House of Representatives
21 March 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 873

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closingat Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received and read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, 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 showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Managemnt, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all vice to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Education

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-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:

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
  2. That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
  3. That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is specifically responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– 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:

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
  2. That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
  3. That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal fianance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is specifically responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, 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:

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficienciesin education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
  2. That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
  3. That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That on10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other applicances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr McIVOR:

-I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other applicances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the community of the Australian National University 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.

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 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.

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

Petition received.

Immigration

Mr SCHOLES:

– 1 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 showeth:

That the Government’s action in refusing to allow Mr Ijaz Hussain to remain in Australia is a denial of human rights and contrary to the best interests of the Australian people.

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the House of Representatives will take steps to have the deportation order against Mr Hussain withdrawn and to allow him to remain in Australia.

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

Petition received and read.

Pollution of the Sea

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned professional fishermen deriving livelihood from the sea in the vicinity of Coalcliff, New South Wales, humbly showeth:

That a continuing contamination of the sea coast and off-shore area by coalwash discharging into the sea at Coalcliff, New South Wales, is damaging and destroying marine life and adversely affecting the quality of the sea and the environment.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

The Australian Government take appropriate action by inquiry and investigation to identify the cause or causes of such contamination and impose deterrents and penalties to prevent further contamination.

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

Petition received and read.

Austraiian Capita] Territory Educatiou Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 877

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL

Mr WHITLAM:

– Without notice I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing the Attorney-General, a question about the Death Penalty Abolition Bill which has now been passed, as it was in 1968, by the Senate. The honourable and learned gentleman will remember telling the honourable and learned member for Berowra last November in answer to a question he had placed on notice in August that the Government would give further consideration to this Bill as soon as the relevant Senate standing committee had made its report upon it. The Senate committee made its report on 2nd December and the Bill is on our programme for today. I ask him whether the Government has decided to adopt the Bill. If the Government has decided against adopting the Bill I ask whether it has decided to allow a debate and a vote on the Bill or will he, as he did 4 years ago, move for the adjournment of the debate on the Bill which would then again remain on the notice paper until the House is dissolved for the elections?

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

– Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question. However, perhaps I can try to deal with the substance of it and if there is anything I miss no doubt the honourable and learned gentleman will remind me. In the first place he referred to the statement I made in my other capacity at an earlier point of time. Of course, whether it would have been implemented had I continued in that position may be another question. But coming to the question of the Bill which is on our notice paper, I understood that it was to come forward and that would be the time when anything should be said about it. I do not think question time is the time to debate matters that are on the notice paper.

page 878

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr GRAHAM:

– As the PostmasterGeneral is no doubt aware of the presence in Canberra of a deputation of postal unions seeking to interview honourable members on matters affecting his Department, can he inform the House on the background to these activities and the potential consequences of them?

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

– This morning I received a request to see a deputation of representatives of Post Office unions while they are in Canberra this week. I arranged that I would see a deputation at 4 o’clock this afternoon. The letter which came to me inviting me to do so suggested that the deputation would represent 6 Post Office unions. I am informed that 3 of the most important unions in the Post Office - the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union, the Postal Telecommunication Technicians Association and the Australian Postmasters Association - have dissociated themselves from the deputation to me and to honourable members during this week. The 3 unions I have named represent approximately 70,000 members of the staff of the Australian Post Office, so I think it will be seen that the representations are in fact coming to honourable members from a comparatively small area of Post Office unions, and not the broad area.

The letter asked me whether the representatives could see me in connection with several matters - area management, mail centres, the closing of non-official post offices, and also an investigation into the central administration of the Post Office. In relation to the first 3 matters I have mentioned, the union that is most prominently represented in the deputation - the Union ot Postal Clerks and Telegraphists - has, I understand, no members employed. It is therefore a little strange to me that that union should be sending representatives in a deputation to discuss these matters. Indeed, I am given to understand that that union has been substantially responsible for encouraging the number of petitions which are circulating in the community at present.

As to the closure of small non-official post offices, a meeting was held on the south coast of New South Wales some little time ago. Unfortunately, following the meeting a Press report was issued which suggested that a Post Office spokesman at the meeting had indicated that all non-official post offices would be closed. That is incorrect. No such statement was made. In point of fact, the then Director of Posts and Telegraphs in New South Wales, who Fs now the Director-General, represented the Post Office at that particular meeting. He has assured me that no statement of that nature was made at the meeting.

In recent years an investigation has been conducted by district postal managers through to the head office of the Post Office arising from the economic situation. Members of this House will realise that the basic postage has been increased twice within the last 2 years and that questions of efficiency should be looked at within the Post Office, having particularly in mind the closing of inefficient post offices, non-economic post offices, but at the same time, the investigation should include inquiry into the necessity for additional post offices to be opened. 1 think it is fair to say that what has been done has been done in the interests of the Post Office itself. Looking into the foreseeable future, I believe that a very minimal number of non-official post offices throughout Australia will be closed. I have given these details in answer to the honourable member’s question believing that they may be of some help to all members of this House to whom deputations seek to speak this week.

page 879

QUESTION

TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES

Mr DAVIES:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation advise me of the current position of Aerial Services in Tasmania, having in mind the withdrawal of its operational licence? When can the question of Captain Terry Burns’s approval as chief pilot be expected to be resolved by the Department of Civil Aviation? Can the Minister give an assurance that the service will be resumed as soon as possible, especially in view of the valuable service given by Aerial Services to the west coast of Tasmania, and the complete confidence in Captain Burns expressed on behalf of all people by the West Coast Municipal Association of Tasmania?

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

– It is a fact that Aerial Services of Tasmania, which is a charter operator in Tasmania, had a commuter licence which was withdrawn recently because of some breaches of the regulations laid down by the Department of Civil Aviation. When I say ‘breaches’ I mean this in the ‘technical sense that the operator did not meet the higher standards for commuter services that do not apply tq normal charter operations. However, my understanding now is that there is a new management of the company and that today the licence will be re-issued to Captain Burns as the chief pilot of the company. This will enable the commuter operations of the company to recommence immediately! I can assure the House also that commuter operators in Tasmania, as in other parts of Australia, must meet the standard laid down by the Department of Civil Aviation, and, whilst the licence will be re-issued today, an eye will be kept on the standards which are maintained by the company to ensure that it operates completely in accordance with the conditions laid down. I am pleased to inform the House that this very important and valuable service to the WeS, coast of Tasmania will be able to recommence.

page 879

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Has he seen a report that the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Peter Westerway, told a Labor Youth Rally in Sydney that at the next elections flying squads would be formed by the Australian Labor Party, to visit polling booths in key electorates to see that there was no substitution of ballot boxes and ballot papers and no miscounting of votes by the Commonwealth Electoral Office? What action has the Minister taken to ascertain whether these allegations of irregularities are true or false?

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

– I saw and heard the allegations referred to in some newspapers and in some news bulletins on the radio. Since I anticipated I would be asked a question on this matter because of the scandalous implications, I have with me a copy of a telegram I sent to the person concerned. The background to this is that the ABC News submitted to me on Sunday 12th March a series of allegations said to have been made by Mr Westerway that day at a New South Wales Labor youth conference. 1 was asked to comment on those allegations. I must conclude that the allegations were in fact made for Mr Westerway has scuttled away from them. He has declined to answer a telegram despatched by me the following day, the Monday, in which I recounted the reported allegations and asked him to confirm or deny them. The telegram I sent to Mr Westerway read as follows:

ABC News yesterday reported statements by you in the following termsQuote: The General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales, Mr Peter Westerway, claimed today that officers of the Commonwealth Electoral Office had rigged election results in key marginal seats in previous elections.

Mr Westerway said ballot boxes had been substituted and votes deliberately miscounted. “The effect of this has been to help non-Labor parties in certain key seats.

Mr Westerway said he had only found out last night baw this was done.

But he was proposing that the Australian Labor Party would form a flying squad of six people trained to detect these irregularities.

The flying squad would concentrate on eight marginal seats in New South Wales at the Federal election later this year. Mr Westerway who is a former lecturer in Government at Sydney University made his allegations in an address to the annual Youth Conference of the Australian Labor Party.

I then asked him, in this telegram, to advise me whether he had been reported correctly and, if so, I said that I expected him to supply me with the evidence to substantiate the statements. That was the end of the content of my telegram. But I did comment upon the report along these lines: If the report of (he statement was correct, I could only regard it as being defamatory, malicious and completely irresponsible, and I challenged him to produce the evidence to support the serious allegations against the officers of the Com.monwealth Electoral Office. It is reprehensible that the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party should defame the integrity and character of the officers of the Common.wealth Electoral Office in such a cavalier fashion, lt is complete and utter nonsense with a mischievous purpose and brings discredit to the Australian Labor Party. There ended my comment on his statement. - But I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the curious fact that despite the seriousness of the allegations at that time, the Press generally shied away from reporting them. Perhaps the answer lies in the extravagance of the allegations or the extraordinary secondary allegation among those submitted to me by the ABC News.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it correct for the Minister now answering the question to read from copious notes? lt is obvious that he had the statement prepared prior to the question being asked in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member knows full well that this has been the custom and practice of this House for a considerable number of years.

Mr HUNT:

– I ask the House to listen to this-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the Minister that this is question time and that this is a fairly lengthy answer to the question. I have requested co-operation from Ministers in such matters previously. The Leader of the Opposition has assured me that if any Minister wishes to make a statement as lengthy as this answer to a question leave to do so will be granted.

Mr McMahon:

– Go on.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I believe that you would have heard the Prime Minister say to the Minister ‘go on’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not know anything about that. Order! If the House is going to behave in this fashion at question time, I will have no option but to enforce the Standing Orders to the full at question time, and ] think that would be to the detriment of the working of this House. I suggest that at question time honourable members might take stock of themselves in relation to their behaviour; I do not mean all members, but quite a few members. I suggest that the Minister might conclude his answer.

Mr HUNT:

– In conclusion, in the same statement Mr Westerway was alleged to have said that the Public Service was providing call girls for male VIPs. He said that he had no objection to the use of call girls but that he objected to the Public Service paying for them. In reply to the last part of the question asked by the honourable member for Deakin, I have had discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer and I categorically refute that these allegations made against officers of my Department have any basis whatsoever. In the 13 years that Mr Ley has been Chief . Electoral Officer he has never received a complaint of wrongdoing by an official in the conduct of an election. I regard it as a scurrilous, damaging statement to the integrity of these people. If he did not make the statement, I now challenge Mr Westerway - indeed, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition - either to deny that he said it or to say what he did say.

page 880

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHINA

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

-I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why has the Government failed to establish cordial relations with the People’s Republic of China? Was President Nixon’s request to visit China in an election year directly related to United States domestic policy? Has his action caused tension in several areas, particularly in Korea where a state of emergency now exists, with 1 million people under arms? What is the Australian Government doing to solve the crisis in Korea? Will the Minister now give an assurance that the Government will speak up and act in accordance with the interests of the Australian people, free of any inhibitions to the United States?

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

-I rather gather that what the honourable gentleman is complaining about regarding our policy towards China is that it differs from that of the United States, and that what he wants us to do is to follow President Nixon. That appears to be what the honourable gentleman is suggesting. I do not believe that question time is the time to debate foreign policy at any length, but I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Government, with caution and in a proper way, is making approaches to the People’s Republic of China and I do not think that any good purpose is served by discussing the details of these approaches. In regard to the result of the President’s visit, we are hopeful that the approach of President Nixon to the People’s Republic of China will lead in the long run to some reduction of tension in this area. We hope that it will be a beginning, a step, but this objective has not been achieved simply by the visit. It is hoped that it will have that effect. I have no doubt that there were strong reasons of policy behind the President’s visit, and not simply the motives which the honourable gentleman has assigned to it.

The position in Korea has very largely stabilised. As with so many of these areas, there has been strong economic progress in South Korea. It has become almost a showplace of advancement, as has Taiwan. Actually, the economic advancement which has been made there is absolutely remarkable. Its overseas trade is the same as that of the whole of the People’s Republic of China and it is now largely able to look after its own defence. As honourable members know, Australia assisted in the provision of United Nations forces to protect the South Koreans from the attacks and the aggression which they were suffering. At the present time, there are still some American soldiers there and it is intended that they will remain in Korea for some time, although such is the strength of the South Korean forces that it is no longer as necessary as it was for them to have this assistance on the ground. I believe that they have reached a position of considerable stability in that area.

page 881

QUESTION

SCHOOL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. Can he give any assurance that the proposed school of veterinary science will be proceeded with as part of the new Murdoch

University in Western Australia and in accordance with the plans of the previous State Government?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– No, I cannot give the honourable member that assurance because a short while ago I received a letter from the present Western Australian Minister for Education indicating that the Western Australian Government was considering deferring plans for the veterinary school at Murdoch University.

Mr Kennedy:

– Why?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Apparently because it is not prepared to place a proper priority on support for the rural industries. The second leg of the State Minister’s letter asked the Commonwealth whether it would be prepared to pay the full costs of S3.3m for establishing the school over the 1973-75 triennium. Of course the State Government must know that the answer to that is no. There are well set precedents for the orderly development of universities and the sharing of costs, both capital and recurrent expenditure. It would not be possible in relation to one particular school in one particular State to break those long standing arrangements that have worked very well to the advantage of the development of universities. I am concerned about the attitude now being adopted by Mr Evans and the Western Australian Government because it does show a lack of interest and a lack of concern for the very real problems facing rural industries, and this stands in marked contrast to the policies of Sir David Brand’s government which had wanted the veterinary school to be opened in 1974. Indeed, this proposal was an integral part of the Commonwealth’s reasons and the Australian Universities Commission’s recommendation for supporting the Murdoch University at the time when that was announced.

Mr Uren:

– I rise to order. I refer to your earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, and there are 2 aspects to my point. The first is that this, too, is quite obviously a question on notice and the matter should be the subject of % statement after question time. Secondly, Ministers have been requested to keep their answers short so that question time can function in the intended way. This Minister is a bad offender against the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not make any comment. I do not think that the position needs restating. I have repeated it time and again. I do not believe that this answer is unduly long. Secondly, all Ministers are entitled to anticipate questions which may be asked at question time.

Mr Uren:

– Especially from their own side. It is not arranged, much

Mr SPEAKER:

– Let me put this quite frankly: It does not always come from one side of the House.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I only wanted to add that the Commonwealth sees a continuing need for the development of this fourth veterinary school. This school is needed not only to promote the efficiency of rural industries at a time when they are facing their own cost and marketing problems and when greater efficiency is of prime importance to them, but also people with the skills of a veterinary surgeon are essential in the drive to maintain adequate standards so that we may gain increased access to meat- markets overseas or at least preserve the access that we now have. The attitude that has been exhibited by the present Western Australian Government will serve the rural industries of Australia and of Western Australia in particular very badly indeed and it confirms (he views expressed so cogently by the honourable member for Dawson who on an Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme condemned the Australian Labor Party’s rural policies in very round terms.

page 882

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr SCHOLES:

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware of a number of statements recently made expressing concern for the future of the textile industries in Australia because of alleged dumping of overseas goods on the Australian market? Is the Minister also aware that similar concern is felt by carpet manufacturers because of alleged dumping? Is the Minister able to inform the House whether there is any substance in these complaints and whether it is true as has been reported that there is a danger of certain sections of the textile industries collapsing altogether?

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

– Certain representations have been made to me expressing concern about developments in the textile industry in Australia due to the level of imports. There has been some concern too, about the Government’s decision in relation to a Tariff Board report wherein we stated that after a period of 18 months the present quantitative restrictions applying on knitted shirts and outer garments would be lifted but in the meantime I would endeavour to try to arrange with certain countries voluntary restraints on imports into Australia. This is proceeding, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. There has been concern, too, at the classification of certain articles which are coming in under a different grouping and so avoiding some of the tariff levels. I believe that my ministerial colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise has examined this matter and that there has been some re-examination of and alteration to the classifications, mainly in the area of knitted blouses I believe, which should overcome the concern. 1 do not recall having had any requests or heard of any concern about the carpet industry. Recently I opened a factory at Granville in New South Wales. I was pleased to learn that that carpet factory was exporting quite large quantities to Japan. So that particular firm is doing reasonably well with its exports, though perhaps other carpet firms are having trouble with imports. However, I will have a look at the aspect of carpets and see what the situation is. I would like to assure the textile industry that if there is a major problem with dumping there are ways and means by which the Government can take action - quick action - and if there are unfair competition and threats to the Australian textile industry there are ways and means by which the Government can examine and make suggestions as to how these problems may be overcome. I have the matter in hand and I have told the industry to come and see me if it is unduly concerned.

page 882

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Stale governments will shortly be having constitutional discussions - not before time - sponsored by Victoria, what positive steps will the Commonwealth take not only to participate in these discussions but to make a useful contribution as well?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I have already answered in the House 2 questions relating to this matter. I can now add for the benefit of the honourable gentleman that I have had discussions with the Attorney-General about both the Commonwealth role and the kind of problem that could be discussed at any convention or other gathering that could be called to consider this extremely important matter. The Attorney-General is in the course of preparing a paper for me, but I should point out that no government other than the Commonwealth Government can take an initiative for an alteration of the Constitution. The State governments cannot do it. The power resides with us, and consequently the final decision too must remain with us. But the AttorneyGeneral has been working for a considerably long period on a paper which he will present to me soon. As soon as that has been done I will take it to Cabinet, and later I will be able to make a statement to the House not only as to the substance of the matter but as to the procedures to be followed.

page 883

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr UREN:

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that prior to Christmas I asked the Government to take action to control foreign investment and major insurance companies in respect of speculative investment in the over-building of the central business districts of our capital cities, in particular Sydney and Melbourne. In his letter to me of 13th December 1 971 the Prime Minister said that most of this type of foreign investment is confidential but that insurance companies increased this type of investment from 6.6 per cent of their statutory reserve funds in 1961 to 14.1 per cent in 1971. I ask: Is the Prime Minister aware that the increase, in money terms, was from $144m in 1961 to $825m in 1971, an increase of 472 per cent? At the same time the increase in housing was only 44 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is giving a great deal of information. The question is fairly long. I ask him to co-operate in meeting the request I made to the House earlier and to ask his question.

Mr UREN:

-I ask: Will the Government take immediate action to reveal the amount of foreign investment in the over-building of the central business districts of our cities and also to control the major insurance companies in this type of investment in the over-building of the central business districts?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As I understand the trend of the honourable member’s question I advise him that on Friday of last week the Reserve Bani of Australia gave the most detailed examination of capital flows into this country that has ever been given. If the honourable member looks at that examination he will see that very little of the finance could have been made available by overseas corporations for building in this country. I know that this is a difficult document to understand - it is a very technical document - but if the honourable member should wish to examine it further I will make officials available to explain it in full detail to him and to other members of his party. I will refer the second part of the honourable member’s question to the Minister for Works and obtain an answer for him.

page 883

QUESTION

RHEEM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Dr SOLOMON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware that Rheem Australia Pty Ltd is negotiating to buy cold rolled steel sheet from Japanese producers following the rise in the price of Broken Hill Pty Co. steel? Does he know that Rheem is 50 per cent owned by BHP? Does he not find a certain irony, not to say a lack of steely resolve, in this situation?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I am not aware of the fact but I can understand that it might be cheaper for that company to import steel than to put a special line through its plants here. Because a specialty product is required it may not pay -the company to run a small volume through its plants. So it is rationalising and importing the product when it is cheaper than producing it in Australia.

page 884

QUESTION

DRUGS

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– 1 address a question to the Prime Minister apropos the concern about the effects of excessive use of drugs. I ask: In view of the increasing concern about the excessive use of drugs, has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the editorial in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ of Saturday, 5th February 1972 on the question of smoking? Why is there reluctance to take effective action, despite, according to the editorial, the recommendations of the world’s leading health authorities? As the Minister for Health has admitted that the medical evidence that cigarette smoking has a causal relationship with carcinoma of the lung - and the Minister admits that this has been accepted by the Government - what is the Government’s reason for delaying action on trying to discourage cigarette smoking which, according to the Royal College of Physicians of London-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving a good deal of information and his question is fairly long. I ask him to ask his question.

Dr CASS:

– Well, this is claimed to be a leading preventive medical problem. So why is the Government delaying in view of the fact that it has accepted the evidence and many of the world’s authorities have made the same sort of claims? Finally, what is the estimated cost to the community of illness caused by cigarette smoking?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– This is a strange question to come from the honourable gentleman who, as I understand, according to newspaper reports of either yesterday or today, wants to abolish penalties for the use and abuse of drugs. So as to the first part of the honourable member’s question, I have not read the article in the paper to which he refers and it is highly improbable that I ever will.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If honourable members want to take up the time allowed for questions I suggest that they continue to act in the way they are. I will walk out of the Chair in a few minutes if the House does not behave itself far better than it has during this period and let the period of question time expire.

Mr McMAHON:

– As to the second and third parts of the honourable member’s question, I wa refer the matter to my colleague the Minister for Health and 1 am sure that he will be only too anxious to give him a reply.

page 884

QUESTION

QUARANTINED HORSES

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister explain to the House the circumstances surrounding the application of strict quarantine restrictions to a shipload of 90 horses which arrived in Sydney on Sunday last on board the ‘Dona Clausen’? Has any irregularity in the shipment of animals into Australia taken place? Can this incident be taken as an indication of the watchfulness of those officers charged with the policing of Australia’s quarantine regulations, or has some major oversight or contravention of the regulations taken place?

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

– 1 would like to make it quite clear, in answer to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, that there has been no oversight or contravention of regulations. In fact this incident indicates, if anything, the watchfulness of our quarantine service. As I understand it, these animals - I think there were 137 altogether - destined for Australia contracted the disease strangles on a voyage from the United Kingdom. As I understand it. strangles is an upper respiratory tract infection which is common in all countries, including Australia. It was felt necessary to take special quarantine precautions because of the possibility - it is only a possibility - that the symptoms of strangles could mask the symptoms of other virus diseases such as equine influenza. As a result the horses have been placed in various quarantine stations, some in Fremantle, some in Melbourne, some in Sydney and still others in a special quarantine station on a property at Penrith, until tests have been made to determine whether other virus infections are present. I repeat that this incident indicates the extreme care and watchfulness of our quarantine service.

page 884

QUESTION

PENSIONS FOR IMMIGRANTS

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the open letter addressed to him in the ‘Maltese

Herald’ of 23rd February and further letters in the Italian language newspaper ‘La Fiamma’ on 14th February in relation to the transferability of pensions overseas? Is the Prime Minister considering the points raised by spokesmen for the 100,000 Australians of Maltese origin, the 300,000 Australians of Italian origin and many other migrant groups such as the German group who are bitterly opposed to the present proposal of the Government to increase the pension qualifying period to 20 years? Are the Government’s proposals discriminatory to the extent of providing for 3 different categories of Australians in relation to pension rights? Will the Prime Minis:er agree that it is undesirable to divide the nation and its people in this way?

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

– The Government regards it as entirely undesirable to divide the nation, and I am sorry that the honourable member is taking steps in that direction. I think that the honourable member for Riverina should realise-

Mr Armitage:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point is that the honourable member for Riverina directed his question to the Prime Minister but we have the situation where the Minister for Social Services is jumping up and taking over from the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. Recently the practice has arisen of irrelevant points of order being taken in this House. I would remind honourable members that the Chair has authority to deal with members who continually raise points of order in this manner and use question time to debate questions or to raise points which are not points of order. I call the Minister for Social Services.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I think this time may not have been entirely wasted, Mr Speaker, because it may have given the honourable member for Riverina a chance to reflect on the implications of the way in which he framed bis question. The Government does not want in any way to divide the people of Australia. We regard them all as Australian citizens and all entitled to the rights of Australian citizens. Indeed, further than that, the Government is prepared to accord pension rights to some who are not Aus tralian citizens. The requirement of 20 years residence in Australia to qualify for portability of pensions abroad applies to all people - Australians and everybody else. The reason for this is very simple. We do not want to have the position where people can come to Australia deliberately to get pensions. What we seek to do is simply to say that those people who have lived in Australia and who have - I quote, I think, from an earlier edition of ‘La Fiamma’ - by their industry in Australia contributed to the prosperity and advancement of Australia should be able to take their pensions overseas. We would regard 20 years as a reasonable period as qualification for this to be done. This is applicable to all Australians who have a right to take their pensions abroad under this scheme as well as to other people. It is quite simple. There is no division. The Government is following a practice which I think Canada, for example, practises. Other countries have similar schemes. The period is imposed in order to do fairness to Australians and everybody else. We do not want people who come to Australia and who live here for only a little while, not contributing significantly to Australia’s prosperity, to be able to take their pensions overseas.

page 885

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

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

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. In the Bulletin’ of 18th March there was an article headed ‘Are We Too Hung Up on Universities’ in which one sentence attributed to me in quotation marks stated:

The Commonwealth prefers to use its funds on those who are proved best by the system.

These remarks I am alleged to have used on the ABC programme ‘Monday Conference’. I have looked very closely at the ABC text of that programme and there is no confirmation of the use of those words in that text and I am sure I did not use them.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr CASS:

– I feel that the Prime Minister misrepresented me in his introductory remarks in answering a question. It is true that I have made the statements he said I made but for quite the opposite reason from that which he implied when he made his comment. I have observed that punitive action against drug taking is a failure all over the world. If the Prime Minister perhaps has not read the ‘Medical Journal’ but read the daily Press he would have noted that there are a number of serious articles appearing on this very question. What is more, even his own Minister for Customs and Excise has noted the futility of trying to punish drug takers in other countries and I am told he is even going overseas to find out for himself. My intention is to reduce, not increase, drug taking in the community.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, Sir. Last Thursday week, as reported at page 803 of Hansard, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) produced to this House a White Paper. At the time he made a rather scurrilous attack upon me, although that afternoon he did not name the person to whom he was referring. He had stated that a certain member of the Opposition had engineered his entrance into this place by taking unfair advantage of the problems of pensioners. Later that Thursday afternoon as 1 passed behind the Minister while he was seated at the table, he swung in his seat and said: ‘You are the member to whom I referred’. As a result of that-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I understand the situation in which the honourable member is placed but I remind him that he is making a personal explanation. He cannot debate the question. He must explain to the House where he was misrepresented.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, Sir. Last Thursday week, as reported at page 803 of Hansard, the Minister for Social Services said:

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I had not named the honourable member for Sturt until he asked me to.

I did not ever inquire of the Minister about the honourable member to whom he was referring. He volunteered the information as I walked behind his chair that I was the person to whom he was referring. As reported in Hansard, the Minister went on to say that he would withdraw whatever was offensive. I understand that the document read by the Minister to the House is still being circulated by him. If he is prepared to abide by what he is reported to have said in Hansard, he should concede that the whole lot is offensive to everybody in this country and the whole paper should be withdrawn. It was a most scurrilous attack.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. It is not very often that a member of this House has to do what I have to do now. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) did in fact ask me whether he was the person-

Mr Foster:

– That is not true.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– He asked whether I had the courage, as he said, to name him and I did. I did so at his request. The second thing is that I withdrew those remarks last Thursday week only because they were considered to be offensive. They are true.

Mr FOSTER (Sturt)- I ask for leave to make a statement in regard to the attitude that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has just displayed in this chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOSTER:

– I have been forced somewhat reluctantly to do something I had never intended to do. I hope that the Minister for Social Services does not leave the chamber. He is now approaching the table. Can you deny to this House, Mr Minister, that I delivered into your hands in 1970 while you were in your office a complete folder on the problems associated with the remarks you directed to me in this House last Thursday week? Did you not keep the folder in your possession for almost 4 weeks? Did you not one night ring me in my office and ask me to come to see you? Did you not then hand me back the whole file, saying: ‘The people named in the documents are beyond reproach. Take the documents away.’? Did I not say to you, Sir, that I did not want to raise matters contained in the documents such as lawyers’ letters, legal representation against aged pensioners and what have you, because I did not want to seek publicity for those matters? I asked you whether you were aware of the South Australian Legislative Council, a Liberal dominated body, incidentally, and still is, as has been instanced by what happened in South Australia last week. Did I not ask you whether you were aware of that Legislative Council inquiry? Did I not ask you, when you received a report from the South Australian Legislative Council, to pass comment on it? Mr Speaker, if I have to withdraw this, I suppose I must.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You had better not say it.

Mr FOSTER:

– The Minister has been completely dishonest. I understand that it is not parliamentary to imply that the Minister has told lies, but I do not think that the word ‘ambiguity’ would cover the sin he has committed in this chamber in relation to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not impute improper motives to any honourable member in this chamber.

Mr FOSTER:

– The statement I make to this House is this: I had no desire at all to take unfair advantage of any particular set of circumstances that prevailed in the electorate of Sturt just a few days prior to the election of 1969. I and my committee in my electorate did not put out one pamphlet on that situation. The same cannot be said of the people with whom the Minister is in accord. In addition, I want to make it clear that I have never raised in this House documents that have been in my possession regarding the problems of people in particular homes. The Minister was aware of that when he presented his document last Thursday week, because he had those documents with him. Finally, Sir, my statement to the House is that the Minister has acted in a most unscrupulous way. There is not one iota of truth in the allegations that he makes. I will welcome the Minister for Social Services to the federal division of Sturt to fight on that score in the next election campaign, if he wants to come as Minister for Social Services. 1 say to him: Come if you want to.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar- Minister for Social Services) - Having been misrepresented, I would just like to reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Minister wish to make a statement or is he claiming to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I claim to have been misrepresented, Sir. The answer to some of the questions asked by the honourable member for Sturt is yes, and the answer to some of his questions is no.

Mr Foster:

– Do you deny that I gave you the file?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It is perfectly true that the honourable member did give me the file. It is not true that I gave him exoneration in the way that he suggested. I will be very happy to have all the facts of his conduct prior to the election examined in this House whenever an opportunity arises.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order. It is contrary to standing order 76 of this House for a member to impute improper motives to another member. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), in his statement before I rose earlier, imputed improper motives to the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and I believe he should withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio should have taken that point of order at the time.

Mr Scholes:

– I rose at the time and you ordered me to sit down.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not think that is correct. I called the honourable member for Sturt so that he could continue his statement on the subject under discussion.

page 887

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

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

– I explain to honourable members that this is purely a formal matter. If the House will permit me, I will immediately move that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for a future day, which will give all honourable members an opportunity to study the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 888

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMPANIES (URANIUM MINING COMPANIES) ORDINANCE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - On 1 5th March 1972, the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) and 1 issued a Press statement indicating that certain amendments would be made to the Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance 1970 of the Australian Capital Teritory. Those amendments have nOW been made by the Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance 1972, which was notified in the Gazette on 17th March 1972 and tabled today. I take this opportunity of informing the House of the nature of the amendments and of the reasons for them. On 17th September 1970 the then Prime Minister made a statement in this House concerning action that the Government would take to ensure that control of the development of the uranium discovery at Nabarlek by Queensland Mines Limited and Kathleen Investments (Australia) Limited would remain in the hands of Australian companies for the benefit of Australian shareholders and Australia generally. The then Prime Minister indicated the intention of the Government to legislate in order, firstly, to limit to IS per cent of the issued share capital the total number of shares able to be held in either company by persons not ordinarily resident in Australia or by foreign corporations; and, secondly, to limit the number of shares held in either company by any one person not ordinarily resident in Australia or by any one foreign corporation to not more than 5 per cent of the issued share capital. Subsequently, in December 1970, the Australian Capital Territory Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance 1970 was made giving effect to the Government decisions. The Ordinance contained provisions protecting from its operation rights that had accrued before its commencement.

In February 1971, following the collapse of Mineral Securities Australia Ltd, a busi ness crisis arose of proportions which had very serious implications, particularly for several of the major creditors. The Supreme Court of New South Wales appointed a liquidator who immediately set about the task of conducting the liquidation in an orderly fashion and in a way which would involve the least possible loss to all concerned. As the House will recall there was considerable public concern at the time of the collapse of Mineral Securities and although the conduct of the liquidation was not a matter in relation to which the Commonwealth Government had direct responsibilities, I should make it clear to the House that, very properly, the Government did take the closest interest in this whole matter. In early February, soon after the collapse of Mineral Securities, it came to the notice of the Government that there was a possibility of a proposed consortium of both overseas and Australian interests mounting a rescue operation to minimise the impact of the Minerals Securities failure by making loan moneys available. The Government noted that the eventual result might be the acquisition of shares by overseas interests in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments beyond the limits .prescribed in the Ordinance. Tha Government decided at the time that if this occurred the Ordinance would be amended. In the event the proposed consortium did not eventuate.

One of the major assets of Mineral Securities was a substantial number oi shares in both Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments. The Liquidator arranged for all of the creditors of Mineral Securities who claimed security over shares in these 2 companies to form a syndicate for the purpose of selling the shares in cooperation with the Liquidator acting as its agent. For this purpose the Liquidator obtained an order from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 5th March 1971 tenders were called by the Liquidator on a world-wide basis. Tenders closed on 11th March 1971. A number of bids were received and several tenders for comparatively small parcels were accepted. A tender for the major part of the share holdings offered in the 2 companies was made by a syndicate comprised of Noranda Australia Ltd, Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Ltd, and the Australian Mutual Provident

Society. Noranda and ICI are both well known and respected overseas companies, the former from Canada and the latter from the United Kingdom. The AMP Society is a wholly Australian institution. Negotiations were conducted by the Liquidator with this syndicate resulting finally in a sale at what the Liquidator described as a satisfactory price.

At the time that the Noranda syndicate was preparing its bid the total percentage of all foreign holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments was not known. A great many holdings still had to bc examined by the Registrar of Companies in the Australian Capital Territory with a view to determining whether they were foreign or not, and until this task had been completed Noranda and ICI had no means of ascertaining with certainty whether their proposed acquisition of shares in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments would result in the 15 per cent limit set by the Ordinance for all foreign holdings being exceeded. Inquiries have shown that the syndicate led by Noranda was concerned as to the effect of its bid, if successful, on the level of foreign holdings in the 2 companies specified in the Ordinance. After thorough investigation the Government is satisfied that this syndicate took reasonable precautions before submitting its tender on 11th March 1971. The major party in the syndicate was Noranda and this company specifically limited its offer so that its share holdings in both Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments were kept within the 5 per cent limit imposed on a single foreign share holder by the Ordinance.

In addition, Noranda states that, on behalf of the syndicate, it approached the then Chairman of Queensland Mines and asked whether a bid on the part of its syndicate would be likely to result in total share holdings by foreigners being in excess of the 15 per cent specified in the Ordinance. Noranda states that the reply was that from an examination of the share register it appeared that its bid, if successful, would bring foreign share holdings to something of the order of only 13 per cent. Further, through the broking house which was acting as its investment advisers, the then Prime Minister was advised of the identities of the potential tenderers in the Noranda syndicate and of their concern lest their bid bring foreign share holdings beyond the 15 per cent limit. It is stated by Noranda that an indication was given that the Government would not object if, as a result of a successful tender by the Noranda syndicate, foreign share holdings were temporarily reasonably in excess of the limit prescribed by the Ordinance. Such an assurance was, of course, consistent with the Government’s decision to which I referred earlier. I should interpolate here that I have spoken with the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), the then Prime Minister, who, while he does not recall all the details of this conversation, nonetheless agrees that assurances were given to the syndicate and he fully supports the action which the Government has now taken and which I will outline to the House shortly.

The Ordinance vests certain functions in the Registrar of Companies of the Australian Capital Territory one of which is to certify whether a transfer of shares is such that if registered it would increase the number of foreign shares beyond the specified limit, viz. 15 per cent. Before a transfer of shares could be registered it was necessary for the Registrar to determine the number of foreign shares as at the date the Ordinance came into force. This lengthy procedure, involving an inquiry into more than 6,000 share holdings covering millions of shares, was only recently completed. As a result it was established that registration of the Noranda and ICI shares, along with others awaiting registration, would bring foreign holdings to almost 21 per cent. Here I should point out that because of the need to determine foreign share holdings as at the date of the introduction of the Ordinance, no transfers to foreign share holders have been registered since the Ordinance was made in December 1970. The purchase of shares by Noranda and ICI constitutes a substantial portion of the excess above 15 per cent. However I should make 2 points clear: Firstly, the outstanding transfers held by the Registrar cover a considerable number of other transactions - some lodged ahead of the Noranda transfers, some between those of Noranda and ICI, and some after that date. Secondly, until 15th March 1972 there had been no official public intimation that the 15 per cent limit on foreign share holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments had been exceeded.

The Government has examined this whole matter exhaustively. It has noted the precautions which the Noranda syndicate took and it accepts that that syndicate acted in good faith and in the belief that the Government would take whatever action was necessary to protect the syndicate’s interests if the 15 per cent limit were exceeded as a result of its bid being successful. The Government has also noted that if the transfers of these shares are not registered the result could well be litigation between Noranda and the Official Liquidator of Mineral Securities. The Government does not express any view as to the possible result of any such litigation, but it recognises, after consultations with the Official Liquidator, that the very threat of litigation would inevitably result in delaying the whole procedures of winding up the Mineral Securities group and would jeaopardise seriously the atmosphere of confidence in the plan of liquidation which the Liquidator has been able to build up since his appointment.

The Government therefore decided that, while retaining the basic limit of 15 per cent as announced in this House by the former Prime Minister, the Ordinance would be amended so that no foreigner who had acquired shares in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments before the announcement of this decision - namely, midnight on 15th March 1972- will have his transfer refused registration. The amendment applies equally to all persons who had acquired shares in either of the two uranium companies before the announcement. This result has been achieved by amending certain provisions in the principal ordinance which ensured that it did not operate against rights that had already accrued before the principal Ordinance came into operation. This protection has now been extended to cover rights that had accrued under transactions entered into before the announcement which was released at midnight on 15th March 1972 Australian Eastern Standard Time.

I should make it clear to the House that the amending Ordinance does not change the existing basic limits for foreign shareholdings in the two companies concerned. In the result foreign holdings will temporarily exceed the prescribed percentages but while this situation continues no further sales of shares in either of the two companies will be able to be made to foreigners. When the level of foreign holdings falls below 15 per cent the Ordinance will operate as originally intended and transfers will be permitted up to but not beyond the 15 per cent announced by the Government in 1970. Shares held in excess of 15 per cent under this special arrangement will have normal voting rights and their holders will be able to participate in any new general share issues by virtue of their holdings of these shares.

The Government decided that it was necessary to amend the Ordinance having regard, first, to the importance of ensuring that the Minsec collapse is handled so as to afford the maximum of protection for the creditors of Minsec and to avoid possible litigation which would jeopardise the confidence in the whole plan of liquidation; secondly, to the uncertainty that existed at the time of the Minsec collapse as to the extent of existing foreign holdings in the two companies and to the fact that it has taken until now to classify all the share holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments into foreign and non-foreign; and thirdly, because the Government is satisfied that the Noranda syndicate acted in good faith and took reasonable precautions.

Having considered this whole situation with considerable care the Government feels that the action I have outlined to the House is fair, reasonable and proper. For the future there will be a firm base upon which the Ordinance can be administered as originally intended. I present the following paper:

Australian Capital Territory Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance - Ministerial Statement, 21st March 1971

Motion (by Dr Forbes) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This is one further example of the Government’s incapacity to exercise effective control over Australian assets, particularly with respect to -the growing inroads of control by foreign interests. The Australian Capital Territory Companies (Uranium Mining Companies)

Ordinance was brought into force in December 1970. It arose from action taken by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) with respect to the Government’s policy of ensuring that the development of uranium deposits at Nabarlek remained in the hands of Australian companies for the benefit of Australian shareholders and Australia generally. As a result of the action taken by the former Prime Minister, the Ordinance was implemented in December 1970.

Under that Ordinance clear and specific directions were given to the AttorneyGeneral in the event of foreign ownership exceeding the limit of 15 per cent of the issued share capital. In that event the Attorney-General could have refused to allow registration of the excess shares over the basic limit of 15 per cent. Alternatively, he could have had the Ordinance changed to increase the basic limit from 15 per cent to something like 21 per cent, which is the shareholding that has now been discovered. Again, the Government could have changed the Ordinance by a compromise - and this is in fact what the Governmen has done; it has compromised with these foreign companies. It has allowed excess unregistered shares to be registered on a temporary basis, the argument being that as these companies will not be able to buy any more shares, over a time the proportion of shareholding will be reduced to 15 per cent when foreign shareholders sell to Australian companies, and that when this happens the Ordinance as originally contemplated by the right honourable member for Higgins would come into real effect. This is at least as it should be.

It is quite clear that uranium is now becoming a major mineral in terms of export income for this nation. In May 1967 restrictions were placed on the export of uranium, principally to conserve known deposits which at that time were exceedingly small. Since then Queensland Mines Ltd has discovered uranium at Westmoreland, and this was followed by the discovery ot uranium at Nabarlek. The Peko-Wallsend Ltd and EZ Industries Ltd have discovered uranium at Ranger and, Noranda Australia Ltd has control of the uranium deposits at Jim Jim in the Northern Territory. It is significant that Noranda is the same company which now has considerable share interests in Queensland Mines uranium deposits at Nabarlek. Pancontinental Mining

Ltd has also made a strike between Nabarlek and Ranger, and it has signed a joint venture with the giant oil firm of Getty Oil. So, within a space of, say, 4 years Australia has emerged as a major potential exporter of uranium ore.

This whole matter highlights the urgent need for the adoption of positive policies concerning the control of our assets by foreign interests. We have seen some remarkable estimates made of the reserves at Nabarlek. The estimate of reserves began at 55,000 tons, then it dropped to, I think, 8,900 tons, and now it has risen to 10,500 tons. All this has had a very serious effect on the Australian stock market and on the company concerned. There is a need for an overhaul of banking policy and of foreign exchange controls as they relate to Australian investment overseas. I want to illustrate it in this way: We now see an absurd situation in which the rate of capital inflow into Australia is increasing. At the present time it is approximately $ 1,550m annually, yet the rate of capital outflow from Australia, although increasing, is at remarkably miserable levels. This year it is running at around $60m. The Government’s policy of deliberately bottle-necking the flow of foreign capital into Australia has of course allowed the Government to argue that the economy is in a strong and stable position. The Government always uses this argument to say that its balance of payments are, in fact, satisfactory and that the chronic deficit on current account is being balanced progressively by the increasing rate of capital inflow into Australia. This means that there is progressively a growing increase in the control of Australian assets by foreign countries. There are other examples of this in the mining field. There is the case of Nabarlek, or the associated company Queensland Mines Ltd. There are the discoveries of uranium by Pancontinental in the Jim Jim field in the East Alligator Creek area. In today’s newspapers, there is the example of inroads which have been made into Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nation.wide Transport Ltd, and Sir Reginald Ansett has raised the question of the extent of foreign capital which is contained in this particular holding. This situation affects Australian transport and Australian television.

I repeat that this Government’s foreign exchange policies are archaic and that it is deliberately encouraging the rate of foreign control of Australian resources. How many members of this Parliament realise that large Australian institutions are stopped from investing on overseas markets in companies operating in Australia? I believe that this is one of the basic flaws in our foreign exchange policy. For example, Australian institutions such as the Australian Mutual Provident Society should be able to invest on the stock markets at Wall Street or at Throgmorton Street in foreign companies operating in Australia because this is the way in which Australian institutions can gain a greater share for Australia in foreign companies operating in Australia. However, they are unable to do so because of regulations which have been in force in the post war years in Australia. I believe that the Government should be encouraging Australian institutions to invest in foreign companies operating in Australia. Mount Isa Mines Ltd is an example of this. No Australian institution can invest in the present company of Mount Isa Mines Ltd on foreign stock markets. It could be that they want to invest in the American Smelter and Refining Co. However, they cannot do so on a foreign stock exchange. They are forced to buy shares on the domestic market, and this is something which must be altered because if we are to achieve a greater share for Australia of the control of our assets, we must allow a two-way flow of capital instead of the one-way flow which now operates.

Exactly the same argument applies to our increasing volume of foreign reserves. Foreign reserves are used principally for settling our debts. They are accumulated year in and year out. They are basically under the control of the Reserve Bank and principally are invested in low interest returns in foreign countries. However, I believe it would be far better if the Government utilised those reserves either directly, to obtain a greater share of Aus.ralian assets held by foreign companies by purchasing securities on overseas stock markets or, alternatively, to allow Australian institutions to invest overseas in foreign companies operating in Australia.

Why should Australian institutions have to pay very much higher prices for Australian scrip at times of relative scarcity when they could buy into that same company by investing in New York or in London? Because of the foreign exchange controls, they are not able to do so. Economists throughout the nation are now referring to the immobility of our growing reserves of foreign currency.

There are a couple of questions which one could ask with respect to this ordinance. One which comes to mind is this: For how long will the Government allow temporary ownership in excess of 15 per cent by foreign interests? No mention is made of this. The argument put forward is that over a time this will go back to 15 per cent because it is a one-way traffic, as shares cannot be sold to foreign interests, they can be sold only to Australian interests. Of course, there is always the problem of defining what is an Australian interest. However, basically, the principal argument put forward is that, because of the large numbers of unregistered shares between the time the original ordinance was implemented and the present time, it was difficult to ascertain the overall percentage in relation to the total number of shares in Queensland Mines Ltd and Kathleen Investments Aust. Ltd. There is a definite need for an overhaul of Government policy with respect to foreign exchange in regard to Australian institutional investment overseas and, at the same time, there is a definite need for more positive guide lines to be set down relating to this Government’s future policy on the control of Australian assets.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I had not intended to enter into this discussion until I heard one or two comments which were made by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). I should make it clear at once that, under no circumstances, can this action be described as being indicative of the Government’s not taking proper steps to protect Australian assets. Indeed, as a result of the action which was taken, we have the ordinance before us today, and the action which was taken was the best possible way in which to protect Australian assets and the value of the shares in which Australians had invested.

Let me read this against the background of the Mineral Securities Australia Ltd crash because it is against that background that we must consider what has happened. If members of the House cast their minds back, they will remember that Minsec, an empire holding shares in many companies - controlling a number and owning a number - suddenly found itself bankrupt. At that stage, it had borrowed large sums of money and had given as collateral shares in the companies which it owned. So, there were a number of creditors throughout Australia who were fully secured, and a number who were not secured, who owned shares in a number of mineral companies which were substantially Australian companies.

In those circumstances, with the borrower having gone bankrupt, one would normally expect that the creditors would immediately take steps to recover the money owing to them by selling the shares that they held as collateral. This would have been the normal course of events. However, if that had happened, vast numbers of shares would have been thrown on the market at one time, the value of the shares on the stock exchange would have collapsed and, indeed, it would have been easy for overseas interests to buy shares at minimal prices because of the collapse of the market. I am not speaking of these particular shares which were protected but of a number of other companies in which shares were held. So, it was necessary for the Government to try to do what it could to prevent this occurring. Enough damage had already been done to overseas confidence, ft was essential that there should not be a crash in the value of the shares which were held by Minsec and which had been given as security for borrowings. That required a number of actions.

The first action which the Government thought it should take was to do all it could to expedite a plan worked out by a consortium led by Sir Val Duncan from overseas and supported by Mr Peter Looker of the stock exchange in Australia. It is necessary to see the plan in full detail to see how it did protect the ownership of Australian assets because what was proposed by these leaders of the consortium was that there should be a number of significant companies which should raise a sum of X millions of dollars and provide that to the Minsec Liquidator who would then pay off those who held the shares in collateral and the consortium would itself take those shares as collateral. But part of the agreement was that it would not keep those shares, tha’ the shares would be in the hands of the Liquidator to be sold in an orderly and progressive way and enable the capital sum proposed by the consortium to be repaid.

There could have been no better way ro protect Australian ownership in those shares or to protect the stock exchange value of those shares than that proposal. I remember calling together in Kirribilli a vast number of representatives of the financial world including the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Industries Development Corporation and a number of other significant companies in an endeavour to work out this plan. In fact the consortium’s plan did not come to fruition but what it did do was to secure time. Whilst those discussions were going on people were not panicking; people were not throwing their shares upon the market and there was no crash in the value of those shares. The Liquidator was able, T think partly as a result of this, to see that there was an orderly sale of the assets which Minsec had put out as collateral and there was not a collapse.

One of the parcels of shares with which we are concerned involves Kathleen Investments Australia L:d and Queensland Mines Ltd. They were protected by an ordinance, as the honourable member for Dawson has said, to the extent that overseas owners could not have more ‘han 15 per cent of those shares. The Liquidator sought to dispose of those shares, again at a fair and proper market price. Let us remember that there were a number of other share; in Australian hands and a crash of 15 per cent could well have affected the shares that still remained in Australian hands as far as value was concerned. So the Liquidator called for tenders. Noranda Australia acted in perfectly good faith throughout. It put in a bid. lt sought to ensure that it was not transgressing the ordinance. Noranda was told by the Government that if it did transgress the ordinance in a reasonable way for a reasonable time that was no reason why the whole deal should fall through. Well, it did transgress the ordinance - not by much, but it did. Therefore this new ordinance is necessary.

The only points I wish to make in this contribution are that read against the background of all that happened this is not an indication that the Government was not seeking to protect Australian ownership and assets. Ra’.her it is an indication that proper and successful steps were taken which did protect Australian ownership and assets and which in the course of time will return ownership even in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments to the IS per cent which is the utmost that was allowed. I do not concern myself with the general comments made by the honourable member for Dawson but I do say that the action taken here today is action taken to rectify a previous action which was to the benefit of Australia and for which I think the Government, Noranda and the liquidator ought to be congratulated.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

As far back as the last Budget debate in August I pointed out the ambiguous statement that appeared in the report of the Reserve Bank of Australia which was associated with the presentation of the Budget and which stated that Australia had been unable to manage its international monetary policy because of the large amount of inflow of capital from overseas. I noticed that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) observed upon that yesterday in his address to the Australian Mining Industry Council meeting held in Canberra. The previous Prime Minister when he was the Prime Minister, which is a considerable time ago, said that they had found that money seemed to be coming into Australia and going into property but this did not seem to be able to be taped. At long last the Government belatedly says that it is going to do something about it now and according to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) the Government is at the point of bringing down a document to this House which will deal with the situation. We are getting a bit tired of the presentation of documents that seem only to delay and not to decide. Surely it is time that something more fundamental was done.

I hope that we will learn from this kind of bitter experience. The bitterness arises from the fact that there is higher foreign ownership in these uranium deposits than was originally intended and in my view this is regrettable. I believe that for the most part a country should control its own natural resources. Particularly in these days when we are talking so much about ecology and the conservation of resources it is much more important for us to have a dominant say about the hole in the ground, and this surely it what is at stake in this issue. I hope that whilst it may be we will have to bow to the inevitable on this occasion there will be more action and that we will get guidelines that really guide instead of merely camouflage, as seems to be the case.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I have just a few words to say on this matter. I did not know that it was being raised today. I was the first to raise this matter in the

House during 1970. There are just one or two points I would like to make in reference to what the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has said. The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) said:

When the level of foreign holdings falls below 15 per cent the Ordinance will operate as originally intended and transfers will be permitted up to but not beyond the 15 per cent announced by the Government in 1970.

There is no indication that any of these foreign holdings will disappear below 15 per cent. In fact the companies that are holding shares in either of these 2 companies - Queensland Mines Ltd and Kathleen Investments Australia Ltd - would not be prone to sell the shares considering the fact that the whole situation in regard to the sale of uranium in Australia is in a very fluid position. With the Government talking about enrichment plants, agreements with Japan and possible sales of uranium to Japan, these companies would not be selling any of their shares to bring down their level of holdings below IS per cent. The other matter I wish to raise relates to page 7 of the typescript of the Minister’s statement. It says that shares held in excess of 15 per cent under this special arrangement will have normal voting rights and their holders will be able to participate in any new general share issues by virtue of their holdings in these shares. If the whole purpose of the Minsec exercise was to keep the value of the shares at a realistic level then the Government should not have allowed the debt reconstruction of Minsec to take place at the expense of permitting foreign equity in the two companies mentioned in the Ordinance to exceed the stipulated 15 per cent with full voting rights on holdings over the 15 per cent. Why should the foreign companies have voting rights on the additional 6 per cent? What it really means is that foreign companies have 21 per cent of the equity of the 2 companies mentioned in the ordinance and who can say that they are going to sell the additional equity to bring it below 15 per cent? On top of that, major decisions could be made in this period on the power vested in the voting rights on the extra 6 per cent. If the Government were sincere about this matter it would allow companies to hold the equity in the 6 per cent but would deny them voting rights on the 6 per cent. The Minister’s statement said that in any general share issues, by virtue of their holdings in these new shares, they are able to take up any new shareholdings. That also is unreasonable. I think the Minister should recognise this, by amending the ordinance so that foreign companies can have the 6 per cent but not have voting rights on the 6 per cent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 895

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

(4.23)- I move:

That the. Bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, you will remember that at question time I asked the Foreign Minister (Mr N. H. Bowen), who represents the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in this House, whether the Government would be adopting this Bill or, alternatively, whether it would, without adopting the Bill, allow a debate and a vote on it. The honourable gentleman said it was not appropriate to answer a matter like this in question time. I took my time to rise to see whether any Minister were himself minded to rise. Since no Minister rose, there would have been no debate on this Bill unless somebody in the Opposition had risen. I am therefore taking the same action as I had to take on 5th June 1963.

There is a rumour going round the place - a feeling - that the Government will adjourn this debate. If it does so there will be a twofold travesty of the parliamentary process. It is well known that a majority of members of this House are in favour of this Bill. Therefore, if no vote is taken, this legislation which most of us want will be aborted for the lifetime of this Parliament. The other reason for my saying that there would be a travesty of the parliamentary process if this debate is adjourned today is that this Bill has been passed by the Senate. It would be a very cavalier action indeed for the other House of the Parliament to shelve a Bill which had been passed by the Senate. It is true that the Bill was introduced by my colleague Senator Murphy in the Senate. It could not, however, have been passed merely with the support of Senator Murphy and my other colleagues in the Senate. It was passed because there were some members of the other 3 parties in the Senate and some Independent members in the Senate who supported my colleagues. Accordingly, one House of the Parliament has passed this Bill. It would surely, therefore, be a travesty if this House were not at least to consider the Bill, to debate it and to vote on it.

The travesty would be compounded by the fact that the whole process took place also 4 years ago. I do not propose to give reasons for passing the Bill. I have spoken on this subject 3 times in the House. In November I960 I moved in the Committee stage of the Crimes Bill that life imprisonment be substituted for the death penalty in the places where that Bill provided for the death penalty. My amendment was defeated on Party lines. In September 1963 in the Committee stage of the Crimes (Aircraft) Bill I moved to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty. My amendment was defeated on Party lines. In June 1968 I had to speak, as I am now, on the second reading of this same Bill which had abo just been passed by the Senate. There is no need therefore for me to give reasons a fourth time for the abolition of capital punishment. There are many social issues, as they are often regarded or described, where there can be strong differences of opinion in political parties and where the path to reform - reform may be either by way of relaxing or tightening the laws - lies in a free vote. My Party has not supported the idea of a free vote on the death penalty because the death penalty is a decision which depends on governments. Everybody knows that while there are many statutes which impose the death penalty in the case of conviction, and therefore where the judge has no option but to impose the death penalty, in all such cases the government of the day considers whether that penalty will be implemented. The usual practice is for the death penalty to be commuted to a term of life imprisonment or a term of a fixed number of years.

Mr Chipp:

– How does the honourable gentleman reconcile that with the attitude to a vote on a conscience issue?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I was aiming to do that by drawing a distinction between some matters which are regarded or described as conscience issues and where it is proper and practical for members of a political party to vote in different ways, and on the other hand a case like this where the decision is made by a government as to whether the death penalty is to be imposed. But there are many conscience issues where the Government does not make the decision - where a parliament makes laws to which citizens will apply themselves. But in the case of a death penalty, there can scarcely be a more drastic decision of state. Therefore, my Party has always taken the attitude that in this matter it should declare a collective and public policy. Anybody knows that under a Labor government no death penalty will be imposed. We believe that it is correct to let the public know how we in government would administer the most drastic decision that any government can make, apart, of course, from a declaration of war. So we have taken this attitude. I believe it is a proper and a logical one.

I have not objected to interjections by Ministers who are attending this debate because it is known, and I believe very much to their credit, that the present gentlemen who hold the portfolios of the Treasury, Customs and Excise, and External Territories have long espoused the view that the death penalty under Commonwealth statutes should be abolished. Also I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) holds this view. I saw the Prime Minister during a television interview express his own, I think he said, unchallengeable objection to the death penalty. Therefore there is a widespread feeling in the Liberal Party in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. It is for this reason that I have said that a majority of members in this House are in favour of abolishing the death penalty; it is for that reason-

Mr Turner:

– Then why cannot we all have a free vote? Assuming that the majority wishes instead of some being compelled, let us prove by a free vote that there is a majority and some are not being compelled.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable gentleman has gone on record by motions in this House in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. All the honourable gentlemen who have interjected are restive at the fact that there is not at this stage a free vote allowed by their colleagues in this House as a free vote has been allowed them in the Senate. I believe it is not too sharp a word to say that it is spurious for members of the Liberal Party to say that they need to consider this matter before they can vote in the House of Representatives when they have twice - earlier this month and 4 years before - been free to vote on this matter in the Senate. Are we to believe that the Liberal Party is free to vote on this matter in the Senate but not free to vote on it in the House of Representatives? Are we to believe that the Liberal Party made up its mind that its members were free to vote on this matter in the Senate but requires time to make up its mind on whether its members are free to vote in the House of Representatives?

Some of he finest arguments that I have ever read for the abolition of the death penalty were put in the Senate last year. If I may single out one particular speech, I would like to say tha’. I have not heard a more humane and logical presentation of the arguments flowing from long consideration of this matter than were given by Senator Carrick. So I do not believe it is necessary to give the arguments in favour of abolishing the death penalty. I do, however, propose to give some of the arguments why a vote should be taken. I believe, as I say, it would be a travesty if the will of the majority of this House was to be disregarded and if the decision of the Senate were similarly to be disregarded. We all know that the Senate’s decision would be supported by the majority of the House now as it probably would have been 4 years ago.

Mr Chipp:

– Does the honourable gentleman not concede that if 5 members from this side crossed the floor and voted with the Opposition and 5 members, say, of the Opposition were agains! the Bill this would be a false and distorted vote of the House? That is our problem.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have never heard it alleged that there are more than 2 members in the present Opposition who are in favour of the death penalty. I have heard it alleged that there are at least 12 members of the Liberal Party who are in favour of the abolition of the death pen alty. The honourable gentlemen who keep interjecting are under very great stress on this matter. They have done their best to get the same freedom of vote in this House as has been accorded to their colleagues in the Senate. I have given my reason-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There have been far too many interjections coming from my right this afternoon. I request honourable members to cease interjecting.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have mentioned 2 Bills which went through this House and where amendments to abolish the death penalty were defeated on party lines. If a Bill is introduced a vote can always be secured. The Bill does not go through unless a vote is taken on any amendment.

It is very likely that when I and the honourable member seconding the motion have finished, the adjournment of the debate will be moved and in that case there will be no expression of opinion from any Minister or in fact from any member of the Government Par’ies on this subject. It would be possible for anybody in the Opposition on an alternate Thursday morning during General Business to bring in a Bill to abolish the death penalty. This is the course of which I gave no ice in 1968. It was overtaken by the fact that the Senate dealt with a similar notice more promptly. The Bill was passed in the Senate and came to this House.

The advantage of having a private members’ Bill on alternate Thursdays would at least be that somebody on the Government side would have to rise and express a view. The normal thing would be for a Minister to do so. The net result might be the same because there would be no vote. For instance, since June 1970 there has been no resumption of debate and no vote on my Adulthood Bill. Since August 1970 there has been no resumption of debate and no vote on my Territory Senators Bill. If this matter were raised on a Thursday at least there would be an expression of opinion.

The course which seems likely to be adopted today is that there will not be an expression of opinion in this House and that the matter will remain undebated and undetermined on the Notice Paper until the Parliament is dissolved for this year’s elections. That is what happened between

June 1968 and October 1969. It is therefore a course which 1 want to expose at this stage.

It is not only the 2 Bills which I have mentioned in which the death penalty is imposed under Commonwealth laws or within Commonwealth jurisdiction.

It might be thought that this issue and so many of the issues described as social issues are not of great relevance to this Parliament; that they are principally within the jurisdiction of State parliaments. To correct this impression I would therefore seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter which the Secretary of the Department of Defence sent to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of the Senate on 9th November. This letter sets out the provisions of the Australian Defence Act, and the Naval Defence Acts the Air Force Acts and the Army Acts of Britain which are incorporated within the laws applying to Australian forces and also raises the issue of the Geneva Conventions. I believe it would be a useful summary of the extent to which the death penalty can still be imposed by civil courts or courts martial. It would therefore fall within the scope of this Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

P.O. Box 33, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Telephone 65 9111 In reply quote: 71/2968 9th November 1971

The Secretary Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600

Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1970

I refer to your letter of 3rd November 1971.

Members of the Defence Force, who, after trial by courts martial, have been convicted of certain offences can be sentenced to death. Particulars of these offences are set out below.

Section 96 of the Defence Act, which applies to ail three services, provides that every person, tried by court martial for an offence for which the punishment is death, shall, unless the exigencies of the time preclude it, be defended by counsel provided at the expense of the Commonwealth.

Section 98 of that Act which likewise applies to all three Services, provides that no member of the Defence Force may be sentenced to death by a court martial except for mutiny, desertion to the enemy, traitorously delivering up to the enemy any garrison, fortress, post, guard, or ship, vessel or boat or aircraft, or traitorous correspondence with the enemy. The section further provides that such sentence shall not be carried out until confirmed by the Governor-General.

The Defence Act contains no provisions creating offences for which the penalty is death. These offences are created in the bodies of law which apply separately to each of the three Services.

By virtue of Section 34 of the Naval Defence Act, the Naval Discipline Act 1957 of the United Kingdom, subject to adaptations, is applied in the Royal Australian Navy. The offences which, under the latter Act as modified, carry the death penalty are:

Section 2: Misconduct in action by persons in command with intent to aid the enemy;

Section 3: Misconduct in action by other officers and men;

Section 4: Obstruction of operations;

Section 5: Corresponding with, supplying or serving with the enemy;

Section 9: Mutiny;

Section 10: Failure to suppress mutiny with intent to assist the enemy;

Section 42: Civil offences (contrary to the law of England) of treason or murder.

Sections 54 and 55 of the Defence Act apply to members of the Military Forces at any time serving overseas, and at all times during war, the provisions of the Army Act (UK) as it was at the date of its repeal in 1956 but subject to amendments affected to it by Australian Military Regulations.

Under this legislation the offences carrying the death penalty are:

Section 4: Traitorously delivering up to the enemy a garrison, fortress, post or guard or traitorous correspondence with the enemy;

Section 7: Mutiny or failure to suppress mutiny.

A problem of some complexity, and to which no close consideration has been given, is raised by the provisions of Parts I and II of the Geneva Conventions Act, and the provisions of Section 41 of the Army Act, when read together in the light of Section 98 of the Defence Act.

Section 8 of the Air Force Act applies to the Royal Australian Air Force the Air Force Act 1939 of the United Kingdom, as adapted.

  1. Under sections 4, 6 and 7 of the latter Act numerous offences committed in the face of the enemy, or treacherously or involving mutiny or sedition are made the subject of the death penalty.

In all three Services there are provisions of an administrative nature, for example, requiring certain majorities of the members of a court martial to agree upon it, before imposing a sentence of death. Moreover, in the list of available punishments, death, as such is stated. Additionally. Section 59 of the Courts Martial Appeal Act suspends the execution of death sentences until expiration of times fixed for making appeals or the exhaustion of all avenues of appeal.

The Geneva Convention Act applies to all three Services, which apparently, may be applied by courts martial.

Section 24 of the Crimes Act applies to all and the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970, in its own terms, extends to all Commonwealth places, including defence establishments, all State laws carrying the death penalty.

Likewise the provisions of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 and the Crimes (Overseas) Act 1964 can extend in particular to service personnel, but the offences thereunder are not as such triable by courts martial.

H. TANGE, Secretary.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) was the last of us to raise the abolition of the death penalty. He raised it in the context of the military code which is pending. This code illustrates the delay and the difficulty in this matter. At present under Australian legislation and under incorporated imperial legislation the death penalty can be imposed. On 30th November 1965 the then Acting Minister for Defence stated that legislation would be introduced at the earliest practicable date to replace applied imperial legislation in conjunction with the general review of defence legislation. On 28th April 1966 the then Minister for Defence, Mr Fairhall, said that the Government was making the most extraordinary efforts to bring the military code right up to date. He said that the plan was to introduce the legislation in the first session of the, new Parliament. On 25th September 1970 the then Minister for Defence, Mr Malcolm Fraser, said that he was hopeful that this legislation might be introduced in that session. He said:

The number of important decisions that the Government had to take before drafting could proceed were decided by the Government very early in this calendar year.

On 26th August last year the honourable member for Berowra asked the next Minister for Defence, Mr Fairbairn:

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

The, Minister replied:

  1. . there are still a number of major policy decisions which will have to be made.

Then he stated:

A number of policy decisions will have to be made and the one on the death penalty, which the honourable member has mentioned, is obviously one decision which will have to be made by the Government.

It is extraordinarily difficult to understand why Mr Fraser on 25th September 1970 should say that the number of important decisions that the Government had to take were decided very early that year when 11 months later Mr Fairbairn stated that a number of major policy decisions would still have to be made. The Government has had 7 years to consider this matter since there was last a vote upon it in the House. The honourable member for Berowra on 20th August last asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General this question upon notice:

When may a decision be expected on the question whether the death penalty should be abolished for offences against Commonwealth law, other than the offence of treason.

The Attorney-General sent this reply on 11th November:

The Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1970 introduced in the Senate was, on 13th October 1971, referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. Further consideration will be given to the matter as soon as that Committee has made its report.

That answer was given on 11th November last year to a question which the honourable member placed on notice on 20th August last year. This Bill was read a first time in the Senate on 22nd April 1970. It was referred to the Standing Committee on 13 th October 1971. The Committee’s report was given in the Senate on 2nd December. In these circumstances the Government is trifling with this matter. It is 3i months since the Government got this report, which it pleaded it had to consider before it would decide its attitude on the question of abolishing the death penalty. To delay this matter further is, as I have said, a travesty of the parliamentary process. It is trifling with the members of both Houses. The present Government, successive Ministers for Defence and successive Attorneys-General have considered both these matters - the abolition of the death penalty in the civil and the military context - for 7 years. It is true that the Government voted against abolition in 1960 and voted against it again in 1963, but for 7 years under 4 Prime Ministers the military code has given it an opportunity to consider this matter further. I dare say a degree or face is involved because, in contrast lo Attorney-General Snedden and Attorney-General Hughes, AttorneyGeneral Greenwood has come out very strongly in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. One never knew where Attorney-General Bowen stood on the matter when he was first Attorney-General or when he was restored for a second term.

Mr Chipp:

– Attorney-General Greenwood was not in favour of abolition.

Mr Hughes:

– The Leader of the Opposition meant ‘retention’ not ‘abolition’.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Thank you. 1 know that the honourable member for Berowra, as Attorney-General, wanted to abolish it and that other Ministers who have interjected similarly did. It appears that the present Attorney-General is doing all he can in the Ministry, albeit outside the Cabinet, to delay this matter coming to a decision in this House as he attempted by every means to delay it coming to a decision in the Senate.

Mr McMahon:

– Excuse me. I wonder whether 1 can correct you because I think you have us all in a bit of a mix-up. You said that the present Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, was doing all he could to abolish the death penalty.

Mr WHITLAM:

– To retain it, I meant.

Mr McMahon:

– Probably you did. f cannot quite understand what you are talking about. Then you talked about former Ministers in a wrong context, too, so I think you had better let us know what you mean.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am glad that the rig’:t honourable gentleman has returned to the House. I did say earlier that I had seen him on television when he said that he had an unalterable objection, I think it was, to imposing the death penalty. That is so, is it not?

Mr McMahon:

– For murder.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I did not know that the Prime Minister qualified it.

Mr McMahon:

– 1 cannot remember it now either. In all the time that I have been here and have heard this question of the death penalty raised in Cabinet-

Mr WHITLAM:

– You have always been against imposing it.

Mr McMahon:

– I have always ensured that it has not been carried out.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Exactly. I had acknowledged that before the right honourable gentleman came into the House, as I had also acknowledged that Ministers who had been here throughout the debate, such as the Treasurer, the Minister for Customs and Excise, the Minister for External Territories, the former Attorney-General - the honourable and learned member for Berowra - and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), have all made it plain by statements inside the House and outside it, by questions and by motions, that they favour the abolition of the death penalty.

Mr Brown:

– And some others.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I applaud this. I add the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) to the honourable list.

Mr McMahon:

– I am sorry to interject again. I wanted to point out the position of Senator Greenwood and other Ministers or former Ministers involved, but the honourable member has corrected himself now and I do not ask for any further explanation.

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 appreciate the Prime Minister’s courtesy. I had said that AttorneysGeneral Snedden and Hughes had been in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Attorney-General Greenwood was in favour of retaining it. Nobody knew the attitude of Attorney-General Bowen in either of his terms.

Since the Prime Minister is now in the House, let me sum up. A majority of members of the House of Representatives are in favour of abolishing the death penalty insofar as this Parliament can achieve that objective. The Senate has again, as it did 4 years ago, voted in favour of abolishing the death penalty insofar as this Parliament can achieve that objective. In the Senate, members of the Liberal Party and the other Parties were given a free vote and some of them voted with members of the Labor Party to pass this Bill, as they did 4 years ago. I said it would be a travesty of the parliamentary process if the majority will of this House were to be avoided or to be frustrated by adjourning debate on this Bill as it was adjourned 4 years ago. It would be a travesty of the parliamentary process if, for a second time, as 4 years ago, the will of the Senate were not even to come up for debate and a vote in this place. If either House passes a Bill the least that the other House can do is to express a view upon it. In these circumstances I believe that we should vote against adjourning this matter. Since 1965 successive Ministries, successive Ministers for Defence, have had to consider this matter of the death penalty under Australian legislation and incorporated Imperial legislation.

This matter was considered before the Senate voted on it. The Government pleaded that it was being considered by a Senate committee. The Senate committee made its report on 2nd December last. The excuse that the Government had to wait for the Senate committee’s report was given 3 months after a question was asked about it by the honourable member for Berowra. It is now 3i months since the report was tabled in the Senate. I believe that the Government has had time to discuss this matter. I believe that the House should be allowed to express its will on this matter. We all know that no death penalty imposed in the courts under Commonwealth or incorporated Imperial legislation will, in fact, be imposed. It is making a farce of the law to have a dead letter remain on the statute books.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I second the motion and speak now rather than reserving my right to speak later because it does seem likely that the House will adjourn this debate and not allow this matter to come on for proper investigation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) at great length went into the question of the need for a vote on this matter. The only reason for an adjournment at this time surely can be that there are members of this House who have not adequately considered their position. They would have to be almost in the position of a lawyer saying: ‘I am taken by surprise’. Honourable members are politicians. They are parliamentarians and I am certain that all honourable members have had this matter raised with them time and time again in different places and have expressed views on it. All members have considered it. They would not be worthy of their places here if they had not done so. I judged from the interjections - friendly in a sense - of some of the supporters on the Government side when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking that they were concerned about the situation that the Labor Party would vote as a Party and that members of the Government Parties might not vote as a Party. So what? What difference does that make? Think of it for a moment. All it means is that members of the Labor Party have put their heads together, their minds together, and have reached an agreement as a Party on this issue.

Mr Bryant:

– They did so in 1922.

Mr ENDERBY:

– They did so as long ago as 1922, as the honourable member for Wills reminds me. They have agreed on this question. They are united. If they want to vote that way, what is wrong with it? Why cannot Liberal Party and Country Party members treat this question the same way? If they do not want to treat it that way, do not treat it as a Party vote but as a matter of conscience because that may well be what it should be. At least there would be an expression of the will of this House if it were treated that way. If this matter is adjourned after the 7 years referred to it by the Leader of the Opposition, not only is it a tragedy and a travesty of the processes of this House but also it is further evidence of the progressive decline of the Parliament. Nothing can be more important than whether the state is to execute people convicted of crimes. I think that the Leader of the Opposition said that this is of as much importance as is a declaration of war. It is the right to take human life, when it is exercised by the state. Nothing can be more important and yet everything about this debate, if it can be called a debate, gives the appearance that this matter will go no further but will be buried again because Liberal Party members and Country Party members prefer not to stand up and be counted and prefer not to express themselves and declare themselves on this matter which they must have considered. They want to run away from it. The abolition of the death penalty has been a progressive tendency in all civilised nations throughout the last 1,000 years or more.

Having spoken on the question of why this matter should go to a vote and tried to get rid of this red herring about one side of the House not having it as a Party vote and the other side having it as a Party vote, and having tried to illustrate the irrelevance of that argument, let me now make a few points on the question of capital punishment. The Leader of the Opposition did not do this and one can understand why, because it has been canvassed so often and the arguments are so well known. When I learned over the weekend that this matter would probably come up for debate today, I asked the research section of the Parliamentary Library to give me some reading material on this subject to refresh my mind and to enable me to prepare a speech. I was given a list of books that had I taken them I could not have jumped over them. There would have been no way in the world for me to read them, but they are all in the Parliamentary Library. Every argument has been canvassed and it comes down to this: Some people believe that it is necessary to have the death penalty as a deterrent; others say that that is nonsense and it is sheer old fashioned retribution - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; ‘It makes me feel better. If he hurts or kills someone. I will hurt or kill him too’.

Irrespective of whether there is any social mechanism or social justice behind it or social engineering or anything of that son, it is old fashioned retribution and that surely is the basis for the death penalty. If it is tested by reference to the principle of deterrence, it does not apply. Every modern piece of writing on the principle of deterrence points out that it does not work. It does not work because the average person about to commit a crime does not believe he will be caught. The principle of deterrence applies only if there is a certainty of being caught and brought to justice. To that principle we can add the fact that in cases of murder, which is what one normally is talking about in a debate of this nature, the overwhelming majority of murders - perhaps 95 to 97 per cent - result from domestic problems. They arise on? of a domes: ic issue - jealousy, passion and feelings of that sort - where the idea of retribution does not come into it at all. It never occurs to the person who suddenly slashes out at a wife or husband who falls against a wall, fractures a skull and dies that there is a law against murder and that the person may be imprisoned for life or sentenced to death. That consideration does not come into it. If honourable members look through the records they will find that this is the position. I reinforce this argument with one small piece of material that I acquired. It is a succinct statement of the position. It docs not appear in a learned journal but in the 1969 edition of ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’. It makes the point the imprisoned murderers are among the best behaved prisoners and they rarely commit new crimes, almost never a new homicide, if released. The article states:

Though very rare, homicides in prison by murderers, whose death sentences were commuted, have been known, but the vast majority of such crimes are committed by prisoners serving sentences for crimes other than homicide, and when prisoners serving sentences for robbery, burglary, or theft are paroled they are later convicted of new crimes 10 to 15 times more often than are paroled murderers.

I think it goes without saying largely, that in studying whether the crime of murder is prevented by the threat of the death pen:alty, the results in countries which have the death penalty should be examined. For example, most States of the United States of America have the death penalty on their statute books, yet that country has probably one of the most violent communities that the world has ever known. The homicide rate in that great country is far higher than it is in any other country in the world, and the presence of the death penalty does not alter that fact. I will cite some figures taken from the article to which 1 referred earlier. In the United States data on this subject have been systematically compiled since 1930. In the period from 1930 to 1965 some 3,856 persons were executed - nearly 4,000 persons in that period. Of that number 3,332 were executed for murder, 455 for rape. 24 for armed robbery, 20 for kidnapping, 11 for burglary, 8 for espionage and 6 for aggravated assault. The threat of the death penalty did not prevent the murder rate remaining at the highest in the world, by far.

It is an odd fact that in the United States such executions have largely stopped since 1966 or 1967 as a result of a campaign by certain types of civil liberties lawyers, to whom I will refer in more detail in a moment if 1 have time. I will tell honourable members of another example to prove my point that the death penalty as a deterrent has very little, if anything, to do with the crime rate. A month ago I asked a question of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) dealing with the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment in the Australian Capital Territory, with a population of about 150,000, and the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment in the Northern Territory, with a population half of that of the Australian Capital Territory. The criminal laws in essence are the same in both Territories, as are the punishments in terms of capital punishment as a deterrent and things of that sort. I discovered that whereas about 110 persons go to gaol annually in the Australian Capital Territory for one reason or another, nearly 17 times that number annually go to gaol in the Northern Territory, although it has about half the population of the Australian Capital Territory. Is that because there is no deterrent in the Northern Territory? In a moment I will discuss the aspect of murder in that context. Is it because the Northern Territory does not have the death penalty and the Australian Capital Territory does? No, because they both have the death penalty.

Over the last 5 years 4 persons were convicted of murder and/or manslaughter in the Australian Capita] Territory, one of whom was convicted for murder. In the Northern Territory in that period 22 persons were convicted of murder and/or manslaughter, or nearly 6 times as many as were convicted in the Australian Capital Territory under the same law, as far as a deterrent is concerned. The figures for the Northern Territory do not show the number convicted for murder. All sorts of explanations might be advanced for the difference. It could be suggested that the Aboriginal problem is relevant, or all sorts of things could be raised. I accept that there is a different social situation and that is the reason for the higher crime rate in the Northern Territory. It has nothing to do with deterrent penalties. I suggest that people who apply that line of argument will ultimately be driven to the conclusion that a deterrent penalty has little to do with the difference. To argue otherwise is to make a barbarian of yourself. If we as members of this Parliament lake it upon ourselves to say that the Commonwealth Parliament will make a law or will allow a law to continue that contains provision for the execution of people, it is not enough for us to say that we do not actually carry it out. It might be carried out. If it is not carried out, it has other consequences.

I see that the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) is sitting opposite. He or any trial lawyer would understand the point 1 am about to make. A little while ago I represented in the Australian Capital Territory a person on trial for murder. This was before I became a politician. There was great difficulty in getting a judge to preside over that murder trial. A judge said to me that judges did not want to sit on a murder trial and possibly expose themselves to having to impose the death penalty.

Mr Graham:

– Why not?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Because they disagree with it. lt had the consequence of reducing the choice of judges available. Alternatively - I would hate to think that this was correct - it might also have meant that the residue of judges available from the panel would not volunteer but would conduct the trial and would even relish it. I am not saying that is so, but that possibility is open. I remind honourable members that at that time Canberra had one resident judge, the others coming from the Commonwealth Industrial Court. In that particular case, when the jury was empanelled, a young lady juror asked the trial judge about the penalty. The charge had been laid and she knew that it was murder. She asked whether the penalty for murder in the Australian Capital Territory was death. The trial judge said that it was. She then said: ‘I could not possibly sit on this jury.

I would be prejudiced. I would not in any way be able to direct my mind to the real issues in this case because I would be so prejudiced and I would have so much sympathy for the accused, whether he did it or not, that I would not be able to consider the evidence objectively.’

The judge discharged that juror, leaving

II persons to try the case. This may seem a little irrelevant, but the fact is that the judge’s attention was then drawn to a technical rule of the Australian Capital Territory which meant that the whole jury had to be discharged. The accused person had been brought there on penalty and under threat of trial as a result of which his life could have been at stake. The judge was then asked to release the accused on bail. The accused was not released, of course, because of the nature of the charge. He remained in custody for another three or four months, as 1 remember it, until another jury was empanelled.

When the second jury was empanelled, no-one objected about the penalty as the young lady had done previously, but who is to know whether the second jury contained people who similarly were influenced by the penalty? It is widely known that in the Australian Capital Territory the penalty for murder is death. The accused was acquitted on the ground of insanity. Who can say with any degree of confidence that the finding of that jury was not influenced by the fact that had it not found him not guilty on the ground of insanity he might have been executed? Who is to know whether some amongst them said: ‘We do not believe in executions or the death penalty’?

I have told that story to draw attention to the uncertainty and prejudice that can creep into the judicial system when the death penalty is clouding it all the time. I do not have very much time left, but I would like to refer to the. extremely long history of the struggle to abolish the death penalty that has brought us to this stage. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has referred to the period of 7 years in which, in one way or another, the death penalty has been the concern of this House. I have said that the matter should not be put off again until some time in the future, because the world is changing. We do not have to go back to the start of the age of enlightenment, to Beccaria, Romilly Bentham. Voltaire, and Montesquieu and all those other people who were the foundation pioneers in the campaign to abolish this barbaric penalty.

The most recent decision on which I have been able to lay my hands came to my attention last weekend. It is reported in the weekly review of the ‘New York Times’. It refers to a decision of the Supreme Court of California that is not yet available in this country. The Parliamentary Library has tried to get it for me, without success, but the ‘New York Times’ is such a reputable newspaper that I am sure honourable members will agree with the facts as it has reported them. The decision concerned is of perhaps the most prestigious State court of the United States. About a month ago by a majority decision of 6 to 1 the Californian Supreme Court decided that the section of the Constitution of California relating to cruel or unusual punishments - it is copied from the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution - meant in effect that the death penalty could not be imposed in California. Six judges of that very prestigious, esteemed and responsible United States court struck down a California State law on the ground that it infringed the Californian Constitution.

Honourable members might ask what that has to do with us. I suggest that it has this to do with us: That court was considering what is meant by ‘cruel or unusual punishment’. In a 6 to 1 majority judgment written by a judge who was appointed specifically because he was thought to be hard on this line and in favour of retention of capital punishment, Mr Justice White, the court held that the death penalty was both cruel and unusual, that it was unnecessary to any legitimate goal of the State and that it was incompatible with the dignity of man and the judicial process.

It is my understanding that since about 1967 no executions have been carried out in the United States of America, with a whole mass of appeals lodged and pending hearing in the United States Supreme Court. This is the latest little bit of weight that has been put onto the scales and I can only suggest that honourable members opposite get with the trend and do not let the debate on this Bill be adjourned. They should make up their minds now. They have had heaven knows how long to think about it. If the matter is buried now it will be the shame of this Parliament. A decision has to be made and if honourable members opposite do not think that capital punishment should be abolished they can move an amendment. They have that right. They can do it that way if they are not prepared to go along with clause 3 in its entirety which states:

A person shall not be liable to the punishment of death for any offence.

I think that is a very noble sentiment and almost one which should be written up on the walls of this House. If honourable members opposite do not go along with it. and want to qualify it in some way they can do so. They can try to make an exception in the case of treason or some other offence if they want to, but do not just shelve this Bill. Do not just sweep it under the carpet. In the fina] minute or so that I have left I want to quote something to which my attention has been drawn. I apologise for my speech being too much pro-American or for the sources being American, but there was a great American trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow. who wrote an introduction to a history of capital punishment written by John Laurence. Darrow said:

In the end, this question is simply one of the humane feelings against the brutal feelings. One who fii.es to see suffering; out of what he thinks is a righteous indignation, or any other, will hold fust to capita] punishment. One who has sympathy, imagination, kindness and understanding, will hate it and detest it as he hates and detests death.

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

– by leave - This matter is one of great importance and involves high moral principles. I am sure that my feelings on this matter are just as strong as those of most honourable members but there are many points of difference in relation to the degree to which this matter should be taken. At the outset 1 would like to correct the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on a matter of procedure. He said that he had paused for a moment to see whether a Minister would rise to take the Bill and that as no Minister rose he then rose because otherwise the Bill perhaps would be missed. The position is that when it was known that the Bil] was coming over to this House from the Senate I naturally received advice on the correct procedure, as we do in all cases like this.

My advice was that in the case of Government Bills coming from the Senate it is not unusual for a Minister to move after the first reading that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I am advised, however, that any such motion by a Minister in relation to a private member’s Bill would be contrary to practice. The standard practice would be for the Opposition to move the second reading forthwith and, as a private mem- ber’s Bill must be seconded, the seconder could also choose to speak immediately. On the last occasion when a similar Bill in relation to the abolition of the death penalty was received in the House from the Senate this course was followed. This is the procedure which has been followed today. I knew that the Leader of the Opposition was going to move a motion and that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) would second it. The contribution by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory was a very sound one which I am sure will be carefully considered by all honourable members. However. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition was perhaps a little embarrassed by the fact that the Bill originated from Senator Murphy in another place. I am sorry to say that he introduced a slight air of politics into a debate which concerns everyone individually on very strong moral grounds.

The point is that when a Bill Ls introduced by the Government, whether it originates here or comes from the Senate, the procedure is that the Minister introduces it, takes it through the first reading stage to the second reading stage, moves the second reading and makes a speech. The Opposition then normally moves the adjournment of the debate. This often occurs in relation to matters of Government business which are known of for some considerable time. In fact, policy statements could be made many months before hand so that the subject matter of the Bill is known before the Bill is introduced. However, it is a matter of practice in this House that when a Bill is introduced on that basis it is not proceeded with at the time. The debate is adjourned and this gives the Opposition Caucus an opportunity to study the Bill. The Bill then goes onto the notice paper in the order of priority which is decided by the Government and is debated in accordance with the priority which it is given on the notice paper. 1 suggest in this case that this is a matter of great importance in which there are great moral issues involved. The Bill has come from the Senate. As the Leader of the Opposition has said there have been Bills and debates on this subject in the past as well as a study of it by a Senate committee, but this particular Bill was received in the House only when you, Mr Speaker, announced it as the subject of a message from the Senate this afternoon. Of course, it is obvious that the Government Parties will need time to look at this Bill and not only to study it in its present context but also to make an examination of the very important matters of a general nature that are involved. The Government will arrange for the matter to be brought up for discussion at a joint meeting of the Government Parties and any decision or any matter emerging from that discussion will be made known.

Mr Whitlam:

– How soon will it be listed?

Mr SWARTZ:

– I cannot indicate this because I am not in control of the Party meetings, but the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has given me an assurance that the matter will be raised at a meeting of the joint Government parties for discussion. In view of these circumstances and the fact that the Opposition expects the Government, when it introduces a Bill, to extend the courtesy of not having to proceed with the second reading debate immediately, I am sure that the Government can expect the same courtesy from the Leader of the Opposition in this case. Because the Bill has been introduced only today the debate should be adjourned to give the Government Parties an opportunity to study not only the Bill but also associated matters. Therefore, having stated that and having indicated that the Government Parties will be considering this matter generally at a future meeting I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– The correct procedure is that the Minister should ask for leave to continue his remarks at a later stage because the Standing Orders provide that the debate shall be adjourned.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I seek such leave.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The question now is that the debate be now adjourned and the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, of the contrary ‘no’.

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the Opposition will have to record his vote against the question because no division can take place. As the honourable member well knows, standing order 218 says that the debate shall be adjourned. I think that I ruled in this way on the last occasion this question arose. I think that the only action which the Leader of the Opposition can take in this matter is to move for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Standing order 218 says that the debate shall be adjourned.

However, the Clerk has now pointed out to me - and it is something I had overlooked - that leave was granted to the Leader of the House to continue the debate, and in those circumstances the Leader of the Opposition may vote against the motion for the adjournment of the debate. I will put the question again, if the Leader of the Opposition likes.

Mr Whitlam:

– And I will say no.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is right, and if the Leader of the Opposition wants a division he can have one.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will say yes to that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: ‘That the debate be now adjourned’.

Question put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 49

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 907

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH SOUTH EAST ASIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) proposing that a definite matter of public importance - Order! I think honourable members are displaying great rudeness. I am half way through reading a letter which I have received from an honourable member and other honourable members are chattering around the chamber and walking in and out of the chamber. I think it is time some respect was shown to the Chair. I shall begin again.

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need to rebut recent public statements tending to undermine Australia’s existing agreements with its friends and neighbours in the South East Asian region.

I call upon those members-

Dr Klugman:

– Did Senator Sim-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! [ warn the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr Klugman:

– I was wondering whether he was referring to Senator Sim.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Prospect. If he offends again I will name him. I had occasion to warn the honourable member during question time today. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– I think we should begin by getting clear in our minds what is this matter for discussion. It is the need to rebut recent public statements tending to undermine Australia’s existing agreements with its friends and neighbours in the South East Asian region. The first question is: What are the recent statements and why should they be rebutted? I therefore turn to Press cuttings and reports of statements made on ‘AM’ and ‘PM’ through the broadcasting system. These are recent statements within the last few weeks. I do not think that any honourable member would have any doubt as to the statements to which I refer. I have in my hand a cutting from the ‘Age’ newspaper. The dateline is ‘Singapore, March 12’ and this is how it runs:

Singapore and Malaysia would not be ‘overly concerned’ at the withdrawal of Australian army and air force combat units from the region, Labor MHR and former diplomat Mr W. H. Morrison said yesterday.

He then went on to cover himself and said:

However … the pullout was no longer such an urgent priority in ALP foreign policy and would be made ‘over a mutually convenient time’ after consultations between both countries.

This was a very convenient cover, but as will appear from a leader in the ‘Straits Times’, the people in Singapore and Malaysia regard it as the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and no amount of special pleading about this qualification will convince them that the sword does not hang over their heads, that is to say, that a withdrawal as soon as a Labor government gets into office or soon afterwards would result.

I should now like to quote briefly from a leader in the ‘Straits Times’, a highly reputable newspaper as the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) well knows, dated Friday, 17th March 1972. This is what the writer says:

Visits by spokesmen of the Austraiian Labor Parly, and statements in particular by Mr William Morrison, frankly have been disconcerting.

They do seem to be overly concerned. The article continues:

It simply is not true that Singapore’s partners in defence have outstayed their welcome, and Singapore and Malaysia will be glad to see them go. If the Australian Labor Party are our friends they can prove it by dropping their gleeful threat to abandon the Commonwealth defence agreement the moment they have power to do so, and to withdraw all Australian troops.

The article goes on to say:

Right now it is a genuine and valuable contribution to the security of Singapore and Malaysia. It can be reviewed when necessary.

In a report on the programme ‘AM’ of 13th March 1972, the honourable member for St George said:

  1. . Malaysia has set out on its own foreign policy of introducing a neutralisation concept in South East Asia. I think this Is going to work mainly because after the communique between the US and China, this area, South East Asia, will not be in the foreseeable future an area either of conflict or confrontation among the big powers … it makes the five-powers defence arrangements fairly irrelevant.

Why does the honourable member think that the meeting of President Nixon and Mr Chou En-lai augers a period of peace in South East Asia so that Australia may withdraw and no longer trouble itself about the security of that area?

Let me quote a short passage from the communique which was issued by President Nixon and Mr Chou En-lai. This is what the Chinese said in that communique:

The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation . . .

This, of course, is a reference to wars of national liberation. Anybody who supposes that when the statement appears in the communique that the Chinese still, as in the past, support unequivocally wars of national liberation - we know what that phrase means - and that peace is likely to ensue, is rather more naive or perhaps more disingenuous than I would suppose him to be. In the same interview on ‘AM’ the honourable member for St George went on to say:

Mr Rajaratnam

Whom we all know to be the Foreign Minister of Singapore - has maintained - and I agree with him - that China is not aggressive. He made the point that Singapore did not want to see the Australian soldiers in Singapore in the first place. My impression of what he was saying is that he’s not overly concerned if the Australian ground forces withdraw from Singapore.

There are 3 points to be noted in this statement. Mr Rajaratnam said that he thought China was not aggressive. What would a small country like Singapore, which is not very far from China, say? Would it say ‘We believe that China is aggressive’ or would it pretend, whatever it thought, that it did not think China would be aggressive? What an idiotic statement for the honourable member for St George to make.

The second point I want to make about this statement is this: The honourable member for St George made the point that Singapore did not want to see the Australian soldiers in Singapore in the first place. What a slimy one that is, and I use the word advisedly. I think we all will recollect that it was the opinion of the Singapore Government that the ground forces should be at Terendak in Malaysia. Why? I do not know, but I imagine it was because the Singapore Government felt that there perhaps was more need for a presence that would create an idea of stability in Malaysia than there was in Singapore. But this was a question not of there being Australian ground forces in the peninsula or in Singapore, lt was a question whether they should be in Terendak or in Singapore. But the way the honourable gentleman stated it, one would think that what was meant was that they did not want Australian troops in the peninsula or in Singapore. I call that slimy and I repeat the word. The honourable member also said:

My impression-

I emphasise the words ‘my impression’ - of what he was saying is that he’s not overly concerned if the Australian ground forces withdraw from Singapore.

That was his impression. That lets him out, because he might have misunderstood Mr Rajaratnam. We have since had plain statements from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) who, I imagine, discusses matters with Mr Rajaratnam just as freely, at least, as does the honourable member for St George and we have had his impression that the Singaporeans like to have our troops there, the same kind of sentiment as is expressed in the leading article of the ‘Straits Times’ from which I quoted earlier. So, ‘my impression’ could be a very wrong impression indeed and there is every reason to think that it is. On the same interview, the honourable member for St George was then asked a pertinent question. He was asked:

Now if Australia did withdraw these forces here, the British and the New Zealanders will be caught in a fairly difficult position . . ?

His answer was:

That’s basically a problem for them to decide. We’ll be making our own decisions. . . .

The honourable member for St George does not mind if the British and the New Zealanders pull out as well as ourselves, leaving the Singaporeans in the lurch. That does not matter to him. The honourable member went on to say:

The problem that Malaysia particularly has to face up to is internal insurgency and neither a Liberal Party or a Labor Party will become involved in internal insurgency or communal action of Malaysia.

The five-power agreement makes it perfectly clear that if internal insurgency is inspired from outside - I repeat, from outside - it invokes the arrangement. Once again, I say that he has slimed over the issue. I could quote a clause from the agreement or from the London talks that followed the agreement but I have not time to do so in this debate. Let me hasten over the points that have to be raised. If any inconsiderable backbencher in this Parliament from one side or the other were to make some statement about our foreign relations it might not matter very much; perhaps nobody would take very much notice of him. But who is the gentleman who is saying these things? He has been placarded as one who held the post of a diplomat - not merely a diplomat but a diplomat in Kuala Lumpur. He knows all about the region. He has again been placarded on frequent occasions - although I have never as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee known him to be given authority to express the view of the Committee - as, and it is a fair description, the Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He has been mentioned in these newspaper reports and broadcast reports as the Labor Party spokesman on South East Asian affairs. He has stated that he speaks with the authority of his Leader and his Deputy Leader. He has been described in an ‘AM’ or ‘PM’ programme as the shadow Foreign Minister. Now what is his real position? Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) would clarify this because I think the people are entitled to know whether he is the shadow Foreign Minister of the Labor Party and whether he will be the Minister if Labor gets into office. They should know whether he is or nol. He should stand up to be seen, recognised and known to be in that position if it is true. But that is in passing. My point is that he does not speak as some inconsequential backbencher. He has made these statements with all the authority of his Party.

The second point 1 wish to make is that he has sought in South East Asia by his statements to undermine the policy of the elected Government of this country. It may be that there will be another elected government at some time but at the moment he has gone abroad and in foreign countries sought to undermine the policy of the elected Government of his own country. Let me take a suppositious case. Suppose Harold Wilson were to go to France at this time and take part in the campaign there to prevent France from permitting Britain to enter the European Common Market. What would honourable members think of a Labor leader who went into a foreign country like France to induce the French people to blackball Britain from going into the Common Market? Fair enough if Labor opposed it. Fair enough if it appeals to the electors in his own country. But to go to a foreign country and invoke the aid and assistance of that country to bring about a policy in your own country is something of which a diplomat ought to be ashamed.

The third point I make is that there is a suggestion that there has been a breach of faith by Australia with our friends. We have the 5-power arrangement. We have entered into the SEATO treaty. This is a binding agreement and a binding treaty. What would honourable members think of the leader of an opposition party in Britain, say in 1913, who went to Belgium and said: ‘Do not take any notice of the treaty into which Britain has entered to secure the. neutrality of Belgium because I can tell you that there is going to be an election and if we are in office we will not honour the treaty’? What would you think of an opposition leader who did a thing of that kind? The honourable member for St George is suggesting a breach of faith by Australia in respect of its engagements. What faith is to be placed by any country in one which says: ‘If there is a change of government these agreements no longer subsist’. This visit and these statements were so timed as to cause not only maximum embarrassment and lack of credibility to the Australian Government but also embarrassment to the governments in the countries where the honourable member made the statements. The statements were made in the region. They were made during the visit of the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) to the region. They were made on the eve of the visit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the conference of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. They have been made a few weeks before the SEATO conference. They have been made to cause maximum damage to our foreign policy because what can be done by a Labor Opposition in undermining the policy of a government could be done, if this pecedent were followed, by Liberal Opposition in respect of a Labor policy. Does a government speak for its country or does it not? Fourthly, the statement by the honourable member is misleading. I refer to what he said in regard to Mr Rajaratnam’s point of view and I say falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - a man who has deliberately sought to mislead in one matter will, it can be imagined, seek to mislead in others as well.

I have not sufficient time in this debate to go any further into the matter but I think I have said enough to indicate that the honourable gentleman, this diplomat, this shadow Foreign Minister, has shown little regard for the ethics of his profession. Perhaps it is not a matter of ethics - perhaps he does not mind about that, I do not know - but it is a matter of the interests of this country.

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition or a member deputed by him to speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– 1 thank the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) is at a great disadvantage in this debate. Quite clearly his Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has not shown him a series of reports that were sent in by Australian diplomatic missions throughout South East Asia. In these reports there is a detailed coverage given by senior members of the Australian missions in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. I did not write those records. Those were records of discussions that I had with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, the Acting Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Malaysia, and a number of other people. I take my role as an Australian very sincerely. I had 20 years, as the honourable member for Bradfield pointed out, representing this country and representing policies that I did not believe in, which I did to the best of my ability and there has never been any criticism of the way I did that. I mentioned an impression of what people said. If the honourable member asks the Minister for Foreign Affairs to show him the record it will not be from the ‘Straits Times’, it will be a record made by a senior Australian foreign service officer. Perhaps if the honourable member for Bradfield were ever taken into account by bis own Party it would at least have the propriety to show him these statements, but he was reduced to quoting the ‘Straits Times’. Perhaps we can go through some of the statements that Mr Rajaratnam has made in public. He mentioned the attitude that the Singapore Government takes towards China. I will quote from a publication called The Asian’ in which Mr Rajaratnam had this to say about China. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I am just showing the House the sort of things that people are now saying in South East Asia which this Government has lost out on because it does not understand

South East Asia and it never will understand South East Asia. The statement attributed to Mr Rajaratnam in an interview reads:

China is not economically or even militarily in a position to give any kind of direct aid to revolutionary movements. Their theory is that revolution must be made by the peoples of the countries concerned and it is a cheaper way and, in the long run, a more effective way of influence. 1 am not saying this. This is what the Foreign Minister of Singapore says. It is going to take a massive effort to repair the devastation that this Government has created in South East Asia. The way that this Government has handled its affairs has been clumsy and ham-fisted. The Minister for Foreign Affairs himself described Australia as a small, insignificant country. Certainly he and his predecessors have made it so. They have undermined the standing of Australia in international relations, a heritage which they took from the last Labor Government when Australia was seen to be the champion of the small countries of the world and when Australia became an important influence in world affairs. What has happened to that heritage? It has been devastated and eroded in the last 20 years. in the countries of South East Asia we are regarded at best as an echo of the United States - a somewhat belated echo. The honourable member for Bradfield has referred to various statements that I have made and to statements in the same tenor made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). There is nothing new in those statements. They express a consistent Australian Labor Party policy. But this Government has undermined almost irreparably our relations with South East Asia. I said in Singapore, and I repeat here, that neither the Malaysians nor the Singaporeans regard this Government as being fair dinkum about the S-power defence arrangement. Let us look at one of the reasons. There are several, but we will take one first. That is the statement made recently by the former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), which is recorded in the ‘Australian’ of 7th March 1972. It is headed Gortonian diplomacy’ and it says that smooth diplomacy is not one of the attri butes of Mr John Grey Gorton. He was recounting, no doubt to an interested audience, how he carried out his diplomacy with Tunku Abdul Rahman, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia. They were talking about border conflicts. According to the ‘Australian’ he said:

The Tunku said he wasn’t sure what 1 meant when I said Australia wouldn’t help. Well, I told the Tunku, if you get into any sort of border fight you had better cope by yourselves because Australia bloody well won’t be there.

This might be a style that is used in the Liberal Party faction fights but it is not a style that one adopts in dealing with civilised countries which have much longer traditions than Australia has. We must remember that in dealing with foreign countries - this is something the Government will never learn - style is just as important as substance. The statement made by the right honourable member for Higgins and a series of statements that were made at that time have irreparably damaged our relations with South East Asia. A rather Gilbertian situation occurred when the 5-power defence conference was held in Canberra. I picked this information up in Malaysia. This great Government, in a very clumsy and hamfisted way, planted a bug in the rooms occupied by the Malaysian delegation.

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

– That is a lie.

Mr MORRISON:

– It is not a lie. What happened was that, not following James Bond very carefully-

Mr Cope:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is that a parliamentary expression, the word ‘lie’? I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)The word ‘lie’ must be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary.

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

– I will withdraw it.

Mr MORRISON:

– It was placed in the aiT conditioning unit. The air conditioner did not operate terribly well, and the hotel gentleman came up to fix it. There, lo and behold, was a microphone. These are the types of tactics and the types of approaches that are taken by this Government. Let me refer to a matter of much greater substance. I have said that the people of South East Asia do not regard Australia’s role in the 5-power defence arrangement as fair dinkum. It was not fair dinkum in the Sabah conflict back in 1969. At that stage Australia had seconded naval officers attached to the Malaysian navy. In fact many of these seconded naval officers were in charge of, were captains of, Malaysian naval vessels. The conflict over Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines blew up and we were asked, in the High Commission in Malaysia, to get the Australian naval officers off the ships. These ships were being deployed to undertake patrol duty off Sabah. Really what the Government was saying was: Fly a god-dam helicopter over them, pull the captains off and get them back to land.

I did not agree in the first place with Australian seconded officers being in charge of ships other than Australian ships. But how absurd was the situation when they were out under orders, when they were being deployed by the Chief of Naval Staff, and the Government said: No, no. We are not going to be in that. Get them off these ships.’ Fortunately, the advice we put forward at that stage from Kuala Lumpur prevailed, and it was not until the ships completed their normal tour of duty of deployment - and that was somewhat curtailed - that they returned to Malaysia. That situation is not likely to arise again. The people of South East Asia realise that the 5-power defence arrangements are so qualified by the Australian Government that they are not going to involve communal activities, communal dissension or internal dissension. As the former Prime Minister said, they are not going to involve border disputes. The only thing they are going to involve is an overt threat to the area. I ask you, where is the overt threat? The Malaysians do not see one. The Singaporeans do not see one. I have heard members of the Government say that there is no overt threat, at least in the next 10 years, and I agree with them. So why have we got our forces there?

The Malaysians agree that the presence of foreign forces - white foreign forces - on Malaysian soil in terms of counterinsurgency, in terms of any possible communist threat, is in fact counter-productive. They regard the 5-power defence arrangements purely and simply as temporary arrangements because they are now organised towards a neutralisation programme whereby they are setting out to establish a zone of peace - the Minister for Defence talked about this - in the South East Asian area. Their attitude is: Big powers keep out. I mentioned before a Korean proverb which says that when whales fight the shrimps get crushed. The countries of South East Asia are concerned to keep the whales out of South East Asia because they are the shrimps. We are in the same boat. They say: We are the ones who are going to be crushed. We are going to be the devastated losers. They realise, after the events of India and Pakistan over Bangla Desh, that treaties are not worth the paper they are written on. Where was SEATO in the India-Pakistan dispute? Where have treaties ever been? As John Foster Dulles once said, a treaty does not involve anything that people are not going to do anyhow. This is the realism that is now prevalent in South East Asia where people are practical and where they have some feel and concept about what is going on. It is about time this Government had some feel and some concept about what is going on.

I repeat that the people of Malaysia and Singapore are not going to be overly concerned about Australia’s withdrawal because they do not regard us as being fair dinkum in the first place. From the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and from the discussions that I have had with the Foreign Ministers, at least they know where they stand. We pointed out that we would maintain - perhaps develop - bilateral arrangements with them in the military field.. But one thing we have to get over is this 19th century garrison fort idea that we have, this absurd idea that we must maintain garrisons throughout the world. That might have been all right in the 19th century, but in the years of the 1970s this approach in international relations is not acceptable in any part of the world. This Government has not had a foreign policy; it has had a policy of military intervention. Everything we have done has been based on military intervention. We had a base at Ubon in Thailand. We have had our forces in Vietnam. Fortunately, they are no longer there. We still have bases in Malaysia and Singapore. But military interventionism is not a foreign policy. The foreign policy we must start to look at is an outward diplomacy, the building up of our economic and trade links with the countries of the area, because we are all very much in the same boat. We have been isolated by the developments in the world.

There are now 5 major power groupings: The United States of America, the Soviet Union, China, Japan and the European Community. Australia, in this sense as part of South East Asia, has been left out in the cold. We have common interests with these countries and these are the common interests we should develop. You do not develop them by having 4,000 or 5,000 Australian forces on their mainland. So the 5-power defence arrangements are transitional. They are temporary. This is not me speaking: This is the Malaysians and the Singaporeans speaking. They regard the policy that a Labor Government will carry out as a policy in which they can understand what our position is. We can explain it in terms that they will understand. We will act in close consultation with them. The impression I have is that they will be very glad to deal with an Australian Government that knows what is happening in the area and that can take into account the interests, ambitions and hopes of the people of the area.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– I rise to support the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) who initiated this discussion, as a matter of public importance on:

The need to rebut recent public statements tending to undermine Australia’s existing agreements with its friends and neighbours in the South East Asian region.

The reason of this debate is statements made in Asia by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) who spoke just before the House suspended for the dinner break. In that speech the honourable member concerned himself wi h trivia and irrelevancies as well as with distortions of history with which he attempted to justify his lack of a policy. The honourable member was concerned also with utterly cheap sensation seeking and with an utterly below the belt use of abuse of the opinions of a high official of a friendly foreign country who, if he is hurt - and hurt he must be by what the honourable member has said - has no redress as a responsible and honourable man against the abuse of his opinions by the honourable member for St George. How can Mr Rajaratnam rush to defend himself without doing a disservice to his high office, to his nation and to the Australian nation?

The honourable member for St George has put Mr Rajaratnam in an absolutely impossible position. This is hitting below the belt in a way that can only harm Mr Rajaratnam and Australia and Australia’s relationships with one of its closest friends in the region. This is the sort of behaviour which the people of Australia despise. The whole Australian character is built on the idea that you give a man a fair go and a chance to put his point of view. This is the sort of behaviour which must make the honourable member for St George’s one time colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs await his latest political slogans with horror. It makes a member of this Parliament a little bit ashamed. All is not fair in love and war or politics. Some values must remain when all has been said and done.

Let us go back and look at the circumstances under which the honourable member for St George visited South East Asia and in particular Mr Rajaratnam, Singapore’s Foreign Minister. He went as Labor’s envoy to explain Labor’s policies with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). On his own admission - or in his own boast - he went up there with a job to do for the Labor Party. He appeared, oddly enough, to relish the role, if we can judge by the carefree, slick, wanton and irresponsible statements he made. He went with one message - a message from the Labor Party which the New Zealand Labour Party would not have a bar of, and I suspect secretly some members of his Party would not have a bar of. His one big message for our Asian friends was: ‘The Australian Labor Party does not care for the pacts and arrangements which it has with you’. He did not go in a diplomatic way to discuss; he went to destroy. He did not, as Labor’s envoy, go to co-operate; he went to opt out - <o opt out of our major links with some of our closest and best friends in the region.

He, Labor’s envoy in Asia, did not go offering major new links with our friends there. He, as Labor’s envoy, offered only a little’ Australia, a mean-minded navelgazing Australia. He offered an old-fashioned Labor Australia which pathetically assumed that all international conflict begins and ends with the great conflict of the cold war. He offered a Labor view of history which takes the extraordinary turn of stating flatly that there will be no conflict in our region in the foreseeable future. He virtually says that the military instrument has had it. Indeed, in many ways the military instrument is less relevant today than it was and the Australian Government thoroughly recognises this fact in its policies. But this is a far cry from assuming that things like Mr Nixon’s trip to China mean that we are in a new golden age where human nature has also taken a great leap forward.

We do not make the claims for the South East Asian Treatry Organisation today that the honourable member for St George assumes or would have us make.

Mr Morrison:

– 1 did not mention it

Mr STALEY:

– The honourable member did in his statement in Asia, and that is what this debate is about. The world and the region have changed and SEATO has changed. SEATO has changed and reflects this. But the honourable member for St George still sees SEATO in the terms of the 1950s. He sees SEATO in oldfashioned Labor terms. He and the Labor Party do not care that Thailand and the Philippines feel today that SEATO is a basic guarantee of their freedom in their perilous position. Of course, as the honourable member for St George said, treaties may well not be worth the paper on which they are written. This is the point. If the honourable member goes to Asia and says the sort of things he has been saying, of course these treaties are not worth the paper they are written on, and that is the occasion of the debate today. In Asia it matters, quite simply, that we care and that we are prepared to put our men and money where our hearts are.

Take the 5-Power arrangements. They were never cast in the old cold war terms such as the honourable member for St George has assumed. The 5-Power arrangements recognise the nature of power in the Asian region today. They recognise the types of conflicts which we have seen through the 1940s to the 1960s in the Asian region. I refer to the Malaya emergency, the Azahari rebellion and, of course, the Indonesian confrontation. Singapore and Malaysia want us to be involved. They want us to be involved in the way we are involved today. There have been questions about the precise disposition of our troops in Singapore and Malaysia but there is no questioning of the general feeling in Malaysia and Singapore that the 5-Power arrangements are crucial to them. They may be replaced by something else, but those countries will want something very real to replace them at some future date.

With all this background, and knowing that Labor’s policy was to get out, the honourable member for St George went to Mr Rajaratnam. What did the honourable member do? He confronted Mr Rajaratnam with blunt statements. What else could Mr Rajaratnam do but say something like: ‘I am not overly concerned*. Precious comfort this must have been to the honourable member for St George to hear that Mr Rajaratnam was not overly concerned but only perhaps pretty concerned. I would be astounded if Mr Rajaratnam in bis interview with the honourable member did not make some other sorts of statements because we have heard so often that the people of the region believe in the 5-Power arrangements. I would be surprised if all he said was that he is not overly concerned. This is the sort of dilemma I mentioned before which he is placed in by what the honourable member has done there. The honourable member has also said that foreign affairs are less important. Today, as never before, independent Australian initiatives are called for in our region, with the full field of diplomatic activity before us and a genuine concern for the people of Asia.

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

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

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– When I first saw the terms of this matter of public importance I thought that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) was giving the House a chance to debate the recent statements by Senator Sim in Singapore. Honourable members will recall how the senator reflected in the grossest possible terms on the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) because of the stupidity of his China policies. He went on to categorise the Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock), who holds one of the most onerous and responsible portfolios in this House, as a mere boy who could not be sent on the man’s job. Not content with rubbishing his own Government in the strongest possible terms, he went on to reflect in a quite despicable and racist fashion on 2 private citizens whose only fault was that they tried to give the Government a hand.

This is the sort of statement that should be subjected to an analysis in this House. When 1 questioned the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) on this statement he said he would look into it. My colleague, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), raised the matter again in the adjournment debate that night. It was also raised in the Senate where, ludicrously enough, Senator Sim holds some form of official position. So far we have heard nothing from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister on this scurrilous and offensive statement. This is the sort of statement that ridicules and traduces Australia and makes a mockery of honourable members on the Government side on the few occasions they are allowed out to strut and posture in South East Asia.

By contrast we have the responsible and responsive conduct of the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). In simple terms, the honourable member was a member of an Australian delegation headed by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). This delegation went to Japan and other countries in the region. On completion of this official mission, the honourable member decided to extend his trip at his own expense. He went to Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia and spoke to a number of senior members of foreign affairs and defence departments. This visit was made with the full knowledge and confidence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and myself. We recognised the honourable member’s special interest and knowledge in this region. He was for a number of years a very senior officer in the High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, a fact which Government supporters find it convenient to forget. His visit was approved by the Leader of the Opposition and myself on the basis that the honourable member knew fully what Labor Party policy is. Indeed the honourable member played an important part in the drafting of key sections of the Labor Party platform as a member of the ALP’s Federal Executive Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.

AH members of this House who have been interviewed for the Press in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Djakarta know there are problems. Only with representatives of the Australian Press and the Australian Broadcasting Commission in these centres does one feel completely familiar with the wavelength. Against this background it is worth looking carefully at the statements attributed to the honourable member for St George. These statements show a remarkable consistency; in each of these 3 countries the honourable member’s statements are substantially the same. His account of Labor Party policy is perfectly explicit and correct. Where he has gone beyond statement of policy to expound and interpret, his observations are carefully worded. Where he has attributed views to Ministers and officials in these countries, he reports them accurately and these reports can be corroborated and substantiated.

Some play has been made of the fact that the honourable member has been described as the Labor Party’s shadow Foreign Minister. This seems to have resulted from inadequate understanding of the honourable member’s role and the purpose of his visit by the news media. The first step the honourable member took on his return was to correct this unfortunate impression which seems to have been disseminated mainly by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I would like to summarise briefly what the honourable member said and show how it expresses the policy of the Labor Party. He said that Labor policy was not to station Australian troops in South East Asia. Under a Labor Government the present garrison in Singapore and the units in Malaysia would be withdrawn and these withdrawals would be negotiated with the governments concerned. The honourable member stressed that there was no urgency about these withdrawals and that adequate time would be allowed for adjustments to be made. This is a perfectly correct statement of Labor policy; it has been put in much the same form by the Leader of the Opposition and by me on occasions.

On this subject I would like to refer briefly to a complete and deliberate distortion of Labor policy made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) in Singapore last week. The Minister made repeated references to immediate withdrawal from Singapore and Malaysia if Labor is elected to office. This simply is not true, and 1 would suggest that this was known to the Minister. Never has there been any suggestion of immediate withdrawal and the lie should be given to this sort of distortion once and for all. The Labor Party did not even stipulate immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. The policy put to the electorate in 1969 permitted an interim period of 6 months for the completion of Australian withdrawal. Despite the Party’s complete opposition to the war, it recognised the reality of the situation, that you just cannot pull units out holus bolus. With this attitude to Vietnam surely no-one would suggest that a Labor Government would get out of Malaysia-Singapore immediately. There is no combat situation in this region; Australian troops are engaged in garrison and training duties.

The honourable member for St George acted properly and completely in accord with policy in indicating that, although the troops would be taken out, there would be a breathing space so that readjustment could be made. It is not possible for an opposition party at least 6 months off gaining government to put a definite time scale on an issue which would have to be negotiated. We do not know precisely what circumstances will confront us when we gain Government; the new disposition of our troops will be determined in accordance with the reality and not what present conceptions of the reality are. The honourable member for St George put this to the governments of Malaysia and Singapore in most rational and responsible terms.

The next point made by the honourable member was that the ALP’s attitude was understood and accepted by the Governments in these countries. This is the point that has been most strongly disputed by the Government. Honourable members who take exception to this statement by the honourable member and contest its accuracy should be warned that he has corroboration from the Government itself. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs were present at all the interviews attended by the honourable member for St George. In accordance with customary practice, these officers took very comprehensive notes of what was said by the participants. These notes were recorded in the form of records of conversation which were then sent to the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is traditional practice and all members who have been in a situation similar to that of the honourable member for St George will be familiar with it. I have examined these records of conversation and can only conclude that the honourable member for St George was completely correct in his assessment of the reaction to the views he put forward on behalf of the Labor Party. An example is the statement which appeared in a number of reports quoting the honourable member for St George as saying that Singapore’s Foreign Minister had given him the impression that Singapore would not be unduly concerned by an Australian pull-out. This has been disputed by the Government and has been put forward as an example of undermining Australian treaty arrangements. This interpretation is seen as quite absurd if one looks at the record of conversation between the honourable member for St George and Mr Rajaratnam.

I do not propose to quote from the document because, unlike the Government the Opposition does not believe in flaunting confidential documents from the Foreign Affairs Department for political advantage in this House. This record taken by a First Secretary in the Australian High Commission confirms the assessment of the honourable member for St George. In fact the words ‘not unduly concerned’ are used about Australian withdrawal and attributed to Mr Rajoratnam. I go no further in reference to this record of a private interview, but I point out that this document is available to the Government, and honourable members can obtain it and scrutinise it for themselves. In short, the honourable member for St George put it that Singapore would not be unduly concerned if Australian forces were withdrawn, provided that military assistance continued and a process of consultation were retained. Mr Rajaratnam did not disagree. I do not pretend that the Singapore Government is enthusiastic about Australian withdrawal. But as a pragmatic government it accepts the realities of the situation and under stands the policy stance of the Labor Party.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Before addressing myself to the subject under discussion I should like to draw attention to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) concerning the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) whom he lauded. In response to those remarks I quote from the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 19:h May 1970 in which Mr Peter Robinson said:

Mr Whitlam and his chief spokesman on South East Asian affairs . . . are regarded with more puzzlement. In essence, their suggestions that Australians are not really welcome in the region are rejected absolutely. During his term as Counsellor and Assistant High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur, Mr Morrison is reported to have had particularly good contacts among more radical leftists in the country - particularly in east Malaysia - many of whom do advocate an extremist line towards any capitalist country. Labor Party policy on relations with Asia is thus seen to be largely in accord with radical-

Mr Morrison:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the statement that was attributed to the Financial Times’-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George is claiming misrepresentation. He should only do so when the honourable member has completed his speech.

Mr Morrison:

– I am taking a point of order. This matter already has been considered in this House. It was considered in the form of a personal explanation at the time. I make the point that this statement already has been considered in the House and was, in fact, the matter of a personal explanation last year and it was rejected.

Mr CALDER:

– I have quoted what Mr Peter Robinson said. I continue with what the spokesman for the Labor Party said in Singapore and Malaysia. He said that Malaysia would not be overly concerned at the possible withdrawal of Army and Air Force units from the area. He was speaking, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said, with all the authority of his Leader (Mr Whitlam) and Deputy Leader, so he was speaking solid Labor Party policy in (hat area. We must accept that. So the policy is to withdraw the Australian contribution to the S-power defence arrangement and also to wrap up the SEATO agreement. Yet Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, since 1966 has been prepared to work through SEATO. The Australian Labor Party spokesman, shadow Minister or whatever he happens to be, in one breath stated that Malaysia and Singapore would not be overly concerned about the withdrawal of Australian Army and Air Force units then went on to state that Malaysia wanted Royal Australian Air Force Mirages and back-up facilities to stay in the country until the Malaysians could build up their own expertise in this field. Surely the reaction of the Malaysians and Singaporeans to the ALP policy of withdrawal could not be otherwise in such circumstances. I put it to honourable members: What could they say in the face of the persistent pressure from the honourable member for St George and ALP spokesmen who were saying that this was their policy if they won the election - withdrawal of Australian forces and their deployment on Australian territory? When confronted with this the only facesaving attitude for these people was to shrug their shoulders and say that they were not overly concerned. What else could they say after this constant attack by the honourable member for St George?

Mr Cohen:

– What should they have said?

Mr CALDER:

– I suggest that the honourable member go there to find out. If by some mischance those 2 countries were to be faced with the removal of an Australian presence if the ALP did come to office we would then really know how highly the Australian presence is regarded. The Malaysian concept of introducing neutralisation is currently an unrealistic ideal. Why, might I ask, for practical reasons is the Malaysian Army at the strength of 24 battalions and being increased by another 3 battalions within the next 18 months7 If they believe in their own and the ALP theory of neutralisation of the South East Asian area, why are they doing this? The Malaysians are threatened by the ALP with the removal of Australian Mirage aircraft and Australian troops and equipment if the ALP wins the elections. The Malaysian Air Force has 8 Sabre jet aircraft but very few other operational aircraft.

The ALP policy, as stated by the honourable member for St George, could crack the S-power arrangement. The arrangement may well be temporary to some extent. It certainly will not continue forever but it was designed to fill the gap left after the British withdrawal from the area. Surely it is unrealistic to scrap the arrangement before the people it was designed to help are ready for this to happen. If the 5-power arrangement does fail, and it could well happen if the ALP comes to office, the vacuum caused by this and the British withdrawal could be filled by some other power. The remarks of General Vargas in 1969 concerning SEATO are still relevant today. He said:

Let SEATO be scuttled if necessary, but first let us have an. equally stable defensive alliance to supplant it.

That quote comes from the ‘Far Eastern Economic Review’ of 3rd April 1969. I welcome support for my often voiced thoughts on Australian co-operation with Asean countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, plus Japan and Korea. Australian Labor Party policy seems to support the Government’s attitude towards Indonesia. It even supports the Government’s policy to carry out joint defence exercises with Indonesia and possibly other countries in the area. But what a way to start. What confidence do we engender by breaking up the 5-power defence arrangement and scrubbing the only security arrangement we have with” Thailand and the Philippines?

Mr Bryant:

– What is that?

Mr CALDER:

– SEATO. I say let us continue to work towards building up our standing in these countries. Do not send a man to that area who will just pull the whole lot down in 2 or 3 days. We should not be, as is the official ALP representative, spokesman or shadow Minister, rubbishing Australia and its efforts to assist countries in our immediate area. I ask him: Did Mr Malik, whom he says he saw, say what would be the Indonesian attitude if Communism succeeded in its continuing push into Malaysia? Did he ask Mr Malik this question? I would imagine that the Indonesian attitude has not altered much in the 2 years since I was in that country when it was very plain that they were worried about the downward thrust of Communism. They asked about it every day of the week in Djakarta. They asked the 2 Labor Party back bench members who were with me what Australia was doing about the downward thrust of Communism. Did the honourable member for St George note the attitude in the Republic of Korea to the Reds across the Panmun River? He must have seen it. Is Chin Peng increasing pressure in northern Malaysia? The Australian Labor Party has been electioneering in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, just as their Leader did in Papua New Guinea. Despite the words quoted by a spokesman for the Prime Minister of Malaysia that that gentleman would not be too upset if Australia withdrew from the 5-power defence arrangement, the same spokesman added that Mr Morrison’s Party has still to get into power. He added that almost in the same breath. So it is clear that the Prime Minister of Malaysia is well aware of the fact that this man is paddling his own canoe, as the Labor Party has been doing in this area for the last 3 years. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who has just returned from this area, saw and heard no evidence that the governments of Malaysia and Singapore have changed their attitude in the 4 months that have passed since they signed the agreement. They are happy about the air defence system and our representation in that area.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– In 410 A.D. or thereabouts the Romans withdrew from Britain and honourable members opposite have never got over it. When are they going to grow up? I heard several interesting things from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder).

Mr Graham:

– Who took the place of the Romans?

Mr BRYANT:

– That is the point. That happened over 1,500 years ago and ever since people like honourable members opposite have confused military garrisons with changes in political structures. This is the nonsense they are inflicting upon us now. I thought I had not heard correctly when the honourable member for the Northern Territory said that Indonesia had been placing its faith in the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. Perhaps I did not catch what he said. I presume that he knows that Indonesia is not even a member of that operational force which he holds in high regard. Let us take another point raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He said that the Malaysians are threatened, but he did no* say by whom. It is by the downward thrust of Communism.

Mr Calder:

– Chin Peng.

Mr BRYANT:

– Is the honourable member saying that they are threatened by the Chinese?

Mr Calder:

– Chin Peng.

Mr BRYANT:

– But as I understand it, it is the policy of his Government not to interfere in internal conflicts or to have anything to do with border troubles. What the honourable member for the Northern Territory is saying is that Malaysia is threatened. After examining the geography of the area, one asks: By whom? Is it Burma? I do not suppose so. Is it Thailand? No, because they are buddies. Perhaps it is China. So this man of great military distinction puts in the area a squadron or so of the Royal Australian Air Force and a battalion or so of Australian soldiers to stop the Chinese. I do not know whether that is supposed to be a contribution to strategic studies or just a contribution to strategic folly. The facts are that honourable members opposite are talking nonsense and they know it.

The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), who moved the motion we are debating, thought he could gain some kudos for himself by attacking the Deputy

Chairman of the Committee to which he belongs. The point is that the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) has done Australia great service because he speaks with the authority of a great deal of experience in the field. He speaks as a man who reports accurately what he has heard. He speaks as a man who has spoken with and has been listened to by the highly placed in all these nations. The honourable member himself has told me that Dr Malik of Indonesia expressed the view that he had no opinion one way or the other or any great concern for the withdrawal of Australian troops from the area. The honourable member for St George has, of course, exposed the nonsense of the people opposite. It has been claimed that problems have been raised because of public statements made by members of my Party. Nothing could be worse than the statements made by Senator Sim or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) himself. I do not need to elaborate.

What are the duties of an Australian member of Parliament when he is overseas? The Government is not Australia. It is the duty of the honourable member for St George and each one of us who travels overseas to ensure that the nonsense that passes for a foreign policy, which has been perpetrated by this Government for the last 20 years, is shown up to the people of the world as the nonsense that it is, and that it does not express the view of the people of Australia. I turn to another point. Both the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the finest flower of chivalry, the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley), spoke about SEATO acting to protect the freedom of Thailand and the Philippines. In neither of those countries is there much freedom. It is certainly vanishing rapidly in Thailand. Of course, SEATO now is not even a paper tiger as it has even run out of paper.

Who takes part in SEATO? Now it is only Thailand. The honourable member opposite harped on one of the themes used by honourable members opposite for the last 20 years - put our men and our money where our mouths are. What a dreadful statement from an able-bodied young man who has sat here for so long and has cheered all the other fellows when they were going away. The real problem of the people of Malaysia and Singapore is that they cannot take the Australian Government seriously. They know that all the circumstances of the last 20 years have shown up the eccentricities of our policy; that our Vietnam policy on which we squandered so many lives and so much treasure did not mean a thing when it came to the crunch and the Americans were going home; that our China policy did not mean a thing when President Nixon changed his course. The people of Singapore and Malaysia can be assured only that perhaps they can get some commitment from us by our having a physical presence on the spot. The error of my friends opposite is to regard the physical presence of soldiery as the only viable form of expression of support, lt is the garrison myth.

That is the point I made at the beginnig of my speech, lt belongs to the dim and distant past. No longer can we rely upon soldiers to keep the natives in order. One has only to talk to people in Malaysia to learn that white foreign soldiers, as my friend the honourable member for St George said, are counter-productive there. 1 recall being told when I was last in Malaysia that when the Australian forces drive through the country areas they have to be very careful. There is a great deal of racism in that part of the world and it is expressed in many parts through an anti-white attitude. For most people in that part of the world white soldiers are an expression of everything that is bad.

This debate is not about the speeches of the honourable member for St George. It is about forward defence. That brings me to the question: What do we mean by that expression? Do we mean that honourable members opposite really care about Malaysians and Singaporeans? What does forward defence of Australia means? It means that we will fight our battles on Malaysian and Singaporean soil. It is said that it is better to fight them there than to fight them here. The people who will be sacrificed, of course, will be Singaporeans and Malaysians. I do no believe that they fall for that. I believe that they see through it. It is both immoral and strategic folly.

Over the last few years we have heard a great deal about the threat in the Indian

Ocean. We place Australian troops 2,500 miles or 3,000 miles from our shores. We place them beyond Indonesia, our closest foreign neighbour. If there were a conflict, what would be the likely attitude of Indonesia? Indonesia almost certainly would insist on being neutral in most instances, and therefore Australia would not get the right to over-fly Indonesia. It would therefore be necessary to go around through the Indian Ocean which, I understand from honourable members opposite, is teeming with hostile, mischievous and aggressive Russian submarines and shipping. That is supposed to be strategy. I believe it is folly.

On the military count, and on the social count of what kind of influence to bring to bear on people in another part of the world, it is absolute folly for Australian forces to be placed beyond Australian shores. 1 believe that that is a very sound philosophy. I think it would benefit honourable members opposite to get hold of details of the military forces of the world and to see which countries actually place soldiers beyond their own borders. The Russians do, of course, as do the Americans. The British do, here and there, but very few of the 130 nations of the world regard placing their soldiers elsewhere than within their own frontiers as a reasonable proposition. Unfortunately we still adhere to part of the gunboat philosophy. We have to change our system from being militarily oriented to the commonsense view that the Malaysians themselves are expounding. I have here an article containing a statement by Tan Sri M. Ghazali Bin Shafie, Minister with Special Functions and Minister of Information for Malaysia. Speaking on the neutralisation of South East Asia he said:

Individual countries in the region must respect one another’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and not participate in activities likely to directly or indirectly threaten the security of another.

But another point that he makes - and there are many of them - is that all foreign powers should be excluded from the region. Of course, we on this side of the House believe that that is a fundamental consideration and that the only way we can guarantee our own peaceful future is to try to bring neutrality to the region. But we cannot bring neutrality by placing soldiers there, Then we build upon the affinities we have with so many of these countries, There is no future in such propositions as the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. It never was a goer. It is not a useful device at all and now is not a serious proposition whatsoever. What we want to see is diplomatic initiatives based upon the fact that Australia can be a mutual and friendly partner with any country no matter what its government and no matter what its racial structure. But we cannot do this with soldiers. Therefore, we on this side of the House say that the first point at issue is that no Australian soldier will be sacrificed in anybody else’s battles. Secondly, Australia’s operations in South East Asia must be based upon the fundamental proposition that man canand will be a peaceful animal given proper diplomatic encouragement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The time allotted for discussion for the matter of public importance has now expired.

page 921

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I move:

To refresh the memory of the House I remind honourable members that on 25th November 1971 the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) moved:

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

Mr Daly:

– He was talking sense.

Mr GRASSBY:

– He was. The honourable member for Angas on that occasion put forward a strong case for the immediate repeal of the tax. He described it as ‘a thoroughly reprehensible, ill thought-out piece of bureaucratic nonsense’. He also pledged that he would reintroduce his motion time and time again until the tax was repealed. It might be remembered that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) seconded the motion and that the honourable members for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) and Murray (Mr Lloyd) supported it. Then, inexplicably, when we attempted to have a vote on the subject they all voted against the motion. Then we tried again and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) moved for the suspension of Standing Orders on that same day to enable the motion to be debated until the question was put and the Parliament had an opportunity to vote on it. For the second time that day Government members voted against the motion from their own side on this subject.

But I am pleased to report to the House tonight in connection with this matter that the honourable member for Angas has had the benefit of conferring with his constituents. As a result of that confrontation he gave an undertaking at a public meeting on wine excise held in Berri on 21st January that he would divide with the Opposition on his motion against the tax and bring as many honourable members from his side with him as he could. I have quoted from the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which both he and I have had for nearly 2 months, and there has been no challenge to them. It is true that he said he would not vote for his own motion or for an Opposition motion if it was tied in any way to replacing the wine excise with a sales tax.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I remind the honourable member for Riverina that at the moment we are debating the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and not the subject matter of the debate which the honourable member seeks to have resumed.

Mr GRASSBY:

– You are correct, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would draw the attention of yourself and the House to the fact that the urgency of this matter is associated with the fact that the harvest in the Hunter Valley is very well under way and very little remains to be done. This is not, of course, a major harvest in the nation. The harvest has begun in South Australia and in other areas. It has began in a major way in my own area, and in some of my constituency along the Murray River at little places like Euston all the grapes are off. The only problem remaining is what to do with them. This is the urgency of the matter and that is why tonight this attempt is made to bring the Parliament back to the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas and to a decision on it.

I again draw attention to the fact that the motion which is associated with my exercise this evening is that moved by the honourable member for Angas. The Opposition has been very careful not to change it - not a comma, not a syllable - because it feels that it is an extraordinarily good motion. It is this motion which we want to debate. We want to give everybody who represents a wine grape growing area an opportunity to make a decision in this Parliament now while there is this urgency. It may interest honourable members to know that 18 members of the Parliament are directly concerned with this industry - 4 Liberal, 7 Country Party and 7 Labor members - and I am hoping that from these 18 members-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I again remind the honourable member for Riverina that he is debating more the subject matter of the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas than his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I know exactly your concern, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I am trying to do is to indicate that in relation to the motion I have moved this evening I am hoping that at least 4 just men among honourable members opposite - there are 11 of them who are involved - will join with the Opposition to have the motion which came from the Government side debated as a matter of urgency. There is a point in support of the motion for suspension of Standing Orders which must be made. It is a point which I am sure would be made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and we must deal with it when discussing my motion. The Minister’s reply to the crisis has been to appoint Professor J. M. Grant, a professor of economics, to inquire into the wine industry. Professor Grant has indicated that it will take him 6 weeks to complete his investigation. He has stated that he is engaged only in the collection of facts and is not required to make any recommendations. By the time that collection of facts is delievered to the Minister and he confers with his Department, the matter goes to Cabinet which will give it consideration, and further conferring is undertaken with the Treasury, the harvest will be over. There is a danger of 40,000 tons of grapes not being taken in, rotting on the vine, and more pertinent still is the fact that Parliament will not be in session then. This is the reason why there is an urgency about this matter.

I remind the House that what is concerned here is the imposition of a 50c a gallon excise which affects 5,000 growers and a dozen communities in the eastern States. I will not canvass the detail of it and hope that I will be able to deal with that detail after the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is carried. But what I am trying to point out in speaking in support of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is the urgency of the situation. It is a matter to which every honourable member concerned must apply himself, members such as those from South Australia, including the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes), who has maintained the silence of Dean Maitland on all matters of rural affairs. However, I am hoping tonight that he is anxious and concerned about this problem and will be joining with the Opposition to have this debate resumed. The honourable member for Murray spoke most feelingly on the subject. We hope that he will also wish to continue the debating points he made and carry them to their logical conclusion. The honourable member for Paterson also spoke as did that doughty fighter on behalf of the countryside, the honourable member for Wakefield, who seconded the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas. These honourable members I have mentioned have indicated their concern and I must refer to them in speaking to my motion because they would be disappointed if I did not bring them into what is after all a completely non-Party exercise tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Riverina that the Chair will be disappointed if he does do this. I remind the honourable member again that the motion before the Chair is purely and simply for the suspension of Standing Orders and the debate must be strictly within those bounds and not on the subject matter of the debate which he seeks to have resumed. The honourable member has mentioned a great deal of the subject matter involved in the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas.

Mr GRASSBY:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I have attempted to mention only so much of the material matter as would be necessary to refresh the memories of those honourable members whose memories may not be as fresh as yours or of those of us who are interested in this matter. They just may not have kept in their minds the fact that this is an important matter. They may have overlooked the fact that a harvest is now under way, and I suggest that this is very germane to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Riverina may suggest that honourable members may have overlooked the harvest, but they must not overlook the Standing Orders-and neither should the Chair overlook the Standing Orders.

Mr Calder:

– Sit down.

Mr GRASSBY:

– 1 notice that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is not interested in this subject. He interjected and said that perhaps I should sit down. I am speaking very much to the motion to suspend Standing Orders on behalf of a multi-million dollar industry and a great many people who are in serious trouble. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory is not concerned. I suggest that he should keep his counsel to himself.

Dr Patterson:

– What party is he in?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am not quite sure of that, but I understand that he does come quite regularly to the Parliament. Returning to the urgency of this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, T would remind you and other honourable members that the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas in this House was cut off m Its prime and that we have not been able to bring it before the House again. In addressing myself to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders I must again stress the urgency of this matter because surely, in order to influence this House to agree to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, I have to demonstrate an urgency, and I think that this is completely within the Standing Orders, as I understand them.

Mr Daly:

– You are right, too.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you. Having said that, I just want to point out that there has been-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I might suggest to the honourable member for Riverina that if there is such an urgency we should spend less time debating the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. This would help to get the matter discussed urgently.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I take your encouragement very much to heart, and I am sure that all honourable members who are interested in this matter are deeply encouraged by your support for this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which is before us tonight. It is very good. I am glad. Mr Deputy Speaker, I only hope that your good example will be followed by honourable members on my left. Having said that, I want to stress again that the Parliament will not be sitting for very long into this year, according to the timetable that has already been announced. I am also suggesting to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the matter raised in the motion moved by the honourable member for Angas must come before us urgently. I have taken the very first opportunity that has been open to me to bring this forward. I say that with some passion because I, have wanted to see this matter brought before the House before now. Now the motion is with us.

Following your remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude on this note: Here is an opportunity for all members in this House who are interested in this problem to say: Tes, we will debate it and, what is more, we will apply ourselves in a constructive way to the motion which was moved by the honourable member for Angas’. I hope the honourable member for Angas will stand with us - or, if the honourable member for Angas likes, we will stand with him in support of his motion, and we hope that all other honourable members who are interested in this matter will do likewise. Otherwise, the interpretation must be that they are not interested in the wine industry or its problems or in the matters which were raised in the motion moved by an honourable member on the Government side of the chamber. I commend to the House the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Deputy Speaker, in seconding this motion-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! ls the honourable member for Sturt seconding the motion?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes. I said that. In seconding this motion I hope that you will bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is quite difficult to speak in support of this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders without perhaps in some way or the other referring to the tax which was so stupidly imposed by the Government in the 1970-71 Budget. I might say that at that time neither the then Prime Minister nor the then Treasurer required an inquiry to be held into the wine industry before imposing such a stupid tax. No such thought entered their minds. What procedures are available to honourable members on this side of the chamber and, indeed, what procedures are available to honourable members on the Government side of the chamber to have this matter fully and properly debated as it should be debated? It is true to say that Government supporters can place a notice of motion on the notice paper, but in the absence of any sincerity it does not mean anything to the people in the community who are concerned and who believe that something ought to be done to undo the damage that was caused by this Government imposing such a tax upon the wine industry.

In seconding the motion I afford an opportunity to honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), who, I understand, is not in the chamber at the moment, to express themselves adequately and properly in this chamber in regard to this tax. I hope the honourable member for Barker will represent the constituents whose names appear on a petition from the Southern Vales Co-operative Winery Ltd which is in the heart of his electorate in South Australia. Equally I would say that a second opportunity ought to be afforded to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who, as my colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) has already said, seconded a motion which was designed to abolish the wine tax and which was moved prior to the Christmas recess. Also, this debate affords an opportunity to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who at the moment is sitting at the table beside the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter). The Minister for Primary Industry engaged in a great deal of double talk at a meeting of wine growers which was called in Berri in South Australia during the course of the last recess. The debate also affords an opportunity particularly to the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who has been torn almost limb from limb by constituents from one end of his electorate to the other. The electorate considers that he used the procedures of this House for a cheap political trick.

By moving this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders we are affording an opportunity to the honourable member for Angas to stand up in this chamber and say what he has been endeavouring to say to his electors since they have hauled him over the coals at his post office meetings, as they are referred to in his electorate, or at other meetings in the corners of his electorate. He can act in the manner in which he suggested he would act - if given the opportunity - at that meeting which was called in the River Murray town of Berri in the last few weeks. Without going into detail at all in support of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, I want to say broadly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will permit me to do so, that the motion ought to be carried in order to enable a debate to take place in this House. I am quite sure that during the course of that debate we will reveal the many shortcomings in the industry resulting from the Government’s imposition of this tax. We on this side of the chamber say without fear or question that the damn thing was stupid and that it ought to be abolished straight out; there ought to be no monkeying about. There should be no suggestion as to what we might do when we achieve office. The tax should be abolished. The opportunity ought to be afforded to this House to do that.

The opportunity ought to be afforded to honourable members generally to say: ‘All right, the Government has already said insofar as many of its last budgetary provisions are concerned that it was clearly in error’. It has said that. Before you pull me up, Mr Deputy Speaker - I can see that you are getting anxious - I want to say that the Government has admitted its errors insofar as many other areas of the Budget are concerned. But it has been too long in admitting the error in this field that it made in the last Budget. It is time that the Government corrected this evil which it inflicted on a section of the rural industry which was buoyant and showing a considerable growth rate. That growth rate has since dropped as a result of the imposition of the tax. In addition to that, the argument of the Minister for Primary Industry was torn to shreds by a representative of the Brandy Producers Association at the meeting in Berri. The Minister was made to look foolish. I do no think that he ought to be required to go along to another public meeting in South Australia and be dealt with in the manner in which he was dealt with at that meeting by the presentation of cold clear facts. He should be afforded the opportunity of clearing the air and of straightening out in his own mind what he has done. He should be given the opportunity to state in this chamber that he was wrong in looking at figures, which are prepared, no doubt, by his Department from time to time, and in putting the wrong slant on them. If he is not able to refute statements which were made at the meeting to which I referred earlier - I am certain he will not be able to refute them - it will be clear to me that the figures which were presented to that meeting by representatives of the industries were the correct ones.

It is just not good enough for Government supporters to hark back and refer to wine sales since the tax was imposed almost 2 years ago. The fact is that the grower is getting much less today from his product than he received prior to the imposition of the tax, and that is important. 1 think that the motion which is now before the House affords the opportunity - restricted as those opportunities are for private members - to have the matter debated. We have received heaps of correspondence, a great deal of it in the form of petitions. Articles have been written in newspapers, and expressions of opinion have been stated by those in the industry at the co-operative level, the grower level and the manufacturing level. People are concerned generally at what is likely to be the result of the current harvest because of the Government’s imposition of the wine excise. Honourable members who have received representations of the kind to which I have referred ought to be afforded the opportunity by the procedures of the House to have the matter debated.

I conclude by saying once again that the 3 South Australian members to whom I have referred should be afforded an opportunity to debate this matter. In fact, the honourable member for Angas said at the meeting at Berri that he was not a member of the Government. Strictly speaking, that may be correct, but he is a member of the Government Party and he should be given the opportunity to stand in this place and be counted this evening in regard to the matter he raised last session and to show where his courage and his loyalty lay. The honourable member for Angas should show whether his loyalty is towards individuals in his Party or to the people who elected him to this place.

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

– Anybody who is listening to this debate tonight or who reads Hansard would think that we were talking about the wine excise. Of course, we are not doing so. We are talking about a motion to suspend Standing Orders. That is an entirely different proposition, and I know how lenient you have been during the course of this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, in allowing it to continue as you have. If we are talking about something that is of an urgent nature which requires the suspension of Standing Orders, what we mean is that, for some reason, new circumstances or some particularly critical factors have emerged which means that a measure which, in this instance, came before the House last session should be brought forward tonight so that we can debate it. First of all, it is of interest that the mover of the motion, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), said that this is the first opportunity he has had to move this motion. If one cares to look at the notice paper under General Business, notice No. 12, one will see that the item reads: ‘Resumption of debate (from 25th November 1971)’. We have already had 3 sitting weeks and a week recess, and this is the first sitting day after that week recess. As 25th November was a long time ago, the honourable member for Riverina has had any number of opportunities to move his motion, because under the procedures of this House, there is no difficulty at all for any member of this chamber to move at any time for the suspension of Standing Orders. However, the honourable member has not seen fit to do so.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is misleading for the Minister to say that we have had an opportunity since 25th November to raise this matter. He knows that that is wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– On the contrary, it is true that any member of this House at any time may move for the suspension of Standing Orders. There is no restriction on the time of moving. There is an opportunity for any member at any time to move that motion, and this has not been taken advantage of before this present time. It is not true that the honourable member for Riverina has not previously had an opportunity to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. He just has not seen fit to do so before this moment. Let us get that point right. There have been many other opportunities. This is not the first opportunity he has had to move this motion.

The second point is that one naturally wonders whether the honourable member might have some other reason for moving his motion. If one looks at the business for the rest of the day, it will be seen that we are to debate, amongst other things, Order of the day No. 1, the States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill. Could it be that, at the prime listening time, members of the Opposition are hesitant about debating State aid? Are they concerned that this matter should be before the public at a time when this House is on the air and that they do not want to talk about the issue of State aid? Are they concerned that the policies that they pursue will be revealed to the public eye so that it will be seen that one of their objectives is that less aid will be provided for education, following a policy which already is operating in one of the States in which there is a Labor Government? Perhaps that is the reason for the Opposition choosing this particular time.

Mr Grassby:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I rarely do so, but I take it now. During the course of my submission to (his House in relation to the suspension of Standing Orders, you drew my attention to the fact that I had to speak to the motion for suspension and to nothing else. I also made passing reference to the wine excise which, of course, is the kernel of the entire matter. The Minister now is debating educational policy. I would be delighted to debate this with him at any time but this is not the matter which is before the Chair at the present time and 1 suggest that you draw that point to his notice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the Minister for Primary Industry that he should not debate the subject matter of education which is to be debated at a later stage in the House.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that any member on this side of the House would be prepared to debate the question of education with any member of the Opposition. However, I am interested that a motion should be moved at this time which denies members of the public the opportunity to hear early in the evening the debate on the States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill.

However, let us turn to the motion that is before the House for the suspension of Standing Orders. The motion was not moved at the first opportunity that was possible but was moved very belatedly and, indeed, with rather a synthetic approach. The approach was made rather to take advantage of what was seen as an opportunity perhaps to air a motion before the electors for whom the honourable member for Riverina is responsible. The motion certainly relates to a major primary producing industry which has fallen into some difficulties, an industry which has far more problems than that with which this motion alone concerns itself. If this House were to afford an opportunity to debate this matter, what would it be doing? It would be denying this House an opportunity to consider all the problems of the industry with all the facts that Professor Grant is to produce in his report, as I understand it, within the course of the next couple of weeks. I understand that it is shortly to be presented. Indeed, I know that Professor Grant is coming to this place tomorrow to talk to me, amongst other people, about some of the problems, as he sees them, of the industry. Contrary to the suggestions of the mover of the motion, Professor Grant has a responsibility not just to report on facts but also to examine the circumstances of the bulk wine cooperatives and the river co-operatives in the Murray River area - those very cooperatives which have been most affected at a time when there has been a downturn, particularly in bulk wine sales. There are problems in this industry as there are in many other primary industries. The problems are of a nature which needs careful and collective examination with all the facts in hand that it is possible to glean. I believe that it is necessary for this House to have before it the report of Professor Grant to enable adequate consideration to be given to this matter.

I believe that this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders was moved purely for political reasons at a time when there seems to be a convenient opportunity for the honourable member for Riverina to intervene in the proceedings of the House by seeking to suspend the Standing Orders. I believe that the procedures of this House have allowed the honourable member at any time he saw fit the opportunity to move a motion of this nature if he so desired. 1 do not believe that the critical urgency for an examination of this subject in its narrow form is sufficient. Contrary to the action of the honourable member for Riverina, the honourable member for Angas has on many occasions discussed with me the whole of the problems of the industry and he has endeavoured to present his case on behalf of all the people in the river area who are genuinely worried about the 1972 vintage and the way in which that vintage can be dealt with. In those circumstances I do not believe this House would be treating the very real problems of the wine growers of Australia in a responsible way were we to deny Professor Grant the opportunity to produce his findings to us. For that reason the Government does not accept the motion moved by the honourable member for Riverina. I therefore move:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 57

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 928

DEVELOPMENT OF ANULA AND WULAGI NEIGHBOURHOODS, DARWIN

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

The estimated cost of the proposed work is $8.75m. The proposal is for the construction of roads, footpaths and drainage, and the provision of water supply, sewerage and electric power to 1,808 residential sites and 22 special sites for schools, shops, flats, service stations, etc. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Committee also recommended that:

  1. immediate attention be given to the planning and construction of the Palmerston Freeway, and
  2. the Government should, as a matter of priority, examine the possibility of further increasing the capacity of the Stuart Highway-Bagot Road access.

Regarding Palmerston Freeway, planning of this road is now at an advanced stage and a proposal on the matter will be examined by the Government as soon as possible. There is no intention at this stage to develop this road to full freeway standard. In respect to the Stuart Highway-Bagot Road access, works that will increase the capacity of Bagot Road by providing 3 traffic lanes in each direction and traffic lights at the Bagot Road-Stuart Highway intersection have now been included in the 1971-72 civil works programme. Together with work now being carried out to widen the Stuart Highway between Goyder Road and the Daly Street Bridge, these works will complete the upgrading of the Stuart Highway-Bagot Road access. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I would like to speak briefly in support of the motion and to commend the Government for its forward planning with a view to spending $8. 75m on the new subdivisions to the north-east of Darwin. Principally I would like to mention the importance of the Palmerston Freeway, to which the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) has just referred. All these developments and the ones just previously introduced to the House have access through only one road, and that is the Bagot Road. So the Stuart Highway and Bagot Road access, which it is planned to improve, is most essential, as is the Palmerston Freeway which is the only other way of getting to this north-eastern area of Darwin which is expanding very rapidly and where most of the population will live in the future. I think that in 1975 there will be 55,000 people living there, and by 1980 there will be 90,000 people there. At the moment there is a tremendous traffic hazard and hold-up area there, as there is only one way out of town in this area and that is along the Stuart Highway and down the Bagot Road. I commend the Government on the forward planning in this regard. 1 hope that the work will go on without further ado.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 929

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 March (vide page 861), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Beazley had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place -thereof: ‘the House, while not refusing a second reading to the Bill, is of the opinion that it should provide for the establishment of an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in government and nongovernment primary, secondary, and technical schools and recommended 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’.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– These Billsthe States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1972 and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972 - which we are debating concurrently are a welcome step forward in the task of improving and strengthening our education system in Australia. They are an earnest of the Commonwealth’s desire to assist government schools and also the independent schools which play a vitally important role in the fields of primary and secondary education, and many of which find themselves in an increasingly difficult financial situation. As will be recalled in the House, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced on 9th December last that further special assistance would be given to government and independent schools. Government schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are, of course, the direct respon sibility of the Commonwealth Government. Government schools in the various States are the constitutional responsibility of the individual State governments, each of which receives increasingly large sums annually from the Commonwealth Government. Of the total revenue of approximately $9,000m estimated to be received by the Commonwealth Government in the financial year 1971-72, almost one third is being paid to the States for various purposes, including education. Each State government has the right to determine its own priorities and it is clear from the records that most State governments give education a high priority. That is fortunate.

Whether this would continue under a centralised system of education such as that advocated by the Australian Labor Party amendment in terms of setting up an Australian Schools Commission is, I believe, extremely doubtful. I think the odds are that under a centralised system such as that advocated by honourable members opposite the States would tend to give education a lower priority and this would indeed be most unfortunate for education in Australia. Government schools and independent schools are complementary and unless the independent schools remain viable an impossibly heavy burden would fall on the government schools and, indeed, the whole present system of primary and secondary education would break down.

The States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972 provides for payment of grants totalling $6. 66m to the States during 1971- 72 to assist with the construction and development of government primary and secondary schools. This represents a first instalment towards grants totalling $20m which the Commonwealth has announced will be paid to the States between now and 30th June 1973 to enable them to outlay additional capital funds on primary and secondary government schools.

Each year the Commonwealth is making substantially increased amounts available for education in the States, both directly by way of scholarships, science blocks, libraries, teachers colleges and technical colleges, for research grants to universities and so on and also indirectly by way of increasing payments to the State governments. It should be recognised that the 78 per cent of enrolments at government schools attracts about 25 per cent of State revenue funds whereas 22 per cent of enrolments at independent schools attracts only about 1 per cent of these funds. It is clearly equitable that extra Commonwealth assistance should be given to the independent schools.

The States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1972 amends the principal Act of 1969 and increases the rates of per capita grants from $35 to $50 per annum for each pupil receiving primary education and from $50 to $68 per annum for each pupil receiving a secondary education. These increases are in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister last December and take effect as from the commencement of the 1972 school year.

It has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that increases in teachers’ salaries in independent schools have risen more steeply in recent times by reason of various awards which have aimed at placing teachers in independent schools on comparable rates with teachers in government schools. As the Minister has also explained, the problems of the rural industries have added to the difficulty so far as boarding schools are concerned.

There is fairly general agreement that the per capita grant basis, without any means test, is the appropriate form of aid with regard to recurrent expenditure in independent schools. Although there is some criticism of this method, the fact is that no practical alternative is in sight. I think everyone would agree that educational standards must be maintained at the highest possible level throughout the country and there is no doubt in my mind that the Government is doing the right thing in helping the independent schools to function as efficiently as possible, having regard to rising costs and growing enrolments

It is easy enough, of course, for honourable members opposite, as they have done in this debate, to be critical. But as Disraeli once said, it is easier to be critical than to be correct. If one examines Australian Labor Party policy statements concerning an Australian Schools Commission one is struck by the number of apparently con flicting statements and the real policy is by no means clear. An Australian Schools Commission would undoubtedly be a centralist body which would tend to usurp the proper function of the States. It is quite obvious that there are still deep divisions within the Australian Labor Party on the question of State aid and the place of independent schools within the school system.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), speaking in this chamber on 2nd December 1971, made a statement concerning the Australian Schools Commission. At page 3983 of Hansard of 2nd December 1971 the Leader of the Opposition is reported as stating:

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 of the investigations made by this expert body and reported to the Parliament and to the public.

A quite contrary statement emanated from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) who made it clear that, as he saw it, the Labor Party policy was aid to government schools first. Somewhere in between we have statements that were made by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), the Labor Party’s shadow minister for education and science. The honourable member is reported in Hansard of 9th December 1971 as saying:

However, I want to say something about this system of making per capita grants to private schools. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise in each State a Catholic education authority and an education authority for the other independent schools, to make a grant to them which may be calculated on a per capita basis and for them to be given the right to spend the money according to need.

We have here an obvious conflict in relation to the interpretation by leading Labor Party spokesmen on Labor’s policy on education and on how an Australian schools commission would operate. I believe that the Australian people are entitled to clarification of this.

By contrast the Government’s policy is perfectly clear. It is designed steadily to improve the standard of schools throughout Australia. The Government supports independent schools by making money available for both capital and recurrent purposes. In the allocation of capital funds certain standards are applied to decide on the entitlement of a particular independent school. This principle is followed in relation to science laboratories and libraries in secondary schools. Only those schools that are able to establish an entitlement under these standards attract Commonwealth support. Priorities are determined by representatives of the various groups of independent schools. In the case of funds for recurrent expenditure, the Commonwealth Government and most of the State governments provide per capita payments for all children in primary and secondary schools without a means test of any sort. This method is supported by the Australian Parents Council and various other bodies in addition to most governments.

Parents who, for one reason or another, choose to send their children to independent schools are entitled to expect governments to contribute directly to the cost of running those schools provided that the parents continue to accept a reasonable share of the cost themselves. After all, taxpaying parents contribute indirectly to the cost of maintarn ‘ng government schools, even though their own children may be attending independent schools. An analysis of the records shows that the total financial support provided by the Commonwealth and State governments for capital and recurrent expenditure in relation to government schools is considerably more than the total financial support given to independent schools. In his statement to the House on 9th December 1971 the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that the general financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth represented about one-half of the State’s current budget expenditure and that on this basis the Commonwealth is supporting approximately one-half of the increased expenditure by the States on primary and secondary schools.

The independent schools have received additional assistance from the States, but owing to the relatively greater increases in costs in independent schools than in government schools the Government has decided to increase the rates of the annual per capita grants to both primary and secondary schools throughout Australia. I am sure that these measures we are now debating and which give effect to the Prime Minister’s promise of 9th December will be widely welcomed as a positive step not only towards maintaining the viability of independent schools as an integral part of our primary and secondary education system but also towards improving the quality of education in all States and also in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. The following passage in the Prime Minister’s statement of 9th December 1971 indicates clearly the Commonwealth Government’s continuing policy and participation in maintaining and improving our school system throughout the country:

My Government will continue to co-operate with the States in measures both direct and indirect to expand and improve education services in government schools. Our policy for the independent schools is that, relying on their own efforts and with assistance from governments, they should be able to continue to provide places at a reasonable standard for that proportion of the school population which in the past has sought education in non-government schools. The action we are now taking is a further indication of our determination to assist those directly concerned to improve the standards in all types of schools.

I have very much pleasure in supporting these 2 Bills.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to support the amendment. I believe the amendment sets out appropriately what should be done by the Commonwealth in the field of education. It is time that we had some consideration of what is needed in our education system and some guidelines laid down by which we can examine the worth of moneys expended on education. We appear at the moment to have a completely piecemeal approach. Every now and again the Commonwealth decides, sometimes for educational reasons, sometimes for political reasons, that certain sums of money should be expended on education. The basic Commonwealth involvement in education started with the secondary school libraries scheme, which resulted from a completely political decision which had no relevance to the educational value of this scheme. It was necessary for the 1963 election.

Libraries are quite obviously welcomed by those schools that get them. There is no question of that. But I wonder why no-one has seen fit to examine the need to provide libraries for those children who attend primary schools. 1 think it is utterly ridiculous to offer children maximum availability to good class literature at a secondary school if those children have not had the same opportunities in primary school and in their pre-school education, which in most cases does not even exist. It is all right for those children who are lucky enough to come from families which have available to them a substantial body of literature and in which the parents have a substantial body of learning. It is all right for those children who are fortunate enough to go to schools, both state and non-state, which have adequate facilities in this area, but unfortunately the schools which are most likely not to have adequate facilities are those schools attended by children whose parents are most likely not to have had an adequate basis of literary knowledge and an adequate supply of the educational literature which it is desirable that young people have available in their homes, with the end result that those children who start off culturally under-privileged arrive at secondary school, in many cases, without having had the opportunity to make any great progress in their cultural development. They have passed through primary school and they embark on the most important part of their future activities in a secondary school without the necessary basis for a successful academic career.

It is not a matter of whether the child has capacity; it is a matter of whether the child has opportunity. A child from a culturally under-privileged family has less starting opportunity than have normal children and therefore requires greater encouragement. I believe that this is the area of need. There is a need for those children who do not get a head start, as it is commonly termed in the United States, to be given the additional facilities which are necessary to assist them to overcome the gap that separates them from more fortunate children at their starting-out point. 1 believe that it is placing the cart before the horse to provide secondary school libraries without giving serious consideration to the position of primary schools and, even more importantly in areas in which the basic educational standards of parents is low - these areas are fairly well known to all of us - without taking the necessary action to provide a satisfactory level of pre-school education, which can be vital to a young child starting out.

It is not so long ago that members of this Parliament were circularised with a letter from certain teachers at a school in Fitzroy. The teachers were concerned that, being of a middle class background, they were completely unable to communicate with the children in the schools in that area, whose class background, whose cultural background, whose ambitions and the ambitions given to them by their parents, were totally different. No area of communication was available to them. These children for that reason were serving their time out in school rather than obtaining an education. Some children were obviously aware of the benefits of education and were seeking to gain the maximum possible benefit out of a poor situation, but they were hampered by the general attitude which was adopted to school work.

It is all very well to say that the needs of all schools are the same. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), by allocating equal amounts of money to all schools, is saying that all schools have equal needs. This is just not true. There are areas in which schools require far greater sums of money than do other schools, if they are to reach a decent level of educational achievement.

Basically I want to talk about the State system, because it appears that no speakers on the Government side find it important enough to speak about. If we read their speeches without reading the names of the Bills which are mentioned at the beginning of most speeches, we would be hard pressed to know that there was such a thing as a government school. Looking at government schools, we find that the Bell Park Technical School in Geelong, which is now acquiring permanent accommodation, is in its fifth or sixth year of operation. The children at that school spent the first 4 years of their secondary education in portable classrooms, with not one permanent building in the place, with no sewerage and with nothing except mud on the ground in the winter. Is anyone naive enough to suggest that an adequate education can be provided by teachers, no matter how dedicated or how capable, under those circumstances? It is plainly impossible. To suggest that a technical education can be obtained under those circumstances is the height of stupidity. These children were going to a government school. Apparently they are not quite so important as those who might go to another type of school. In many cases school libraries and science blocks are allocated to a lesser standard in the State school systems for the numbers of children attending than are available to comparable secondary schools in the same area. The allocations of money shown give a good indication of this aspect which I think is extremely serious.

Another area which should be examined carefully relates to the problem which confronts children of parents who are economically underprivileged. Large numbers of people in our community do not get the mythical average wage. Large numbers of people do not get even $50 a week. These parents have to send their children, under the same conditions, to government schools. They have to meet the costs associated with sending their children to secondary schools, but it is not possible for them to do so. Poverty begets poverty because in many cases such children cannot continue their education for economic reasons. This is especially so of children of invalid pensioners and other recipients of social services. They become the poor people of the school. The cruellest people in the world are children, as we all know. It is for this reason that these children become second class citizens within their own school population and it does not matter how much teachers or others try to help them. They have far greater difficulties in obtaining an adequate level of education than do normal children. No area of assistance is available to their parents or themselves to provide them with the wherewithal to complete their education, and the older they get the greater the problem becomes because it is rare for parents - especially invalid pensioners and this type of parent - to increase their incomes as they get older.

So we have a situation where a child of 16, 17 or 18 years who is starting to become a very expensive luxury for any family is trying to cope with an adolescent life with the normal costs of living at that age and obtaining an education on a basic income available to his family of something less than $40 a week and, quite often, something substantially less than $30 a week. Most honourable members could not comprehend such a situation. This is an area where the Commonwealth Government should seriously examine the position. lt should look into the problems which are faced by people who receive social service benefits from the Commonwealth, because their children are just as entitled to the so-called free education which is supposedly available as is any other group of children in the community, but the Government chooses to pass sentence on them. Because their parents are not able to earn an adequate income these children arc sentenced to a lesser existence than other children. 1 want to deal with one or two other matters but I am concerned that little is done for the rehabilitation of older schools for which these capital grants were supposedly designed. I was under the impression that the purpose was to assist the States in building programmes designed to rehabilitate older schools, especially those in the inner areas, but I have found that in Victoria the funds have been allocated for jobs which already had been indicated in this year’s building programme before these grants were announced. I do not know whether the States had prior knowledge of this assistance but it would seem that the money is not to be used to rebuild older schools to better standards to cope with modern needs as this additional money is being spent on new classrooms in new schools. The parents of children attending older schools, and the children themselves, have far greater problems than do those children who are fortunate enough to go to a newly completed school. Modern design has its advantages, even though I understand studies have shown that many children in the older schools are more aware of and thankful for their conditions than are some of the children in the newer areas. The facts of the matter are that many of the schools in the capital cities are completely unsuited for modern education and need replacing, but while the present system remains and while priorities and expenditures are for new buildings the backlog which obviously exists will continue and these schools will still be used and their educational facilities will remain substandard because of continued use. The recreational facilities in many of these schools are so close to being non-existent that it is not funny. 1 find it interesting that it should be suggested that a schools commission should not be esablished to examine the needs of pre-schools, primary schools and secondary schools because it would result in some form of centralisation. I think it is more likely to create a form of decentralisation than is the present method. It is difficult to understand the Government’s reluctance to have a public examination of the needs of these schools because there is no such reluctance in respect of the field of university education. I find it difficult to see the basic philosophical or political differences between university and tertiary institutions. The institutes of technology and the colleges of advanced education have been easily absorbed into the Commonwealth scheme of things but the Commonwealth apparently feels that there is some tremendous sin involved in taking the same sort of initiatives with regard to secondary schools.

I find it hard to understand the difference, but 1 think it might be of value to the House to note what one Liberal Party member thinks about how education could be improved in Australia. At a recent meeting in Geelong a Liberal member of Parliament was called upon to put his Party’s policy on education. He started off by saying that in view of the fact that his Party had no firm policies on education he felt free to say what he liked. He indicated to the parents that the only way in which adequate educational facilities could be provided for their children would be for the Government to stop contributing towards their education and for the parents themselves to meet the cost. He felt that this would involve the parents more. The fact that they could not afford to pay did not matter. He contended it would involve the parents more and make them more receptive to the educational needs of their children.

He did, however, suggest some means by which the parents could pay. I am sure these will be of interest to the House because they show how far out of touch some people are with reality. He suggested that instead of the parents buying packages of Weeties they could go to a bulk store and buy bulk quantities of Weeties. I am sure that this suggestion would please the packagers of Weeties. He said that the same could be done with jam, butter and various other commodities. With the money saved the parents could pay for the education of their children instead of the Government doing it for them. This was the argument put forward seriously by a member of Parliament - not of this Parliament, incidentally - as a policy to improve educational standards. Having listened to this debate and having heard Government supporter after Government supporter putting forward their policies in respect of the government school system, which has to accept children whether it likes it or not and has to provide an education for children whether it likes it or not, I think that the philosophy of not assisting government education is rife among the Government Parties at the moment. Their only concern is to assist the private school system. It is obvious that they have no interest whatsoever in providing an adequate education for those children whose parents cannot afford to meet the cost, for those children who are unfortunate enough to be born underprivileged. I believe the amendment proposed by the Opposition should be supported for the very good reason that it is well past the time that a serious study should have been undertaken on the educational needs of children, and an attempt made to meet those needs.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I support the Government’s policy as expressed in the 2 Bills now before the House and I do not favour the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I will read it aloud because sometimes the House is apt to get away from the terms of the proposed amendment. The first part of the amendment, which concerns me particularly, states:

That all 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, is of the opinion that it should provide for the establishment of an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in government and non-government primary, secondary and technical schools-

I want to say right from the word go that I am against the establishment of an Australian Schools Commission for very many reasons. The first reason I put forward to the House is the problem of centralised control. 1 do not think it is in the best interests of education as such to have this device which purports to produce priorities of expenditure within the schooling systems in Australia, centralised in Canberra. I am personally entirely in favour of the Karmel Committee report produced for the South Australian Government, authorised by Mrs Steele, then Minister of Education in the Hall Government of South Australia. I do not say for one minute that I have read every word of the report or that I agree with every word of it, but I agree with the principles it contains, as I understand them, and 1 agree with the forward looking policy - one must be generous in some, ways - of the 2 State governments which have taken advantage of the long sighted views put forward by Professor Karmel in that report.

I say that in contradistinction to the centralised view of an Australian Schools Commission. I think it would be a move in the wrong direction. For a start, the Karmel Committee report specifies that schools, including teacher training colleges, should be autonomous. If they are not so in South Australia today, they are well on the way to being so. In my view that is the direction in which authorities should be moving, not towards the old fashioned centralised authority in educational systems.

Mr Kennedy:

– What a comment on the Government.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member for Bendigo has repeated himself 3 times. If he will bold his tongue I will be able to say that I am completely convinced that the procedure suggested in the amendment is exactly opposite to the correct way of looking at the future pattern in which education should proceed in this country. Let us have another look at the problems raised by the amendment moved by the Opposition. What I am about to say has been said before. The Opposition has been in complete disarray throughout this debate mainly because members of the Labor Party do not know what they think themselves on the subjejct of education. Senator Murphy takes the view that an Australian Schools Commission would be a means whereby all moneys for education would flow to the State sector. He takes the view that it would be a way of starving out of existence the private sector invest ment in education. He has openly stated that view and it is reported in Hansard of another place.

Naturally the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that he could not agree with that view. He said: ‘We must take a loftier view. We must make sure that there is equity between one section and another’ - this in the year of an election. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has in some ways, I think, a more profound knowledge than the other 2 gentlemen. He has attempted to conform with the principles of the Karmel report. He said, from memory: ‘No. We should have 24 different councils or commissions studying the proper priority of education in all States’. From my own point of view, 1 dismiss each of those opinions. The important thing that this Government has to do for education, and it will do it, is to continue to proceed along its present line, knowing that nearly one in four of Australian students at some time attends a private school. I am not debating at this point whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I am saying that it happens, and anyone who ignores the enormous importance of the private sector investment in education in this country obviously does not know what is going on.

Let us look, for instance, at the work carried out by the Department of Education and Science. Some time ago it produced this publication titled ‘Education and the Gross National Product’. This pamphlet is now a little elderly and I hope it will be updated. It aims to bring a little realism to bear on the comments made in the report made by Professor Karmel many years before his last report, to which I have just referred. At that time he mentioned the amounts of money spent by a vast variety of countries as a percentage of their gross national product. Honourable members might well recall that Australia was fairly well down the ladder in terms of public sector expenditure on education.

That was so for several reasons, the first of them being that we had a bigger private sector investment in education in this country than had any other country in the list compiled for comparison. The second reason was the age-old matter of the commodities and types of action that are included under the heading of educational expenditure. This excellent publication referred, for example, to the following items: School meals; free milk; health services; national cultural activities - in this country they are subject to another department; scientific research and development - again financed separately through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other such bodies; sport; leisure activities; civil education; youth activities; child welfare; public libraries: in-service industrial training; basic nursing training; armed Services colleges; rehabilitation and repatriation training; sponsored foreign students - for instance, the entire implications of the Colombo Plan - radio and television, and interest payments on loans used for school buildings.

Not one item on that huge list is included under the heading of expenditure on education in this country, yet two, three and even four of them are included under the heading of education by some countries. That gives a totally unbalanced view in attempting to form comparisons. If that is not bad enough, let us turn to what could well be termed the climatic conditions that apply to a country. For example, in Europe in the realm of agriculture the cost of production in livestock husbandry is enormously increased because of the necessity to house stock over a longer period of the year. This does not happen in Australia, and consequently there is a cheaper cost of production.

The same principle can be applied to education. In this country we do not need enormous heating complexes as are required in Europe. The same degree of structural strength may; not be necessary in school buildings. These items need to be considered when considering the educational performances of different countries. One other example from this pamphlet is a country quoted as spending 5.9 per cent of its national income on education. But in that country, which is a developing one, there is no free education. Children may be sent to school from the age of 6 if their parents can afford it and need stay only as long as the parents pay fees. Yet on the basis of a percentage comparison this country would be assumed to have an education system superior to Australia’s. So clearly, unless one has details of the form of economy of a country, its level of development and its education system, comparison on this criterion can be virtually meaningless. What should this Parliament and its members be doing to try to improve education in this country?

Dr Klugman:

– Send the kids to State schools.

Mr GILES:

– We need fewer wooden heads in the Parliament, but that is another matter.

Mr Daly:

– There is always room for you.

Mr GILES:

– And that goes also for the second interjector. The first thing is to look at the expenditure which this country can afford on education. We then give it a priority and from time to time look critically at how this money is spent. Any person who has taken a careful look recently at the quality of education knows the portions of it for which expenditure is most rapidly rising. I will not weary honourable members by going over these now. This expenditure needs constant scrutiny to see whether we can get better performance. I am of the view that we should be looking at other matters. What do we want out of education? How much do we want to spend? How can the money best be used? Should Carrel-type teaching devices and methods take the place of current teaching methods? Should tape recorders, television and movie films be used more than they are in order to produce better performance from the use of the taxpayers’ money? On the other hand, should reports such as the Karmel committee report be acted upon more promptly and, if they are not, should departments within the States which are responsible for the administration of education be run more as businesses without the undue loss that occurs from time to time? In other words, is a superannuated school teacher any better as head of the Department of Education than he is as a member of Parliament?

I go a stage further and say that I believe it is probably unnecessary to use education as a political stick. I can think back to not long ago when a very well respected and highly reputable man in this Parliament died. He was Senator Cohen. I have heard in this House 2 people - one making his maiden speech - refer to the time when he was in South Australia helping at a political meeting. I spoke at that meeting and was assured that it was a non-political meeting. So I just toss that back perhaps to level up in some way with those on the other side of the House who had the insolence to tackle only one side of the education problem and to insist on ignoring the enormous investment by people from the private sec tor interested in education. Only last weekend 1 was telephoned by spokesmen for 3 bodies - I shall not mention names - representing 3 separate religions, who were horrified at many remarks made by members of the Opposition last week. One of the comments appears in the dissentient report of 2 members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. I ask: What would one think if one was trying to run a poor little Lutheran school in the Barossa Valley and one read a remark like this? The report states:

The provision of continuing religious indoctrination which is undoubtedly prized by Catholics and which is their main justification for the perpetuation of their separate school system. . . .

Mr Kennedy:

– Is that true or is it not?

Mr GILES:

– Those remarks were made by 2 Senate colleagues of the honourable member for Bendigo in their dissentent report.

Dr Gun:

– That is perfectly true. They do not make any secret of it.

Mr GILES:

– If the honourable member for Kingston wants it to be made quite public in his electorate that he accuses certain churches of religious indoctrination under the guise of education, that is his business. I will help him if he wants to make that public. I will help the honourable member for Bendigo, too. I would like to know also where the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) stands in relation to this matter. I do not need to wonder where the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) stands. He is a protege of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and we all know his views. These members are accountable to the people in their own areas and some pf them, such as the honourable member for Bendigo, might well have made their viewpoints known to their electorates. I will lay my bottom dollar - I am not a gambling man and this is not the right place for it - that none of the other honourable members I have mentioned has made his position plain to his electorate. I will go a stage further and say that the State Government of South Australia through its needs commission is adopting on purpose a direct method of trying to downgrade the importance and standard of every little Lutheran school, every little Roman Catholic school and every little Methodist school in that State.

Mr Keating:

– What have you to say about government schools?

Mr GILES:

– The government schools in my State from the days of the Tom Playford Government have been considerably ahead of those in Victoria. We are proud of it and we do not play party politics with education. Several governments have been responsible for this situation. In relation to the private sector schools - this is lue only area where they are at fault - the situation is very different, as the honourable member knows. It is different because in South Australia the State Government under its needs formula is just not giving enough money and is using this formula as a device to hoodwink people and to downgrade the importance of those parochial schools, if that is the right expression. The Commonwealth donation to primary schools is $50 per capita, but in South Australia it is $10 per capita. It is $50 in New South Wales, $40 in Victoria, $45 in Queensland, $30 in Western Australia and $24 in Tasmania. The average in South Australia is $10. In the secondary schools the position is even worse. The State Government, working on a needs formula, has drawn 4 categories. Category A is meant to get the preponderance of aid made available but the aid which is given in South Australia to that sector of schooling is far less than it is in the 2 major States. That is the top category. Categories B and C are way behind and category D last year did not get a penny.

Mr Kennedy:

– They are the richest schools in the States.

Mr GILES:

– If we are to look at rich schools, the honourable member should cast his eyes over the volume of information put in his office today and see how many schools are known to him in his State. I was astounded to find that in South Australia I knew perhaps only half a dozen schools out of the hundreds mentioned that are receiving benefits from this Government. They are receiving benefits of such consequence compared with the South Australian Government’s donation that they are quite unequalled. I maintain that during this debate the Labor Party has been made to look quite foolish in the eyes of the public. People all over Australia today are ringing through to people like me in a way they have never done before because they have realised at long last that the proposal by the Labor Party for an education commission is designed only to hoodwink the left wing of the Labor Party and that the Labor Party will do nothing about it at all. Is this the influence which the unions exert on the Labor Party? As regards the Labor Party’s proposition to determine the requirements of schools on the basis of need, this would prove parsimonious to the small schools operating in the State from which I come. I support the Government’s Bill which makes available per capita grants in an increasing fashion, and I commend the Government for it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs wants to apologise for the behaviour of his Government-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would ask the honourable member to keep to the Standing Orders, please. I have called the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr Klugman:

– I am speaking Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Are you speaking to the Bill?

Dr Klugman:

– No. I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs wants to make some apology to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not the position. The honourable member either speaks to the Bill or he asks that the debate be adjourned.

Dr Klugman:

– I am prepared to ask that the debate be adjourned under those conditions.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 938

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH SOUTH EAST ASIA

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to comment on an allegation made today in the House by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), He said that the Australian Government had bugged the Malaysian delegation’s hotel room in Canberra during the Five Power talks here. I have spoken to the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) who was then Prime Minister. He did not authorise it. I was then Attorney-General. I did not authorise it. I followed the matter up by making an inquiry of the Malaysian High Commissioner. He authorises me to say that they heard of the allegation at the time. They were quite satisfied that it had not happened. He described it as ‘a lot of nonsense’. I am also advised that the Counsel of the Malaysian High Commission said that the bugging story was started as a joke and that he cannot understand why it has remained in circulation.

page 938

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

- Mr Deputy Speaker, before the statement was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) we had heard a typical speech from the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), an ex-member of the Legislative Council of South Australia. He considered the Legislative Council of South Australia to be too left for him and, therefore, he came into this place to represent the electorate of Angas. His speech was typical of the speeches of many other honourable members opposite who have absolute and complete contempt for the 75 per cent or 76 per cent of the Australian population who send their children to State schools and for another 20 per cent of the population who send their children to Catholic schools.

But before dealing more specifically with that matter I should like to deal with the speech made by the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) on Thursday, 9th March last. He was mouthing his usual inconsistencies - the sort of statements which are usually made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) or by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin). To some extent I was surprised that such statements should come from the honourable member for Chisholm, or perhaps I should say one should be surprised considering his background as a university teacher. Let us see what he said on 9th March. He was attacking the Australian Labor Party for being a Party which does not stand for belief in diversity. In other words, he believes that our Party stands for uniform opinion. He went on to say:

It is at the very heart of our Party–

He was talking about the diversity in the Liberal Party - and it is what is missing in the Opposition because its members have no freedom to stand up in this or any other place and disagree with its policy.

He then went on to say that he has that freedom. He said:

It is a freedom we have and it is precisely the freedom that members of the Labor Party do not have. This issue illustrates the basic belief of the Liberal Party in the sort of education which Australians want …

He went on to speak in this way for a minute and a half, and then he reversed his whole position and he said:

In recent times we have the spectacle of 3 leading spokesmen for the Australian Labor Party in this area making quite contrary statements.

He then went on to make the same sort of statements which have been made in this debate by almost every other speaker on the Government side. He quoted and, to some extent, misquoted the speeches of members of the Labor Party. He concluded by saying:

So we have the Labor Party in this area speaking with many voices.

He does not see any inconsistency in this argument. On the one hand he claims that the Labor Party is a terribly authoritarian Party. On the other hand he says that apparently it speaks with 3 voices - some honourable members opposite have claimed that it speaks with 4 voices. In order to illustrate that there is a number of voices in the Labor Party I should like to disagree, to some extent, with some of the honourable members on our side who have spoken previously in this debate. Many have put the proposition that the Liberal-Country Party Government supports the Catholic education system for political purposes - to get the preferences of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, to get the votes of Catholics and so on. I think that there is probably some slight element of truth in that proposition, but I would point out that this is not really the basic proposition with which we are faced, so far as this Government is concerned.

Basically, the Liberal-Country Party Government is much too anti-Catholic for that sort of proposition. It basically considers Catholics to be second-class citizens. It considers that they are not really the right sort of people, that they are not carried away by the Union Jack and the Queen to quite the extent which the Government believes people ought to be carried away. The reason for the Government’s support of State aid for Catholic schools lately has been the belief that the non-Catholic elitist schools are absolutely necessary and need Government funds, and that the only way in which they can be given Government funds is by giving funds also to the Catholic schools. Of course, that is the reason why honourable members opposite will not accept the needs concept which we have been urging. This concept would in fact distribute money much more evenly or, to put another way, it would distribute money with much more justice and fairness to those schools which need money. If that happened the Catholic schools would get the lion’s share of the money available for independent schools and the schools which honourable members opposite support would get little or none.

Let us look at how many honourable members opposite or how many of their children have entered State secondary schools. Repeatedly surveys have been carried out, but never in the last few years have these surveys shown either that any Liberal Party Ministers have attended State secondary schools or that they have sent their children to State secondary schools, and I think that this is an important point to make. Firstly, they are not interested in State secondary schools and, secondly, they are not aware of what is going on in State secondary schools. Of course, basically they are anti-Catholic and waspish - with the WASP in capitals. Those honourable members who may doubt the proposition that they are WASPish should remember the answer which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) gave in this House on 8 th March last when the honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) asked a question about certain people campaigning to change the design of the Australian flag and anthem. We heard the Prime Minister’s answer to that question, and I have never seen so much fervour on the Government side.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Surely you do not object to that; that is patriotism.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It was interesting to note the reference to patriotism in that question because whom it was directed against was quite clear to every honourable member in this House. It was no wonder that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) shuddered. The WASPS were in full flight. I suggest to those Catholics in our community who consider their Catholicism to be the most important part of their makeup and who probably, in a significant proportion of cases, vote for the Australian Democratic Labor Party in States such as Victoria, that they talk to some of the Liberal members of Parliament, to the Liberal Ministers, to the Malcolm Frasers, the Robert Menzies, the Malcolm Mackays, the David Fairbairns, the Geoff Gilleses, the Tony Staleys and the Jim Forbeses about parochial schools, or Ireland, or the monarchy, or a truly independent Australia with a new flag and a new anthem and see how much they have in common with those people. Let them then compare their general ethos with that of the Australian Labor Party. If, after all that, they still preferred a Liberal government, I would be very surprised. Personally, I am sure that a person such as Mr Santamaria, who as far as I am concerned is sometimes reasonable in some of his propositions, must often have great difficulty in accepting this WASP paternalism, which is all it amounts to.

I turn now to the Opposition’s amendment which deals with the proposition that there should be established an Australian schools commission to examine the needs of students in government and nongovernment primary, secondary and technical schools in order to make it possible to assist schools adequately. To my mind, the Minister for Education and Science has been fairly incompetent in this portfolio. I am not suggesting that he should be sent back to the Defence portfolio because people would accuse me of not being concerned about the defence of this country. Suggestions have been made that the honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay), the present Minister for the Navy, will become Minister for Education and Science. As far as I am concerned, he is too incompetent even to be Minister for the Navy, if one examines his recent statements in relation to grenades.

Let us examine the attitude and the statements of the Minister for Education and Science. He spent a fair proportion of his speech on the second reading of this Bill, and he spends a large proportion of question time every day, attacking the South Australian Government and the South Australian Government’s expenditure on education. On 5th October 1971 in this House Mr Fraser praised the Government’s attitude in relation to the extra handout to the States, and pointed out how much extra money was being spent on education in the States. He made the point that South Australia had increased its budget allocation on primary and secondary education and teacher training by 30 per cent, and that it was the highest in Australia. That was the South Australian Labor Government which was probably introducing its first budget after gaining office. Expenditure in Queensland had increased by only 21 per cent, in New South Wales it had increased by 16 per cent and Victoria it had increased by 20 per cent. The increase of 1 6 per cent in New South Wales is not a true figure because when one examines the breakdown of this expenditure it is noticed that the per capita payments to students in independent schools, such as King’s School, increased by 42 per cent and, in the primary schools, by 25 per cent. This is a much higher ratio than the 16 per cent average which means that the general increase in expenditure for State schools in New South Wales was well below 16 per cent.

In the same speech, the Minister spoke about the report on the educational needs in the different States. He attacked that report on the basis that different States aimed for different class sizes and for different teacher-student ratios. What a preposterous proposition to come from this Minister; a Minister who tells us that the main point about private and independent education is that it enables different kinds of methods, class sizes and teacher-student ratios to be tried; who tells us that we do not know how teacher-student ratios and class sizes affect education, but that we must experiment and should not be uniform; who attacks the Labor Party for centralisation and uniformity but does not worry in the least about the much wider gap between teacher-student ratios in State and Catholic schools compared with the sorts of independent schools that he normally suports. He attacked the whole report on the basis of different States having different aims.

Let us look at some of the things that the Minister is defending. Recently, the Minister for Education and Science, who suffers from foot in mouth disease, appeared on ‘Monday Conference’ at Macquarie University. He was asked by one of the questioners whether the proportion of Commonwealth scholarships for secondary students which was going to students at expensive private schools was not contrary to the whole aim of the scheme. He admitted that in 1964 Mr Menzies, when introducing the legislation, had said it was hoped that it would make it possible for some students to stay at school who might otherwise not be able to do so. In other words, even Mr Menzies realised that there were people in our community whose financial circumstances were preventing them keeping their children at school. What was the Minister’s reply at that ‘Monday Conference’? He said:

Now whether you like it or not it’s a fact of life that all the parents who send - or mostly all, anyway - who send their kids to private schools have got a concern for education . . . they’ve got a concern for education and they will therefore encourage their children to stay nl school as long as possible.

The Minister then went on to attack the 75 per cent of parents who send their children to State schools. The Minister continued:

When you come to the State schools, the Government schools, unfortunately there are still some families who don’t give their children-

Then, as he said only some families he corrected himself - perhaps much too large a proportion of families- that is, whose children attend State schools - who don’t give their children the encouragement in the home environment which helps them, or encourages them to stay at school as long as possible.

He completely ignored the proposition that there are people in our community who cannot afford to keep their children at school until they are 18 or 19 years of age.

Mr Kennedy:

– That is a real insult.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The Minister insulted the vast majority of parents. He insulted a large number of parents of children in both Catholic schools and government schools because less than 30 per cent are able to keep their children at school until matriculation. This compares with the 80 per cent and 90 per cent of parents who are well able to keep their children at the private schools which the Minister always defends and supports.

I recently asked a question about the proportion of Commonwealth secondary scholarship winners in the outer western suburbs of Sydney and I have received a reply. What happened at King’s School at Parramatta, the school which put on a fete to raise money for the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen)? Twenty nine of the 129 students in 4th year won Commonwealth secondary scholarships in 1971. What happened at Cerdon College, Merrylands, which is the Catholic school in the area? Two students of the 130 in 4th year won Commonwealth secondary scholarships, one fifteenth of the number awarded to students at King’s School. What happened at Fairfield Boys’ High School? Two students out of 150 won Commonwealth scholarships, which is a lesser proportion still. However, the Minister is not concerned and I am sure that most of the members on the Government side are not concerned.

Recently, the Australian Council for Educational Research brought out a paper entitled ‘Some effects of winning a Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship Award’. This was sponsored by the Minister’s own Department. There is an acknowledgment to his Department that this study was made possible by special grant from the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science for research into aspects of the Commonwealth secondary scholarships examination. One would have thought that if his own Department sponsored a report he would at least read it even if he did not take any notice of it. At page 30 of that report the implications of the study are set out as follows:

While 17 per cent of parents of CSS award winners in the Brisbane sample, 13 per cent in the Sydney sample, and 14 per cent in the Melbourne sample reported that the award was a big help’ financially, it appears that the award itself was crucial in keeping only (at the most) 1 per cent of the Brisbane sample, 7 per cent .of the Sydney sample, and 4 per cent of the Melbourne sample at school for the purpose of completing secondary education.

Therefore, whatever need there may have been in 1963-64 to provide scholarships of this kind’ to keep children at school, it appears that, except for a very small proportion of the students represented by this study, this is no longer necessary.

The report goes on to say:

There appear to be reasonable grounds therefore for suggesting that a more effective use of the funds at present devoted to the scholarships might be either in adding to the number of tertiarylevel awards, or in using some form of means test to ensure that awards at the secondary school level go to families likely to be in real need.

This is exactly the proposition that the Labor Party is and has been putting up right throughout in its policy on education. This is obviously a policy which has the support of the Minister’s Department and the people who do research for his Department. It is a policy that is so terribly obvious that I can well understand that the staff of his Department is looking forward to November 1972 when there will be a new Minister for Education and Science and a government which will have some sensitivity about and some understanding of the real needs of the Australian population in an Australian education system. We hear the Minister and honourable members on the other side repeatedly claiming that there is no method of identifying deprived schools or schools which need money, but what do we find in’ the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts? At page 57 of the report on the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education the Committee defines a deprived school as being a school in the inner urban or rural areas providing primary education, in which a high proportion of the school population is disadvantaged through background and/or environment. The Committee recommended that financial aid be given to the States to permit the recognition of such schools as special schools warranting a more liberal scale in staffing, equipping and servicing. The Committee was unanimous on that recommendation. Even Government supporters on that Committee were persuaded that it was possible to identify deprived schools. But the Minister for Education and Science, who was brought up at Melbourne Grammar or Geelong Grammar, has never talked for any length of time to anybody who did not go to such a school. He is not interested in parents who send their children to deprived schools.

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– We are dealing tonight with 2 Bills - one covering capital grants for State schools, the other supplying increased assistance to nongovernment schools in meeting their rapidly rising running costs. The confusion in the Opposition between capital costs and recurrent costs is extraordinary. The confusion runs right through almost every speech made from the Opposition benches. But capital and recurrent expenditure, both in accountancy and in common sense, are very different. I will therefore treat them separately, and urge Opposition members to do likewise. It might lessen their obvious confusion. The $20m provided in the Bill before us covers an 18-month period to June 1973 and is designed to assist the expansion and acceleration of the present State capital programmes for the construction of new primary and secondary schools, and the improvement of present sub-standard ones.

This new capital grant by the Commonwealth is in addition to the present capital grant programmes - for secondary school libraries, for science blocks, and for teachers colleges. The 2 secondary school capital grants - for libraries and for science blocks - are available for all secondary schools, State and independent alike. The grants are designed to bring all schools up to a high standard, and there is a needs criterion in that schools only receive a grant sufficient to bring their present facilities up to the laid down standard. Honourable members opposite have made much of grants going to schools such as Geelong Grammar, but omit to mention that Geelong Grammar has not received a library grant, because it already has a library sufficient for its present purpose.

So for capital grants we do apply a needs standard. But the scope for direct Commonwealth intervention is limited, without setting up an immense and redundant bureaucracy. The libraries and science blocks in all secondary schools are clear needs, in both State and independent schools. But other capital deficiencies require close investigation, which is best carried out by authorities close to the problem. Constitutionally the State governments are responsible for both the State schools system and for the. independent schools in their States. The best way therefore in which the Commonweath can assist in eliminating deficiencies in all schools is to increase the general revenue grants to the States - as we have done - increase the loan allocations - as we have done - and where possible give additional grants for this purpose, such as the $20m we are considering in this Bill. This is a far more efficient and economic system of handling these local affairs than would be achieved by trying to run them from a swollen centralised bureaucracy in Canberra.

But although a needs approach can be, and is being, used for capital projects, the running or recurrent costs are a very different problem. The second Bill we are considering today is one to raise the recurrent grant to the States for independent schools from $35 to $50 for each primary school pupil and from $50 to $68 for each secondary school pupil. The Opposition has moved an amendment to establish a schools commission. The confusion of thought in the Opposition on this subject is almost indescribable. Although the amendment was moved to a proposal for recur rent grants, the Opposition speakers supporting the amendment have spent most of their time talking about capital matters. What they seem to be advocating, in a confused sort of way, is grants on a basis of need.

As I have pointed out, capital grants are already made on a needs basis. However, when one turns to recurrent grants, the question which must be asked is: What needs? Perhaps one could say that the schools where the parents have to pay the highest fees obviously have the greatest need, and therefore should receive the highest grants. This would mean that the more expensive private schools would receive most, which I am sure is not at all what the Opposition wants. Equally absurd is the opposite criterion - that the schools where the parents are asked’ to contribute least should receive most Government support. This would mean that, if parents were prepared to pay more to improve the quality of teaching, they would as a consequence lose Government assistance. What an incentive to self help. There is another important practical difficulty in this approach. If one gave recurrent grants on the criteria suggested by some members opposite, it would mean that Catholic parochial schools would receive all the State aid and non-Catholic independent schools would receive nothing. I could imagine nothing more socially divisive than this.

Lest it be thought that I am speaking purely theoretically of the dangers of a centralised schools commission, I should like to draw attention to a pilot scheme - the one in South Australia which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has described as a model. Well, let us look at this model. The present situation in South Australia is that all independent primary schools receive a per capita across the board payment of $10 a year, and all independent secondary schools receive an across the board payment of $20 a year. The neediest primary schools have been allocated special additional grants ranging from $24 in what is known as category A to $10 in category D.

This means that the biggest per capita grant received by independent primary schools in South Australia is $34 a year. This grant is received by only 22 schools.

In comparison, the New South Wales Government provides per capita grants to all independent primary schools of $50 a year. Victoria provides $40 a year and Queensland provides $45 a year. All these primary schools receive more than the maximum paid by South Australia. Of course, the great majority of independent schools in South Australia are very much worse off than that. The present Government of South Australia is a Labor Government.

It is perhaps not surprising that this problem has caused the Opposition to speak with discordant voices. Three short statements by Opposition members in a little over a week show clearly that the Opposition really has no policy on whether or not a schools commission should be established and, if it is, what methods it will adopt to provide Government support for independent schools. The first of these statement is the one by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) who on 1st December last year quoted the provision in the Australian Labor Party’s platform on the establishment of an Australian schools commission, and explained That means government schools first’. The following day the Leader of the Opposition in this House (Mr Whitlam) attacked the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for alleging that this schools commission would give assistance to government schools before it gave any to non-government schools. This would seem to me to be exactly the proposition put forward by Senator Murphy. But according to the Leader of the Opposition himself, that is a wrong principle because, as he said:

It may be that there are some non-government schools which fall further short on acceptable standards and have larger class sizes than government schools.

In other words, it is not a case of ‘that means government schools first’ as Senator Murphy put it, but rather a case of ‘perhaps non-government schools will come first but perhaps they will not’. The Opposition should make up its mind.

Finally, confusion was made even worse by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who on 9th December abandoned the whole concept of the schools commission and advocated instead the establishment of separate authorities in each State, one for the Catholic schools and one for the other independent schools. Clearly such a proposal is quite inconsistent with the proposal for an Australian schools commission which, as it was explained by the Leader of the Opposition, is to concern itself with all schools throughout the nation. At least the honourable member for Fremantle recognises the impossibility of the role for which his Leader casts the schools commission. It really is an extradordinary situation when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate makes a statement on Labor’s education policy and is immediately contradicted by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, who is in turn contradicted by his own spokesman on education. It is an extraordinary muddle.

Mr Deputy Speaker, everyone who voluntarily undertakes to educate his children outside the State system is saving the community nearly $600 a year for a secondary student or over $300 a year for a primary student. All are saving the country the same amount, and I believe the only fair and practicable scheme is to give them all the same assistance from the state; after all, it is only a small portion of what they have saved the state. There is of course another way in which parents receive assistance with school expenses, in either state or independent schools, and that is through income tax deductions. As I have stated several times in this House, I have my reservations about the desirability of the present system of tax deductions for school fees, but this is a separate matter which I shall raise again with the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) as opportunity offers.

Running through the arguments advanced by Opposition speakers has been an unpleasant undertone indicating that they would really like to see the independent school system collapse. This seems to stem partly from a dislike of schools run by religious organisations, and partly from a dislike of allowing people to spend their own resources on the education of their children. On this side of the House we reject both these propositions. There is everything to be said for diversity in education and indeed I should like to see the independent schools more experimental than they are. Similarly I should like to see the State education schemes more decentralised - the direct opposite to the policy of the Labor Party, which would like to see everything concentrated in a bureaucracy in Canberra. The Labor policy is a very old-fashioned approach, which is contrary to all the trends of modern education.

With regard to religious schools, I feel parents have the right to influence the environment in which their children are educated, provided they are prepared to make some personal sacrifice to obtain it. Honourable members opposite seem to think that all parents who send their children to independent schools are rich. In fact, many such parents are not rich and make great sacrifices in order to provide their children with the education they think best. The Labor Party would like to penalise these people who are voluntarily relieving the community of a substantial burden. Could social injustice go deeper? And if the Labor Party succeeded in its unadmitted aim of dismantling the independent school system it would find that the cost of education to the public purse would rise sharply, at the expense of all taxpayers, rich and poor alike.

Some Opposition speakers have been trying to give the impression that a Labo Government would spend more on education. This is a false picture. The Labor Party has promised to maintain defence expenditure at its present proportion of gross national product to increase vastly expenditure on almost every other government activity, and its front bench spokesmen are also advocating reduced taxation. This can only mean that fewer national resources would be available for education under a Labor Government than under the present Government. Expenditure on education in Australia has risen from a little below 3 per cent of the gross national product in 1963-64 to probably over 44 per cent this year. I hope it will continue to rise, for education is vital to the future of our society. But no matter what the organisation or the expenditure, no education system will ever be perfect. Ours certainly is not perfect, but it has many good features. It is worth looking at some international comparisons, from the UNESCO statistical Yearbook. Our percentage of 16 year olds at school - 43 per cent is not as high as in Canada, 73 per cent, or in the

United States where it is well over 90 per cent. But it is higher than in Sweden, theoretically a socialist paradise - ours is 43 per cent to Sweden’s 34 per cent - and much higher than Britain’s. Turning to tertiary education, a good comparison is the number of tertiary graduates per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Of the 5 countries I mention the United States of America is, not surprisingly, easily first, but is followed in order by Australia, Canada and England, with Sweden last of ail. As I said, our education system is not perfect, but we must not fall into the old Australian trap of excessive knocking.

Although I believe the continued viability of the independent schools is important, on social, economic and educational grounds, we must never lose sight of the fact that the State school systems are the core of our education system, for they educate three-quarters of our students. We must plan our Federal expenditure wisely so that we can assist the State systems. One of the wisest investments we can make is the support of the independent schools so that they will remain viable. For with a relatively small outlay - less than 0.3 per cent of the total Federal Budget goes in recurrent grants to independent schools - we help to make it possible for parents to relieve the States of the cost of educating one-quarter of the school population. I cannot imagine a better investment or a wiser use of public funds. 1 wish that the rigid rules of the. Labor caucus could be relaxed so that those Opposition members who are genuinely interested in the improvement of educational standards - and there are quite a number - could cross the floor and vote with the Government against this very ill-conceived amendment.

Debate (on motion by Mr Kirwan) adjourned.

page 945

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment -

Income Assessment Bill 1972 (No. 2).

Without requests -

Customs Tariff Bill 1972.

House adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

page 946

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Civil Aviation: Low Fare Passenger Flights (Question No. 4917)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Why are discussions not taking place on low fare passenger flights outside normal schedules with any of the countries in the Pacific, other than the United States, and in South East Asia, which have airlines providing scheduled services to Australia. (Hansard, 2nd December 1971, page 4123.)

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Because of the complexity of the problems arising in connection with the determination of appropriate roles for scheduled and charter operations in meeting the increasing demand for bulk transportation atlow fares many Governments have had difficulty in reaching decisions. The talks at Australian initiative late last year and early this year between the Australian Government, European Governments and the Government of the United States on low fare flights have produced a most helpful and useful exchange of views. Discussions are to continue not only between the Australian Government and these other Governments but also between European and North American Governments in the very near future. The outcome cannot yet be predicted and, pending some resolution of the very considerable problems involved in determining a proper relationship between scheduled and charter operations, it has been deemed prudent to defer discussions on charter operations with countries in the Pacific and in South East Asia. It should be remembered, however, that charter flights to those areas can take place within the terms of existing Australian policy at reduced rates.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 5029)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) adult males, (b) adult females and (c) persons under 21 were in receipt of unemployment benefits for (i) 2 or more weeks, (ii) 4 or more weeks, (iii) eight or more weeks, (iv) 12 or more weeks, (v) 16 or more weeks and (vi) 6 months or more at the end of May, August, October, November and December 1971.
  2. If this information is not available, when were spot checks made during this period as to the length of time recipients had been receiving unemployment benefits, and what were the results of these checks.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Surveys of current unemployment benefit recipients were carried out at the end of May, August and November 1971 and information obtained from these surveys about the length of time adult and junior recipients had been receiving benefit is set out in the table below. Similar information is not available for the end of October and December 1971.

Archives (Question No. 4990)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

Will he give early consideration to the introduction of an Archives Bill to establish an archives section in his Department, or in the National Library, to receive and classify and make available for examination and study by historians and students and other people genuinely interested, records of historical significance from all Government departments since Federation.

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

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

The Commonwealth Archives Office of my Department already carries out such functions. I will look into the need as to whether legislative action is desirable.

Commonwealth Advertising (Question No. 5056)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Will he list the 13 foreign advertising agencies and the 33 Australian-owned agencies used by the Commonwealth Advertising Branch of the Australian Government Publishing Service during the year ended 30th June 1971.
  2. What was the value of the advertising contracts involved.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

Understood to be substantially Australianowned -

Berry Currie Advertising (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd

Gordon & Gotch (A/asia) Ltd

Claude Mooney Advertising Pty Ltd

Duthie National Advertising Pty Ltd

Hayes Advertising Agency Pty Ltd

Australian Advertising Agency Pty Ltd

Le Grand Advertising Pty Ltd

Clem Taylor O’Brien Pty Ltd

Adcraft Service Pty Ltd

John Higgins Advertising Associates

C. H. Lucas Advertising Pry Ltd

Martin Kinnear Clemenger Pty Ltd

Nichols Cummings Advertising (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd

H. V. Norwood Advertising

Noel Paton (Vic.) Pty Ltd

Aldwych Advertising Pty Ltd

Advertising Associates Pty Ltd

Berry Currie Collett Advertising (W.A.) Pty Ltd

Warnock Sandford Williams Pty Ltd

Best & Co. Pty Ltd

John Clemenger Pty Ltd

Berry Currie Advertising (Vic.) Pty Ltd

John Clemenger (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd

Murray Evans Advertising Pty Ltd

Fred Luxton Advertising Pty Ltd

Max L. Gosewinckel & Associates Pty Ltd

Warwick Advertising Pty Ltd

Carden Advertising Pty Ltd

NAS (Sydney) Pty Ltd

Arthur L. Rosebery Advertising Pty Ltd

Mullins Clarke & Ralph (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd

Understood to be substantially foreign-owned -

George Patterson Pty Ltd

Grant Advertising Pty Ltd

Foote, Cone & Belding Pty Ltd

Hansen-Rubensohn-McCann-Erickson Pty Ltd

S.S.C. & B.: Lintas Pty Ltd

J. Walter Thompson Australia Pty Ltd

USP Benson (Vic.) Pty Ltd

Coudrcy Campbell Ewald Ply Ltd

Masius, Synne-Williams (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd

Lonsdale-Hands Australia Pty Ltd

Jackson Wain & Co. Pty Ltd

Jackson Wain (Tas.) Pty Ltd

George Patterson Noble Bartlett Pty Ltd

  1. The total value of Commonwealth advertising handled through the 46 agencies during the year ended 30th June 1971 was $6,473,753.

Service Personnel: Movement (Question No. 4052)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What percentage of families in the three Services was required to move in 1970-71.

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

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

The percentage of married Service personnel who were required to move between locations in 1970-71 were as follows:

Service Personnel: Movement (Question No. 4051)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Have statistics been prepared on the duration and frequency of postings in the three Services.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

The methods of maintaing records of postings in the individual Services vary. The following are the postings statistics for 1970-71:

Notes:

  1. These figures do not include movements by new recruits between training establishments; these movements are frequently of short duration and are not recorded as postings.
  2. The figures include postings between ship and shore billets, including personnel posted to shore billets near their own homes.
  3. The figures include postings to and from courses including short courses of less than two weeks duration. It is estimated that these movements together with movements on compassionate grounds accounted for some 4,000 postings in 1970-71.
  4. Approximately $54 per cent of sailor billets are at sea and 46 per cent in shore establishments. Relatively frequent movement between sea and shore billets is necessary to ensure that each sailor is afforded an equitable period of shore service. As a result sea service varies from 1-3 years and shore service 1-5 years. Officers normally can expect to serve at sea for approximately 18 months to 2 years on a rotational basis until the age of about 35 when sea postings become less frequent.

page 948

ARMY

Note

The figures for New Intakes include movements by all new recruits, including national servicemen, which are frequent during the first year of service because of postings between training establishments. Up to four movements by one individual may be recorded in this section of the table.

Duration

The length of postings to Vietnam varies from 4 to 12 months. Other overseas postings are normally for 2 years. The average duration of postings within Australia is 20 months.

page 948

RAAF

Duration

The average duration of postings to South Vietnam was approximately 10 months. Duration of postings within Australia and overseas averaged 21 months. Married members are posted less frequently than single personnel; their postings average from 30 to 33 months duration.

Australian Capital Territory: Contractors (Question No. 5150)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether the National Capital Development Commission and/or the Department of Works operate a system that involves long-term contracts being entered into with selected contractors for work to be performed in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. If so, is there a panel or a list of contractors that is resorted to when long-term contracts are about to be entered into.
  3. If the position is as stated, what are the names of the contractors on this list and what considerations are taken into account in their selection.
  4. What avenues are available to those contractors who wish to be added to this list.
  5. What are the current rates for execution of general civic works performed under long-term contracts.
  6. How often are these rates revised and how do they compare with normal tendered contract rates.

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

  1. The National Capital Development Commission does not select contractors for its longer term contracts. The contracts are established by public tendering. The Department of Works does not let longer term construction contracts in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. and (3) Consequently there is no panel or list of contractors for this purpose.
  3. In addition to the longer tern) contracts of approximately 3-4 years duration, a large number of contracts are also established each year by public advertisement for contractors wishing to tender for Works.
  4. Longer term contracts have produced more favourable rates and prices than the shorter term contracts. The civil engineering contracts include a schedule of rates of some 350 items which vary from contractor to contractor according to his method of construction. The rates within the contract schedules are confidential to the parties of each contract, but the bulk sum tenders are publicly advised.
  5. The rates for longer term contracts are not revised between each public tendering, but provision is made in the contract for the normal contractural arrangement of rise and fall. The longer term contracts take advantage of continuity and stability of production compare advantageously with rates and prices in shorter term contracts.

Australian Capital Territory: Building Contracts (Question No. 5151)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many building contracts for dwelling houses are known to have been entered into in the Australian Capital Territory during each of the last 5 years?
  2. Is it usual for these building contracts to contain a maintenance clause whereby the builder undertakes to maintain or remedy defects during an initial period of time after giving possession of the premises to the owner?
  3. Does his Department have any information to indicate the number of residences that are completed pursuant to these building contracts where a dispute has arisen over the builder’s failture to honour obligations under the maintenance clause; if so, what does his information reveal?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Department does not maintain records pertaining to contracts entered into between members of the public and builders in respect of dwellings or any other type of building work in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.

Public Service: Positions (Question No. 5140)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many positions are provided on the establishment of the (a) Animal Industry and Agriculture Branch and (b) Forestry, Fisheries, Wild Life and National Parks Branch of the Northern Territory Administration?
  2. What are the numbers for the corresponding sections in the Northern Territory Division of the Department of the Interior, Canberra?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. (a) 221.

  2. The corresponding sections and establishment of the Primary Industries Branch, Northern Territory Division in the Australian Capital Territory are:

    1. Animal Industry and Agriculture - 3.
    2. Forestry and Fisheries - 4.

Tourism and National Parks - 2.

These figures do not include the Head of the Branch or his Steno-secretary.

Water Pollution (Question No. 5054)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Will he have investigated urgently the report by the Goodradigbee Shire Council on the pollution of the Murrumbidgee River and the recommended need for refinements at the Canberra Sewage Works to remove nitrogenous and phosphatic nutriments which contribute to the growth of poisonous algae in Burrinjuck Dam and offer a potential threat to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The assertions of the Goodradigbee Shire Council were exhaustively examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment which called expert witnesses and sought advice from the responsible New South Walesauthorities. The Committee report on Canberra Sewage Effluent, dated December 1971, indicated that ‘The tone of the evidence given on behalf of the Council conveyed the impression that the assertions were based primarily on subjective belief, in the main unsupported by factual or quantitative evidence but frequently couched in emotive language.’ (page 7).

The Commonwealth is continuing the programme of testing and observation endorsed by the Senate Committee and action is being taken to implement the Committee’s recommendations.

Army Enlistments (Question No. 5000)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

How many former members of the United States of America Armed Services have joined the Australian Army in each year since 1965.

Mr Katter:
Minister for the Army · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

Army records show that 2 members declaring previous service with the United States of America Armed Services have joined the Australian Army since 1965. One enlisted in the CMF in 1967 and the other enlisted in the ARA in 1968.

Papua New Guinea:.

National Airline (Question No. 4910)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

  1. Did Ansett Airlines of Australia and Qantas submit proposals for a national airline in Papua New Guinea to the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Transport.
  2. Was Trans-Australia Airlines prevented from submitting a proposal, if so, why.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However, these airlines did not submit their proposals beforehand to the Government.
  2. The Select Committee, in direct contact with the airlines invited them to submit proposals for the future development of air services in Papua New Guinea.

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Qantas Airways Ltd submitted such proposals direct to the Committee, but the Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA), which would not be empowered under its present charter to provide services within an independent Papua New Guinea, referred the question of its future role in Papua New Guinea to me. It was not possible to provide the Commission with an indication of the Government’s intention in this regard in the time available.

So far as Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, is concerned, the company was under no obligation to present its proposals to the Government for approval priorto their submission to the Committee. Qantas Airways Ltd, unlike the Australian

National Airlines Commission, would not be excluded from conducting operations within an independent Papua New Guinea, and, thus, was also not obliged to submit its proposals to the Government beforehand. Its proposals, however, would require the approval of the Government before they might be implemented.

The future development of civil aviation in Papua New Guinea is part of a programme for movement to full internal self Government involving a wide range of complex issues (of which air transport is only a part) which the Government is preparing at the request of the House of Assembly for discussion with the leadership group which may emerge after the current elections.

Papua New Guinea: National Airline (Question No. 4916)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. When and where did the Select Committee on Transport of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly have discussions with Trans-Australia Airlines on proposals for the long-term development of aviation in Papua New Guinea.
  2. Why did the Minister fail to give TAA the necessary clearance to submit a proposal.
  3. Is the Department of Civil Aviation represented on the inter-Departmental Committee established to review the position of Commonwealth Departments and Instrumentalities performing functions of internal self-government in Papua New Guinea outside the aegis of the Administration.
  4. If so, when was the Committee established and when is it expected to report on the position of Qantas and TAA.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. On 5th July, 24th August and 22nd October 1971 at the Head Office of Trans-Australia Airlines in Melbourne.
  2. The Select Committee, in direct contact with the airlines invited them to submit proposals for the future development of air services in Papua New Guinea.

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Qantas Airways Ltd, submitted such proposals direct to the Committee, but the Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA), which would not be empowered under its present charter to provide services within an independent Papua New Guinea, referred the question of its future role in Papua New Guinea to me. It was not possible to provide the Commission with an indication of the Government’s intention in this regard in the time available.

So far as Ansett Transport Industries Ltd is concerned, the company was under no obligation to present its proposals to the Government for approval prior to their submission to the Committee. Qantas Airways Ltd, unlike the Australian National Airlines Commission, would not be excluded from conducting operations within an independent Papua New Guinea, and, thus, was also not obliged to submit its proposals to the Government beforehand. Its proposals, however, would require the approval of the Government before they might be implemented.

The future development of civil aviation in Papua New Guinea is part of a programme for movement to full internal self Government involving a wide range of complex issues (of which air transport is only a part) which the Government is prepared at the request of the House of Assembly for discussion with the leadership group which may emerge after the current elections.

  1. and (4) The Department of Civil Aviation is not represented on the Committee, but where appropriate its views are necessarily sought.

European Nuclear Energy Agency (Question No. 5016)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Since becoming a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in June 1971, what steps, if any, has Australia taken to become an associated country of the European Nuclear Energy Agency, as Canada, Japan and the United States of America each is.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Australia has not as yet taken any formal steps towards joining the European Nuclear Energy Agency as either an associate or a full member.

Pensions (Question No. 5030)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

Can he state the increased cost that would have been incurred during 1971-72 if the married rate pension for a couple had been increased to double the standard rate pension (a) for those now in receipt of (i) age and (ii) invalid pensions and (b) for (i) those entitled by age to age pensions and (ii) all invalids assuming the means test had been eliminated.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Based on the number of pensions current at 31st December 1971, the estimated cost of increasing the present married rate of pension for a couple to twice the present standard rate would be-

    1. age pension $32m a year
    2. invalid pension$2.7m a year
    3. (i) Based on existing rates it is estimated that the additional cost of abolishing the means test on age pensions would be in the vicinity of $430m a year. This would be further increased to over $490m a year if, at the same time, the married rate of pension for a couple was increased to twice the standard rate.
    4. No information is available as to the number of non-pensioners in Australia who would be qualified for the invalid pension on medical grounds. For existing invalid pensioners the estimated cost would be$9m a year to increase the married couple rate to twice the standard rate and to bring all reduced rate cases to the maximum rate.

Establishment of Rehabilitation Clinics in Country Areas (Question No. 5078)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. Has any further consideration been given by his Department to the establishment of rehabilitation clinics in country areas.
  2. If so, has consideration been given to establishing a clinic in the northern Spencer Gulf area of South Australia, covering the cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Consideration continues to be given to the establishment of rehabilitation clinics in country areas. However, availability of staff has, up to the present, precluded the establishment of such clinics exceptin Newcastle and Townsville. In any further review, the needs of the Spencer Gulf area will be fully considered along with those of other country communities.

Establishment of Australian Shipping Register (Question No. 4846)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

When does he expect to make his announcement on the establishment of an Australian shipping register (Hansard, 16th September 1971, page 1516).

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

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

Substantial further progress has been made towards the preparation of the complex new legislation that will be necessary for the establishment of an Australian, shipping register. At the present stage I am not in a position to make an announcement about the introduction of the necessary bill.

Meetings of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (Question No. 5017)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Australian Transport Advisory’ Council since 8 July 1971.
  2. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended each meeting.
  3. What requests or suggestions were made at each meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The 36th Meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council was held in Canberra on 18th February 1972.
  2. Ministers who attended the 36th Meeting were:

The Hon. P. J. Nixon, M.P., Commonwealth Minister for Shipping and Transport (Chairman)

The Hon. R. J. D. Hunt, M.P., Commonwealth Minister for the Interior.

The Hon. M. A. Morris, M.L.A., New South Wales Minister for Transport.

The Hon. V. F. Wilcox, M.P., Victorian Minister of Transport.

The Hon. W. E. Knox, M.L.A., Queensland Minister for Transport.

The Hon. G. T. Virgo, M.P., Souts Australian Minister of Roads and Transport

The Hon. J. Dolan, M.L.C., Western Australian Minister for Police and Transport.

The Hon. L. A. Bessell, M.H.A., Tasmanian Minister for Transport.

  1. The Australian Transport Advisory Council is a forum at which Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with transport may discuss matters of common interest. Consideration is given to many detailed recommendations submitted by specialist Committees of the Council which, if endorsed, may result in legislative or administrative action.

Proceedings of Council are of a confidential nature. However, it is the Council’s practice to issue public statements concerning the progess of its work at the end of each session.

The matters which may involve legislative or administrative action, and on which public statements were made following the February 1972 meeting, are as follows:

Modifications to motor vehicles

Control of diesel fumes

Problems of the Railways

Annual allocations for urban public transport

Construction and use of passenger car tyres

Occupant protection in heavy vehicles.

Increases in Motor Vehicle Taxation (Question No. 4766)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to remarks by Mr M. Morris, M.L.A., New South Wales Minister for Transport, on 18th November 1971 in which he stated that he was ashamed of the Federal Government for what it was doing to motorists and claimed that motorists were being treated like milking cows, that the Federal Government was taking the lion’s share of motorists’ taxation, that the Commonwealth was making paupers of the States, causing increases in motor vehicle taxation which would not be necessary if the Commonwealth returned all the money collected in fueltax from New South Wales motorists, that the Commonwealth had denied the Slate $40m each year in not returning fuel tax money for road development, that not a cent of the $40m had been spent on roads, and that the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States had forced the New South Wales Government to impose taxes which it did not want to impose.
  2. If so, what is the attitude of the Government to each of these claims.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. 1 understand that there were statements attributed to the New South Wales Minister for Transport criticising the Commonwealth for not granting to the States for roadworks an amount equal to the revenue from taxes on liquid fuels.
  2. There is no basis for the inference that fuel taxes should all be used specifically for roads. These taxes form part of the general revenue of the Commonwealth, from which Parliament makes appropriations for various purposes. One of these is the Commonwealth Aid Roads grants. In its own right, the New South Wales Government decides what additional revenue it needs, for roads as well as for other purposes, and takes the steps it deems appropriate to raise the revenue.

State and Commonwealth Rail Systems - Increases in Freights and Fares (Question No. 4935)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say, in which years since 1950 freights and fares were increased in respect of each State Rail System and the Commonwealth Railways.
  2. If so, what was the amount of the increase in each case.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The detail requested is not recorded bymy Department. However, I have had an examination made of the annual reports of the railway systems from 1950-51 to 1970-71 and some information has been extracted. This information is set out below:

Rescue Co-ordination Centre (Question No. 5143)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did his Department advertise in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 23rd October 1971 for applicants to fill 5 positions in a Rescue Co-ordination Centre to be established in Canberra.
  2. If so, how many people answered the advertisement.
  3. How many of these applicants were invited to submit formal applications.
  4. What considerations were taken into account in deciding which applicants would be invited to submit formal applications and to proceed to interview.
  5. What were the reasons for excluding the balance of applicants from consideration.
  6. How many people were formally interviewed for the positions.
  7. Are the 5 successful applicants to be employed in Canberra: If so, what will be their duties and have the positions been filled.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes. Advertisements were placed in the main daily newspapers in all Capital Cities on 23rd and 30th October 1971, and in the Commonwealth Gazette.
  2. 471 replies were received.
  3. All replies received were treated as formal applications.
  4. Known job requirements were used in the initial vetting of applications to determine those to be interviewed and again at actual interviews. These job requirements were the desirability of having a marine background, operations room experience, navigation experience and the necessary personal qualities associated with this type of work.
  5. Selection for interview was based on applicants having the majority of the job requirements. The reason for excluding the balance was that experience and background stated in the applications did not reasonably compare with those selected for interview.
  6. Twenty-four.
  7. Formal action has been taken to provisionally promote one Commonwealth Officer and to appoint 4 other applicants. All will be employed in Canberra, the duties being as follows:

Initiate and co-ordinate search and rescue operations as required, defining the areas of search and making use of whatever facilities are likely to give the best results. Direct all operations.

Perform routine checks in communication network, facilities and equipment

Maintain record of position of all ships of Commonwealth Departments as well as merchant ships of any significance so that they can be diverted to assist in search and rescue if required.

Preparation and promulgation of Emergency Notices to Mariners occurring during watch keeping.

Commonwealth Railways - Ownership of Residences at Port Augusta (Question No. 5077)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the rental for residences owned by Commonwealth Railways at Port Augusta and other locations recently been increased by approximately 28 per cent.
  2. If so, is this the second large increase in rentals on Commonwealth Railways’ residences in less than 2 years.
  3. Is it a fact that the rental increases, coupled with a large reduction in the availability of overtime, has resulted in a considerable lowering of living standards of these employees, particularly among the lower paid employees.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Yes. Rentals on departmental residences in Port Augusta, Stirling North, Port Pirie, Alice Springs and Darwin were increased on 16th Jan. 1972 by $2.50 per week for brick and brick veneer and improved type timber framed residences, representing an approximate average increase of 28 per cent; and by $1.50 and $1.00 per week for older type timber framed residences, representing an approximate average increase of 22 per cent Rentals’ at Canberra were also increased on 13th February 1972 by $2.50 per week representing an approximate average increase of 28 per cent There was no increase in rentals at line locations.
  2. Yes. Rentals were increased on 10th May 1970. The increases were approximately of the same extent. Rentals at line locations were’ increased by 50 cents perweek.
  3. Whilst I have no precise information on this aspect, the effect of increased rentals and decreased overtime on an individual’s standard of living will have been, no doubt, offset by the increases of approximately 15 per cent in pay during the past two years.

Commonwealth Railways - Ownership of Residences at Port Augusta (Question No. 5076)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the Commonwealth Railways giving consideration to selling the many residences owned by it and occupied by its employees in Port Augusta and other towns.
  2. If so, (A) will the occupants of the residences be given priority to purchase and (B) will the purchasers be given any credit for the amount of rental that has been paid on these residences by occupants.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.

Australian Shipyards (Question No. 4967)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What requirements are placed on (a) Australian and (b) overseas owned shipping companies to undertake repairs, docking and maintenance in Australian shipyards.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

There are no requirements placed on either Australian or overseas shipping companies to undertake repairs, docking and maintenance in Australian shipyards.

Road Maintenance: Port Lowly Road, South Australia (Question No. 5188)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth financial assistance has been made available in 1971-72 to date to maintain the road known as the Point Lowly Road used to service the Point Lowly Lighthouse on the shores of Spencer Gulf, South Australia.
  2. Has there been any increase in the Commonwealth allocation to assist in the maintenance of this road.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government contributes towards the cost of maintaining Point Lowly road on the basis of the proportion of Commonwealth traffic to total traffic using it Contributions of $250 per annum have been provided for the last 3 years.
  2. See (1) above.

Commonwealth and State Railway Systems - Financial Position (Question No. 3756)

Mr Luchetti:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

In regard to (a) the Commonwealth Railways and (b) each of the State railway systems can he state what was the (i) total debt as at 30th June 1971, (ii) amount paid in interest for 1970-71, (iii) rate of interest, (iv) extent of increase or reduction in capital debts during 1970-71 and (v) total value of assets as at 30th June 1971.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The detail requested for State railway systems is not recorded by my Department. However, an examination of the available annual reports of the railway systems has been made and some information extracted. This information together with the relevant information for Commonwealth Railways, is set out in the following table. It should be noted that there are substantial differences in accounting methods and terminology among the systems. Details of these differences are obtainable from the annual reports and the most important of these are referred to in the schedule.

Social Services (Question No. 5031)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

On what grounds did the Governments in which he has served as Minister for Social Services confirm the practice that the dependent children’s benefit should not be provided for dependent student children over 16 years of age where their supporting parent is in receipt of sickness or unemployment benefit (Question No. 4242, Hansard 26th October 1971, page 2554).

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The Social Services Act provides that the additional benefit for children of an unemployment or sickness beneficiary shall cease at 16 years of age.

The rates of additional benefit payable for these children have been substantially increased by the present Government Any further liberalisations are a matter of Government policy and will be considered at the appropriate time. 1971 Census (Question No. 5083)

Mr Daly:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the estimated date on which the final results of the 1971 Census will be available?

Mr Snedden:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that it will be some considerable time before detailed final results of the 1971 Census of Population and Housing will be available. Final population totals for all States and Territories are not expected to be available before July 1972.

New Zealand Post Office Savings Bank (Question No. 5166)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Bonus Bonds Saving Scheme conducted by the New Zealand Post Office Savings Bank.
  2. If so, has any consideration been given tc introducing a similar scheme in Australia.
  3. If no consideration has been given to this matter, will he arrange to have the Scheme investigated to see whether it is worthy of implementation in Australia.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

From time to time proposals to introduce bonus bonds or premium or lottery bonds similar to those issued in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and certain other countries have been considered by the Government and by the Australian Loan Council.

The Loan Council has not been prepared to approve the issue of such bonds. For its part, the Government has preferred to raise funds from small investors through the issue of Special Bonds. These have been an outstanding success. During the thirteen years they have been on issue, cash subscriptions have totalled over $1,200 million.

Land Prices (Question No. 4974)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What have been the dates and findings of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation’s surveys of the average prices for blocks of home building land at various distances from the State capitals during the last 10 years.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following information:

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has not conducted any surveys of land prices of the kind referred to in the question. However, when reviewing the adequacy of maximum housing loans from time to time, surveys are made by the Corporation of land values with that particular purpose in mind. The most recent survey completed by the Corporation was designed to compare land values between the first half of 1968 and the first 3 to 4 months of 1971 in respect of 3 broad categories of land described as ‘modest’, ‘medium’ and ‘good’ in and around the 6 capital cities. Results of the survey are appended. Strictly comparable figures for earlier periods are not available.

Education: Taxation (Question No. 5106)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What are the (a) names, (b) numbers and (c) percentages of (i) Government schools, (ii) Catholic private schools and (iii) non-Catholic private schools in (A) each State and Territory and (B) the Commonwealth in respect of which applications under section 78 (1.) (xv) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, for the allowance of donations for certain school building projects and other projects as a taxation deduction, were (I) made, (II) approved and (III) rejected in each year since 1960.
  2. What was the exact nature of the project for which the donation was to be used in each case.
  3. What was the value of the project for which a taxation deduction was (1) sought, (2) approved and (3) rejected in (a) each case in each school, (b) all cases in each school and (c) all schools in the classifications (i) Government schools, (ii) Catholic private schools and (iii) nonCatholic private schools in (A) each State and Territory and (B) the Commonwealth (I) in each year and (II) as a total, since 1970.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that, as the number of school building funds currently in operation which have been approved for the purposes of section 78 (1.) (a) (xv) of the income Tax Assessment Act exceeds 2,000, it is not practicable to supply a complete list of the applications which have received consideration in each year since 1960. Details are not available which would enable an accurate segregation to be made between Government schools. Catholic private schools and non-Catholic private schools.
  2. and (3) It is also impracticable to furnish details of the exact nature and value of each project for which approval has been sought for income tax purposes.

Industrial Relations (Question No. 4952)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will he request the Public Service Board to provide the Professional Officers’ Association with a copy of the Review Team Report on the restructuring of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Department of Works, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of Supply in relation to the employment of engineers; if not, why not.
  2. Is it a fact that a free flow of information between management and unions plays an important part in the creation of harmonious industrial relations.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The Public Service Board advises that the Review Team Report is an internal management document which required consultation and agreement with the Permanent Heads of several departments before tentative conclusions could be reached. As such it is not available for general distribution.
  2. The Board accepts the view that important advantages derive from exchanges of information between management and unions. In the case of the Engineering Review the Board from an early stage took steps to keep the staff associations informed of the progress of that review and, when it had reached tentative conclusions in discussions with the relevant Permanent Heads, interested staff associations were provided with detailed supporting documentation.

Australian Passports (Question No. 5051)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Hashis attention been- drawn to an incident in December 1971 at the immigration barrier at Heathrow Airport in London involving Sir John Pagan, New South Wales Agent-General in London.
  2. If so, was this New South Wales representative involved in a widely reported altercation over the status of his Australian passport.
  3. Do representatives of the States travel on Australian diplomatic passports.
  4. If so, are these passports recognised by British officials as carrying the same privileges accorded to nationals of all friendly nations having diplomatic status.
  5. Will he take steps to ensure that there is no continuing confusion concerning ‘ the status of State representatives carrying Australian diplomatic passports and serving in overseas posts to enable this type of incident to be avoided in the future.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. I am informed that there was no altercation on the occasion to which the honourable member refers. Reports available to the Government indicate that a question arose as to the appropriate gate through which Sir John Pagan could enter. My information is that, at Heathrow Airport terminal No. 3 (long haul - all operators) through which Sir John entered on the day of the incident, there is provision for three entry gates through which persons entering the United Kingdom may pass. These gates are for use, respectively by-

    1. those carrying United Kingdom passports;
    2. those carrying Commonwealth and Irish Republic passports; and
    3. those carrying other passports

Commonwealth citizens, including those carrying Australian passports would pass through the second of these three entry points. It appears that, at the time of Sir John’s arrival from America on 14 December 1971, entry via the Commonwealth gate was temporarily unavailable and Sir John felt unable to enter through either of the other two gates.

  1. The following persons holding office in the States are eligible for the grant of Australian Diplomatic Passports -

    1. State Governors;
    1. State Ministers of the Crown;
    2. The Chief Justices of Supreme Courts;

    3. The Permanent Head of a State Premier’s Department accompanying bis Premier on an official visit;

    4. Agents-General.
  2. Australian diplomatic passports are recognised by British officials as carrying the same privileges accorded to the representatives of all friendly nations. I am informed that British immigration officers are instructed to extend all assistance and courtesies to the holder of any diplomatic passport.
  3. The Government will continue to investigate any incidents coming to its notice when the holders of Australian passports encounter entry difficulties. The honourable member will appreciate that the nature of arrangements for entry into Britain is a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

Armed Services: Enlistments (Question No. 4998)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for De fence, upon notice:

  1. How many people (a) applied to join and

    1. were accepted for entry into each of the Services during 1970-71.

  2. How many applications were rejected (a) on the grounds of education and (b) for medical reasons.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. These include applications withdrawn or not proceeded with. Also included are applicants rejected on other grounds e.g. under or over age, below required training potential, failure to pass trade test, unsatisfactory civil record, or unsatisfactory previous service, and those who applied for junior and specialist categories for which there are limited vacancies and would not accept alternative categories. Not all applications are finalised in the year in which they are received.

Australian Capital Territory: Maintenance Ordinance (Question No. 4928)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Does the effectiveness of the Maintenance Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory depend on the implementation of a treaty between Australia and Malaysia as a reciprocating country under and with respect to that Ordinance.
  2. Is it a fact that the regulations under the Ordinance have not yet been amended to refer to Malaysia as a reciprocating country.
  3. If so, has the failure to amend the regulations made it impossible under section 78 of the Ordinance to obtain a provisional order for maintenance in the Australian Capital Territory.
  4. To include Malaysia as a reciprocating country, is it only necessary to amend regulation 8 of the Maintenance Regulations; if so, when is it anticipated that the amendment will be made.
  5. Will the Government take steps to indemnify person who can establish that they have a claim for provisional maintenance which cannot be established and satisfied because of the Government’s failure to amend the regulations.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. All that is required is that each country, under its legislation, prescribes the other as a reciprocating country’.
  2. No. Regulations declaring Malaysia, amongst other countries, to be a reciprocating country came into operation on 9th March 1972.
  3. , (4) and (5) See answer to (2) above.

Air Carriage of Parcels (Question No. 5060)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that small parcels air freighted from Rockhampton to Heathrow are charged for at a minimum of over $12.
  2. Can the same parcels be sent airmail to a private home in Great Britain for $1.80 per 8 oz.
  3. If so, will he arrange publicity to promote greater use of airmail parcel delivery stressing the competitive rates of the Post Office.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Post Office already publicises its various postal services, drawing attention to their advantages over alternative services. The particular aspect raised by, the honourable member will be taken into account in preparing the 1972 advertising campaigns.

Indian Ocean: Military Competition (Question No. 5158)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did he state in a press release on 7th January 1972, that at the ANZUS Council Meeting which he attended in New York on 2nd October 1971, the opinion was expressed that military competition in the Indian Ocean area could be avoided.
  2. If so, what action has the government taken to influence those nations, likely to engage in any build up, against doing so.
  3. In particular, has the Government sought to influence the United States to reverse its decision to maintain a Task Force in the Indian Ocean.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.I added that it was agreed that a careful watch should be continued in this area.
  2. We would welcome an arrangement which provided for agreed, balanced and effective limitation on great power naval forces in the area. It is clear however, that such a limitation could only be brought about through negotiations on the part of the major powers directly concerned. The Australian representative’s statement at the last ses sion of the United Nations General Assembly on the Ceylon proposal for a Zone of Peace in the Indian Ocean outlines Australia’s views on that proposal (United Nations document No. A/C 1/PV. 1848 pp. 71-72). That proposal failed to win the support of a very significant number of members of the United Nations including the 2 major powers most directly concerned.
  3. See answer to (1) above.

Railway Finances (Question No. 4933)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what (a) was the outstanding debt and (b) were the interest payments for (i) each Stale Rail System and (ii) the Commonwealth Railways for each of the financial years 1949-1950, 1959-1960 and 1969-1970.

    1. If so, how much of the debt and interest payments was owed and paid to overseas investors.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The detail requested is not recorded by my Department, However, I have had an examination made of annual reports of the railway systems and some information has been extracted. It should be noted that there are substantial differences in accounting methods and terminology among the systems and even within some systems at different points of time. Details of these differences are obtainable from the Annual reports and the most important of these are referred to in the schedule.

Motor Vehicles: Report on Rust and Corrosion (Question No. 5127)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will he make available to members the findings of the Australian Transport Advisory Council on the question of rust and corrosion in motor vehicles.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The subject of rust and corrosion has been investigated on behalf of the Australian Transport Advisory Council which accepted a recommendation that no legislative action need be taken. The report noted that manufacturers had improved rust prevention measures over recent years.

Any requirement for rust prevention would need to establish standard methods of measuring rust under test conditions, or alternatively specify particular materials and dimensions for various parts of the vehicle. Such detailed restrictions on design and manufacture could only be contemplated if it were established that there is a serious safety problem and to date there seems to be no evidence that this is so. Most modern vehicles apparently do not suffer from a serious rust problem affecting their safety.

In the absence of any information about instances where the basic safety of any particular vehicle model or models is affected by rust there appears to be no basis for action at present.

Reports of severe rust problems usually relate to conditions in colder countries where chemicals are used to de-ice roads in winter. This results in a much greater degree of rusting than is experienced in Australia.

Railway Finances (Question No. 4937)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Can he say what was the (a) value of assets, (b) outstanding debt, (c) amount of loan repayments, (d) amount of interest payments and (e) profit or loss for the year’s trading for each State Rail System and the Commonwealth Railways as at 30th June each year since 1950.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The information sought is not recorded within my Department. However,I have had an examination made of annual reports of the railway systems and some information has been extracted. It should be noted that there are substantial differences in accounting methods and terminology among the systems and even within some systems at different points of time. Details of these differences are obtainable from the annual reports and the most important of these are referred to in the schedule.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720321_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant