisation fund. This is a matter that for some unknown reason people seem to overlook. I have had it put to me by people in the community and by honourable members in this House that such a stabilisation scheme was another measure to try to soft soap primary producers. It was nothing of the sort. In fact, honourable members who have paid any attention to this matter know that the payouts at the end of the stabilisation period in 1969 were very extensive, which proves the point. The Government did not have to make these payments according to the legislation passed by this House - I think failure to provide for that was probably negligent enough of this House - but the Government properly honoured its commitment on moral grounds to the growers, and that was as it should have been.

In 1969 at the end of that 5-year stabilisation scheme, for various reasons, including the fact that many growers became disenchanted with the scheme and not a high enough number of them voted for the new scheme, the scheme lapsed. It took a period of over 12 months in which people such as the honourable member for Mallee and I - I cannot talk with knowledge of others, but possibly there were some - tried to exercise what influence we could by way of representation to the Federal Government to get another stabilisation plan produced for the sake of the growers in the areas of the 2 honourable members I have just mentioned. This was not easy because no government likes to feel that a scheme it has put forward after a great deal of work has been turned down, particularly if it feels it has been turned down capriciously, although I do not think that was so. What I believe happened was that at this point of time the signatories to the International Sultana Agreement, to which this country was a party for many years together with Greece and Turkey - of all the unlikely countries to be associated on anything - following a meeting chaired by Sir Eugene Gorman stabilised the entire dried fruits industry on world markets by the successful operation of the International Sultana Agreement. I think at least one of those countries and possibly both were always fairly suspect as regards cutting the margin for certain types of wholesale deals on markets in Europe. Now that the Agreement is in complete disarray I expect that it is fair enough to say that Australian producers were always suspicious of this. Be that as it may, the point is that the parties to the International Sultana Agreement have now met and resolved that the Agreement be no longer effective. In the latter stages meetings of parties to the Agreement were even chaired by a non-signatory to the Agreement, a producer from the United States of America.

That is the history against which this new stabilisation plan was introduced into this Parliament today. I do not think any honourable member tonight has had the opportunity to put on record the various principal features of the scheme. At this hour of night I do not think I will either, but I will use my time fully without doing that. I will mention the major differences between this scheme and the other one because I think they are of great consequence to the architects of the scheme and to the growers concerned. The first major difference is that under the new scheme the maximum rate of bounty applicable if the Commonwealth contribution is involved is $23 a ton. This ceiling did not form part of the earlier scheme. The amount was certainly not $23. That is a major point of difference and a point of difference that has pleased growers in my electorate quite substantially.

The second point of difference - this has always concerned one section of the industry more than the others - is that where the bounty is payable in respect of a season’s transaction, the Government will now make an advance payment against the industry’s bounty entitlement. As I say, some sections of the industry will be particularly pleased about this and I am sure that all sections of the industry will give the Government great credit for this change in the old stabilisation scheme. It will provide a type of assistance to help growers’ financial seasonal operations which has become a very difficult matter for them in terms of the increasing debt structure of many growers in relation to their co-operatives and companies to which they supply the raw material.

The third point of difference is a matter of repayments from the completed stabilisation scheme or when contributions to the funds prior to that point become greater than the maximum. Under the old scheme, repayments from the funds came from the excess portions of the funds and were taken on a first in and first out basis. This new scheme has become more sophisticated insofar as a proper look at proportional payments being made to the fund by all people will be taken into account. Those are the 3 major differences. The 3 Bills before the House enable the machinery for the stabilisation scheme to be set up. By this time, I think honourable members know what those 3 separate Bills are. The Opposition spokesman on these matters has moved 2 amendments in relation to one Bill, the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection

Bill. From memory, these are the same 2 amendments that were moved last year, the year before or whenever we last looked at this sort of legislation. I imagine that the amendments will be defeated for the same reasons they were defeated on that occasion. It seems to me to be logical and very much in the interests of the industry that they should be defeated.

Before I continue too much further in looking into the problems of a Government subvention of funds into a stabilisation scheme of this type, let us first acknowledge that this scheme does not, I would anticipate, have the same effect as the previous one. There will be no pay-in to this scheme, as far as one can see, on current market trends. So this subvention in the region of $6m which could be the anticipated cost of the entire 5-year period with which this scheme is concerned becomes a matter that we should study a little more fully. I suggest that we should look at it from at least 2 points of view. The first point of view is: What is the market potential for the industry in the future?

Without going deeply into the question, I refer honourable members to the excellent annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board. At page 8 the Board deals with the future outlook for the dried fruits industry under 9 headings. It continues to deal with the competition from other producing countries, such as the United States of America, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, South Africa; Spain and others. What the Board does not say here - perhaps it might well have said it - is that in many ways stabilisation schemes such as this one in the past have set price levels which have encouraged countries with far lower costs of production to increase that production. Unquestionably, in many ways this has cut across Australia’s interests. I do not know what the answer is to this problem, but in passing I pose the problem. Furthermore, the problem of rates of duty to apply in the future when the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community is legion. I seek leave to have incorporated a table - it will save me talking quite so much - from page 20 of the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board dealing with Commonwealth preferences.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

The present rates of customs duties applicable to dried vine fruits (currants, sultanas and raisins) imported into the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand are as follows :

In addition to the abovementioned countries Australian dried vine fruits receive favourable tariff treatment in a number of British Commonwealth countries and Ireland.

Details regarding the present duties applicable to Australian Greek and Turkish sultanas in Western European, Scandinavian and Irish markets are set out in the following table:

Mr GILES:

– The fact that emerges from a study of these tables is that the items, whether they be currants, sultanas or raisins, in the past have entered British Commonwealth countries duty free. I include not only the United Kingdom but also Canada and New Zealand. Alongside that the table shows the duties imposed on the produce of other foreign countries selling in those 3 Commonwealth areas. The comparison between that column and the next is the important one when we try to envisage the capacity of this industry to sell on export in the future. Below that is another series of tables which will make plain the reasoning in relation to countries other than British Commonwealth countries.

The diversification of markets for this industry is a very serious matter. The home consumption sector of the industry is very low. A great deal more work must be done to achieve proper diversification if this industry is to continue to exist. 1 do not wish to pursue that any further at this stage other than to say that I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry will have to lend what help it can to the leaders of the industry to go and open up other trade avenues for this industry in the future. Japan represents a growing market and so do other countries of Asia, but not at a rate that will overcome the surplus production which could be available if we cannot get markets in the United Kingdom.

I was interested to hear the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) refer to the importance of the dried fruits stabilisation scheme in relation to a surplus of grapes. I hope, as he does, that this stabilisation scheme will enable more people to channel irrigation-type grapes away from the wine industry and into the dried fruits industry, in spite of the remarks I have just made about the problems of marketing dried fruits. But the matter is not as simple as the honourable member seems to suppose. It has been suggested that the use of sultanas by the wine industry is a factor which has contributed to the present surplus of wine grapes. This is not so. Sultanas, by and large, have been used according to the individual wine maker’s needs, which are influenced by a number of factors. Some wine makers will continually require sultanas for distillation purposes. Others will need them each year for blending purposes. Sultanas produce an almost neutral wine which is helpful in reducing strong characteristics in certain other varieties used for wine making. Furthermore, sultanas are the first wine grape variety available in the vintage and are frequently required for early distillation of fortifying spirit.

Even if, to overcome the wine grape surplus, the Government were tempted to prohibit the sale of sultanas to the wine industry, many wine makers would plant their own sultanas because of the specific needs that I have mentioned. Each vintage the wine makers plan to produce a certain quantity of wine and spirit. If other varieties are in short supply, sultanas are a useful extra material for distillation.However, in these circumstances sultanas are used because the production target must be achieved in that year. To sum up, the wine maker either needs sultanas for a specific purpose or will use them when other varieties are in short supply. Under those circumstances they do not contribute very much to a surplus of grapes as it affects the wine industry. They merely meet the need of the moment based on present demand for wine or grape spirit.

In my State in 1970 80,000 tons of sultanas were used. This year it is probable that only 40,000 tons will be used. So I use that argument to try to get into partial perspective the statement that I made and also to agree partially with the honourable member for Riverina, and I hope that he is right. I think that the proper perspective is that it should be possible to take some of the growing surplus in the wine industry and channel it into the dried fruits industry. Nevertheless, it is not as simple as that because of the different types and varieties involved. I have not had time to refer to the type of industry with which we are dealing, but I think the House should notice that here we aim to give help to an industry and for once the Opposition is not seeking to put a means test on it. I suppose it is probably because the Opposition, quite intelligently, realises that it is not that kind of industry.

Mr Foster:

– You are right on that point.

Mr GILES:

– If you agree with me, do not butt in.I am saying that the industry is not an affluent industry. It has been, might I suggest, the lowest common denominator of the grape industry for many years. Many of the towns in my electorate were founded on the dried fruits industry I believe that it will continue to be a necessary base for the activities of these towns for many years to come. I congratulate the Government for introducing the

Bill. I will vote against the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (12.42 a.m.) - Previous speakers either have spoken in favour of the Bill or have said that they ; were not opposed to it. On occasions the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has spoken about having to sit at a late hour, so I would consider it is too late for me to get out of step with other speakers. Therefore 1 inform the House that it is not my intention to oppose the Bill. I point out that the growers in my electorate are concerned about the inherent weaknesses in the general structure of the dried fruits industry. They consider that the clauses in the Bill will fail to remove those weaknesses, although from previous speakers one would get the impression that it will do this. But if we make a close examination of clause 3 we find why it will fail. Clause 3 of the Bill states that the base price for sultanas for 1971 is $273 per ton. Clause 4 mentions a give and take rate of $10 above or below this figure.

This gives the impression that the grower will receive not less than $263 a ton for sultanas. This is far from the truth. If we take it that the prospects of all market returns are likely to be as low as $220 a ton - I am told that this is possible - the grower will receive as little as $243 a ton for his sultanas. In such a case the base price of $273 a ton is not the base price because it has no relationship to what the grower will receive. The Government has placed a limit of $23 a ton on the bounty rate. This is bad enough, but the’ tragic part is that if the production for the season’ exceeds 175,000 tons’ this limit of $23 a ton on the bounty will be reduced further. Later I will give an example of how this will work.

In the meantime 1 point out to the House that no-one should be fooled by the claim of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), in his second reading speech, that the growers voted overwhelmingly in favour of the plan, because it was offered on a this or nothing’ basis. The other honourable members who have spoken made a great play of the percentage of growers who voted in favour of the scheme. It’ is only natural that if a person is going to get nothing else he has to vote in favour of it. There is no-one here who would say it is not better than nothing. Of course it is better than nothing. I believe that all the growers who voted for this scheme knew it would only keep them on the farm a little longer, but that it would give them no hope of surviving economically. The wool industry has already shown that no-one can carry on long if he is receiving less than the cost of production.

But this Bill seems to me to set the levels of assistance so low that the growers must receive less than the cost of production. One of the main disappointments as far as the grower is concerned is the fact that the Australian Dried Fruits Association asked for a minimum of 60,000 tons of sultanas and a maximum of 90,000 tons. The Government has agreed to the minimum of 60,000 tons but it has reduced the maximum tonnage from 90,000 tons to 75,000 tons, representing a reduction of 16 2/3 per cent on which the bounty will be paid, although the Australian Dried Fruits Association estimates that dried sultana production can be in excess ‘of 90,000 tons. This estimate is based on the fact that in 1967 dried sultana production was 86,000 tons and fresh weight diversions to the wineries, which the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has just referred to, in that year were 17,134 tons. But by 1969 the fresh weight diversions had risen to 56,087 tons, ari increase of 30,953 tons.

If this amount that has been going to the wineries finds its way back into the dried fruit industry one can easily imagine what the production of dried grapes will be. It would not be unrealistic to suppose that they will be at the level of 80,500 tons for dry production- and for reversion to drying an estimated 9,500 tons, a total of 90,000 tons. This was brought about, of course, by new plantings of thousands of acres of dried and dual purpose vines in Victoria.

On 16th July 1970 the Australian Dried Fruits Association sent a telegram to the State Ministers for Agriculture and to the Federal Minister for Primary Industry pointing out this danger and asking for steps to be taken to facilitate the termination of planting by legislation, restriction of water rights or by any other means. But nothing was done because the Victorian Government gave the Australian Dried

Fruits Association the thumb to the nose treatment and gave its blessing to continued new planting which will eventually spell economic disaster not only to ‘the dried fruit growers in Victoria but also to growers in the other States. It is time the Federal Government had the courage to do something about this state of affairs other than by making the established growers pay the price of the sabotage of the Victorian Government by placing a limitation of 75.000 tons on which the bounty will be paid and at the same time setting a maximum of $23 a ton on the bounty rate when the Australian Dried Fruits Association had put a case for a maximum tonnage of 90,000 tons and an unlimited bounty rate.

Another great concern of the grower is the fact that the base price is not related to the cost of production. Clause 2 of the Bill stales that the average price will be adjusted for each season according to movements in cash costs, including family labour, as assessed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Here again we see the same old tendency of this Government to deny the grower any right of appeal or chance lo submit evidence on what should be the average base price. They must rely on the interpretation of someone in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Why can it not bc related to straight out cost of production? The grower would know more about the cost of production than someone’s friend sitting in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

In my . opinion, unless this stabilisation scheme is coupled with some real action to restructure the industry, we will see its collapse. We should examine all propositions put forward to solve the problem in the dried fruits industry. Some of the so-called experts seem to favour an increase in the si/e of farms. There could be farms that are loo small. But not a great deal of adjustment can bc made here because any marked increase in the size of a farm would involve the use of a great deal more hired labour with the inevitable drop in efficiency and, perhaps, production per acre. Already, the degree of mechanisation practised in Australia compares very favourably with that in California and is much greater than that in Europe. Even if we did allow further mechanisation, this in turn would bring its own problems and would involve a greater capital investment, resulting in more borrowed money and higher interest rates which already are crippling the industry.

We must look to other areas for greater efficiency. As 80 per cent of our dried fruits must be exported, and we are unable to control world prices, the only area in which we can make some real adjustment to our efficiency is in the handling and selling of the dried fruits, not forgetting, of course, all commissions and charges because this is an area where someone else’s friend seems to hold down an unnecessary position. It seems to me that, every time a rural industry is in trouble, the Government talks to the grower about greater efficiency and then creates more research schemes and additional positions for people on higher salaries further up the settle. In this House only this year we passed a Bill relating to dried fruits research. The grower was forced to pay a levy to meet the co.it of this research. The only thing that the research has achieved to dale, as far as I can ascertain, is to cause additional new plantings at a time of over production. Added to this, it has increased the salinity content of the water further down the. river. Yet this is why dried fruits growers are asked to pay a levy.

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has gone to a lot of trouble previously to inform the House that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will be visiting his electorate. Now. this may help the tourist industry. But if the Minister is to grant new water rights for someone to grow more citrus or dried fruits, there are many dried fruits growers who say that it would be belter if he went into the Simpson Desert.

Mr Turnbull:

– His visit is concerned with salinity.

Mr FITZPATRICK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Thank you very much. I wish the honourable member for Mallee every success in this regard. I hope the Minister’s visit is more fruitful than the one he paid to Broken Hill, lt was only a week or so afterwards that we heard in this House a vicious and unwarranted attack on the trade unionists of Broken Hill. When 1 rose to defend them, after the Minister had been up there in the last week or two and had been friendly with everyone, he denied me the right to defend the people of Broken Hill. I wish the honourable member for Mallee success in the Minister’s visit to his area.

Many of the growers claim that because of administration costs in the United Kingdom, advertising costs overseas, promotion surcharges, agents commissions and resellers rebates, dried fruits sold at $500 to $600 per ton in cartons return to the grower less than $250 per ton. We are told that the reason for retaining these very highly paid agents in England and other overseas countries is that buyers quite often claim that fruit delivered to them is not up to sample and the agent must inspect and make arrangements for discounts. According to all the information there seems to be some evidence to support this claim but it appears to me that the cure is worse than the disease. If we had a single statutory authority it could insist on standard quality and presentation. It would be an authority which could vigorously inspect fruit before it left Australia and which would also set a rigid standard and so minimise claims from buyers. We would not have half of the trouble that we now have.

It is wrong to allow, as we do at present, many firms to export their own version of dried fruit under their own brands. There is a pressing need to increase and consolidate overseas markets. This can be done only by preparing the fruit for sale in the way that the buyer wants it. One authority must ensure that the cleaning, packing, grading, moisture content and size of the fruit in each grade are suitable for the market and are always standard. In other words, all fruit must conform to one standard and be sufficiently reliable to be guaranteed. While all this is taking place the home market should not be forgotten. An urgent investigation is needed here, lt is well known that pre-war consumption of sultana dried fruit was Si lb per head in Australia. It is now less than 4 lb per head. No doubt this is due to the fact that we have a large increase in imported dates which are being used in bakeries in the production of buns, scones, etc. They are being used not because the consumer prefers them to sultanas but because they can be purchased for 20c per lb whereas sultanas cost 39c per lb. The increase in imports of dates is indicative of the swing by the manufacturers away from sultanas. If it is justified to protect other manufacturing industries with tariffs then surely we should protect our dried fruit industry in the same manner.

It is also claimed that local buyers do not get the grades of fruit they specify. This is, I am told, often brought about by over-selling grades of fruit overseas at low prices whereas local markets would return a higher price for the grade but buyers are often forced to accept grades not specified by them because the other grades are unavailable. This makes it difficult for manufacturers to produce a product which is consistent from year to year. No doubt this also builds up buyer resistance to dried fruits in Australia. The Government, of course, at the same time should look into the water rates which is a matter that is also causing growers a good deal of worry in the dried fruits industry.

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

– I do not propose to delay the House very long other than to say that I am delighted at the way in which these Bills have been received by the Parliament. I think that everyone will agree that this legislation is a great step forward for a very important industry. One or two questions have emerged from this debate and I would just like to answer them. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) raised the question as to how costs were determined. In the first determination of a base price where mixed enterprises operate, farm costs are taken into account where they can be allocated precisely as being applicable to the dried vine fruits enterprise. Where such identification is not possible an. assessment is made as closely as possible. Specialist dried fruit growers are used as much as possible in the sample, especially in the application of an index to the cash cost in subsequent years.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) raised one or two questions. I am afraid that I must correct him on some of the statements he made. He said that the Government made a one and only offer, but that is not so. During the course of negotiations industry leaders were able to secure significant concessions. The honourable member also said that in choosing the figure of 75,000 tons the Government had misjudged the position. All I need to do is to refer him to the speech of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who apparently knows a lot more about grapes and their usage than the honourable member for Riverina knows. I notice that the honourable member for Angas is sitting next to the honourable member for Riverina. Perhaps he could explain to the honourable member for Riverina what he said in his speech.

In reply to the honourable member for

Darling (Mr FitzPatrick), I point out that th e growers sought a reduction from 85,000 tons to 75,000 tons in exchange for an increase in the bounty from $20 to $23 a ton. So it is clear that the growers were very much a part of the decision and it was not solely a matter for the Government. The honourable member for Riverina also referred to the collapse of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement.It certainly was inevitable that it would collapse, in view of the intransigent attitude of the Greeks. The most damage to world prices had already occurred before the formal suspension of the Agreement and prices have moved only slightly since. This situation was known in the course of stabilisation negotiations and, as honourable members will know, negotiations on the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement are to resume in June 1972.

The honourable member for Riverina also referred to the need for further inter- national bilateral agreements to curb problems involved in selling Australian dried vine fruits. I do not think any other government in the world has been as active in the field of trade as this Government. The honourable member can rest assured that the present Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), as his predecessor did, will be keeping not only the dried vine fruits industry in his mind when negotiating agreements but also all the other industries which are trying to secure markets. I do not know of any Minister more interested or active in this field than the present Minister for Trade and Industry. All that is left for me to say is to thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate in the early hours of this morning.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 4099

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 October (vide page 2683), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

I refer to clause 10 which reads: (1.) The following amounts may be recovered by the Commonwealth as’ debts due to the Commonwealth: -

  1. levy and provisional levy that is due and’ payable;
  2. an amount payable by way of penalty under the last preceding section. (2.) In proceedings for the recovery of an amount referred to in the last preceding subsection, an averment or statement in the complaint, claim or declaration of the plaintiff is evidence of the matter so averred or stated.

I move:

Clause 10 is concerned with the amount to be recovered by the Commonwealth Government as debts due to the Commonwealth. Members of the Opposition regard sub-clause (2) as most iniquitous. We have always opposed provisions” of this nature and will continue to do so. The sub-clause simply means that any person who is delegated with the responsibility under the’ Act can make a statement which, in the complaint, can be taken as evidence of the matter averred. We believe that this is contrary to the rules of justice and should not be tolerated in respect of any primary industry. We recognise that a similar provision is included in most stabilisation Bills and that it relates to the collection of penalties and the recovery of debts or moneys. Members of the Opposition believe that the principle is wrong and that the words ‘an averment or statement in the complaint, claim or declaration of the plaintiff , is evidence of the matter so averred or stated’ are contrary to justice. Mr Chairman, I ask leave to move a second amendment…

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I refer now to clause 14 which reads: (1.) A person shall not-

  1. fail or neglect duly to furnish a return or information that he is required under this Act or’ the regulations to furnish; or
  2. furnish’, in pursuance of this Act or the regulations, a return or information that is false or misleading, in a material par ticular.

Penalty: Two hundred dollars. (2.) A prosecution for an offence against this section may- be commenced at. any time within three years after the commission of the offence. I move:

The Opposition has always opposed this type of provision and will continue to do so. Members of the Opposition believe that a prosecution for an offence under this provision should be commenced within 12 months and not 3 years. Previously the period was 5 years but, as 1 have suggested previously, because the Senate objected to this period the Government compromised and reduced it to 3 years. But even with respect to criminal law, proceedings are commenced within 12 months. We believe that no primary producer should have the threat of prosecution hanging over his head for. a period of up to 3 years. If an offence has been committed it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to commence proceedings without delay to prove the case or to enable the person prosecuted the opportunity to disprove it. Such action should commence within 12 months. If the Commonwealth cannot begin the prosecution within 12 months, the prosecution should be dropped.

It is all very well to say that some producers will deliberately try to flout the law. I do not say this. I believe we should give every producer credit for being an honest person until he is proved to be otherwise. For that reason I say that the responsibility for proving a case lies with the Commonwealth and it is only right that any man charged with committing an offence should have the opportunity to prove his innocence within 12 months and not, as this clause proposes, within a maximum period of 3 years. I take the point that in most cases the Commonwealth would attempt to bring a case before the court within 12 months. On the other hand, if it is good enough to require under the criminal code that proceedings for an offence be proceeded with within 12 months, I think it is good enough for this type of proceeding to commence within that time. For that reason the Opposition is opposed in every sense of the word to these particular clauses.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Acting Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · CP

– In respect of the first amendment proposed by the Opposition in relation to the averment provision, this provision appears in most legislation of this type. It is in the apple and pears legislation that was introduced this year and it is in the meat chicken legislation that was passed 2 years ago.Its purpose is to allow the Crown in a civil action to recover an amount of levy by producing some evidence of the facts upon which the claim for levy is based. These facts are, of course, within the knowledge of the taxpayer. If he considers that the Crown’s statements in the averment are wrong, he may bring evidence to disprove them. It is then for the court to satisfy itself on the evidence whether the amount of levy claimed is due. So, for that reason, plus the fact that this provision is in the legislation with the full knowledge of the industry, the Government must reject the amendment.

In respect of the second amendment, the reason for setting a period of 3 years and why the Government cannot accept the amendment is administrative. The Department cannot in one year make audit inspections of the entire wine industry. I think the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) recognises that we would move as far as possible in one year. However, it takes about 3 years to audit the entire industry and it is necessary for us to protect the revenue. Therefore, it is desirable to provide for inspection of all producers. Again, this provision is in the Bill with the full knowledge of the industry. For those reasons the Government rejects the second amendment.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 37

NOES: 42

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4101

DRIED VINE FRUITS STABILIZATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 October (vide page 2686), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

House adjourned at 1.21 a.m. (Friday)

page 4102

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Housing: Puckapunyal-Seymour Area (Question No. 43(0)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many houses have been built by the Victorian Housing Commission in the PuckapunyalSeymour area.
  2. How many of these are now vacant and for how long have they been vacant in each case.
  3. In view of the waiting list for accommodation shown in his reply to question No. 3849 (Hansard, 29th September 1971, page 1695), what action is he taking wilh the Victorian Government to ensure that these houses are brought up to standard so that they can be occupied.
  4. Can he say when updating of these houses will be (a) commenced and (b) completed.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. There are 256 CSHA houses in the PuckapunyalSeymour area.
  2. As at 2nd November 1971 there were 4 houses vacant as follows: 2 Dockery Street, Seymour - 8 days vacant -

Repainting being carried out. 7 Dockery Street, Seymour - 2i months vacant - Extensive repairs and maintenance have just been completed. 9 Dockery Street, Seymour - 24 months vacant - Extensive repairs and maintenance have just been completed. 29 Morrison Street, Seymour - 34 weeks vacant - Awaiting allocation.

  1. The standard of houses and, in particular, CSHA houses is presently being considered by an Interdepartmental Housing Committee convened by the Minister for Defence.
  2. This is dependent upon decisions arising from (3) above.

Army Housing: Puckapunyal-Seymour Area (Question No. 4361)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Have any plans been made to provide a larger number of permanent married quarters in the Puckapunyal-Seymour area than exist al present.
  2. If so, how many have been planned, and when will they be made available.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. No further permanent married quarters have been planned for the Puckapunyal-Seymour area.
  2. See (1) above.

Arbitration Awards: Breaches (Question No. 3532)

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 the Industrial Registrar taken proceedings against an employer ‘ for breach of an award.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I am advised that the Industrial Registrar has not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of section 119(2) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act against an employer for breach of an award during the last 20 years. Such action is ordinarily initiated by other parties referred to in that section of the Act.

RAAF Base at Butterworth (Question No. 4218)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. DM the Auditor-General in bis report for 1969-70 indicate that according to departmental records the capital works and equipment provided by Australia at the Air Force base at Butterworth in Malaysia were valued in excess of $12,300,000.
  2. Has the Auditor-General made a more recent assessment of the value of the capital works and equipment at this base; if so, what is the assessment.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The Auditor-General has advised mc that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Aphasic Children (Question No. 4244)

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

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: (!) How many aphasic school children are there in New South Wales.

  1. Do these children need specially qualified teachers and equipment known as language masters.
  2. What moneys and other assistance are provided by the Commonwealth for these children.
  3. Is special equipment used lo assist these children subject to sales tax.
  4. Is the special equipment provided by parents allowable as a tax deduction.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. As far as 1 am aware there are no published statistics giving the number of aphasic school children in New South Wales.

    1. I am advised that aphasic children along with others who lack verbal communication skills vary both in the type and degree of their affliction. In many cases special equipment such as language masters and classroom screening is helpful. Speech therapists and special teachers assist these children in overcoming their affliction and in meeting theireducational, social and emotional problems.
    2. The Commonwelth does not provide any direct form of assistance for these children. Nevertheless, at the discretion of the States, part of the Commonwealth’s substantia] general purposes grants may be used to provide educational facilities for them. They may also benefit from a number of Commonwealth educational programmes such as the per capita grants to independent schools.

The Treasurer has suppliedthe following answers to parts (4) and (5) of this question.

  1. Sales tax at the15 per cent rate applies to audio-visual learning aids known as language masters. It is understood, however, that their use in the teaching of aphasic children is confined almost exclusively to the government schools and clinics in which asphasic children are taught. Goods purchased by such bodies are exempt from sales tax.
  2. Income tax deductions under the heading of educational expenses are allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by a taxpayer for or in connection with the full-time education of his child at school, college or university or from a tutor. The question whether an asphasic child is receiving fulltime education at school would depend upon the facts of the particular case, but where this condition is satisfied, a parent would be entitled to a deduction for the cost of special equipment provided by the parent for the purpose of his child’* education at the school. As announced in the recent Budget, it is proposed to increase the maximum permissible deduction for education expenses for each child from $300 per annum to 8400 per annum.

Industrial Stoppages: Man-days Lost (Question No. 4417)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many man-days have been lost on account of (a) political strikes and (b) industrial disputes in each State during each of the last 5 years.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information:

The number of working days lost through industrial disputes, involving a stoppage of work of ten man-days or more, are set out below for the individual States.

Statistics of causes of these disputes are not compiled for individual States, nor is there a separate classification for ‘political strikes’.

Industrial Stoppages: Man-days Lost (Question No. 4419)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of total man-days lost through industrial disputes occurred in industries covered by Federal awards during the past 20 years.
  2. What action can the Commonwealth take to deal with man-days lost through industrial stoppages in industries covered by State awards, determinations or agreements.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the particulars obtained in the collection of statistics of industrial disputes do not contain the degree- of detail which would enable the requested dissection to be made.
  2. 1 am advised that the Constitution of the Commonwealth provides no general power under which the Commonwealth could take action to deal with man-days lost through industrial stoppages in industries covered by State awards, determinations or agreements. However placitum (xxxv) of section51 of the Constitution empowers the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State and under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, made in pursuance of that power, the Commonwealth

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is empowered to prevent or settle by conciliation or arbitration disputes (including threatened, impending or probable disputes) as to industrial matters which extend beyond the limits of any one State, and situations which are likely to give rise to disputes as to industrial matters which so extend. If it appears to a Commissioner that industrial stoppages resulting from disputes concerning industrial matters in industries covered by State awards, determinations or agreements extend or are likely to extend beyond the limits of any one Slate, he is required by the Act immediately to ascertain the parties to the industrial disputes and the matters that form the subject of ‘ those disputes and to take such steps as he thinks fit for the prompt prevention or’ settlement of’ those disputes by conciliation or, if in his opinion conciliation . is unlikely to succeed or . has failed, by arbitration. Where an order, award, decision or determination of a State industrial authority is inconsistent with’, or deals with a matter dealt with in. a valid Federal award,the latter prevails and the former, to the extent of. the inconsistency or in relation to the matter dealt with is invalid.

Education: Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Question No. 4455)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice:

How did he calculate the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in non-government schools from 29:1 to 25:1 over the last 5 years (Hansard, 5th October, 1971, page 1857).

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The pupil-teacher ratios relating to nongovernment schools, which I quoted in my statement of 5th October, were calculated on the basis of non-government school enrolment statistics and the numbers of full-time and full-time equivalent teachers in non-government schools shown in the 1966 and 1970 Schools Bulletins published by the Commonwealth Bureau . of Census and Statistics.

Aboriginals: Liquor Licence at Nhulunbuy (Question No. 4549)

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Was an open liquor licence approved in camera in opposition to the Yirrkala Council of tribal elders and a Magistrate’s decision.
  2. If so. will he cause the in camera decision to be annulled and an open hearing to be held to allow the Yirrkala people and their mission Supportersto put the case for issuing only a club licence.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. and (2) On 6th September 1971 a Licensing Magistrate sitting in Chambers granted a publican’s licence for the hotel at Nhulunbuy owned by Walkabout Hotel (Gove) Ptv Ltd.

This followed sittings of the Licensing Courtin October and November 1970 at which the application for a licence and objections from the Yirrkala people were heard. At the conclusion of the hearings the Court decided that a licence would be granted subject to certain conditions including satisfactory completion of the buildings and the provision of additional car parking spaces.

The proposition that a club licence only be issued was raised at the preliminary hearings.

Proper processes of the law of the Northern Territory have been observed and there is no legal basis for review of the decision of the ‘ - Court.

Reserve Bank Board (Questran No. 4617)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How’ many meetings of the Reserve Bank Board have been held in each year since Sir William Gunn was appointed to it.
  2. How many meetings were attended by Sir William Gunn in each year.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Sir William Gunn has been a member of the Reserve Bank Board since it was constituted in January I960. He was previously a member of the Commonwealth Bank Board from August 1952. The Reserve Bank of Australia has provided the following information:

Sydney International Airport: Concessions (Question No. 4630)

Mr Reynolds:

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

  1. Have any concessions at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) International Air Terminal been terminated since the beginning of 1970.
  2. If so, (a) what were the concessions, (b) what was the reason in each case, and (c) what firms were involved.
  3. Can allegations be justified that firms have made successful lenders for concessions by offering uneconomically high percentage returns tothe Department.
  4. Have complaints been made that pricesfor ‘meals, drinks and other commodities at the terminal greatly exceed normal city prices.
  5. Can he say whether goods sold at the duty free shop are available at similar prices from several normal sources in the city.
  6. Have excessive prices been charged at the terminal in an endeavour to offset uneconomically high tenders for the concessions.
  7. Has the Department considered the employment of management consultants to check the credentials of tenderers.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes. Two concessions.

  2. (a) the concessions were the chemist shop and an Aboriginal crafts shop;

    1. the management of the chemist shop was based in Melbourne and the concessionaire found this created unexpected problems in managing the Sydney business. He also considered the location of his shop unsuitable due to its distance from the passenger Sow. He elected to surrender his lease and this was accepted by the Department and tenders were recently re-invited. The Aboriginal crafts shop had experienced serious trading and staffing difficulties since its introduction. Despite assistance from the Department by way of additional identification signs, shortened trading hours and reduced rental, it unfortunately continued to lose money. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs finally decided to surrender its lease. (c)Mr Wellington Lee, of Hawthorn, Victoria held the chemist concession, and the Aboriginal crafts shop was operated by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. Percentage returns offered to the Department by tenders for concession rights are based on the tenderers’ own business judgment of the turnover the business will achieve over the period of the concession. Departmental business boards carefully examine all tenders and research tenderers’ backgrounds as far as possible to ensure that the party finally selected has the necessary experience and financial substance to operate the business efficiently. It is a matter for tenderers themselves to decide what percentage of turnover they can afford to pay the Department after personally estimating the turnover they expect to achieve. Under public tendering procedures, the

Department exercises no influence on the business judgment of tenderers as to the percentage they should offer for business trading rights.

  1. Some complaints have been received about the prices of meals, drinks and other commodities in the airport terminal but these are related to and are comparable with prices charged in like premises in the city. They would exceed those charged in some city premises of lesser standard than exists at the airport. The’ average city business is not usually faced with the high capital costs of international standard appointments which are called for in airport concessions nor the high labour costs associated with servicing early and late aircraft movements 7 days per week.
  2. I understand the prices charged at some city discount houses are from time to time equivalent to or -less than those applying to some goods sold at the airport duty free shop. The latter’s. prices, however, should be lower than normal city retail shops because of the absence of sales tax and, in most cases, duty.
  3. Not to the Department’s knowledge. (71 The Department has not done so. As 1 have mentioned the Department’s officers examine, as far as possible, the background, experience and financial stability of tenderers before granting contracts for business concessions.

Civil Aviation: Low-flying Light Aircraft (Question No. ‘4686)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What are the civil aviation regulations covering light aircraft which in recent months have been flying at exceptionally low altitudes over Moreton Bay in areas frequented by commercial fishermen and private boat users.
  2. What are the regulations covering any of these aircraft which frequently land on remote areas of the islands or nearby banks.
  3. Will the Minister issue instructions to ensure that all regulations are strictly enforced in. the future so that these light aircraft will not threaten the lives of people on boats in the Ray or disrupt large shoals of fish.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Air’ Navigation Regulation ‘133 provides that aircraft shall not fly at. a lower, height than 1,500 feet over any city, town, or populous area, or at a lower height that 500 feet over other areas, unless it is necessary to do so through stress of weather or other unavoidable cause. Provision is included for these requirements to be varied in special circumstances by the Department of Civil Aviation.
  2. Air Navigation Regulation 89 provides that an aircraft shall not land or take-off from any place other than a government or licensed aerodrome or a place authorised . by the DirectorGeneral as for use as an aerodrome. Air Navigation Regulation 85 provides that the DirectorGeneral, may, by specific’ or general description, authorise the use of any place as an aerodrome, subject to suoh conditions as he may specify. A genera] authorisation ‘for the use of landing grounds and water alighting areas is promulgated in the Aeronautical Information Publication. A number qf conditions are attached to the general authorisation. These relate to the minimum permissable dimensions of such areas and other physical requirements to ensure the safety of operations.It is also a requirement that the permission of the owner, occupier or authority controlling the area of land or water concerned be obtained, and that the use of the area shallnotinvolve flights at a height of less than 1,500 feet over any city, town or populous area.
  3. Instructions are already in existence to ensure that all regulations are strictly enforced. The Department has no knowledge of recent breaches of regulations in. the area having occurred but should information in this regard bc provided, an immediate investigation will be carried out. The prompt reporting of any future breaches of the regulations to the Regional Director of Civil Aviation, Queensland, will ensure that appropriate action is taken without delay.

Civil Aviation: Connair Pty Ltd (Question No. 4694)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the operations of the subsidised airline operator Connair Pty Ltd of Alice Springs in order to ascertain by the thorough taking of evidence (a) what alternatives there are to the present Connair regular public transport standard operations in the Northern Territory and outback northern Australia (b) what is the requirement of these areas, in its fullest context, for the provision of adequate air services having regard to (i) economy (ii) safety and speed (iii) passenger comfort (iv) proper freight handling and (v) suitable aerodromes (c) what is the ability of existing or aspiring operators in these outback areas to give the standards of service, safety and maintenance to which travellers in the Northern Territory and outback Australia are entitled and (d) what is the feasibility and practicability of Connair’s F-27 aircraft proposals as a replacement for current similar operations by major airlines.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

When the Government reviewed the operations of Connair in 1965, it considered whether there were suitable alternatives to these operations for the provision of services in the Northern Territory and outback northern Australia. Such matters as are mentioned by the honourable member were considered at that time, and the Government also had before it a detailed report on Connair’s operations prepared by an Interdepartmental Committee.

As a result of this examination of the matter, the Government concluded that it was appropriate for Connair to continue its services and for the Commonwealth to provide a loan of$620,000 to meet the company’s requirements for new equipment and development and to continue its annual subsidies to meet the losses incurred by Connair in providing the air services. Agreements covering these arrangements were entered into by the Commonwealth and Connair. These agreements do not expire until 1980.

More recently, consideration has been given to proposals that Connair should expand its opera tions by acquiring large turbo-prop aircraft and taking over the F-27 services to northern Australia now provided by the major airlines. The conclusion reached was that these proposals would be a very costly venture and that they went beyond what is considered to be the true role of Connair, namely the provision of regular services to the remote outback areas in northern Australia where traffic is small and other means of transport are inadequate or not available.

In the circumstances it is not considered that a special inquiry along the lines suggested by the honourable member is warranted.

United Nations Convention: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Question No. 4058)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What progress has been made in preparing legislation in each Slate and Territory to implement the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Australia decided to accede in June 1969 (Hansard, 29th September 1970, page 1844).

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

– The Attorney-

General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Legislationto implement the Convention in the Australian Capital Territory will be part of a new Ordinance dealing generally with commercial arbitration in the Territory. The drafting of this Ordinance is in hand. Copies of the part of the draft Ordinance that deals with the Convention were sent to the State Attorneys-General on 5th July 1971 with a request for their comments on the draft and an indication as to when they would expect to be able to legislate for the implementation of the Convention in their respective Stales.

Marriage Act: Recognised Denominations (Question No. 4215)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Which religious bodies or organisations have applied for the Governor-General to declare them to be recognised denominations forthe purposes of the Marriage Act.
  2. Which of them has the Governor-General (a) declared, (b) refused to declare and (c) not yet declared to be recognised denominations.
  3. How many persons have requested the present or any former Attorney-General to review (a) the refusal by a Registrar of Ministers of Religion to register them or (b) a Registrar’s removal of their names from the register.
  4. In how many cases (a) has the AttorneyGeneral confirmed the refusal or removal, (b) has the Attorney-General directed thatthe persons be registered or restored to the register and (c) is the Attorney-General still considering the matter.
  5. What methods of appeal are available to persons aggrieved by decisions of (a) the GovernorGeneral and (b) the Attorney-General.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Prior to the coming into operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Act on 1st September 1983, the Commonwealth took steps to have declared under section 26 of that Act 51 religious denominations established in Australia, the ministers of which had had authority under State laws to solemnise marriages. In accordance with (his action, on 24th May 1963, the GovernorGeneral declared by Proclamation the following religious bodies to be recognised denominations for the purposes of the Act -

The Aborigines Inland Mission of Austrafia

The Apostolic Church (Australia)

The Apostolic Church of Queensland

The Armenian Apostolic Church in Australia

Assemblies of God in Australia

Australian Christadelphian Ecclesia

The Baptist Union of Australia

Christian Brethren

The Christian Church

Christian Israelite Church

Christian Revival Crusade

Church of England in Australia

The Church of Jesus Christ of l.atler-Day Saints

Church of the Nazarene

Churches of Christ in Australia

Congregational Union of Australia

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia

Full Gospel Church (Gospel Light Ministry)

Gospel Lighthouse Churches

International Church of the Four Square Gospel (Australasia)

Jehova’s Witnesses

Jewry

The Liberal Catholic Church

Lutheran -

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia, Incorporated

German Evangelical Lutheran Church

The Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Victoria

The United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia

The Methodist Church of Australasia

The New Apostolic Church (Australia)

The New Church in Australia

Orthodox -

Anlioch Orthodox Church

Byelorussian Autocephalic Orthodox Church in Australia and Abroad

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand

Macedonian Orthodox Autocephalous Church

Macedonian-Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church

Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) in Exile, in Australia and New Zealand

The Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand

Ukrainian Aulocephalic Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand

The Presbyterian Church of Australia

Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia

The Reformed Churches of Australia

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland

The Religious Society of Friends

The Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Roman Catholic Church

The Salvation Army

Seventh-day Adventist Church

The Strict and Particular Baptist Churches of Australia

Unitarians

The Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Connexion in Victoria

The Wesleyan Methodist Church, Australia

Since 1963 an additional 4 bodies have sought recognition. Two, the Free Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese for Australia and New Zealand, and the Brethren, have been declared under section 26. The Church of Scientology has been refused recognition. The Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia has sought to be declared, but has ho rar been refused recognition pending satisfaction with respect to its long-term stability.

  1. and (4) There havebeen extremely few cases in which the Attorney-General has heen requested to review a decision of the Registrar. However, the precise figures sought by the honourable member are nol readily available, andI am reluctant to authorise the time and expense which would be involved in obtaining them. If the honourable member wishes to have information in regard to a specific case thenI will endeavour to see if it can be provided.

  2. (a) Section 26 of the Marriage Act empowers the Governor-General to declare a religious body or a religious organisation to be a recognised denomination for the purposes of the Act. The power is a discretionary one and there is no provision for an appeal from a decision by the Governor-General nol to declare a particular body or organisation.

    1. There is no provision for an appeal frora a decision of lbc Attorney-General on a review, under section 34, of a refusal by a Registrar to register a person or a removal by a Registrar of a person’s name from a register of ministers of religion kept pursuant to section 27 (4.) of the Act.

Army: Acquisition of Property at Puckapunyal (Question No. 4703)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

What stage has been reached in negotiations to acquire additional property adjacent to Puckapunyal. Victoria.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The present position is that the proposals are still at the investigation stage and no firm decisions have yet been taken. Every effort is being made to bring the matter to finality as soon as practicable but it must be remembered that a number of private landowners and governmental authorities are involved.

The Parliament: Legislative Powers (Question No. 4574)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many subject matters are there which are the subject of legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament and are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliament other than those which can be exercised under section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
  2. How many subject matters are there which, are the subject of legislation in the Australian Capital Terrilory, other than those referred to in part (I) of the question.
  3. Can he say how many subject, matters there are, other than those referred to in part (1) of the question, which can be made the subject of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory and which are the subject of legislation at State or municipal level in the Stale of New South Wales.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information sought by this question is not peculiarly in the possession of the Government.It would take considerable time for my Department to undertake the work necessary to provide the information andthe employment of the Department’s resources for this purpose would be at the expense of its other commitments.I do not think I would he justified in asking my Department to do this.

Army Recruiting: Bendigo (Question No. 4635)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Are there plans for the establishment of a recruiting office for the Army and Citizen Military Forces in Bendigo.
  2. If so, (a) where will the office be located, (b) how will it be staffed, (c) from whom and at what price is the accommodation to be rented and (d) when will it be opened.

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

  1. Yes, a recruiting team has been established and, at present, is operating from the Training Depot, Mollison Street. Bendigo.

  2. (a) Discussions are taking place between my Department and the Department of the Interior to find a suitable location for the recruiting office.

    1. The Recruiting team consists of:

One Warrant Officer Class 2

One Sergeant

One Corporal

  1. See (a) above.
  2. See (a) above.

Papua New Guinea: War Relics (Question No. 4404)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Post Courier of 16th August 1971 on disappearing war relics by aPort Moresby businessman who has salvaged rare aircraft and other relics al his own expense.
  2. if so, what action has been taken by tha Government to forestall any possibility which could induce the author to abandon suddenly his unique collection.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answerto the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter has beendiscussed over a period of time with Mr W. G. Chapman, the businessman concerned. In 1967 expert advice was received front Major i. I. McGrath, the former Director of the Australian War Memorial who formed the opinion that the establishment in theTerritory of a War Memorial on the pattern of that in Canberra should not be attempted but that the 1942-45 operations in the Terrilory could suitably be commemorated by including in the future Territory Museum and Art Gallery a section covering this period of the war. This was placed before the Trustees of the Museum and Arl Gallery but they did nol support this proposal. During discussions with the Administrator of I’apua New Guinea earlier this year, Mr Chapman proposed the setting up ofa War Memorial Trust. lt is understood that Mr Chapman does nol intend to dispose of his collection, and that a private members hill will bc introduced intot he House of Assembly next year to establish a private trust.

Papua New Guinea: Housing (Question No. 4481)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Did the Secretary of his Department write to the I’apua New Guinea Administration in January of this year suggesting that it was well beyond time that the Administration sold all its local officers housing to the inhabitants and that part of all rent paid should be used to reduce the purchase price of these homes; if so, what progress has been made in this matter and when will all local officers get the chance to buy the accommodation that they now occupy.
  2. ls it a fact that many officers in Port Moresby, Lae, Madang and Rabaul are now housed by the Housing Commission and paying an economic rent for these houses; if so, when will all local officers and expatriates be required to pay economic rents for their housing.
  3. Is it also a fact that the Housing Commission is soon to assume total responsibility for the housing of local officers in all urban centres in the Territory:
  4. If so, (a) when will this happen and (b) will the Administration ensure that all local officers get the immediate opportunity to purchase their current homes and be credited with part of the rent they have been paying for years.
  5. Does the Housing Commission intend to develop complete commercial and industrial facilities in the housing estates of Port Moresby and Lae.
  6. If so, will consideration be given to (a) giving preference in the allocation of shops and facilities to Papuans and New Guineans and (b) the development of the complete shop or factory which could be rented for the first few years and then purchased through a loan financed by the Housing Commission or the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank. .
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matters referred to fall within the authority “of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Social » Development and Home Affairs in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on (he advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Social Development and Home Affairs has provided the following information:

  1. The Secretary of the Department of External Territories did write to the Administration in

January of this year suggesting that thought should be given to converting local officers occupying Administration houses to home . owners by crediting them, against the cost of the house, with the rent they had previously paid. He did not suggest that ‘It was well beyond time that the Administration sold all its local officer housing to the inhabitants’. The administrative and financial implications of the suggestion are still under consideration.

  1. Some local officers in Port Moresby, Lae, Madang and Rabaul are. housed by the Housing Commission and are paying economic rent for the houses they occupy. There are basic problems associated with the introduction of so-called economic rentals which have yet to be resolved, including a means of calculating equitable charges, the costs to the tenants* the extent to which the Administration should”’ subsidise the housing costs of officers and the effect of any such subsidies on the economy. of Papua New Guinea. The matter is being pursued but because of the complexity of the- issues involved, no estimate can be given of when the problem will be resolved.
  2. A dialogue is currently taking place between the Administration and the Housing Commission as. to the possibility of the Commission taking over the responsibility for housing as wide a range “as is feasible of local officers presently housed by the Administration in non-institutional housing in centres in which the Commission operates. The possibility of the Commission assuming a wider responsibility for housing local officers is also being considered. The matter is complex, and the Assistant Ministerial Member for Social Development and Home Affairs is unable to say whether decision will be reached ‘soon’ or not.
  3. Any housing which might be taken over from the Administration by the Housing Commission as the result of a decision referred to in the answer to the last part of the question could be expected to come under the Commission’s existing schemes, including the home ownership scheme. The opportunity to purchase would therefore be available. The Assistant Ministerial Member for Social Development and Home Affairs can give no assurance that previous rental payments will be applied to reducing the costs of home ownership, but the matter is under consideration.
  4. The Housing Commission does intend to - develop commercial and industrial facilities in the housing estates in which it operates in Port Moresby and Lae.
  5. Preference will be given to Papuans and New Guineans when these facilities are being allocated - and where they become tenants they will be given the opportunity to purchase. The method of financing such purchases has not been finally- determined.

Army Firing Practice at Townsville (Question No. 4760)

Mr Whitlam:

hitlam asked the .Minister for the Army, upon notice: . ,

How many rounds of artillery,’, mortar and antitank ammunition were fired, at the Army firing range complex at Townsville in (a) 1969-70. (b) J970-71.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Records show that 14,437 rounds of artillery, mortar and anti-tank ammunition were fired on the High Range training area, which is some 25 miles- from Townsville, during the period 1st July 1969-30th June J970. A total of J 1,432 rounds were fired during the same period in 1970-71. None of these rounds Were fired’ in (he Mount Stuart training area near Lavarack Barracks.

The break up of the particular type of ammunition fired is as follows:

Indian Ocean: Russian Naval Presence (Question No. 4788)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Did he stale that the Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean comprised 20 surface vessels?
  2. If so, can he specify the types of vessels and the number of each type?
  3. ls he able to quote any estimate of the total Russian presence other than the unspecific estimate provided by Jane’s Fighting Ships?
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mr Spiers, Director of the American Slate Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, to the United . Slates House of Representatives sub-committee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development in July 1971, to the effect that as of 20th July the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean consisted of four ships comprising one destroyer, one LST and two Fleet Minesweepers?
  5. Has his attention also been drawn to a statement- by the United States Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Zumvalt Jnr on 15th March 1971 to a sub-committee of the United Slates House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, that since 1968 the Russian Navy has maintained an almost continuous presence in the Indian Ocean with an- average of three to four naval combatants deployed at any given time?
  6. If his attention nas been drawn to these statements, does ho dispute the figures provided by these American officials; if so, on what evidence?
  7. Can he state on what grounds he has chosen to publicise the figures given by Jane’s Fighting Ships on the size of the Russian presence rather than the figures provided by these American officials?
Dr Mackay:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honour-! able member’s question is as follows:

  1. No. I quoted what is probably the most authoritative reference book publicly available on relative naval capacities in the world’s navies.

    1. No comment.
    2. Yes. Air Chief Marshall Sir Brian Burnett, Britain’s recently retired Commander-in-Chief, Far East, estimated the number at ‘a dozen or so’ - Canberra Times’, 11/11/71. I am not prepared to quote classified sources.
    3. Yes.
    4. Yes.
    5. No. See my reply to question by Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 25th November 1971.
    6. They represent a reasonable if general approximation to the total situation.

Bauxite Exports (Question No. 3781)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. ls Weipa bauxite shipped to Europe and the Caribbean at costs 35 per cent below, and Dampier iron ore shipped to Japan at 67 per cent below, the cost per lon to Tasmania.
  2. Does the Treasury take full account of the low cost of Australian minerals overseas when assessing bona ride income for foreign owned mining and processing companies in Australia.
  3. Will he make available figures showing costs of production and transport of Australian mineral products and metals as compared with costs of competing suppliers selling (a) in Australia and (b) at overseas processing centres.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (3) The information requested Ls not available to me.
  2. There is a specific provision in the income tax legislation which applies to an Australian business controlled by nen-reside,its. Section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides that, where it appears to the Commissioner of Taxation that- the business produces either no taxable income or less than the amount of taxable inco.no which might be expected to arise from the business, the person carrying on the business in Australia shall be liable to pay income lax on a taxable income of such amount of the total receipts of the business as the Commisioner determines. In the case of a business which sells minerals overseas, the export price charged c-nd ruling world prices would be factors taken into account in determining whether Section 136 is applicable.

Life Insurance Companies: Income and Investments (Question No. 4034)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will, he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave on 22nd September 1970 (Hansard.- page 1487) on the income and investments of life insurance companies.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The following table shows income received in Australia in recent years by (a) all life offices and (b) predominantly overseas-controlled life offices. The figures, which have been derived from statutory returns made under the Life insurance Act 1945-1965 by registered life insurance companies, relate to the amount of life insurance premiums and investment income, net of income tax, received on account of policies in Australian registers. They do not include transfers of moneys to Austraiian statutory life insurance funds, profits made on sale of assets and some small miscellaneous items. As the financial years of

  1. Provisional.

The next tabic shows the net increase in the book values of Australian assets of statutory life insurance funds maintained by life insurance companies registered under the Life Insurance Act.

Sales Tax: Sporting Goods and Equipment (Question No. 4313)

Mr Foster:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Are amateur sporting bodies requiredto pay sales tax on sporting goods and equipment.
  2. If so, will he assist those in the community who have the welfare of youth at heart by taking steps to remove sporting equipment from the Schedule of the Act which requires sales tax : to be paid on this type of equipment.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. There is no special sales tax exemption available to amateur sporting bodies. Unless goods purchased by them are of an exempt kind, e.g., clothing and footwear, they are obliged to bear the sales tax payable on their purchases.
  2. The Government considered the exemption of sporting equipment, along with other classes of goods, during the preparation of the 1971-72 Budget but decided that any tax concessions

Insurance Investments: City Properties (Question No. 4268)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can the Insurance Commissioner say how much of the property held by life insurance statutory funds is situated in (a) the capital city, (b) the coastal cities and (c) the inland cities of each Stale.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

No. This information is not included in returns furnished to the Insurance Commissioner.

Insurance Investments: City Mortgages (Question No. 4269)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can the Insurance Commissioner say how much of the loans on mortgage, other than rural and housing, by life insurance statutory funds have been made in (a) the capital city, (b) the coastal cities and (c) the inland cities of each State.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

No. This information is not included in returns furnished to the Insurance Commissioner.

Interest Rates (Question No. 4384)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will he arrange for the publication of a white paper examining the effectiveness of increases in interest rates as a means of combating inflation.
  2. If so, will he ensure that the paper includes an examination of (a) ways in which interest rate increases may in fact add to inflationary forces and (b) the impact of interest rate increases on income distribution within the community.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Interest rates and their relationship to the Government’s economic policies have been the subject of questions, debate and ministerial comment on many occasions over the past year. In addition, the Reserve Bank has discussed interest rate policy in its Annual Report, in other statements and in the course of public lectures given by the Governor and senior officers of the Bank. In these circumstances, it is not considered necessary to publish a White Paper on the subject.

Company Incomes and Overseas Remittances (Question No. 4214)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice: “ ‘ Will he prepare tables of company incomes and overseas remittances in the years, subsequent to the Vernon Committee’s report and corresponding to the forecasts in the report.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The report of the Committee of Economic Enquiry also contained projections of private investment Income payable overseas for the years 1964-65, 1969-70 and 1974-75 (see table 11.3, page 283). It is not possible to compare the projections for

The report of (he Committee of Economic Enquiry contained historical estimates relating to income payable on overseas investment in Australia for years up to 1962-63. Table 1 (see below) provides estimates of the major components of investment, income payable overseas by companies in Australia for the years 1963-64 to 1969-70 (the most recent year for which such information is available). Table 2 provides estimates of the proportion of total company income, after tax, accounted for by dividends and profits payable overseas.

1964-65 and 1969-70 with current estimates for (hose years. The Committee’s projected figures were expressed in constant 1959-60 prices, whereas the current estimates are expressed in current price terms.

Insurance Investments: Municipal Loans (Question No. 4270)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked , the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can the Insurance Commissioner say how much of the investments in local government securities by life insurance statutory funds have been made in (a) the capital city, (b) the coastal cities and

  1. the inland cities of each State.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

No. This information is not included in returns furnished to the Insurance Commissioner.

Income Tax Collections (Question No. 4398)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What has been the percentage of total income tax paid by persons in each ten-percentile group of income earners for each year since 1953-54.

The latest available income tax statistics relevant to the honourable member’s question relate to

Income Tax: Overseas Dependants and Expenditures (Question No. 4521)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. For what dependants can a taxpayer claim deductions from bis taxable income if they are resident in Australia but not if they are resident overseas.
  2. For what expenditures can a taxpayer claim deductions from his taxable income if they are incurred in Australia but not ifthey are incurred overseas.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Under the income tax law, a taxpayer who is a resident may be entitled to a concessional deduction if he contributes to the maintenance of any of the following dependants who are residents of Australian, namely, the spouse of the taxpayer, a daughter-housekeeper, a child less than 16 years of age, a student child, an invalid relative and a parent of the taxpayer or of his spouse. The maintenance deduction otherwise allowable in respect of a dependant is reduced by the amount by which the separate net income of the dependant exceeds $130. No deduction is allowable in respect of a dependant who does not qualify as a resident of Australia.

In the case of a migrant taxpayer with a dependent wife and children oversells, it is the administrative practice of the Commissioner of Taxation to treat the wife and children also as residents of Australia if the taxpayer intends to bring them to this country. Concessional deductions are allowed for a period of up to 5 years on the basis that this period provides sufficient lime to enable the taxpayer to make the necessary transport and accommodation arrangements. If the dependants have not taken up physical residence inAustralia after5 years, the concessional deductions are discontinued on the grround that there are no indications that the dependants intend migrating to Australia.

  1. The allowance of deductions for expenditure falling within the scope of the concessional deductions . provisions is not conditional upon the expenditure being incurred in Australia. ‘1 he basic requirement is that the taxpayer himself be a resident of Australia. Expenditure in this category comprises life ‘assurance and superannuation fund contributions; medical, funeral and education expenses; and contributions to medical and hospital benefits funds. However, in the case of medical or funeral expenses incurred in respect of a dependant, a deduction is allowable only if the dependant is also a resident of Australia or was a resident at the time of death.

Commonwealth Securities (Question No. 4644) >Jr Bryant asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he provide a statement, using the latest figures available, showing the principal holders of

Commonwealth Government securities (a) in Australia and (b) Overseas.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Preliminary figures for. .principal holders of Commonwealth Government securities on issue in Australia at 30th September 1971 arc as follows:
  1. Details of holders of ‘Commonwealth Government securities issued in public loans overseas are not available. The main types of borrowings overseas by the Commonwealth outstanding as at 30;h September 1971 are estimated as follows:

Canberra: Trade Group Offices (Question No. 4650)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. is It a fact that excavations currently in progress on St Mark’s Hill adjacent to Kings Avenue, Barton, in the Australian Capital Territory, are the preliminaries lo construction of a concrete batching plant.
  2. If so, will he state the exact nature of work being undertaken on the site including details of the. (a) type of raw materials used, (b) number of people employed; te) name of the contractor, (d) duration of the contract and (e) duration of the occupation of the site.
  3. Under which A.C.T. ordinance is occupation to be given, what documents embody the arrangements and what are the terms and conditions of the arrangements.
  4. What obligations will the contractor have to (a) rehabilitate the site when vacated and (b) ensure th? absence of pollution and nuisance from work on the site. f5) What penalties will apply for noncompliance with parts 2(d), 2(e), 4(a) and 4(b) of the question.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The area referred to on St Mark’s Hill, Barton adjoins the future Trade Group

Offices/ and is the site yard for some of the precasting operations associated wilh the contract for construction of Stage I, Trade Group Offices, Barton. Work lo be undertaken in this yard will include the production of precast, prestressed concrete beams, and a small batching plant for this contract only.

  1. Types of raw materials lo be used are concrete, aggregates, steel, sand and water.
  2. The number of people to be employed in the site yard will vary up to a peak «-f approximately 24.
  3. The name of the contractor is:

H.D.C. CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

  1. Duration of the contract is 116 weeks, commencing in the first week in August. Construction is programmed for completion in November 1973.

  2. Duration of site yard occupation under the contract will be similar lo (d) above.

    1. Occupation was given to the Contractor through contractual arrangements by the National Capital Development Commission Act provides for the Minister, by instrument, to place Commonwealth land under the control of the Commission which may authorise entry of persons onto such land.

The Contract embodies an arrangement with the Contractor who can use the land only for purposes related to the construction of the Trade Group Offices building.

  1. (a) The Contract provides on completion, for removal of all temporary construction, rubbish and material; and for the reinstatement of the surface to original contours as directed by the Supervising Architect.

    1. Under the Genera) Conditions of Contract, the Contractor is obliged to conform to all statutory requirements, by-laws, Ordinances and Regulations of the A.C.T., to protect the public and utilities and to leave any site occupied during construction in a clean and tidy state. These conditions apply also to the generation of pollution and nuisance from work.

  2. If the Contractor defaults on- any of the obligations of the Contract, the Commission can carry out the work not done at the cost of the Contractor from moneys retained.

Postal Department: Transport of Mails (Question No. 4764)

Dr Gun:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has interstate surface mail from Melbourne to Adelaide been carried by road, rather than rail, since 15th September 1971.
  2. Was the closing date for tenders 24th September, 1971.
  3. Who was the successful tenderer and what was the amount quoted.
  4. From whom were other tenders received and what was the amount quoted in each case.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Four written quotes were obtained on the 10th September, 1971, for the conveyance of mail by road between Melbourne and Adelaide as from the 14th September, 1971. This was an interim arrangement pending the calling of public tenders which closed on the 24th September, 1971. The lowest written quote and the lowest tender were accepted.

    1. The successful tenderer was Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd who tendered at the rate of 0.9 cents per lb.
    2. Twenty-seven tenders were received. It is not Post Office policy to make public the names and prices of unsuccessful tenderers.

Pre-war Commonwealth, State and Municipal Debts (Question No. 3730)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will he give information on internal and overseas securities on issue, annual interest liability and capital repayments in respect of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State, (c) semigovernmental authorities in each State and (d) local governments in each State between 1935, when statistical data for local and semigovernment debt were first collected, and the war years when this collection was discontinued (Hansard. 20th August 1971, page 493)
  2. What were the (a) dates and (b) terms of the original and any subsequent gentlemen’s agreement covering the borrowing programmes of semi-governmental authorities (Hansard, 22nd September 1959, page 1270).
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The figures shown for local and semi”governmental authorities are based on information published in successive ‘Finance’ bulletins by “the Commonwealth Statistician. The New South Wales figures have been adjusted to align them with the present-day treatment of the county councils as local government authorities, and the Victorian semi-governmental indebtedness series for the years ended 30th June 1935 to 1938 inclusive have been adjusted to include indebtedness of the Credit Fonder Department of the State Savings Bank at those dates. However these figures may still not be strictly comparable with those for more recent years previously supplied to the honourable member (Hansard, 15th May 1970, pp. 2331ff) largely on account of differences in coverage; this is particularly true of 1935 and 1936, for which years only an incomplete coverage of indebtedness was achieved.

Details of the capital repayments of local and semi-governmental authorities are not collected. The adjusted figures shown for the years ended 30th June 1937 to 1941 relateto funds provided for combined redemption programmes for both internal and overseas debt, i.e. repayments by instalments, and amounts credited to sinking funds - including earnings on sinking fund investments.

  1. (a) and (b) The Gentlemen’s Agreement was entered into by the Australian Loan Council in 1936. It has represented a means whereby all previous, and subsequent resolutions of the Loan : Council, relating to borrowings by larger semigovernment bodies and local authorities of the Commonwealth or of a Stale, have been consolidated into one set of rules. Since 1967-68 larger authorities have been defined as those borrowing more than $300,000 in any one year. The Loan Council decides the maximum total amounts to be borrowed by all such authorities under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and each State. This aggregate amount is then allocated among the several authorities by their respective governments. Once borrowing programmes have been determined in this way, the terms and conditions of each loan raised is subject to Loan Council approval.

Public Authority Revenue: Percentage at Each Level (Question No. 4029)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What percentage of revenue from their own sources, including net revenue of business enterprises, was received in 1970-71 by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States, (c) semi-government authorities and (d) local government authorities (Hansard, 30th October 1970, page 3192).

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following table in reply to the honourable member’s question. The figures have been prepared on the same basis as those provided in answer to the previous question on the same subject asked by the honourable member (Hansard, 30th October 1970, page 3192), and are consistent with the figures for current account receipts shown in Tables 5, 10 and 11 of the Budget paper National Income and Expenditure 1970-71’.

Industrial Awards: Breaches (Question No. 3559)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many breaches of Federal awards were detected by Arbitration Inspectors in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available in respect of (a) failure to keep proper time and wage records, (b) failure to guard machinery properly,

Se) failure to obey apprenticeship regulations and dj employment of women or girls on prohibited operations.

  1. In how many,cases of each of the Foregoing breaches did the Commonwealth (a) prosecute and (b) succeed in securing a penalty against the employer concerned.
  2. What was the fine and what were the costs ordered against each such employer.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (11 The breaches specified are classified as physical breaches and are included in a consolidated figure covering all such matters. Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors detected the following number of physical breaches of- Federal awards during the period 1962 to 30th June 1971 and, as a result, brought about their rectification or, in relation to some of the more recent, are in course of ensuring they are rectified.

  1. and (3) For the years 1962 to 1968, both inclusive, I would invite the honourable member’s attention to the answer given to his question No. 1026 (Hansard, 25th February J969, pages 78-80). Since that thime proceedings have been instituted against one employer for breaches including failure to keep time and wages records, which was withdrawn after the respondent gave an undertaking to comply with the award in future and to pay S200 costs. There has also been one proceeding for failure to observe the award provisions regarding tools for apprentices. This matter was dismissed by a Magistrate but on appeal by the Inspectorate to the Commonwealth Industrial Court a penalty of $50 was imposed with costs of $30.

Population Statistics (Question No. 4505)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) non-Europeans and (b) persons of mixed descent are permanent residents of Australia at this date?
  2. How many of them are (a) naturalised and (b) not naturalised in each case?
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

It is not possible to calculate accurately fi om census statistics or other sources the number of persons, born in Australia, and currently resident here who are of non-European or mixed descent.

The Department of Immigration maintains essential statistics of persons admitted with resident status, granted resident status after entry for temporary residence, and granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation or regisitration.

The following answers are based on statistics maintained by the Department of Immigration and exclude persons born in Australia. The effective date is 30th June 1971.

(a) 24,470; (ti) 30,200.

(a) and (b) Of the 24.470 non-Europeans. 12,650 were Australian citizens by naturalisation or registration and 11,820 had resident status. No statistics are available as to the number of persons of mixed descent granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation or registration.

Canberra: Library Services (Question No. 4558)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: (!) Did the 1971 Census indicate that there are over 140,000 people in Canberra.

  1. Are there only (a) 7 libraries for children, (b) 6 libraries combining facilities for both adults and children and (c) 1 mobile library unit in Canberra for the purpose of serving the people of Canberra.
  2. How many books are in each of these libraries.
  3. Are any surveys or estimates available to indicate the number of libraries necessary to adequately serve the needs of the people of Canberra.
  4. If so, does this information indicate that the library services of Canberra adequately serve the population.
  5. What Library services exist for the residents of (a) the Woden Valley, (b) Belconnen and (c) Weston Creek.
  6. When will full library facilities be provided for each of those areas.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. to (7) The National Library of Australia has provided the following answers:

    1. Yes, including a restricted service point at Mawson.
    2. Yes, if the Mobile Library is included.
    3. Yes. The range of the Mobile Library la not restricted to Canberra itself. In addition to providing services to residents in developing surburbs and areas not within easy reach of branches, stops are made at Hall, Uriarra, Mt Stromlo andthe Cotter Pumping Station. Special stops are also made at the War Veterans’ Home, Lyneham and Goodwin Centre, Ainslie.
  3. The tablebelow gives book stock figures as at 30th September 1971. A detailed breakdown of children’s book stock is not available.

All figures include some element of sections (a), (b) and (c) below.

Includes (a) 12,500 volumes withdrawn to reserve stock or awaiting discarding, (b) 25,000 volumes awaiting rebinding and (c) 48,000 volumes being held in reserve for future development of District Library facilities in Woden and Belconnen and of Boys’ and Girls’ Libraries in Scullin and Torrens. This reduces the bookstock in active circulation in Canberra Public Library Service from 348,964 volumes to 263,464 volumes.

  1. The Arndt Committee, appointed in May 1962 by the National Library Council to investigate the future needs of the Canberra Public Library Service, establishedthe first basis for planning the facilities and service required for an adequate public library service. The Canberra Public Library Service Advisory Committee submitted a long-term building programme for the Approval of the National Library Council in 1964, and this is kept under constant review. The programme provides for District Libraries in each of the major population areas (North Side, where the Dickson District Library is already in operation; South Side; Woden, Belconnen), a major Central Library (Civic), and additional outlying Boys’ and Girls’ Libraries ofthe type already provided at O’Connor, Narrabundah, Red Hill, and Curtin.
  2. Present estimates of need indicate that the provision proposed in the programme is adequate.
  3. (a) Woden Valley

Hughes Branch (Hughes Shopping Centre)

Curtin Boys’ and Girls’ Library

Mawson Primary School (special provision on Saturday mornings)

Mobile Library - weekly stops at Garran, Curtin, Lyons, Chifley, Pearce, Torrens, Mawson and Farrer.

  1. Belconnen

Belconnen Branch (Jamison Centre) Mobile Library - weekly stops at Macquarie, Page, Scullin and Higgins.

Weston Creek

Mobile Library - weekly stop at Waramanga.

The Mobile Library schedule is at present under review with the intention of making better provision in the Belconnen and Weston Creek districts.

  1. The establishment of full library facilities will be scheduled on a progressive basis as residential areas are developed and fundsare available.

French Nuclear Tests (Question No. 4772)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether France has announced that she will conduct further atmospheric nuclear testing at her testing site in the Pacific in 1972.
  2. If so, will Australia discuss protests against the testing with Chile, Peru and the Philippines which made protests in 1971 but which were not among the nations consulted by Australia about the protests in that year (Hansard. 7th September 1971, page 877).
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No precise answer has yet been given by the French Government to questions about the possible resumption of French nuclear weapon testing in1972. A French Government spokesman has said only that ‘France was continuing its defence effort and was organising its experiments and the carrying out of the effort accordingly”.
  2. The detailed action which the Government would take in the hypothetical event of a resumption of such testing would be determined in the light of all the circumstances at the time.

International Airlines: Fares and Discussions (Question No. 4593)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Which countries have airlines providing scheduled services to Australia.
  2. With which of those countries and airlines are discussions taking place on low fare passenger flights outside normal schedules.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Canada, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece (with effect from 1st March 1972), India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal (Timor), Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, United KingdomUnited States.
  2. France, Germany, Greece, Italy,Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.

Kalgoorlie Airport (Question No. 4786)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. When does the Department of Civil Aviation intend to provide adequate and safe parking facilities at the Kalgoorlie Airport.
  2. When will the terminal be upgraded to a reasonable size and standard to meet passenger traffic demands.
  3. is Kalgoorlie aerodrome to be made an alternative to Perth aerodrome for large aircraft: if so. when is it expected that the necessary work will be (a) commenced and (b) completed.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The car parking facilities at Kalgoorlie Airport were rearranged and expanded earlier this year and local reactions, since then, have been quite favourable.
  2. The further development of airport facilities for Kalgoorlie is under discussion. The Department is also consulting with both State and Local Government Authorities There are plans for a new terminal in the longer term and tentative plans to extend the existing terminal should air services revert to the higher frequencies of a few months back.
  3. Kalgoorlie is being considered as an international alternative to Perth.

Cockburn Sound Naval Base: Effect on Environment (Question No. 4588)

Mr Berinson:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Has a study been made of the likely long term environmental effects of the development of the base at Cockburn Sound?.
  2. If so, what conclusions were reached?
  3. If not will he ensure that a study is instituted in view of the highly developed and populated area in whichthe base is being constructed?
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

  1. Yes. studies have been made of the likely long term ecological effects of the development of the base at Cockburn Sound. (2) The conclusions reached were that there would be no deleterious long term ecological effects upon Garden Island itself and that at the pollution levels in existence in 1970 when it was decidedto proceed with the causeway, the two openings in the causeway would be adequate to maintain the existing general ecological balance in the Sound.
  2. A continuing programme of environmental monitoring is being carried out by the Commonwealth.

Naval and Air Firing Practice at Jervis Bay (Question No. 4763)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

How many shells and missiles were fired at the naval field firing range at Jervis Bay in (a) 1969-70 and (b) 1970-71.

Dr Mackay:
LP

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

The total number of shells and missiles fired at the Naval Gunfire Support and Air Weapon Range at Beecroft Head during 1969-70 and 1970-71 was -

No guided missiles are tired on either range.

Birth Control (Question No. 3003)

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What (a) Commonwealth or (b) Slate laws prevent (i) advertising of or (ii) advice on birth control methods.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Commonwealth Legislation - Sections 100 and 122 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1971 contain provisions to the effect that the approval of the Commonwealth Director-General of Health is required for any radio or television advertisements relating to medicines or talks on medical subjects. A published guide as to standards generally applicable to the approval of radio and television advertisements on medicines includes a provision to the effect that advertisements relating to contraceptivesw ill not be approved.

The Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance (section 46) and the Northern Territory Pharmacy Ordinance (section 43) contain provisions to the effect that the publishing of any statement for the purpose of promoting the sale of any contraceptive medicine, instrument or appliance is prohibited.

  1. State Legislation - On the basis of information obtained from the relevant State authorities, it is understood that the following State laws contain provisions relating to or having a bearing on advertising of or advice on contraception:

New South Wales - .

Obscene and Indecent Publications Act Victoria -

Summary Offences Act

Western Australia -

Contraceptives Act

Tasmania-

Police Offences Act

Police Offences (Contraceptives) Act

It is further understood that there is no directly relevant legislation in force in Queensland or in South Australia.

British Preferential Tariff (Question No. 4606)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

In the event of Great Britain joining the European Common Market, will the Government take the opportunity to reduce all tariff rates to the British preference rate; if not, why not.

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

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

No decision has yet been taken on the question of the best method of adjusting the rate of duty on goods imported into this country following British entry to the. EEC. In my statement to the House on 19th August, I made the point that we would have to review the favoured position which we currently accord to Britain in our market. There are several possible courses. Among these is the possibility that the existing general rates in our tariff be reduced to the British preferential rates. However, before adopting such a course the Government would have to take into account the consequences of such reduction for Australian industry, as well as our relations with other countries including countries such as Canada and New Zealand which receive preferential treatment.

Medical Journal of Australia’ (Question No. 4172)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a recent article in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ by Tasmania’s. Director of Hospital and Medical Services calling for a cost/benefit analysis of the use of prescribed drugs, intensive care for newborn infants with lung disorders, the use of skilled radiographers for simple routine X-rays and the use of nursing homes for persons whose need is rather hostel or home care services. (2) In view of the Commonwealth’s major financial committment to universities, hospitals, nursing homes and doctors, will he confer with the States on this suggestion and the call of Dr I. S. Collins for improved medical training in the relevant fields of pharmacology and therapeutics as referred to in the Minister’s news release of 6th September 19.71.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. I have seen the article referred to.
  2. Regular avenues exist for discussion between the Commonwealth and the States on matters of the kind. No doubt, opportunities will be taken, where appropriate, to confer on the particular matters mentioned.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Anti-depressant Prescriptions (Question No. 4295)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that (a) in 1966-67 there were 74,000 anti-depressant prescriptions covered by pharmaceutical benefits at a cost of $324 . 000 representing 0.31 per cent of total prescriptions and (b) there has been a rise in number and cost every year since and until 1970-71 where there were 1,750,000 such prescriptions costing nearly 5.5 million dollars and representing 3.48 per cent of total prescriptions.
  2. If so, will the Minister (a) examine the claim that this is the highest per capita expenditure on anti-depressants in the western world and (b) order ah inquiry into the reasons for the Australian population becoming’ 300 per cent more addicted to depressionsince 1966-67, and to methods of combating this depression.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) Yes.
  2. (a) The actual expenditure on antidepressant drugs overseas is not known. However, for the year ended 31st March 1971, it is estimated that in England 138 anti-depressant prescriptions per thousand head of population were provided under the British National Health Service. In Australia, during the same period, and for the same group of pharmaceuticals, 110 prescriptions per 1000 head of population were supplied under the. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Although prescribing details for other countries are not available, ‘ it is known that a general marked increase in the usage of antidepressant drugs has been experienced throughout the western world.

  1. In Australia, the most significant increase in antidepressant pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions was recorded in 1970-71. This followed he removal in August 1970 of the restrictions on prescribing of these drugs as . benefits. However, it does not follow that the incidence of depression has risen proportionately to the increase in prescribing of anti-depressant benefit prescriptions because these drugs may have been obtained on private prescription prior to them becoming available as general pharmaceutical benefits. The usage of drugs available as pharmaceutical benefits and implications to be drawn from changes in the pattern of prescribing are under continuous surveillance. While it is not intended at this stage to conduct a special inquiry into the causes arid management of depression, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory- Committee will continue’ to periodically review theusage of anti-depressant drugs listed as benefits.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 December 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711202_reps_27_hor75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant